Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen „Enchiridions“ bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

Pietro U. Dini

doi:10.35321/all86-01

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

1 short passage of this localized version is shown in the original language because it could not be localized reliably.

PIETRO U. DINI

University of Pisa

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-9063-1783

Fields of research: Diachronic linguistics, Linguistic historiography, History of Baltic languages, Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian philology and linguistics.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all86-01

ON THE TEXTUAL BASIS OF VATER’S OLD PRUSSIAN ENCHIRIDION (1821), OR ON THE LOST “VH” COPY^*

On the question of the original text of Vater’s Prussian Enchiridion (1821), or of the lost “HV” copy

On the occasion of the two-hundredth anniversary of the publication of Johann Severin Vater’s edition: 1821–2021

ANNOTATION

Important aspects connected with Vater’s edition of the “Enchiridion” (1821) have to this day been inadequately elucidated. This applies in particular to the relationship between the text published by Vater and a previously unknown manuscript copy of this linguistic monument contained in the volume

^* I am deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Werner Lehfeldt (Göttingen) both for an exchange of ideas on the topic discussed here and for his help in deciphering several passages, as well as for reviewing the German text of this contribution.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

Ms. boruss. fol. 462. (Berlin) contains a handwritten copy of this linguistic monument. A. E. Hennig prepared this copy on the basis of an incomplete original print of the Enchiridion that he owned as private property. Since Nesselmann (1845), this copy has been regarded as lost. This printed copy served as the basis for Hennig’s copy and consequently also for Vater’s edition, as both internal and external textual evidence attests. It lacked pages 126–134. Strangely, the text in Vater’s edition is almost two pages shorter than that of the copy. By comparing different materials, certain features of the lost copy can be established. I would suggest designating this copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridion as the “HV” copy.

KEYWORDS: Old Prussian, Enchiridion, Johann Severin Vater, Abraham Ernst Hennig, Karl Faber.

ANNOTATION

Some important aspects of the edition Vater (1821) are still not very clear, particularly the relationship between the text published by Vater and the manuscript copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridion kept in the volume Ms. boruss. fol. 462. (Berlin), which has been unknown until now. The copy was carried out by A. E. Hennig on the base of an incomplete printed copy of the Enchiridion, which was his own property. Since Nesselmann (1845), this copy of the OPr. Enchiridion has been considered lost. Both internal and external arguments show that the lost incomplete printed copy was the starting point for Hennig’s manuscript and consequently also for Vater’s edition. The incomplete copy was lacking pages 126–134. Oddly enough, the text published by Vater is two pages shorter than Hennig’s manuscript copy. A comparison of different data allows us also to restore some features of the lost copy. I would propose calling this copy the “HV”-copy.

KEYWORDS: Old Prussian, Enchiridion, Johann Severin Vater, Abraham Ernst Hennig, Karl Faber.

INTRODUCTION

Prussianists have so far paid little attention to Johann Severin Vater’s 1821 edition of the third Old Prussian catechism, the so-called Enchiridion. At best, it is now regarded as a mere historiographical curiosity. Its value for the study of Old Prussian, however, has thus far scarcely been appreciated.

The following discussion will demonstrate that Vater’s edition represents a special case in Old Prussian philology. Important aspects associated with this edition have still not been adequately elucidated

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

—above all, the relationship between the text published by Vater and a copy of the Enchiridion that Dr. Marie-Luise Heckmann rediscovered in Berlin in 2019, thereby in a sense discovering it anew. The main purpose of this study is to examine this relationship more closely.

This is not intended to assess Vater’s significance as a Prussianist. Nor is it intended to investigate the relationship between the text of the Enchiridion published by Vater and the other known copies^¹ of this linguistic monument. This topic will be addressed here only in passing, because it deserves to be the subject of a separate, more thorough analysis (see 7.). Rather, I intend to concentrate on the genesis of Vater’s edition, with particular attention to its relationship to the above-mentioned copy. This step is indispensable if one wishes to reconstruct as comprehensively and exhaustively as possible the philological transmission of the most important Old Prussian linguistic monument.

1. HENNIG AND VATER IN KÖNIGSBERG

At the beginning of the 19th century, two scholars of the same age, Johann Severin Vater and Abraham Ernst Hennig, met in Königsberg. Their friendship and collaboration were to yield an important result for the study of Old Prussian: the first edition of the Old Prussian Enchiridion based on an original print from the 16th century.

1.1. Johann Severin Vater

Johann Severin Vater has often been portrayed as a versatile scholar who cultivated various fields of study. Götz von Selle (1965) offers an apt definition: »Vater has pronounced traits of an old-style polymath.« Selle also refers to several judgments passed on Vater,

^¹ On the basis of my own investigations (cf. Verf. 2019), I may state that the following copies of the Old Prussian “Enchiridion” are currently preserved in German libraries: the “B1” copy, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (House No. 1, Unter den Linden), shelfmark: Lib. impr. rar. Quart. 182; the “B2” copy, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (House No. 2, Berlin-Dahlem), shelfmark: 60, 17; the “D” copy, Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek Dresden, shelfmark: Lit. Slav. 51.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

so to that of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Haym 1894), whom Vater considered a good librarian but, by contrast, a poor linguist. On this point, Kuhn (1895) still held a different opinion, which I also consider more appropriate. Kuhn writes: »His [Vater’s] linguistic works deserve, viewed from the standpoint of their time, every praise.« Indeed, it should be remembered here that Franz Bopp’s famous linguistic work was published only in 1816, and his contribution to the study of Old Prussian, the treatise „Über die Sprache der alten Preußen“, only in 1853.

Whatever judgments may be passed on Vater, it is in any case indisputable that his work „Die Sprache der alten Preußen: Einleitung, Ueberreste, Sprachlehre, Wörterbuch“ (printed in Halle but published in Braunschweig, 1821), despite all its shortcomings, must be regarded as pioneering^²

J. S. Vater was born in Altenburg in 1771. The most important stages of his studies and career are as follows: 1790–1794 studies in Jena and Halle; acquisition of the venia legendi in Halle in 1795 and in Jena in 1796; appointment in 1799 as full professor of theology and Oriental languages in Halle; 1809 relocation to Königsberg, where he remained until 1820. During this period, collaboration with A. E. Hennig, who very probably awakened Vater’s interest in Old Prussian.

Vater also studied the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew; he continued J. Chr. Adelung’s „Mithridates“ and thereby took into account Alexander von Humboldt’s findings on Basque and Cantabrian. In 1820/1821 he returned to Halle, and it was during these years that his study of Old Prussian also appeared. In Halle, Vater devoted himself intensively to church history and the Slavic languages. According to some scholars, he was the founder and first representative of Halle Slavic studies (Bernhagen 1964; Fleckenstein 1997).

1.2. Abraham Ernst Hennig

Forstreuter (1955: p. 48) reveals his esteem for Abraham Ernst Hennig when he writes that the latter was »the actual organizer of the Königsberg State Archives«. He emphasizes: »Hennig enjoyed, both among the authorities and in the scholarly world, a high reputation« (ibid., p. 50). He also mentions that »[a]mong his patrons were J. S. Vater,

^² Evidence of this is provided by reviews of this book not only in Germany (cf. Mone 1821; Grimm 1822), but also in Warsaw (cf. Linde 1822).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

the meritorious researcher of the Old Prussian language, and the historian A. Huhlmann« (ibid., p. 50).

A. E. Hennig was born in Tharau (East Prussia) in 1771. He studied theology, then history, in Königsberg and at other German universities. The main stages of his career are as follows: 1799 teacher at the Friedrichskolleg in Königsberg; 1800 pastor in Schmauch; 1805 award of the Doctor philologiae degree at the University of Königsberg; 1806–1808 teacher at the district school in Goldingen [Latv. Kuldig̦a], Courland; 1810 director of the Secret Prussian State Archives in Königsberg; 1811 professor of historical auxiliary sciences and librarian of the Royal and Wallenrodt Library³.

Hennig was greatly interested in Baltic history, especially in the antiquities of Old Livonia and Courland. He published a Topographisch-historische Beschreibung der Stadt Insterburg (Königsberg, Kanter), Die Statuten des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg, 1806), a history of the town of Goldingen (Mitau [Latv. Cēsis], 1809), as well as the Preußische Chronik of Lukas David (Königsberg, 1812–1817; up to vol. 7). In 1796–1797 he also wrote numerous historical, statistical, and linguistic works, particularly on Latvian.

It should be noted here that Hennig was also a bibliophile. Vater states that Hennig had been proud to be able to preserve in his private library a unique copy, namely an original print of the apr. Enchiridion.

1.3. Note in Adelung’s Mithridates (1809)

Hennig’s name is first found in connection with the apr. Enchiridion in Johann Christoph Adelung’s and Johann Severin Vater’s Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachkunde (1806–1817). As is well known, in this famous multivolume work the authors published the text of the Lord’s Prayer in many languages of the world. Hennig is mentioned in the following extract from the second part of the book⁴:

»The correct formula [of the Lord’s Prayer] is the last one from the exceedingly rare Enchiridion or Kirchen-Agende in the Old Prussian language, Königsberg, 1561,

³ For more detailed discussion, see Forstreuter (1955: pp. 47–61); Lehnert (1974: p. 296).

⁴ Adelung (1809: p. 702). It is not clear to me why the Enchiridion is called „Kirchen-Agende“ here.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

4to, which the Reverend Hennig possesses. These and the Catechism are presumably the only genuine remnants of this language».

Thus one learns interesting data that deserve closer attention elsewhere. For the present purpose, we can restrict ourselves to those data that concern Abraham Ernst Hennig and his copy of the Enchiridions. It emerges that:

(1) this copy of the Enchiridions was in the possession of the Reverend Hennig;

(2) the Enchiridion was already regarded as “extremely rare” in 1809;

(3) the authors of the Mithridates knew only one original print at that time.

1.4. Old Prussian in Vater’s Index (1815)

The state of Vater’s knowledge of the Baltic languages before and up to his collaboration with Hennig can be clearly seen in his work Linguarum totius orbis Index alphabeticus, quarum Grammaticae, Lexica, collectiones vocabulorum recensentur, patria significatur, historia adumbratur or Litteratur der Grammatiker, Lexica und Wörtersammlungen aller Sprachen der Erde nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Sprachen, mit einer gedrängten Uebersicht des Vaterlandes, der Schicksale und Verwandtschaft derselben (1815) (see 8. Figure N. 33).

There one finds brief information about Latvian and Lithuanian in German and Latin. As regards the genealogical affiliation of these languages, Vater regarded them as a mixture of elements originating for the most part from Slavic sources and, to another considerable extent, from Germanic sources. Here Old Prussian is considered briefly in connection with Lithuanian, namely among the Lithuanian dialects, so that one cannot escape the impression that the author regarded Old Prussian precisely as a dialect of Lithuanian, although he does not say so explicitly. Specifically concerning Old Prussian, it says^⁵:

»...and Old Prussian, of which a few remnants have been preserved, but in part purer and closer to the common character of these related languages.

...tum veteris Prussicae, cujus pauca, quae etiamnum extant, monumenta ad communem harum dialectorum formam propius accedere videntur».

^⁵ Vater (1815: S. 133–134).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

In the excerpt, Vater speaks only of vague remnants of Old Prussian, as though he had not yet had any knowledge of the existence of a copy of the Enchiridion. Of course, this cannot have been the case, since this copy had already been mentioned in the Mithridates (1809). It is striking that Vater uses here the same word—“Ueberbleibsel”—as in the Mithridates. Thus, this expression is to be understood as also referring to the larger Old Prussian linguistic monument, namely the Enchiridion.

2. VATERS VORWORT (1821)

Vater’s study was preceded by a Vorwort, written in beautiful archaic German with numerous complex syntactic constructions. At the end appears the notation: »Halle, den 15. Oct.[ober] 1820«.

To clarify the relationship between Vater’s edition and the newly discovered copy of the Enchiridion, it will be useful to highlight and comment on several passages from the Vorwort.

2.1. A Single Original Print?

Hennig is accorded an important role in the Vorwort. First, he is introduced as a researcher and friend of the history of Northern Europe, and his interest in Old Prussian is described:

»[...] the preservation of the only remaining source for a more precise acquaintance with this ancient language, [...], we owe to that scholarly friend of the history of the North, Hennig. Already in the Mithridates Vol. II: p. 702, he drew attention to that more extensive catechism, which he alone still possessed; he also assured us that, despite many years of inquiry and his acquaintance throughout all Prussia, he had not found a second copy from which the conclusion of the whole, missing from the former, might be supplemented. (I have made later attempts of this kind with equal lack of success.)« (pp. VIII–IX).

Here Vater emphasizes that Hennig had been recognized as a connoisseur of Old Prussian antiquities and that he had contributed to the Mithridates the wording of the information about the apr. Enchiridion (see 1.3.). He then presents the most important information about an original print of the apr. Enchiridion from the sixteenth century:

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

First. Hennig owned an original printing of the Enchiridions as his private property. The information “which he alone still possessed” is closely connected with the wording of the passage in question in the Mithridates and had already been known around 1809.

Second. Hennig “assures” us that he knew of no further original printing—“not a second copy”—although he had searched for such a copy for a long time and purposefully. In a parenthetical remark, Vater informs us that he too had unsuccessfully searched for another original printing of the Enchiridions.

Third. Finally, Vater expresses a wish to his readers: Should another Enchiridion copy nevertheless turn up sometime, it would hopefully become possible to close a gap resulting from the absence of the concluding part in Hennig’s copy—which at that time was recognized as the only one.

Vater’s account (1821: p. IX) further tells us that Hennig had been so attached to his original printing of the Enchiridions that he took it with him on a journey from Königsberg to Bad Pyrmont, intending to study it on the way:

»But this very sole monument was threatened with the greatest danger of destruction even from the side of its worthy preserver. In the hope which profound exhaustion is wont to nourish, he took it with him on the journey to Pyrmont, in order, as he told me, to investigate the Old Prussian language properly from it; but he soon remained lying in a village at the station and died there«.

Vater then expresses his joy that Hennig’s Enchiridion copy had been saved. Since Hennig had apparently been traveling without companions and had unexpectedly died in Zanzhausen (in the Landsberg an der Warthe district) on 23 May 1815, there had been a danger that such a “little book” might be lost.

»How easily might, in such an estate, protected by no friend’s hand, a small, inconspicuous, incomplete little book have been lost unnoticed, and with it all more precise knowledge of the language of the ancient Prussians.«

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

2.2. The creation of Hennig’s copy

Apparently, before Hennig’s departure for Bad Pyrmont, a conversation took place between the two scholarly friends, during which Vater expressed a warning to Hennig that would prove decisive for the fate of the “little book.”

Vater (1821: pp. IX–X) reports this in the following words:

»When the owner had spoken with me, his friend, about that long journey and his plan for occupying himself during it, and had shown me that monument: I implored him, in the name of scholarship: that he should by no means take this, which he assured me was the absolutely unique monument, with him on a journey so fraught with danger in view of his infirmity, unless he had first made a completely exact copy and left it behind«.

This excerpt once again reiterates their shared conviction that Hennig possessed the only existing copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridions. We also learn that, before Hennig embarked on his journey, he was supposed to have made, or had made, “a completely exact copy.” Vater (ibid.) then continues:

»The seriousness with which I had spoken as a language scholar, combined with my heartfelt concern for the nature of his journey, must have made such an impression on him that, as I later learned from Mr. Privy Archivist Faber, he left such a copy—already [...] written, an exact copy of that catechism, and sealed with an inscription stating that, if he did not return from the journey, I should receive it as a memorial and as property—in F’s hands«.

Thus Hennig followed his friend’s advice and, before departing, made a copy of his own copy of the Enchiridions. In this way, a copy of the original printing was produced and left in Königsberg in the hands of the archivist Karl Faber, with the stipulation that, in the worst case, he should act in Vater’s favor as executor of the will.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

2.3. The Origin of Vater’s Edition (1821)

Thus Hennig’s copy of the exemplar of the Old Prussian Enchiridion came into Vater’s hands. Regarding the circumstances of the transfer, we read in Vater (1821: p. X):

»Thus I received it as the finest reward for my efforts on behalf of knowledge of the Old Prussian language. But the original was not thereby secured; and in order for it to be so, I had to petition the higher authorities repeatedly. It took more than a year after H’s death before it came to the library of the Secret Archive, in which it will now remain preserved forever, and to which, since it had meanwhile purchased H’s literary estate, this principal rarity, not even mentioned therein, belonged«.

Here we learn that the “principal rarity”—that is, the original printing of the Enchiridion from Hennig’s possession—had entered the holdings of the library of the Secret Archive in Königsberg around 1816/1817. Two aspects should be emphasized here: first, it is once again underscored that the “principal rarity” was a unique copy, and second, that the original printing was entrusted to the aforementioned library “forever.”

The first assertion, however, is not correct. Even at that time there was more than one original printing of the Enchiridion in Königsberg (see 5.). And as for the second point, the exemplar entrusted to the Secret Archive unfortunately did not remain preserved there “forever.” Its fate was to prove even more adventurous.

In any case, the “little book” was at Vater’s disposal from the time it was transferred to the Secret Archive, and he was able to use it there. While still in Königsberg, Vater began work on his study of Old Prussian, especially since he was also able to find a great deal of additional material there^⁶.

Vater reports the following about the editorial procedure he followed (1821: pp. X–XI):

»Only this year did I once again compare the exact copy made from it with the original, have it printed here under my supervision, and obtain from my gracious friend, Mr. Privy Archivist Faber, a further exact comparison of my printed text with the original printing (from which the…

6 In the Introduction to his study, Vater (1821: pp. XVII–XXI) also provides an initial reference to an Old Prussian linguistic corpus: (a) two Small Catechisms from the year 1545; (b) an exemplar of the Enchiridion from the year 1561; (c) other individual remnants; cf. Verf. (2014: p. 92).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

the corrections indicated at the end of this writing have been incorporated); but that copy, which, especially after such repeated proofreading, can indeed take the place of the original, deposited in the Royal Library in Berlin alongside several linguistic rarities now preserved there that had previously belonged to me«.

Some comments have been added to this excerpt, because not all the details mentioned in it are immediately entirely clear.

The beginning, with the wording „Aus derſelben“, refers to the previously mentioned „Hauptſeltenheit“, i.e. to the original printing of the Enchiridion from Hennig’s possession (also called the „Büchlein“).

We can determine more precisely what is meant by the expression „in dieſem Jahre“: It must be the year 1820, and indeed before 15 October, because (1) Vater was still living in Königsberg at that time and had been able to use the „Hauptſeltenheit“ in the Secret Archive, and (2) he completed his Vorwort (cf. Vater 1821: p. XI) on 15 October 1820 and by that time had already moved to Halle.

What exactly does the preposition „daraus“ refer to in the wording: „und daraus hier unter meinen Augen abdrucken laſſen“? From what was the printing made?

We can imagine the following situation: First, Vater compared the copy made by Hennig with the original printing of the Enchiridion. He then had it printed under his supervision, and finally compared the result of the comparison carried out by Karl Faber between his printed version and the original printing—the „Urdruck“—of the Enchiridion (see 3.4.).

Once this comparison had established that the „Urdruck“ and the new printing corresponded completely, Hennig’s copy—„jene Abſchrift“—was sent to Berlin, as it were as a replacement for the „Urdruck“, should any misfortune befall the latter.

Vater concludes his report as follows (1821: p. XI):

“Only this year was I able to think of occupying myself with this monument of the Old Prussian language; but since, as is my custom, I had diligently provided beforehand at least for the aids required for this undertaking, I have, to my joy, now already been able to communicate the results of my investigation of it, without having to wait for anything essential that might further advance it.”^⁷

^⁷ The remainder of the Foreword (cf. Vater 1821: pp. XI–XII) no longer concerns the transmission of the Enchiridion and is therefore not considered further here.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

Thus, “first in this year,” i.e. 1820—as already specified above—Vater began to investigate and work on the apr. Enchiridion. Just one year later he was able to publish the results of his research on Old Prussian in the already mentioned study (see Figure 8, No. 34).

2.4. Structure and Characterization of Vater’s Edition

Vater’s study from 1821 consists of numerous different parts:

(1) a Foreword (cf. 2.1–2.3);

(2) an Introduction;

(3) the text of the Enchiridion;

(4) a grammar of the Old Prussian language;

(5) a dictionary of the Old Prussian language;

(6) three appendices: I. names of Old Prussian men in Samland, II. a section from the Preußische Schaubühne by M. Prätorius concerning passages from the Enchiridion, III. a compilation of the Old Prussian, Old Lithuanian, and Old Latvian translations;

(7) the Corrections and Additions (2.5; see Figure 8, No. 35).

Some aspects of the edition will be discussed in greater detail below. In the Introduction, Vater (1821: p. XIX) presents a—flawed—copy of the only print of the Enchiridion known to him:

“Euchiridion: the Small Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther, German and Prussian (printed at Königsberg in Prussia by Johann Deubnern, MDLXII).”

In view of gross errors—such as Euchiridion instead of Enchiridion and Deubnern instead of Daubman(n)—one wonders whether Vater had actually consulted the original print.

When Vater’s edition is examined in comparison with the later editions of the same linguistic monument (e.g. Nesselmann 1845; Trautmann 1910; Mažiulis 1966), many minor and major differences become apparent. There are numerous peculiarities, especially in the graphic design of the text and in the reproduction of the long vowel graphemes. I have identified at least 755 micro-differences, which can be divided into certain groups:

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

a) First, in Vater is regularly rendered as <y> (e.g.: dygi, mylan, powyštin, Rikǝyan, etc.). Sometimes Vater omits the length marks on <ā> and <ē>, which are clearly present in the later editors. Cases of transposed length marks (e.g.: gürins instead of gurins, or ſchλαits instead of ſchλαits) are very rare;

b) A special case in Vater is the differing treatment of in comparison with the later editions. This is astonishing because Vater (1821: p. X) assures us that he had “once again compared the exact copy with the original.” In fact, the placement of or <ī> is often impossible or arbitrary, and in this respect the decisions of the editors of the Enchiridion differ quite substantially from one another. The spellings of <ī> after <∫> are particularly difficult to read;

c) Univerbations such as madlinkai instead of madlin kai, eʃʃetennan instead of eʃʃe tennan, neiʃmuʃubʃai instead of ne iʃmu ʃubʃai, rikinpo instead of rikin po, etc., as well as incorrect divisions, e.g.: Jum praw an, panʃadau mannien, praka wīdans, etc., are conspicuous.

A general characteristic of Vater’s edition is that the editor treats both the German and the apr. text very “freely.”

In the German text, Vater deviates very substantially from the Vorlage. Apparently, his aim was to present this text in a form understandable to readers. He therefore revised and modernized the Luther text quite extensively. Indeed, the differences between the text he presented and the accompanying text of the Enchiridion are so numerous and so striking that it is unnecessary to cite even a single example here. Unfortunately, Vater was no less unreliable in his treatment of the apr. text. Here he uses his own writing system, which must often be judged questionable or doubtful. Consequently, both texts can be used for philological and linguistic purposes only with reservations and great caution.

2.5. Corrections and Additions

According to the Foreword (cf. Vater 1821: p. X), after printing his study the editor had a final collation carried out. Indeed, it may have happened that (printing) errors arose during the preparation of the printing copy. To exclude this possibility, editor Vater had an additional comparison of his impression with the “original print” carried out (cf. 3.4). We owe this final collation

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

very probably to Karl Faber, who worked in Königsberg, where the original print from Hennig’s possession was also kept. Vater (1821: p. XI) recalls that:

“I received from my kind friend, Privy Archivist Faber, the repeated exact collation of my impression with the original print (from which the corrections given at the end of this work arose).”

Indeed, at the end of Vater (1821: p. 183) we find the Corrections and Additions collected by the editor (see Figure 8, No. 35).

3. MS. BORUSS. FOL. 462

It is now worthwhile to include Ms. boruss. fol. 462. in the discussion of this question as well. This is a volume rediscovered in Berlin only a few years ago by Marie-Luise Heckman (2019), described as follows (Heckman 2019: p. 31–33):

Ms. boruss. fol. 462: Johann Severin Vater: Enchiridion. The Small Catechism of Doctor Martin Luther, German and Prussian. Printed at Königsberg in Prussia by Johann Daubmann. M. D. LXI (copy) Faber: Collatio of the copy against the print, 64 leaves, Halle, ca. 1821.

Brown-mottled cardboard binding, on the spine a green label bearing the inscription Ms. Boruss. fol. 462. Preussischer Catechismus. Abschrift des gedruckten of 1561. Beneath it a red label with the valid shelfmark, 30 x 20. Paper, BR 32.5 x 19.5. Two fascicles: I: fols. 1r–62v, foliation with decorated border, in ink, number of lines varies, Kurrent script, one hand, catchwords. II: fols. 63r–64v. Larger format: 36.5 x 22, folded, written on both sides. Another hand.

The volume consists of three parts comprising a total of 64 leaves: 1. From folio 2a to 61b—a copy with a title page on folio 2a (see Figure 8, No. 36). 2. Folio 62a—a note by Vater (see Figure 8, No. 37). 3. From folio 63a to 64b—a register of forms from the Enchiridion compiled by Karl Faber (see Figure 8, No. 38).

It appears that the copy contained in Ms. boruss. fol. 462. of an unidentified copy (or of the original print) of the apr. Enchiridion is attributed to Vater. Such an attribution, however, seems quite questionable.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

The analysis of the Foreword to Vater (1821) conducted above (see 2.) seems to me to permit the following conclusion:

(a) The copy contained in Ms. boruss. fol. 462. is precisely “that copy” which Hennig made, following Vater’s advice, before his departure from Königsberg for Bad Pyrmont (see 2.2.);

(b) On the basis of Hennig’s copy and taking certain corrections in Faber’s register into account (cf. 3.4), Vater prepared his study and then published it in 1821.

3.1. The Note

For attributing authorship of the copy to Hennig, a note on the reverse of the binding cover (folio 1b) presents no real obstacle:

FIGURE N. 1

Ms. Bor. In Fol. N. 462. P. Joh. Severin Vater’s The Language of the Ancient Prussians, Braunschweig 1821. Foreword pp. X, XI.

Presumably, this note was added by a librarian—according to Heckmann (2019: p. 33), S. Josef Sauer—at a later date that unfortunately cannot be determined precisely.

One can imagine the following situation: All the materials now bound together in Ms. Bor. In Fol. N. 462.—Hennig’s copy, Vater’s note, and Faber’s register—were submitted by Vater in Berlin. Soon afterward, Vater published his study on Old Prussian. It is therefore unsurprising that he was also credited with authorship of the entire volume Ms. Bor. In Fol. N. 462..

The analysis of Vater’s (1821) Foreword now makes it possible to determine precisely the authorship of the copy (as well as that of the register).

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

3.2. The Owner’s Stamp

A red owner’s stamp with a double outer line is affixed both at the beginning (on folio 2b) and at the end (on folio 62b) of the volume Ms. Bor. In Fol. N. 462., as well as in the register.

This stamp identifies those volumes that entered the holdings of the Royal Library in Berlin during the period between 1795 and 1840⁸. From the Foreword to Vater (1821), we already know (cf. 2.3) that Hennig’s copy, together with other materials, was brought to Berlin around 1820.

Copy 2b

Copy 62b

FIGURE N. 2

^⁸ Cf. Verf. (2020a: pp. 327–328) with bibliography.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

3.3. Vater’s Note

The Ms. boruss. fol. 462. also contains an undated note by Vater (see Figure 8, No. 37). In the same volume, it was bound together with the copy immediately after it. For the sake of completeness, its text is reproduced here:

Note by Doctor Vater of Halle.

Thus far extends the original, which, as far as is known, is located in the only copy still extant, printed in the secret archive at Königsberg, and has been reprinted in Vater’s Language of the Ancient Prussians. In the preceding copy, there is as much on each page as in the original. That impression has once again been compared with the original, and the deviations in accents and punctuation are indicated in the following register by Privy Archiv^⁹ Faber of Königsberg; so that comparison of the preceding copy with it and with the impression could replace the original.

In this note, Vater describes the state of his knowledge of the Old Prussian Enchiridion, which he had achieved together with Hennig and which has already been discussed in this contribution. According to it, there was only a single original print of the apr. Enchiridion.

(a) This copy was kept in the Secret Archive in Königsberg. (b) It was printed and published in Vater (1821). (c) The copy was produced letter-for-letter, page by page, after the original print. (d) It was compared once again with the original print. (e) Some—above all graphic—deviations were compiled in the so-called Faber register. (f) These materials—the copy, register, and impression—can replace the original print.

^⁹ It is not unambiguously possible to read “Archivar”; the word probably reads “Archivon” or “Archivan” at this point, which is presumably a writing error.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

The note bears the specification “of Halle,” which is to be understood as indicating the author’s principal place of work. Unfortunately, no date is given. But since Hennig did not set out on his journey until 1815 and had made and handed over his copy to Faber earlier, one may assume that Vater wrote this note only after that date, specifically between 1815 and 1820, when he was still active in Königsberg as well.

If one is also to believe the expression “has been reprinted in Vater’s Language of the Ancient Prussians,” this would mean that Vater added the note no earlier than after the publication of his study, i.e. in 1821. In any case, it is easy to see that Vater does not claim to have been the author of the copy.

3.4. Faber’s Register

At the end of Ms. boruss. fol. 462., three larger-format leaves, folded several times and without a title, have also been bound in (63a–64b). These leaves are known as Faber’s register (see Figure 8, No. 38).

Karl Faber had worked as an archivist in Königsberg since 1808. He was born there in 1773 and also died there in 1853. His numerous publications testify that he took a lively interest in historical subjects¹⁰.

At Vater’s request—as already indicated in 2.5—Faber checked the copy against the Königsberg original print. The result of this check is precisely the register, which lists the deviations of Hennig’s copy from the original print identified by Faber. Approximately 90 deviations are listed here. Interestingly, among others, precisely all those cases are underlined that were later to be collected in Vater’s (1821: p. 183) Corrections and Additions. It is not difficult to assume that Vater himself was the author of these underlinings, on which he then relied in the section Corrections and Additions in his study.

It is certainly possible to determine further forms and features of the Königsberg original print of the apr. Enchiridion through a more thorough examination of Faber’s register. That, however, is also a task whose implementation should be undertaken at a later time.

¹⁰ On Faber, cf. Krollman (1974); Forstreuter (1955: p. 47–48).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

4. DATA COLLECTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

To gain a more concrete insight into the textual basis of Vater’s edition, one can pursue different types of indications. In my view, it is particularly worthwhile to conduct a comparative analysis of three collections of data bound together, namely Hennig’s copy, Vater’s Corrections and Additions, and Faber’s register. This produces 23 corrections (plus two others, which concern only Vater’s modernized German text), listed here according to Vater’s sequence:¹¹

1. (Copy 12a,5: Vater 2,12: Register 63).

FIGURE 3

Although Hennig had already written the form as <dinkauimai> in the Copy, Vater had it printed as <dinkauma>. In the Corrections, however, he restored the corrected spelling <dinkauimai>, exactly as attested in the Register (and presumably also in the original print).

¹¹ In the following brief comments I use the following abbreviations: Copy—Hennig’s handwritten copy of the apr. Enchiridion; Vater—his 1821 edition; Register—the corrections compiled by Faber; Corrections—the Corrections and Additions by Vater (1821: p. 183; see Figure 8, 35). I call original print (or primary print) an unknown copy of the apr. Enchiridion, now lost, which belonged to Hennig and which he used for a final collation.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

2. (Copy 12a,7: Vater 2,16: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 4

This case is complicated. Already in the Copy, the form had been corrected to <Länkina> with <n> at the end. Vater initially had it printed as <Länkina>, but later, in the Corrections, corrected it to <Länkinan>. The Register, by contrast, shows <Länkinan> without a length mark, so that the correction to <Länkinan> with a length mark could have been made only on the basis of the original print.

3. (Copy 13a,12: Vater 4,2: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 5

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

In the case of <ſeggen>, Vater initially read as in the Copy, but later corrected the form to <ſeggē>. In the case of <ſejſma>, Vater already had a form different from that in the Copy, where <ſejſmu> is clearly written. Both forms, <ſeggē> and <ſejſmu>, are attested correctly both in the Corrections and in the Register (as they should also be in the original print).

4. (Copy 17a,8: Vater 9,2: Register 63).

FIGURE 6

Vater had <Criſtianikas> printed. If one observes <Criſtianijſkas> in the Copy, one notices that the form of the second <ſ> differs from that of the first; and the same is true of similar forms in the Copy, for example in the following:

Copy 55a, 13: <Crixtianiſkun>.

Copy 60a, 1: <Crixtianiſkan>.

Copy 60a, 3: <Krixtianiſkan>.

FIGURE 7

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

One must therefore assume that, in the case under consideration, the second <> in the Copy is the result of a later insertion of this letter. By contrast, the form <Crĳtanjkas> is quite clear in both the Corrections and the Register (as it should also be in the original print).

5. (Copy 17a,9: Vater 9,6: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 8

The Copy shows <lakut>, and this is also how Vater originally wrote it. In the Corrections, however, he corrected his spelling to <laikut> through two corrections that he made following the pattern of the Register (and presumably after comparing it with the original print).

6. (Copy 21a,1: Vater 13,24: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 9

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

In the Copy one finds <Butta>. Here Vater initially had the form incorrectly printed as <Buta>, but after comparison with the Register (or with the original print) he corrected it to <Butta>; this is also how it appears in the Corrections

7. (Copy 24a,13: Vater 17,26: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 10

On the basis of the spelling present in the Copy, Vater had <Taukan> printed. It can be seen, however, that the difference between <L> and <T> is clear in the Register. Vater later corrected the form in the Corrections to <Laukan>, corresponding to the Register (and presumably also the original print).

8. (Copy 25a,17–18: Vater 19,19–20: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 11

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

At this point, both the Copy and Vater have one and the same incorrect spelling: <epkieckan ikai>. Later, in the Corrections, Vater corrected the forms to <epkiekan. Beh ikai>, that is, with <k> instead of <ck> and with the addition of <Beh> after the pattern of the Register (and presumably also the original print).

9. (Copy 26a,13: Vater 20,22: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 12

Both in the Copy and in Vater one reads <titet>, which is why the correction to <titat> in the Corrections could only have taken place after comparison with the Register (and presumably with the original print).

10. (Copy 27a,11: Vater 21,26: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 13

At first Vater mistakenly read <m> instead of <n>. Later, in the Corrections, he corrected the form to <pogūnans>, as in the Register (and presumably also in the original print).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

11. (Copy 29a,11: Vater 24,8: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 14

As a result of an incorrect reading—<r> instead of <e>—Vater initially had <turri> printed, but in the Corrections he later corrected the form to <turei>, as attested in the Register (and presumably also in the original print).

12. (Copy 31a,5: Vater 26,14: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 15

Vater initially had the spelling <feggūns> printed, as in the Copy. In the Corrections, however, he eliminated the length mark and corrected the form to <feggiuns>. In this case, this could only have happened after comparison with the original print, because the situation in the Register is different. In fact, Faber initially incorrectly read the form there as <feggin[n]s> and then corrected it to <feggūns>.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

13. (Copy 32a,18: Vater 28,34: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 16

Here too Vater mistakenly read <m> instead of <n> and only later, in the Corrections, corrected it to <pertenniums>. This presumably could have occurred after comparison with the original print, since <pertenniūns> with a length mark is attested in the Register.

14. (Copy 32a,19: Vater 28,36: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 17

At first Vater read <guit> and had this form printed as well. In the Corrections he then corrected the form to <zuit>, as in the Register, and justified his procedure as follows: “(which in the original is probably a typographical error instead of guit, since otherwise no z occurs).” Indeed, <zuit> can already be clearly recognized in the Copy.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

15. (Copy 33a,12: Vater 29,30: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 18

Vater mistakenly read <n> instead of and had <andaſei> printed. In the Corrections he partly corrected the form to <audasaɪ> following the pattern of the Register, where <audaſai> is attested with <ʃ> (and presumably it was the same in the original print).

16. (Copy 35a,12: Vater 32,6: Register 63).

FIGURE N. 19

In the Abschr., as in Vater, one finds the spelling <etwerpſenniem>, which was only later, in the Verbess., corrected to <etwerpſenniem>. Here, too, a false spelling by Vater must be noted, for in the Verz. (and probably also in the original print) <etwerpſenniŋn> is evidently attested.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

17. (Abschr. 35a,12: Vater 32,8: Verz. 63).

ABBILDUNG N. 20

Here Vater initially had <Iſprettinge> printed, as in the Abschr.. Then, in the Verbess., he corrected the form to <Iſprettingi> without a length mark. In the Verz., however, is evidently written, which Vater did not take into account.

18. (Abschr. 38a,8: Vater 36,4: Verz. 63).

ABBILDUNG N. 21

Vater initially had <eſſei> printed, as in the Abschr.. Then, in the Verbess., he corrected the form to <aſſei>, as in the Verz. (and probably also in the original print).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

19. (Abschr. 43a,3: Vater 42,32: Verz. 63).

ABBILDUNG N. 22

Unlike <feititentiis> as in the Abschr., Vater proposed in the Verbess. correcting the form to »<feititēntis> (divided in this way)«. This form is attested in the Verz., and this division probably also corresponded to that in the original print.

20. (Abschr. 43a,5: Vater 43,6: Verz. 63).

ABBILDUNG N. 23

Here Vater incorrectly read <-u> instead of <-n> and initially had the form <abſergiſnau> printed. In the Verbess., however, he corrected it to <abſergiſnan>. In the Abschr., <abſergīnan> appears. In the Verz. (and probably also in the original print), however, <abſergīnan> appears without a length mark and twice with <ſ>.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

21. (Abschr. 48a,14: Vater 51,12: Verz. 63).

therefore a stiff paggan throws ains

ABBILDUNG N. 24

Vater corrected here a typical case of saut du même au même, already present in Hennig’s Abschr.: When copying the Enchiridion, Hennig—and following him, Vater as well—omitted an entire sentence, namely between two repetitions of <ſteffe paggan>. Vater explains this in the Verbess.: »<ſteffe paggan> is to be added: <kai tenna eſſe wyrau imta aſt, ſteffe paggan>«. The case had already been noted in the Verz., where one reads: »There, after paggan, the following is missing: / kai tenna eſſe wyrau imta aſt, / Steffe paggan / In German: therefore because she was from the / man«.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

22. (Abschr. 50a,7: Vater 53,26: Verz. 63).

ABBILDUNG N. 25

Vater incorrectly read <r> instead of <e> and had the form <niturri> printed. In the Verbess., however, he corrected it to <niturei>, as is evidently the case in the Verz. (and probably also in the original print).

23. (Abschr. 57a,20: Vater 65,24: Verz. 64).

ABBILDUNG N. 26

Initially, Vater had <Nofeilin> printed, as in the Abschr.. Later, in the Verbess., he corrected the form to <Nofeilien>, following the pattern of the Verz. (and probably also of the original print).

4.1. Synopsis I

When all observations concerning the data collections are brought together, the following synopsis emerges:

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

In seven cases, an important difference between Verbess. and Verz. can be established. Compared with the catalogue, Vater’s Verbesserungen und Zusätze show the following differences: once, the presence of the length mark (see 2.), but three times its absence (see 12., 13., 17., 21.), and finally two different spellings (see 15., 20.). In detail:

For 2.: <Länkinan> shows that the correction with the length mark could have been made not only following the pattern of the original print, but also on the basis of the copy.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

For 12.: <ʃeggiuns>. The correction—that is, the elimination of the length mark—could only have been made by comparison with the original print.

For 13.: <pertenniuns>. The correction—that is, the elimination of the length mark—could only have been made by comparison with the original print.

For 15.: <audafai>. One notes <ʃ> instead of <s>; this change can already be explained as an erroneous copying of the form in Verz. (see above 4.).

For 17.: <lʃprettingi>. The correction—that is, the elimination of the length mark—could only have been made by comparison with the original print.

For 20.: <abſergiʃnan>. The elimination of the length mark, as well as the presence of <ʃ...s> instead of <ʃ...ʃ>, could only have occurred after comparison with the original print.

For 21.: In this case, <y> instead of <ÿ> should be emphasized.

The few cases in which one of Vater’s corrections or additions in Faber’s catalogue finds no confirmation can logically be understood only as meaning that the editor consulted the original print directly. But I have already pointed out that (1) the original print was kept in Königsberg and (2) the final comparison was carried out not by the editor but by Faber. Moreover, (3) it cannot be ruled out with certainty that Vater made no new errors. The new compilation in 4.2. could serve to identify possible counterevidence.

4.2. Synopsis II

If we assume that the forms in Vater’s Verbesserungen und Zusätze go back to forms actually present in the original print, then, to substantiate this hypothesis, it would be appropriate to include the three other copies of the Enchiridion in the comparative analysis of the cases in question. In summary, the following synopsis emerges:

Vater (1821) Copies of the Enchiridion Verbess. B1 B2 D 2. <Länkinan> <Länkinan> <Länkinan> <Länkinan> 8. <epkjekan. Beh ikai> <epkjеckan. Bhe ikai> <epkjеckan. Bhe ikai> <epkjеckan. Bhe ikai> 12. <ʃeggiuns> <ʃeggiuns> <ʃeggiuns> <ʃeggiuns> 13. <pertenniuns> <pertenniuns> <pertenniuns> <pertenniuns>

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

On the basis of comparison with the other copies of the Enchiridion, the following findings emerge: For 2.: Verbess. <Lānkīnan> with a length mark on the first <a> corresponds to B1, B2, and D. For 8.: Verbess. <epkiekan. Beh ikai> corresponds to B1, B2, and D; <epkiečkan. Bhe ikai> does not. For 12.: Verbess. <ʃeggiuns> corresponds to B1, B2, and D. For 13.: Verbess. <pertenniuns> corresponds to B1, B2, and D. For 15.: Verbess. <audəsai> corresponds to B1, B2, and D; <audaʃei> does not. For 20.: Verbess. <abʃergiʃnan> without the length mark on does not correspond to B1, B2, and D. For 21.: With <wyrau>, Vater follows his typical spelling with <y> instead of <ii>, as in B1, B2, and D. In addition, Vater has <wijrau>, as do the other copies of the Enchiridion. This form, however, must everywhere be corrected to <wijran>. Only in three cases (2., 12., 13.) does Vater agree in the Verbesserungen und Zusätzen with B1, B2, and D, whereas in three cases (8., 15., 20.) he does not. One case (21.) is unclear. Therefore, it is not permissible to assume that Vater improved the forms only after consulting the original print. It thus remains possible that Vater made new errors precisely in the section Verbesserungen und Zusätze.

4.3. Contamination errors

Certain passages in the text of the copy and in Vater are unmistakable binding errors, clearly showing how closely Vater followed Hennig’s copy. These are cases of incorrect readings that remained even after the final comparison with the original print, which had been carried out by Faber.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

A macroscopic example will suffice to clarify this state of affairs:

(Absch. 21a,1: Verz. Ø: Vater 13,23).

ABBILDUNG N. 27

The case is clear: an incorrect reading must be noted both in the Abschr. and in Vater, both of whom read <Wou̯ſon> or <Vou̯ſon> here instead of Nou̯ſon “our.” Comparison with the other copies of the Enchiridion shows beyond doubt that only Nou̯ſon is attested:

B1, p. 24a.

B2, p. 236.

D, p. 19a.

ABBILDUNG N. 28

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

The comparison further shows not only that Noūfon is the correct form, as is well known (this corresponds to our knowledge of the Old Prussian language), but also that an unmistakable binding error must be established between the copy and Vater’s publication (1821).

4.4. Interim conclusion

After renewed compilation and comparison, the overall picture that emerges is by no means clear. Rather than dispelling the fog, the analysis raises new questions. Is it, for example, even conceivable that so many differences are attributable exclusively to Vater’s negligence? Considering the (printing) errors already established above in 2.4, such an assumption nevertheless seems quite plausible.

Following this observation, one may further speculate: in 1820/1821 Vater completed his study in Halle and Berlin, and in Berlin he had at his disposal only the material in the volume Ms. boruss. fol. 462., because the “little book,” or original print, had remained in Königsberg.

On the basis of both internal and external textual evidence, we may reasonably assume that Vater not only did not actually consult the original print himself, but also used Faber’s catalogue very carelessly.

5. THE FATE OF THE “HENNIG-VATER” COPY

After what has been said, I am convinced that Hennig’s and Vater’s efforts to save a copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridion have been duly acknowledged.

It has furthermore been shown that the copy on the basis of which both Hennig’s copy and Vater’s study (1821) were prepared was an incomplete original print, kept at that time in the Secret Archive in Königsberg.

The situation can be represented schematically as follows:

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

ABBILDUNG N. 29

Barely 25 years after the publication of Vater’s study (1821), this copy was taken into account by Nesselmann (1845: p. XIX) in the following context:

»Of this likewise very rare translation [into Old Prussian of M. Luther’s “Small Catechism,”] long considered lost, two complete copies are held in the local Royal Library, and an incomplete one, lacking the last three leaves, is held in the library of the local Secret Archive«.

In this quotation, the following words in particular should be emphasized:

»an incomplete [copy], lacking the last three leaves, [is] held in the library of the local Secret Archive«.

Nesselmann (1845: p. XX) subsequently gives another important piece of information:

»This catechism was printed only once, but on the basis of the incomplete copy formerly belonging to Professor and Director of the Secret Archive in Königsberg, A. E. Hennig, and, since his death, belonging to the Secret Archive, in Vater’s work described in greater detail below«.

In fact, Vater’s edition (1821)—as is well known—was the first edition of a copy of the Enchiridions at all. However, it is only partly correct, with Nesselmann, to claim that Vater relied directly on Hennig’s original print. I hope to have shown above

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

(see 3.) that Vater’s edition was instead based on Hennig’s copy of the original print.

It should once again be stressed that both Hennig and Vater were firmly convinced that “their” copy of the Enchiridion was the only existing original print, that is, a unique copy. Nesselmann, on the other hand, already knew that two other copies were kept in Königsberg, and therefore accused Vater of not having searched thoroughly enough in Königsberg^¹².

Thirty years after Nesselmann’s mention—that is, half a century after Vater (1821)—one finds another similar testimony. Adalbert Bezzenberger (1874: p. 1231) wrote at that time:

»A third, incomplete copy of the “Enchiridion” was still present in the Secret Archive in Königsberg«.

Here it is particularly noteworthy that, according to Bezzenberger’s wording, this copy “was” in the Secret Archive in Königsberg at the time he wrote his work, which presumably means that it was no longer there in 1874.

Even in the prewar period, Trautmann (1910: p. XXVII) wrote:

»one [i.e. one copy] in the Royal State Archive in Königsberg, lacking at the end 3 leaves (pp. 129–134)^¹³ (according to a note at the end, this was already the case in 1823)«^¹⁴.

In the postwar period, by contrast, all traces of this copy gradually disappeared. Its former existence was still known to Mažiulis (1966: p. 38). He mentions an incomplete original print of the Enchiridion from the Secret Royal Archive in Königsberg only en passant, namely the copy that did not contain the final pages

^¹² For this, see Verf. (2021).

^¹³ This should very probably be corrected to 126–134; see the last footnote of this article below.

^¹⁴ Since Trautmann mentions a “note at the end,” one might even assume that he had still seen the original print. Unfortunately, he does not explicitly claim this, and therefore this point must remain open. On the other hand, Trautmann could not have obtained this information from the previous editors, because none of them wrote anything about it.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

should¹⁵. At that time he could learn nothing further about the fate of this copy.

5.1. In cauda venenum...

Whatever may have happened, the prewar editors are at any rate unanimous in stating that Hennig’s “little book,” or the original print of the Enchiridion, lacked the last three leaves.

In the case of Vater’s edition, however, this point remains unclear and difficult to resolve.

If one compares the concluding part of the text published by Vater (1821: p. 68) with the last cards in Hennig’s copy, one finds the following macroscopic difference: Vater’s page 68 (see 8. Figure N. 39) does not correspond to the end of Hennig’s copy (see 8. Figure N. 40).

On examining Vater’s page 68 more closely, one notices that it contains the text of card 60a in the copy and also the initial particle of cards 60b (Old Prussian) and 61a (German). More specifically, page 68 ends with the “assertion of the renunciation”:

ABBILDUNG N. 30. End of page 68 in Vater (1821)

It can be seen that the last word (Atträiti.) of the third-to-last line of page 68 and the two entire final lines correspond to the beginning of the following card 60b (German) and 61a (Old Prussian) in the copy:

¹⁵ See Mažiulis (1966: p. 38): buvusio Karaliaučiaus Valstybiniame archyve egzemplioriaus (be 129–134 p.), likimas nėra man žinomas “But the fate of this copy, as well as that of the copy in the [Secret] State Archive of Königsberg (without pages 129–134), is unknown to me”; see Verf. (2020a: pp. 319–320); see the penultimate footnote of this article below.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

ABBILDUNG N. 31. Beginning of card 60b (German) in the Abschrift

ABBILDUNG N. 32. Beginning of card 61a (Old Prussian) in the Abschrift

How it could have happened that Vater (1821), at the end of his page 68, was able to reproduce precisely the beginning and not the remainder of the text on cards 60b and 61a currently remains without any plausible explanation.

But more important still is that the text of the copy is almost two pages longer than that attested in Vater (1821). I emphasize the word “almost”, since the first two lines—as already explained—were also included by Vater. In fact, the three additional cards in the copy (i.e. 60b—German, 61a—Old Prussian, and 61b—German) have no equivalent in Vater (see 8. Figures N. 41, 42, 43).

Unfortunately, the question of the reasons for omitting the concluding part of the text (almost two cards) of Hennig’s copy, which was not published in Vater (1821), remains unanswered. All these observations and considerations once again lead to the question of to what extent and according to what criteria Vater used Hennig’s copy, and also whether he ever consulted the original print at all.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

6. THE LOST INCOMPLETE “VH” COPY

At the end of these discussions, our knowledge of the transmission history of a now-lost copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridion has hopefully been somewhat expanded and improved. In this way, Hennig’s “little book” has gained some textual substance and is no longer merely a meaningless bibliographical reference.

I propose designating the fourth, incomplete, now-lost copy of the Old Prussian Enchiridion as the “HV” copy. This copy is known today in two variants:

(1) as a longer handwritten variant, preserved in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz (House No. 1, Unter den Linden) under the shelfmark: Ms. boruss. fol. 462.—and

(2) a shorter printed variant, published by Vater (1821).

It should nevertheless be emphasized once again that the text of the longer variant, or Hennig’s copy, is overall nine cards shorter—including the Prussian coat of arms, likewise missing at the end, with the inscription: IVSTVS EX FIDE VIVIT—than the text found in the other known copies (B1, B2, and D) and also in the later editions of the Old Prussian Enchiridion. To be more precise: in the copy, the text ends with card 60b, corresponding to page 240 of Mažiulis’s 1966 edition¹⁶.

(and corresponding to page 77.27 of Trautmann’s 1910 edition)¹⁷.

7. THESENARTIGE SCHLUSSBEMERKUNGEN

Finally, I would like to try, if only in outline, to present some conclusions.

One may quite reasonably claim that without Hennig’s preliminary work, Vater’s edition would never have appeared. In my view, it contains

¹⁶ According to Mažiulis (1966), pages 126–134 of copy III and pages 110–118 of copy D are missing.

¹⁷ According to Trautmann (1910), pages 126–134 of copy K and pages 111–118 of copy D are missing. An inaccuracy must be noted here in relation to Trautmann’s observation (1910: pp. XXVII–XXVIII, where pages 129–134 are given) (see Verf. 2020).

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

the volume Ms. boruss. fol. 462. copied in Heckmann (2019: pp. 31–33) contains Hennig’s copy—and not Vater’s own!—together with other materials.

Put differently, and probably more accurately: Vater’s edition is based on Hennig’s copy of the Enchiridion. This can be asserted with certainty on the basis of both internal textual evidence (above all, the compilations of data collections) and external textual evidence (above all, the analysis of Vater’s Vorwort to Vater 1821).

Nevertheless, Vater’s edition exhibits a macroscopic omission or abbreviation at the end of the Enchiridion’s text, amounting to almost two pages, the reasons for which are neither apparent nor comprehensible. This fact, as well as the presence of many other minor and major inaccuracies of various kinds, makes Vater’s edition appear not particularly reliable.

A sixteenth-century original print of an incomplete copy of the Enchiridion, which Hennig had possessed and reproduced in writing, has always been known to Prussianists, but was considered lost as early as Nesselmann (1845), and the situation remains the same today. The incompleteness of this copy consisted in the fact that pages 126–134 (including the Prussian coat of arms at the end) were missing.

This lost copy of the Enchiridion was the original print underlying Hennig’s copy and consequently also Vater’s edition.

Finally, the relationship between the “HV” copy and the other known copies of the Enchiridion (B1, B2, D) must also be investigated further. The solution to this task should be reserved for another contribution. Here I have examined this relationship only insofar as was necessary for the main objective of this contribution. Moreover, it has been possible to determine certain features of the lost Enchiridion on the basis of a comparison of the copy, Vater’s edition with its Verbesserungen und Zusätze[n], and Faber’s catalogue.

Theoretically, there remains the possibility that the original print may one day come to light among the old Borussica holdings from the Königsberg libraries. For this, we still hope for a further contribution from the pen of Frau Heckmann.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

8. APPENDIX. FIGURES

Figure N. 33. Title page of Vater 1815.

Figure N. 34. Title page of Vater 1821.

Figure N. 35. Verbesserungen und Zusätze from Vater (1821: p. 183).

Figure N. 36. Title page of the copy (card 2).

Figure N. 37. Vater’s undated handwritten note (card 62a).

Figure N. 38. Faber’s catalogue (cards 63 and 64).

Figure N. 39. Last page of Vater (1821: p. 68).

Figure N. 40. Leaf 60a of the copy.

Figure N. 41. Leaf 60b of the copy.

Figure N. 42. Leaf 61a of the copy.

Figure N. 43. Leaf 61b of the copy. On the right, part of Vater’s undated note (card 62a) can also be seen.

Straipsniai / Articles

FIGURE N. 33. Title page of Vater 1815

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

The

Language of the Old Prussians

Introduction, Translations, Grammar; Dictionary,

compiled

Johann Severin Vater,

Professor at Halle, member of the Academy of Sciences and learned societies in Berlin, Munich, Philadelphia, Warsaw, and elsewhere.

Brunswick, at the School Bookshop. 1821.

FIGURE N. 34. Title page of Vater 1821

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

FIGURE N. 35. Corrections and additions from Vater (1821: p. 183)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

FIGURE N. 36. Title page of the copy (card 2a)

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

FIGURE N. 37. Vater’s undated handwritten note (card 62a)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

FIGURE N. 38. Catalogue by Faber (multiple-folded cards 63a–64b)

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

FIGURE N. 39. Final page of Vater (1821: p. 68)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

FIGURE N. 40. Folio 60a of the copy

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

FIGURE N. 41. Folio 60b of the copy

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

FIGURE N. 42. Folio 61a of the copy

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

FIGURE N. 43. Folio 61b of the copy. On the right one can also see part of Vater’s undated note (card 62a)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

SOURCES AND SECONDARY LITERATURE

Adelung Johann Christoph, Vater Johann Severin 1809: Mithridates, or General Linguistic Knowledge: with the Lord’s Prayer as a Language Sample in Nearly Five Hundred Languages and Dialects, vol. 2, European Languages, Berlin: Voss.

Bernhagen Wolfgang 1964: Johann Severin Vater, a Forgotten Slavist of the 19th Century. – Contributions to the History of Slavistics, ed. by H. H. Belfieldt, K. Horálek, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 162–170.

Bezzenberger Adalbert 1874: Review of Nesselmann 1873. – Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 39, 1221–1250.

Bopp Franz 1853: On the Language of the Old Prussians, read at the Academy of Sciences on 24 May 1849, 25 July 1850, and 24 February 1853. – Treatises of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin from the Year 1853, Berlin: F. Dümmler’s Verlags-Buchhandlung.

Fleckenstein Christa 1997: Johann Severin Vater – a Representative of the Early Phase of Halle Slavistics. – Contributions to the History of Slavistics at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, part 1 (= Slavica Varia Halensia 2), ed. by Chr. Fleckenstein, H. Schmidt, Halle-Wittenberg: Universitätsverlag, 34–38.

Forstreuter Kurt Hermann 1955: The Prussian State Archive in Königsberg. A Historical Review with an Overview of Its Holdings, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Grimm Jacob 1822: Review of Vater 1821. – Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 121, 1201–1207.

Götz von Selle 1965: Vater, Johann Severin. – Old Prussian Biography 2, ed. by Chr. Krollmann, Marburg: Elwert, 755.

Haym Rudolf, ed., 1894: Letters from Wilhelm von Humboldt to Georg Heinrich Ludwig Nicolovius, Berlin: Verlag von Emil Felber.

Heckmann Marie-Luise 2019: Prussica and Lithuanica in the Berlin State Library–Prussian Cultural Heritage. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 81, 22–51.

Krollmann Christian 1974: Faber, Karl. – Old Prussian Biography 2, ed. by Chr. Krollmann, Marburg: Elwert, 172.

Kuhn Ernst 1895: Vater, Johann Severin. – General German Biography 39, 503–508.

Lehn erdt Joh. Max 1974: Hennig, Abraham Ernst. – Old Prussian Biography 2, ed. by Chr. Krollmann, Marburg: Elwert, 286.

Straipsniai / Articles

PIETRO U. DINI

Linde Samuel B. 1822: On the Language of the Ancient Prussians. An Analysis of Professor Vater’s Work, in Warsaw, at the printing house of the Piarist Fathers.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1966: Monuments of the Prussian Language 1, Vilnius: Mintis.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1981: Monuments of the Prussian Language 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Mone Franz J. 1821: Review of Vater 1821. – Heidelberg Yearbooks of Literature 5(31), 489–495.

Ms. boruss. fol. 462: Johann Severin Vater: Enchiridion. The Little Catechism of Doctor Martin Luther, German and Prussian. Printed in Königsberg in Prussia by Johann Daubmann. M. D. LXI (copy) Faber: Collation of the copy against the printed edition, 64 fols., Halle, around 1821.

Nesselmann G. H. Ferdinand 1845: The Language of the Old Prussians Explained through Its Remains, Berlin: Reimer.

Nesselmann G. H. Ferdinand 1873: Thesaurus Linguae Prussicae. The Prussian Vocabulary as Far as It Has Thus Far Been Established, Together with an Addition of a Collection of Documentarily Authenticated Local Names, Examined and Compiled, Berlin: Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung, Harrwitz & Gossmann.

Trautmann Reinhold 1910: The Old Prussian Linguistic Monuments. Introduction, Texts, Grammar, Dictionary, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Vater Severin Johann 1815: Alphabetical Index of the Languages of the Whole World, Whose Grammars, Lexica, and Collections of Words Are Listed, Whose Homeland Is Indicated, and Whose History Is Outlined, or Literature of the Grammars, Lexica, and Collections of Words of All the Languages of the Earth Arranged Alphabetically by Language, with a Concise Overview of Their Homeland, Fortunes, and Affinities, Berlin: at Nicolai’s Bookshop.

Vater Severin Johann 1821: The Language of the Old Prussians: Introduction, Remnants, Grammar, Dictionary, Brunswick: at the School Bookshop, Halle, printed at Gebauer’s printing office.

Author 2014: On the Formation of the Corpus of Prussian Language Texts, eds. by T. Civjan, M. Zavjalova, A. Judžentis. – Balts and Slavs: Intersections of Spiritual Cultures, Vilnius: Versmė, 89–100.

Author 2019: On the Question of the Information about the Old Prussian “Enchiridion” (1561) That Has Reached Us [К voprosu o doshedshykh do nas svedeniyakh o drevne-prusskom «Enkhyridione» (1561)]. – Slavic and Balkan Linguistics. Slavistics, Indo-European Studies, Cultural Studies. On the 90th Anniversary of the Birth of Vladimir Nikolaievich Toporov [Slavianskoe i balkanskoe iazykoznanye. Slavistika, indoevropeistika, kul’turologia. K 90-letiyu so dnia rozhdeniya Vladimira Nikolaievicha Toporova], Moscow:

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVI

Zur textuellen Grundlage des altpreußischen Enchiridions bei Vater (1821) oder zu dem verschollenen „VH“-Exemplar

Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Slavic Studies [Moscow: Rossiyskaia akademiya nauk. Institut Slavianovedeniya], 238–263.

Author 2020: On the textual basis of the Old Prussian Enchiridion in Trautmann (1910). – Baltistica 55(1), 105–118.

Author 2020a: On the textual basis of the Old Prussian Enchiridion in Mažiulis (1966). – Baltistica 55(2), 315–328.

Author 2021: On the textual basis of the Old Prussian Enchiridion in Nesselmann (1845) and his successors Uhlenbeck (1889) and Berneker (1896). – Baltistica 56(1), 107–120.

Questions concerning the original text of Vater’s Prussian Enchiridion (1821), or the lost “HV” copy

ABSTRACT

Some important aspects of Vater’s edition (1821) remain unclear. In particular, questions arise concerning the relationship between Vater’s printed text and a previously unknown manuscript copy of the Prussian Enchiridion preserved in the volume Ms. boruss. fol. 462 (in Berlin). The author of this copy, A. E. Hennig, made it on the basis of an incomplete printed copy of the Enchiridion that belonged to him. This Prussian Enchiridion copy was considered lost as early as Nesselmann’s time (1845). Both internal and external arguments show that the lost incomplete printed copy was the basis for Hennig’s manuscript and consequently also for Vater’s edition. Pages 126–134 were missing from this copy. Interestingly, the text printed in Vater’s edition is nearly two pages shorter than Hennig’s manuscript copy. Comparison of various materials makes it possible to reconstruct certain features of the lost copy. I would propose calling this copy the “HV” copy.

Received on 9 October 2021.

PIETRO U. DINI University of Pisa Via S. Maria 36, I–56126 Pisa, Italy [email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

Document details