GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: onomastics of Prussian or Baltic languages, early Baltic writings.

SIEGFRIED HANKE, RAINER VOGEL (HG.)

URBARIUM OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF JÄGERNDORF FROM THE TIME OF THE MARGRAVES OF BRANDENBURG–ANSBACH

Berlin: LTI Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, 2010, 469 S. ISBN 978–3–643–10845–6

RAINER VOGEL

FAMILY NAMES IN THE ALTVATER REGION. THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND MEANING OF PERSONAL NAMES IN THE PRINCIPALITY OF JÄGERNDORF AND THE LORDSHIP OF FREUDENTHAL (FORMERLY AUSTRIAN SILESIA)

Schriftenreihe Philologia Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse, vol. 190 ISSN 1435–6570. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač GmbH, 2014, 698 pp. ISBN 978–3–8300–7905–7

Readers may wonder why two books are being reviewed. The answer is simple. The book published in 2010, Urbare des Fürstentums Jägerndorf

Recenzijos / Reviews

271

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach (1531–1535–1554/78) (English: “The cadasters of the Duchy of Jägerndorf, or Jegerndorf, under the rule of the Margraves of Brandenburg–Ansbach (1531–1535–1554/78)”) is in a way echoed and substantially complemented by the comprehensive study of the interesting author Rainer Vogel, Familiennamen in der Altvaterregion. Entstehung, Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Personennamen im Fürstentum Jägerndorf und in der Herrschaft Freudenthal (ehemals Österreich-Schlesien) (English: “Surnames in the Altvater region. The formation, development, and significance of personal names in the Duchy of Jägerndorf and the Lordship of Freudenthal (formerly Austrian Silesia)”). Both books are useful in their methodology for researchers of historical onomastics, since European onomastics, like Baltic onomastics, developed through language contact. In the works under discussion, this was a shared German- and Czech-speaking area inhabited by Czechs and German settlers. One further essential aspect should be emphasized. The books present previously unpublished manuscript material that also reveals the development of written German in the sixteenth century. In 1522 Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German, and in 1534 the entire Bible. The Margrave of Brandenburg–Ansbach acknowledged the Reformation, which gave rise to Protestantism.

The manuscripts requiring decipherment relate to the history and geography of Jägerndorf (Jägerndorf), Krnov (Czech Krnov), or Bruntál (Czech Bruntál), the history of settlements, culture, and, without doubt, the social and political aspects of life in these lands in the sixteenth century. The reviewer has had opportunities to acquaint herself with the exceptionally rich Czech archives, where the abundance of material and the continuing lack of a clear system for the manuscripts can make research difficult. The documents in question were kept in the land archive in Opava (Troppau), which kindly granted permission to use archival material in print. The authors’ heartfelt thanks to the archive staff attest to this. Reading and transcribing sixteenth-century manuscripts written in the so-called Kurrentschrift (English: Gothic cursive), which began to be used in the early sixteenth century, is no easy task, although the Margraves of Brandenburg–Ansbach had a chancery staffed by experienced scribes who wrote in German. The chancery disciplined its scribes. For example, the names of the scribes in the ducal chancery of Jägerndorf are known (Vogel 2014: 149–150). The transcribed edition of the source, written in German, clearly demonstrates the coexistence of two onomastic systems (German and Czech). The appellative vocabulary recalls the famous registers, or lists, of the Turkish tax in the Duchy of Prussia (German Die

272

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.)

Urbare des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

Türkensteuer im Herzogtum Preußen 1540), surašytus Rytprūsių foliante 911 a¹, ir parodo vokiečių kalbos regioninius skirtumus. Kadastrų paskirtis buvo kitokia nei Turkų mokesčių registrų. Pažymėtina, kad vadinamasis „Turkų mokestis“, kurį buvo nutarta rinkti Vormso (Vorms) reichstage 1498 m., lietė tuo laiku vokiškai kalbantį aptariamąjį Europos regioną. Negalima pamiršti, kad parapijų mokesčių sąrašus sudarinėjo iždininkas, kunigas, du parapijos atstovai ir raštininkas (žr. Vogel 2014: 158). Rytų Prūsijos hercogystėje tų mokesčių rinkimas buvo deklaruotas 1539 m. pradžioje (Diehlmann 1998: 26–29). Būtina pabrėžti, kad abu dokumentai atskleidžia istorinį kontekstą, palydimą politinio, socialinio ir kultūrinio tų regionų išsivystymo.

Reading the book under review is greatly facilitated by the editors’ highly professional and meticulous work and by the valuable appendices, such as those found in editions of manuscripts dealing with East Prussia. Why is the review written by comparing two sources? To emphasize the connections between these European regions, revealed by descriptions of the same concepts and phenomena. Essentially, the subject was tax policy. Without inhabitants, there would have been no need for taxes. Most of the population consisted of pauern, baurrn (2010: 87, 213), pawer, pauer (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XIV 5 39r, 48v), ‘peasant farmers’, who bore the main tax burden. Both sources discuss this in detail. Taxes are called Zins ‘rent’ (2010: 156 et seq.), zins (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 4 17r, 18r, 18v), dinst ‘rent’: Simon zu Sudaw hot einenn dinst (English: ‘Simon of Sudaw owes one rent payment’) (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXX I 3r). In the source under discussion, the word dinst is also used in its primary sense, ‘service, assistance, servitude’: Dienst, die trewe stette Diennst (English: ‘faithful, constant service’) (2010: 131). Taxes were paid in groschen, gulden, and other monetary units, for example: XV gr Zins (‘15 groschen rent’), in marks and shillings: ein gertner: 5 β. (‘a cottager, 5 shillings’, 2010: 137); 1 m Linck mohller von einer erbmuhl mit einem rad (‘1 mark, the miller Linck for an inherited mill with one wheel’) (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 3 18v). The manuscript in question contains interesting information about taxes in kind, for example: Nun volgen Die Zins Martzihin Pablencke (Martin Pabunek) XXIIII gr Zins / XVIII eier Georgi / XXIIII gr Zins / VII henne Michaelis (‘The taxes of Martzihin Pablencke (Martin Pabunek) are now listed: 24 groschen in rent, 18 eggs for St. George’s Day (April 23), 24 groschen

¹ East Prussian Fol. 911 a – East Prussian folio 911 a, held in the Secret State Archives in Berlin Prussian cultural heritage. Hans Heinz Diehlmann carefully prepared 3 volumes: 1998: The Turkish Tax in the Duchy of Prussia 1540. Vol. 1. Fischhausen – Schaaken – Neuhausen – Labiau. Hamburg: Verein für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e.V.; 2006: The Turkish Tax in the Duchy of Prussia 1540. Vol. 2. Memel – Tilsit. Hamburg: Verein für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e.V.: 2008: The Turkish Tax in the Duchy of Prussia 1540. Vol. 3. Ragnit – Insterburg – Georgenburg – Saalau. Verein für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e.V.

Recenzijos / Reviews

273

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

taxes, 7 hens for St. Michael’s Day (September 29). The number of eggs that had to be given at Easter is also stated, for example: vf Ostern Eier 18 Eier, 27 Eier (2010: 274, 275). Incidentally, the manuscript under discussion contains so much information about the region itself that it is difficult to grasp that such detailed documents were written in the sixteenth century, although, on the other hand, this may be explained by the lack of other information, which led scribes to record every detail. For instance, Die als Schafferin hatt ein gartenn am dorff, zinst der Herschatfft nichts, sondern der pfar kirchen III Pfd. (= Pfund) Wachs zu Ostern (English: ‘The woman laborer has a small plot of land by the village and owes no taxes to the lordship, only 4 pounds (1 pound = 467.7 grams) of wax to the parish church at Easter’) (2010: 175). Thus the church needed wax, probably for making candles. An interesting page is 2v of quire 5 in volume 14 of East Prussian Folio 91 1a, which lists the livestock of the inhabitants of Labiau and Laukischken liable to tax at Christmas. There were: zihende pferde ‘working horses’, fullen ‘fillies’, junge rinder ‘young cattle (calves)’, schoffe ‘sheep’, schweyne ‘pigs’ (p. 2v), stercke ‘heifers’ (p. 3r), rindt ‘ox’ (p. 7r). The age of the livestock is also mentioned: dreyjherige fullen ‘three-year-old fillies’, jherige kelber ‘yearling calves’ (pp. 7r, 7v).

In those regions, taxes were also paid in hens: Hüner ‘hens’, Henner ‘hens, laying hens’. Rauch hun, Rauch huhn, Rauch henn, whose meaning can be interpreted in different ways—whether a smoked or home-raised hen, it had to be handed over to the landowning lord; this was an obligation of villagers, not townspeople. Taxes were also paid in eggs and fattened pigs (III mastung schwein). An interesting example: ein gertner zinst / Igr vf Georgii Igr vf Michaelis / ein, (English: ‘A cottager pays a levy: 1 groschen at St. George’s Day, 1 groschen at St. Michael’s Day, and one smoked hen’). Another paid as many as X Rauch hennen (10 smoked hens) (2010: 219, 250, 251, 303).

With regard to taxes, other aspects of life in the first half of the sixteenth century may also be mentioned: Nö: die gebaurschaft zaigenn an, dass die von Turckau II viertel irß felds gebrauchen vnnd geniessen, davon kainnen Zins gebenn, dann die III garb dem closter vermaimen, so man Ihnen solche guetter lies, wollten sie sovil die herschafft Zins davon geben (English: ‘The farmers report that the people of Turckau use and enjoy two quarters of their field without paying any rent for it; instead, they give three sheaves to the monastery. If they were allowed to retain such property, they would pay the lordship rent on it’) (2010: 212).

There were also other inhabitants in both regions. The sources record the term and social category gertner (2010: 45, 46), gertner ‘cottager’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 4 19r), to which the substantial monograph Die ländliche Gartensiedlung im mittelalterlichen Preußen (English: ‘The rural cottager settlement in medieval Prussia’)

274

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.)

Urbane des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

In 1997, Jürgen Martens was appointed². In the glossary of terms used in the Jägerndorf and Opava (Troppau) cadastres of the work under discussion, gärtner, gärttner, gertner is described in the same way as in other German-speaking countries—Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and Lithuania (MLE 2009: 575)³. The cadastres also describe their work: Ein yeder gertner ist schuldig, Drey tag zu schneiden, dagegen gibt man Ihm Essen und Drinncken (Lith. ‘Every cottager is obliged to mow for three days; in return, he is given food and drink’) (2010: 122). Nor were cottagers absent—these worked the land without draft animals, for example, Die fueßgaenger sein schuldig, Ihn denn Grossen garten hinter dem Schloß Layn, Fanf, Rueben, Zwiffel vnd anders zu jetten schuldig. Auch hanf vnd fymmel (?) zurauffen, Vnnd man gibt Ihnen alweg darbey Essen und Drinncken (Lith. ‘The cottagers are obliged to weed the flax, hemp, beets, onions, and other crops in the great garden behind the castle, and to pull up the hemp; they are always given food and drink in return’) (2010: 322).

The source provides a detailed account of the cottagers’ lives: Item Welche Leutt im Dorf nicht Pferd haben, Die sollen diese nachvolgende Arbeit thon, benendlich holtz fellen, Kraut vndergraben, Hanf raufen vnd sonst ander Arbeit, so einem fueßgaenger gebürt, thon (Lith. ‘Also, some people in the village have no horses. They must perform the following kinds of work: cut down trees, dig up cabbages, pull hemp, and do other work that a cottager is expected to do’) (2010: 324).

Life also revolved around taverns, where many products were sold. The tavernkeeper was called kreczmer, kretczemer, Krätschmer (2010: 90, 395) and Kretzschmehr, kruger (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 4 63v; 30 2 14v), while the tavern was called Kretschem (2010: 272), krugk (Ostpr. Fol 911a XIV 6 95v–96r). Where there were taverns, there was also beer, mentioned particularly often: bier (2010: 121), bier (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 3 27r), ‘beer’, which was brewed; some people did not have any: <...> hatt kein bier (2010: 124–125). It was also described as ein gebrew ‘beverage, brew’, eigebreuen, einge breuenn bier ‘home-brewed beer’, fremde bier ‘beer brewed by others’, and measured in barrels (Ger. thonnen, which could hold between 100 and 700 liters of beer) (Ostpr. Fol 911 a VI 3 27r). Beer brewing required Hopffen ‘hops’ (2010: 221). The Prussian source also mentions them, using the terms wilden Hopffen ‘fresh hops’, getreucken hopffen ‘dried hops’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXX 3 5r, 7r). Of particular interest is the detail: Item die Vnderthanen des orts (Dorf Pütschs) sollen kein Bier von keiner Herrschaft ausZutrinnken oder ausZuschencken nehmen. (Lith. ‘Also, the inhabitants of the settlement (the village of Pütsch) may not accept beer from any lordship to finish drinking or dispense’) (2010: 254). The beer had to be dispensed. In East Prussia

² Martens Jürgen 2010: Die ländliche Gartensiedlung im mittelalterlichen Preußen. Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk.

³ MLE 2009: Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija 4. Rahn– Žvinėžeris. Vilnius: Mažosios Lietuvos fondas, Mokslų ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Recenzijos / Reviews

275

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

beer was poured into barrels called thonnen (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 3 27r). In the book under discussion, herring was placed in barrels called thunnen, Vhassen: ein Thunnen Hering in der Vhassen (Lith. ‘a barrel of herring in barrels’) (2010: 254). This passage suggests that in this instance thunnen ‘barrel’ was smaller than Vhassen ‘cask’.

Mills were vital to both the cadastre book and the Turkish tax register; the spelling of the word for ‘mill’ varies considerably in documents from the first half of the 16th century: dy mühle, muel ‘mill’. An interesting term is ein Brettmuel, which in Lithuanian would mean ‘board mill’, that is, a sawmill producing good boards—ein guet Breth (Lith. ‘a good board’) (2010: 45, 253); möhl, mühl (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXII 1 36r, 37v); müllner, mülner (2010: 45); moller, mohller, mollner, muller, molner (Ostpr. Fol. 911a VI 4 18v, 26v; XXX 15 22 6r) ‘miller’. People living in the early 16th century could not do without units of measure, as sources of this kind also attest. For example, the weight unit scheffel ‘scheffel’, scheffel = holding from 30 to 300 liters (2010: 135, 396), scheffel (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXX 22 6r); a scheffel = was 54 liters (MLE 2009: 391).

Abiejuose aptariamos žemėse buvo sėjama: habern ‘avižos’ (2010: 86, 87, 164, 189; Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXX 3 7r), Gerssten (2010; 302), gersten ‘miežiai’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XXX 3 7r), Korn, Korn ‘grūdai’ (2010: 163, 164, 172, 174). Tas žodis neužfiksuotas Rytprūsių foliante 911 a recenzijoje minimumose tomuose, kuriuos autorė yra išstudijavusi. Pasitaiko sąvokų, nepažįstamų Rytų Prūsijai, pvz.: Wisen / Item die wisen, zue solchem furwerck geherig, ligen alle nacheinander Bis an die greintz der von Liechtnaw vnnd obgemelter herschafft eckern, solche wissen megen Jerlich zu gemeinen Jarn bis Inn zwayhundertt fuder hays ertragen (‘Pievos. Taip pat pievos, kurios yra tokio palivarko nuosavybė, visos plyti iki Liechtnaw sienos ir minėtų ponų laukų, tokios pievos gali kasmet visų naudai duoti iki dviejų šimtų vežimų šieno’) (2010: 199, dar žr. 352). Rytprūsių foliante fuder ‘vežimas’ yra išreiškiamas žodžiu Wagen, plg....von wagenschob (Ostpr. Fol. 911a XIV 5 81r).

Gyvulių minima daug: Khuve ‘karvės’ (2010: 214), kurias ganė khu (hirt) ‘piemuo’, khwe melcke khwe ‘melžiamos karvės’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 4 65r), Ros, Roß ‘žirgas’ (2010: 219, 220), preuschen hengst ‘prūsų eržilas’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 9 12r), pferdt ‘arklys’ (2010: 220), pfert (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 1 1 a; XXX 1 59r)

Išvardijamos ir profesijos, pvz.: ein schmidt, Der Schmidt ‘kalvis’ (2010: 219, 366: čia užsimenama ir apie jo amatą ir ūkėlį: sein handwerg, garten), der schmit, drauge su handtwerckern ir gertner – ‘amatininkai ir trobelininkai’ (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 1 6r). Daug tose žemėse būta ir žvejų, vischern.

Kalbamajame dokumente einama į medžioklę: auf die Jagtt gehen, zur yagt <...> (2010: 324, 352), o Rytprūsių foliante minimumose tomuose tik vieną kartą paminėtas senas medžiotojas Janelle, alte jegher (lie. ‘Janelis, senas medžiotojas’) (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a XIV 6 4 15r). Abiejuose šaltiniuose skiriasi ir medaus

276

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.)

Urbare des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

įvardijimas: Von BienBeuten <...> ‘vieno bitininko bičių suneštas medus’ (2010: 332), dat tor 1 1/2 tonne honig 1 1/2 m (lie. ‘tai už pusantros statinės medaus mokama 1 1/2 markės’) (Ostpr. Fol. 911 a VI 1 1v).

Life in the first half of the 16th century was bustling. People worked the land and raised crops, vegetables, cattle, livestock, and chickens. They included landowners, known as nobles (Ger. edeleutte), peasant farmers, cottagers, and laborers. Their entire lives and possessions were recorded with the utmost care—in today’s terms, registered and entered into every list.

The manuscript also addresses matters of morality, emphasizing that theft, murder, arson, and other criminal acts were judged by a court; its levels, judges, and verdicts are also described (2010: 268–269).

The book under discussion is valuable not only because it deciphers a complex text and presents a detailed panorama of life in the region, but also because it provides a glossary: “Verzeichnis der Begriffe in den Urbaren Jägerndorf und Troppau” (pp. 380–409). Also highly valuable for understanding the German language of the period, its contacts, and regional history is the overview of the towns and villages belonging to the margrave, including their names and geographical locations; the survey of the oikonyms in the document studied (410–450); and the list of rulers of Jägerndorf (Jägerndorf) and Opava (Troppau) (2010: 451–453). The edition of the source is supplemented by seven historical maps. Their reproduction quality is poor, though perhaps this was due to the condition of the manuscript maps (2010: 456–462). The bibliography should also be mentioned: it is organized not alphabetically, but according to the historical realities mentioned in the source (2010: 463–469). A considerable shortcoming is the absence of indexes of personal names and place names.

The document is highly valuable to researchers of names, clearly demonstrating that no region’s onomasticon can do without historical dictionaries of place names. Settlement names were German, Czech, and Polish, for example, Ger. Bransdorf, Czech Brantice, which is called Branczicz, Branticz in Latin sources from 1413–1461; this is undoubtedly a Czech place name. Czech sources have Brantice from 1433, while German sources give Brandisdorf, Bronsdorf in 1377 (2010: 415; see also Hosak, Šramek 1970: 106)⁴. The village is first mentioned in historical sources under a German name, which Czech onomasticians would most likely interpret as the hybrid place name *Brabantsdorf, whose second element is related to Ger. Dorf ‘village’ (Hosak, Šramek 1970: 106–107). The name of the town, Freudenthal, is attested in Latin sources in the first half of the 13th century as 1220 de Freudental; in German sources, as 1325 Vredenthal; and in Czech sources, as 1456 starosta bruntalsky, 1529 na Bruntali (2010: 414; Hosak, Šramek 1970: 116–117).

⁴ Hosák Ladislav, Šrá¬mek Rudolf 1970: Místní jména na Moravě a ve Slezsku. I A–L. Praha: Academia Nakladatelství československé akademie věd Praha.

Recenzijos / Reviews

277

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

The reviewed book gives an inaccurate form of the place name for 1456, which was not yet Bruntal. The formation and origin of the German oikonym are clear: it is a compound whose first element is associated with German Freude ‘joy’, and the second with German Tal ‘valley’. Czech Bruntal is a phonetically adapted form of the German oikonym. The place name was intended to reflect the founders’ wish to find joy and happiness there (Hosak, Šramek 1970: 116–117). The oikonym German Bauerwitz, Polish Baborów (Baborów), is mentioned as Bauorov in 1303 and Bourowicz in 1323 (NMP 1996: 51; cf. 2010: 419–420). The Polish place name is of anthroponymic origin and is associated with the personal name Bawor (= Bawarczyk) (NMP 1996: 51)⁵.

Not all toponyms are named in the document; presumably, the recorders did not know or understand one or another proper name. It may be that not all features had yet been named or had names of their own, for example, Es seind nutzliche gebirg onnd Wel-de zu diesern guet geherig <...> (Lith. ‘There are useful mountains and fields belonging to this estate’) (2010: 323), Ein Stuck wasser von der Branßdorfer graintz bis an der Meischners furt <...> (Lith. ‘A stretch of water from the boundary of Bransdorf to Meischner’s ford’) (2010: 332), Auch hatt es aldo ein ferchen wasser, darin ferchen und Aschenn sindt, des wassers graintz gehet an an Gunttersdorffer graintz <...> (Lith. ‘It also has a water where trout and grayling live, and it runs all the way to the boundary of Guntersdorf’) (2010: 315). The passage mentions fish, but the name of the river or stream itself is not given. Sometimes minor features are named. The same document mentions five small ponds belonging to the administrator of Bransdorf and gives their names: Barons Teicht (Baron’s Pond), Bechin Teicht (probably the pond of some Bechin, perhaps cf. German personal name Bech, associated with Middle High German bëch, pěch ‘pitch, pitch burner’; Becher is associated with German Pechsammler ‘pitch collector’⁶; cf. also the similarly formed personal name Blaichin from the same area (2014: 271)), Schunetzek oder Schind Teicht (probably a tanner’s pond, cf. Middle High German schinden ‘to flay, remove the skin’ (Lexers 1980: 184)), where predatory pike are bred, Frauen Teicht (Women’s Pond) and Kirch Teicht (Church Pond) (2010: 315). The same description of Bronsdorf mentions the names of rivers: ein Fischwasser, die Sidina, genandt (‘a fish-rich river called Sidina’, perhaps present-day Czech Sezina), ein Stuck wasser, die Opa (‘a stretch of water, the Opa’) (2010: 279), floßlein Mstina (‘the stream Mstina’) (2010: 270), Ein Wiesen genandt Lupnika (‘A meadow called Lupnika’) (2010: 269)⁷.

⁵ NMP 1996 Nazwy miejscowe polski. Historia, Pochodzenia. Zmiany. Pod redakcją Kazimierza Rymuta. A–B. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Języka Polskiego PAN.

⁶ 2005: Duden Familiennamen. Herkunft und Bildung. Bearbeitet von Rosa und Volker Kohlheim. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F. A. Brockhaus AG,, 115.

The author of the review thanks the renowned Czech onomastician Rudolf Šramek for his help in determining the location of the rivers mentioned in the source.⁷

278

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.) Urbare des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

As already mentioned, the manuscript is written in German, with a few documents in Latin. In his foreword to the book, the renowned German onomastician and linguist Albrecht Greule (Albrecht Greule) said that such texts are not easy to read (2010: 4–5). This claim can only be partly accepted, since the book is highly interesting to linguists, historians, geographers, biologists,¹ botanists, and specialists in other fields. It should once again be emphasized that indexes of place names and personal names are sorely lacking; these would greatly facilitate the work not only of researchers studying the onomasticon of the territory in question.

Rainer Vogel’s substantial monograph Familiennamen in der Altvaterregion. Entstehung, Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Personennamen im Fürstentum Jägerndorf und in der Herrschaft Freudenthal (ehemals Österreich-Schlesien) (Lith. “Surnames in the Altvater region. The formation, development, and significance of personal names in the Duchy of Jägerndorf and the Lordship of Freudenthal (formerly Austrian Silesia)”), was published in 2014 on the basis of a dissertation defended at the University of Regensburg in 2013. The author is no longer young and is not a linguist; he had not been an onomastician. Since the publication of the book under discussion, R. Vogel can also be called an onomastician. He is an engineer, but his sustained work and inquisitiveness clearly show that one can write comprehensive scholarly works to a high standard. The Altvater (Czech Praděd) region was the author’s parents’ homeland. R. Vogel gathered material from manuscript sources: from the cadastres already discussed, the Charles and Joseph cadastres, and the principal revenue matrices (Grund-Ertrags-Matrikel), as well as the cadastres of the rulers of Freudenthal (15th–18th centuries).

Although literacy was widespread, there were no instructions on how to write the names of townspeople and subjects. Anyone could write their name as they wished, freely use it and alter or change it at their discretion. In the 16th century and the early 17th century, German names were written with Latin endings or translated into Latin. After the French Revolution, the state saw a need to standardize the naming system (Vogel 2014: 163). It is noteworthy that Emperor Charles II’s policy of tolerance made it possible for Lutheran, Calvinist, Orthodox, and Jewish religions to exist; consequently, many Jewish names were recorded in the cadastres. R. Vogel studied these names in the region in question (172–192) and concluded that in the 16th century one cannot yet speak of a binary Jewish naming system. The following Jewish names are recorded: Mojzis, Mosse, Nathanien, Tabakjūdin, the last also indicating a woman’s occupation, namely the tobacco trade, and so on (2010: 184–186). These names were difficult to collect because representatives of the Third Reich deliberately destroyed the numerous sources documenting Jewish personal names, which were often of Slavic origin and integrated into the German onomasticon (2014: 29).

The author discusses the origins of the personal names underlying the surnames under study and their categories of motivation in an engaging way, noting that they can be divided into five groups, but, unfortunately, provides almost no examples (2014: 24). Examples were therefore sought in other sources, since it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between nickname-based surnames and those in group 3:

Recenzijos / Reviews

279

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

1) surnames derived from patronymics or matronymics, e.g.: Alberti < Albrecht, Dilger < Dilg < Otillie (FN 2005: 84, 192); 2) locative surnames (Herkunfsnamen), cf. German personal name Nörnberg < Nürnberg, the name of a city; also cf. Lithuanian personal name Kaunėckas < Kaũnas⁸; 3) surnames derived from places of residence, perhaps also describable as nicknames, e.g.: Lindemann or Lindner (someone who lives by a lime tree (German Linde ‘lime tree’ (2010: 24)); German personal name Kleinfeld means that the bearer of the surname lived near a small field (FN 2005: 379); Lithuanian Pamiškis, one who lives by a forest, at its edge (LPŽe); also cf. the Lithuanian nickname Liepìnis, ‘lime trees grow beside the homestead’ (Butkus 1995: 291)⁹; 4) surnames derived from names of occupations, cf. German Klauber from klauben ‘to collect, gather’ (FN 2005: 378); also cf. Lithuanian personal name Dailidė from Lithuanian dailidė ‘furniture maker, carpenter; house builder’ (LPŽe); 5) surnames derived from nicknames, which, together with surnames derived from occupations, are the most common German surnames; cf. German personal name Schädlich from German schädlich ‘harmful, damaging; evildoer’ (FN 220: 574); cf. Lithuanian personal name Pìlka, probably from Lithuanian pìlkas ‘ash- or lead-coloured; pale, dull’ (LPŽe).

It should be noted that the author also drew on Latvian and Lithuanian personal names, at least mentioning the state of research in the Baltic countries, Latvia and Lithuania (2014: 26).

Rainer Vogel presents a wealth of interesting empirical material, accurately describing its geography (p. 37), as well as many facts about the history of the region studied, paying particular attention to the linguistic situation and the coexistence of German and Czech within the defined area. In other words, the author prepared the ground for examining the influence of language contact on the personal-name system (69 ff.). The sources from which the material for the dissertation, later developed into a monograph, was collected are described exemplary. As already noted, the work discusses in detail the personal names of Jews in the region under consideration (128–190), for example, Blühdorn, a compound unusual in the German personal-name system, formed from the verb blühen ‘to bloom’ and Dorn ‘thorn, prickle’ (p. 178). The monograph’s structure—I do not fear this word, since it was written by a representative of the exact sciences—is highly distinctive. It contains none of the usual long lists of personal names and their descriptions. Personal names and explanations of their origins are presented according to the year in which the source was written, for example, 1531, 1535, and so on. The author chose distinctive introductions, discussing the personal names of the study area’s Seifersdorf (Seifersdorf), Friedrichsdorf (Friedrichsdorf), and the town of Jägerndorf (Jägerndorf), along with those of the localities belonging to it: Alt Vogelseifen (Alt Vogelseifen), Lichterwerden (Lichterwerden), Dittersdorf (Dittersdorf), and the aforementioned Freudenthal (Freudenthal), which had already been discussed in the review. The term surnames (Familiennamen) used in the monograph does not entirely

⁸ Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas. 2012–2015. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. http://pavardes.lki.lt

⁹ Butkus Alvydas 1995: Lietuvių pravardės. Kaunas: Aesti.

280

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.)

Urbare des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

accurately reflect the situation in the personal-name system, since surnames were still in the process of formation, and given names did not always become surnames. The examination of the personal names in each source also begins with questions that may arise from the empirical material. The author sometimes formulated as many as 35 questions (when examining the Seifersdorf personal-name system), and they are genuinely considered—for instance, which naming motivations predominate, which types of given names and surnames are attested in the study area, and from when a person’s designation as a personal name and nickname or surname can be treated as a two-part designation in the historical documents discussed (192–195). The sections on possible or expected hypotheses (Erwartunghypothesen) also made an impression (195–196). In the reviewer’s view, the monograph is an exemplary study of historical personal names in Germany in recent years.

The origins of personal names in the area under discussion are varied. For example, Fürsknecht was recorded in 1531; cf. Fuhrknecht ‘farmhand, servant responsible for the team of draught animals’, from German Fuhre ‘cart, journey, transport by cart’ and German Knecht ‘servant, farmhand, hired man’. For each personal name, all other onomasticians’ explanations of its origin are provided (p. 196); Baier is a locative personal name derived from Bayern ‘Bavaria’, Meischsner from the name of the town Meißen (p. 199); Hackenfuß, recorded in 1554/78, is of nickname origin, perhaps from German Hacke ‘heel’, hacken ‘to hoe, cultivate with a hoe, loosen; to strike, chop’, Haken here ‘fire poker’, and Fuß ‘foot’, describing a person who limps or drags a foot (pp. 206–207). In Friedrichsdorf in 1531 there was the personal name Englisch, from German Engel ‘angel’, denoting a calm, devout, peaceful bearer of the personal name (p. 224); Richter derives from German Richter ‘judge’. In Moravia and Bohemia, village headmen were called by that name, Richter, and their offices were hereditary; hence the personal name was very widespread, as R. Vogel demonstrates convincingly (p. 233). In 1557/78, Lemegr eber lived in the village; in Lithuanian this would be *molkasys*, from German Lehm ‘clay’ and graben ‘to dig’, a designation arising from the name of an occupation or trade (240–241). The tables of personal-name origins at the end of each chapter are highly informative.

Much attention is also paid to formation and suffixation (the popular suffixes –er and –in) and to compounds (the common second element is –man, from –man(n), German Mann ‘man, person’). I would disagree with the author that the personal name Arbaiter, from Arbeiter ‘worker’, recorded in the town of Jägerndorf in 1535, is a derivative formed with the suffix –er, since in this case the suffix belongs to the appellative (263–264). That source also contains designations for women, for example: Kramerin from German Krämer ‘small shopkeeper’, formed by adding the suffix –in (p. 289). The very detailed hypotheses about name origins are striking; for example, the origin of the surname Setzkegel is discussed over 14 pages—pp. 311–325—and the conclusion is that Hanitz en Setzkegel / Hanns Setz kegel, which the author interprets as Setzer von Kegeln, could, for instance, have been someone who stacked firewood or ore in a cone shape, as required in mining (p. 325). R. Vogel treats this personal name as a Satzname, that is, a name written as a sentence. The occupation is also indicated by T opfer, cf. Töpfer ‘potter’, Tuchmachmacher, cf. Tuchmacher ‘cloth maker’, Visch, cf. Fischer ‘fisherman’ (314–335),

Recenzijos / Reviews

281

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

Ziegenfleischer from German Ziege ‘goat’ and German Fleischer ‘butcher’, would mean a butcher who sells goat meat. Quite a few personal names indicate kinship relationships, for example: Vetter from German Vetter ‘cousin’, Vischers Schwester ‘fisherman’s sister’; here the kinship relationship is expressed by a distinctive attributive element. The question arises whether this should be treated as a description or as a personal name (pp. 335–336, 342). Reading the monograph makes it clear that, for the author, all the information in the historical documents was very important, although context is sometimes lacking.

The tables (343–346) also present the surname-formation details sought by the reviewer, indicating the surname and personal name, for example, surname Beck and given name Martin, or the designation of a woman by a single personal name, Bernhartin, illustrates what the reviewer has noted on several occasions: in the sixteenth century and later, women were not identified by given names (p. 343). This is also evident in East Prussia¹⁰. It should be emphasized that the author provides the personal names of the artisans of Jegerndorf who lived on Guild Street. Through these personal names, a layer of the sixteenth-century history of this small town is revealed so vividly that one can only regret that we have not described our own places of residence in this way, perhaps because of a lack of sources. On that street lived Kochwasser ‘water boiler’, Leineweber ‘linen weaver’, Salzman ‘salt seller’, Schuster ‘shoemaker’, Stainmetz ‘stonecutter’, Strohalm, cf. German Strohhalm ‘straw, stalk’, probably someone who cut grain and straw (a nickname origin is also possible, meaning a poor, thin person) (343–346). Discussing the surname Wurm, which could be toponymic or derived from the common noun Wurm ‘worm; serpent, dragon’, the author also draws on Lithuanian var̃mas ‘mosquito’ in explaining the common noun (p. 341). Women’s surnames in the 1618 manorial register of Freudenthal are discussed separately; the original is unnumbered. This register records 1,173 personal names, 25 of them women’s, for example: Böhmin George, indicating that the bearer of the name was Czech and that her husband’s name was George; in 1636, Bayerin, meaning ‘a Bavarian woman, from Bavaria’, and Georg, her husband’s name. In 1604, a woman is recorded as Fichtnerin Susanna; cf. Fichtner, a maker of firwood tankards¹¹, and the given name Susanna (Zuzana), from the Latinized Hebrew Susanna, from Hebrew Šōšannā: Hebrew šōšannā ‘lily’¹². The names from Freudenthal in 1604 display the full range of naming patterns, for example Kernwischer, which is not discussed by other researchers: Ernst Schwarz, Josef K. Brechenmacher, and Josef Beneš. The personal name could mean someone who swept up grain or chaff, or cleaned gun or

¹⁰ Blažienė Grasil da 2012: Dar viena Jono Bretkūno duktė? – Mažoji Lietuva: paribio kultūros tyrimai. Vilnius: Europos kalbų ir kultūrų dialogo tyrėjų asociacija, ISBN 978-609-420-323-2, 11–29.

¹¹ FN 2005: 243.

¹² Kuzavinis Kazys, Savukynas Bronys 1987: Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 385.

282

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIII

Siegfried Hanke, Rainer Vogel (Hg.)

Urbane des Fürstentums Jägerndorf aus der Zeit

der Markgrafen von Brandenburg–Ansbach

cannon barrels (p. 488), Saulig a derivative of the well-known Hebrew and biblical personal name Saul with the diminutive suffix –ing > / –ik / > –ig (513–514).

Rainer Fogel’s monograph and its conclusions about the personal-name system of the later Austrian-Silesian region substantially enrich our knowledge of the area’s history, the life of names under conditions of bilingualism, the formation and origin of personal names themselves, and their distribution (569–582). The substantial appendices, intended also for readers unfamiliar with onomastic theory, explain terminology, provide lists of oikonyms, historical information, copies of original documents, maps—without which onomastic works are now scarcely imaginable—and an index of the personal names discussed, that is, given names and surnames, as the author specifies.

It is regrettable that not all Lithuanian onomasticians read German-language works on onomastics, since the monograph under discussion, modestly called a study by Rainer Fogel, perhaps because it grew out of a dissertation, clearly demonstrates the importance of manuscript historical sources for research into personal names.

Received on 15 November 2015.

GRASILDA BLAŽIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

grasil [email protected]

Recenzijos / Reviews

283