Recenzijos / Re iews 263
DANIEL PETIT
École No male Supé ieu e, Pa is
Fields o esea ch: classical philology, Indo-Eu opean
s udies, Bal ic s udies.
William R. Schmals ieg
STUDIES IN OLD PRUSSIAN
A C i ical Re iew o he Rele an Li e a u e
in he Field om 1975 un il 2005
Vilnius: Vaga, 2015, 479 p.
ISBN: 978-5415-02-384-4
This book inaugu a es a new collec ion de o ed o he Old P ussian langu-
age and cul u e, Billēmai bhe e sinnimai (‘we alk and we lea n’). Acco ding
o he edi o s, he aim o his new collec ion is o ‘ alk abou ou cul u e’ and
o ‘know he con ibu ion o he global cul u e owa ds he explo a ion o ou
own cul u e’, which is an ambi ious goal, opening new ho izons o he unde s-
anding o he Old P ussian language and i s Eas e n Eu opean cul u al en i-
onmen . The collec ion s a s wi h a new book by he well-known Ame ican
linguis , bal is and sla icis William R. Schmals ieg (he ea e WS) on he Old
P ussian language. I ha dly need o in oduce WS o he eade s o his e iew.
His wo ks on he Bal ic languages, pa icula ly on Old P ussian and Li huanian,
ha e become e e ence wo ks o all hose wo king in his ield: An Old P ussian
G amma (1974), S udies in Old P ussian (1976), A Li huanian His o ical Syn ax
(1988), The His o ical Mo phology o he Bal ic Ve b (2000). Each o hese wo ks
is cha ac e ised by a i s -hand knowledge o Bal ic philology and an imp essing
dep h o analysis, which make WS one o he mos ou s anding li ing expe s
in he ield.
In 1976, WS published S udies in Old P ussian, A C i ical Re iew o he Rele-
an Li e a u e in he ield om 1945 (The Pennsyl ania S a e Uni e si y P ess,
420 pages). Acco ding o he o ewo d, he pu pose o he book was ‘ o examine
c i ically he li e a u e published abou he Old P ussian language since he end
o Wo ld Wa II in 1945’ (p. ix); he book was di ided in o en gene al sec ions:
The Old P ussian people; The Sudo ians o Ja ingians; The Old P ussian lan-
guage; Tex s in Old P ussian; Phonology; Old P ussian nominal mo phology;
DANIEL PETIT
264 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXII
P onouns, ad e bs and p eposi ions; Old P ussian e b mo phology; Miscella-
nea; Old P ussian e ymologies. The p esen book, published almos o y yea s
a e i s ‘olde b o he ’, sha es he same objec i e and in ends ‘ o e iew and
a imes commen on some o he majo con ibu ions o he s udy o he Old
P ussian language since he publica ion o he olume S udies in Old P ussian
in 1976’, as WS pu s i in he in oduc ion. Taken oge he , he wo books o e
an o e iew o he esea ch on Old P ussian o he las se en y yea s by one o
he leading con ibu o s o his ield. Howe e , he publica ion o his new book
akes place agains a comple ely new backg ound in compa ison o 1976. No
only ha he Bal ic S a es ha e egained hei independence, which boos ed
scien i ic con ac s wi hin he schola ly communi y, bu signi ican p og ess has
also been made in ecen yea s in Bal ic and Old P ussian philology. One could
e en go so a as o speak o a o al e olu ion in ou app oach o he Old P us-
sian language. This comple e o e u ning is due o he eme gence o new gene-
a ions o schola s who ha e p o oundly enewed ou knowledge o Old P us-
sian (Vladimi N. Topo o , Wojciech Smoczyński, Vy au as Mažiulis, F ede ik
Ko land , Pie o Umbe o Dini) and o he publica ion o epoch making books
such as P usskij Jazyk (V. N. Topo o , 1975–1990), P ūsų kalbos e imologijos žo-
dynas (V. Mažiulis, 1988–1997) and Lexicon de al p eussischen Ve ben (W. Smo-
czyński, 2007). These S udies in Old P ussian a e he ou come o his ime o
emendous uphea al and in end o look back o i s his o ical achie emen s.
W i ing a c i ical e iew o he li e a u e implies he possession o wo qua-
li ies. Fi s , i is necessa y o main ain su icien dis ance om one’s own he-
o ies in o de o be able o assess he di e gen iews o o he s objec i ely; no-
hing would be wo se han judging he con ibu ion o o he schola s h ough
he na ow p ism o one’s op ions, which could esul in a de as a ing soliloquy.
A i s glance on WS’s new book shows ha his is no he case: in he discus-
sion abou he li e a u e, WS always b ings a balanced judgemen and e e s o
he wo ks o his colleagues wi h elegance and hones y. E en when he disag e-
es wi h he iews endo sed by o he schola s, he does no mis ep esen o dis-
miss hem ou igh . This is he igh way o do science, as a espec ul dialogue
be ween people wo king on he same issues wi h di e en backg ounds. The
second quali y is comple eness and accu acy. Conside ing he huge numbe o
s udies on Old P ussian, his is a pa icula ly c i ical challenge and one canno
expec any e iewe o know e e y hing ha was w i en on Old P ussian. Bu
WS has made a p aisewo hy e o o cap u e he ull di e si y o hough and
opinion abou he Old P ussian language, and he pic u e ha eme ges om
his book gi es a ue and ai iew o he s udies in Old P ussian du ing he
pe iod conside ed.
William R. Schmals ieg. S udies In Old P ussian
Recenzijos / Re iews 265
The book is di ided in o 11 chap e s, co e ing all a eas o he Old P us-
sian language, om i s documen a ion o he analysis o i s g amma . Chap-
e 1 (p. 31–32) is a e y b ie in oduc ion summa ising he scope o he book.
Chap e 2 (p. 33–45) deals wi h he Old P ussian edi ions, wo o hem ha ing
been published du ing he pe iod co e ed by he book, V. Mažiulis’ e e en-
ce edi ion o he Old P ussian co pus in wo olumes (1966 and 1981) and he
acsimile o he Fi s Ca echism published in 1995 by Boni acas S undžia and
Mikelis Klusis (Pi moji P ūsų knyga). A philological edi ion seeks o ep oduce
as ai h ully as possible he ex as i is gi en in he o iginal publica ion, ide-
ally h ough a acsimile; i canno go beyond he w i en wo d. A phone ic
in e p e a ion is ano he ma e , which was unde aken by di e en schola s,
especially M. Klusis (Pon o-Bal ica, 6, 1995) o he Fi s Ca echism, Toshika-
zu Inoue (No malizacija p usskogo jazyka Enxi idiona, Kobe, 1992) o he Thi d
Ca hechism o Ko land ’s elec onic edi ion (1996) o he en i e co pus.
Chap e 3 (p. 43–122) is de o ed o Old P ussian o hog aphy and phonolo-
gy. This is an a ea abou which much has been w i en be ween 1975 and 2005.
As is well known, WS’s posi ion on Old P ussian o hog aphy is ha i would be
su p ising o ind a high deg ee o accu acy ‘in phone ic endi ion om a Ge -
man pas o ’ (p. 48). He he e o e in i es o be suspicious o ‘wha seems o me
o be an excessi e eliance on he o hog aphy’. A he o he end o he chain,
W. Smoczyński has a emp ed o p opose a global sys em o Old P ussian o -
hog aphy, elying on w i ing habi s and sc ip e o s. The use o he mac on,
o example (p. 53–57), is assessed di e en ly depending on one’s philosophy
abou Old P ussian o hog aphy: e a ic diac i ic o he ones wi h di e en a-
lues, egula no a ion o leng h and oneme, o some imes abb e ia ion o nasal
diph hongs, o he o he s. In any case, as shown by Inoue (c . p. 65), a majo i y
o wo ds encoun e ed in he Enchi idion displays ‘allog aphically al e na ing
o ms’, which sugges s cau ion wi h espec o he accu acy o he Old P ussian
o hog aphy. In my opinion, WS’s iews on his ma e , ecognising ha ‘ he e
we e nume ous de ia ions’ (p. 67), a e ully jus i iable, e en i I hink ha a
ypology o Old P ussian o hog aphy is a ask ha can be achie ed, albei im-
pe ec ly. Needless o say, ‘OP . ex s o e oo limi ed a co pus o meaning ul
s a is ical in e p e a ion’ (p. 72). On some issues WS has pe sonal iews, which
a e no sha ed by he majo i y o schola s, o example on he PIE wo d- inal
monoph hongisa ion o *-on o *-ō in some sandhi posi ions (c . p. 84–85), bu
he p esen s hese iews wi h he necessa y c i ical pe spec i e. The e is also a
good discussion on F. Ko land ’s claim ha ‘double consonan s in OP . may be
an indica ion o s ess on he ollowing owel’ (p. 95), elying on examples such
as semmē ‘ea h’, weddē ‘b ough , led’, billī ‘ o say’; WS ejec s his iew and
adhe es o he adi ional analysis o double w i ing as indica i e o he b e i y
DANIEL PETIT
266 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXII
o he p eceding owel. The e ollows an excellen discussion on sc ibal mis a-
kes and he ex en o which he ex should be emenda ed (p. 109sq.).
Chap e 4 (p. 123–203) is on mo phology and desc ibes bo h nominal
and e bal mo phology. P ac ically all he di icul ques ions o Old P ussian
mo phology a e discussed, and he pic u e is su icien ly de ailed o p o i-
de a good o e iew o he p oblema ics cu en ly discussed in Old P ussian
philology: he hapax legomenon poklausīmanas ‘hea d’, o en o e exploi ed in
Indo-Eu opean econs uc ion as a es ige o a pa icipial o ma ion *-menos
(p. 125 and 176); he unexplained declension o he de ini e a icle, o exam-
ple in he geni i e s eison (p. 130–133); he s uc u e o he pe sonal p onouns
(p. 153–154); he p e e i e ending - s (p. 165); he p e e i e o he e b ‘ o be’,
be ‘was’ (p. 169); he a e o he neu e gende (p. 182–184 and 200–201); s em
ablau (p. 196–198), e c.
The nex chap e (ch. 5, p. 206–290) is de o ed o ocabula y. I consis s
essen ially in a discussion o he o igin o indi idual Old P ussian lexemes
and can be seen as a bibliog aphical addendum o an Old P ussian e ymologi-
cal dic iona y. Many o hem a e compounds, such as paus ocaica ‘wild ho se’
(p. 205), medenix au w’ ‘pheasan ’ (p. 207), e c. Many new e ymologies ha e
been p oposed especially by W. Smoczyński in his nume ous wo ks on Old
P ussian. Some imes, WS adds his own opinion, o example on OP . accodis
‘hole in he wall o he elimina ion o smoke’ (p. 245). A lis o lexical isoglos-
ses sha ed by Old P ussian and Li huanian, based on a pape by Ademollo Ga-
gliano, is also discussed a leng h (p. 281–286). The da a a e p esen ed in a a-
he agmen ed way, each lexeme being discussed sepa a ely; he Old P ussian
wo ds a e no classi ied in alphabe ic o de , bu acco ding o hei ea men in
he li e a u e. This is no eally an obs acle o eading, bu i is ue ha a wo d
index would ha e been e y use ul o guiding he eade s.
Chap e 6 (p. 291–325) deals wi h syn ax. As is well known, he majo p o-
blem wi h he Old P ussian syn ax is he ex eme dependency on he Ge man
o iginal ex and he issue o linguis ic in e e ence, which, in he case o Old
P ussian, akes adical o ms. This is p obably he eason why Old P ussian
syn ax was less conside ably s udied han he o he a eas o g amma . Tha
he e is a massi e Ge man in luence on Old P ussian is undispu able, bu his
in luence should be dis inguished in o di e en le els, anging om he Ge -
manisa ion o he Old P ussian language (linguis ic con ac ) o he mo e o less
a i icial o ms o ex ual in e e ence due o he wo d- o -wo d ansla ion p o-
cess (philological con ac ), which is a di e en hing. To hese wo le els one
could also add he impac o he ansla ion p ocess i sel , leading he ansla-
o in some cases o cons uc ules and guiding c i e ia o his own o ien a-
ion. The quali ica ion o a gi en phenomenon as due o linguis ic con ac , o
William R. Schmals ieg. S udies In Old P ussian
Recenzijos / Re iews 267
philological con ac o o he cons uc ion o ansla ion ules is a pa icula ly
di icul ask. Fo example, he p esence o a de ini e a icle in Old P ussian
(OP . s as, c . p. 291–297 and 308–312) could ei he e lec a con ac -induced
ea u e o Old P ussian as a s ongly Ge manised language o i could illus a-
e he epea ed p essu e o he Ge man subs a e ex ; i is equally likely ha
he ansla o , once ha ing iden i ied he Ge man-P ussian co espondence (de
/ s as), used i consciously as pa o his ansla ion g amma . The no ion o
‘ ansla ion g amma ’ is pa icula ly sui ed o he desc ip ion o he Old P us-
sian co pus; i implies he cons uc ion and memo isa ion o ules. A pa icu-
la ly p omising line o esea ch has been in he ecen decades a compa ison o
di e en ansla ions made in he Bal ic languages: he Old P ussian ansla i-
ons mus be seen in he ligh o o he ansla ions da ing om he same ime
(Old Li huanian and Old La ian).
The nex chap e (ch. 7, p. 327–375) p esen s he ‘sho e Old P ussian ex s’,
some o hem ha ing come o ligh du ing he pe iod conside ed. The Basel
Epig am (p. 327–335), disco e ed in he 1970s, is a pa icula ly in iguing ex ,
whose in e p e a ion is s ill con o e sial. WS hen comes o discuss a leng h
(p. 338–375) he so-called ‘Ja ingian glossa y’ (Pogańske gwa y z Na ewu ‘Pa-
gan dialec s om Na ew’), disco e ed (and los ) in 1985 by a ce ain Vjačesla
Zino and published in 1985 by Zigmas Zinke ičius. The e has been much de-
ba e on he language o his glossa y; i is ob iously Bal ic, bu canno be iden-
i ied wi h any known Bal ic language. The pa adox wi h his ex is ha i is a
unique sou ce and ye ga e ise o ela i ely ew s udies, as hough he e was a
kind o eluc ance o in es iga e i . This can be due, o cou se, o he oubled
his o y o he manusc ip . An iconoclas ic ques ion ha is ne e asked is whe-
he V. Zino ’s glossa y could be a ake a he han an au hen ic documen ; in
o de o dispel his suspicion, i would be necessa y o ha e access o V. Zino ’s
no ebook, o ind and in e iew V. Zino himsel and o collec as much da a
as possible on he ma e ial ansmission o he ex .
Chap e 8, dealing wi h he Old P ussian e i al (p. 377–381), is e y sho .
I desc ibes he a emp s o ec ea e Mode n P ussian as a li ing language,
pa icula ly by Le as Palmai is. WS’s judgemen on his ma e is c i ical, bu
well-meaning (p. 378): ‘In my iew his is a ascina ing in ellec ual exe cise, al-
hough I doub ha Mode n P ussian will e e become a iable language. […]
One can, howe e , only wish hose who wish o ec ea e a Mode n P ussian,
success.’
Place names a e discussed in Chap e 9 (p. 383–416). Toponymy is one o
he mos p omising ields o esea ch in Old P ussian s udies, since i can ad-
duce new ma e ial o he limi ed w i en co pus and widen ou knowledge o
he Old P ussian ocabula y. In addi ion, place names ha e hei own in e nal

DANIEL PETIT
268 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXII
logic and hei in es iga ion is a discipline in i sel . The same can be said abou
pe sonal names (ch. 10, p. 417–423).
The inal Chap e (ch. 11, p. 425–442) expands he ield o ision by p esen-
ing he ela ionships o Old P ussian wi h o he languages. The posi ion o Old
P ussian wi hin Bal ic is di icul , no only owing o i s nume ous di e gences
om Eas Bal ic, bu also o ou incapaci y o econs uc Common Bal ic as
he ances o o bo h Wes and Eas Bal ic.
This is a e y nice book, bo h well-w i en and eade - iendly, gi ing a
good o e iew o he i ali y o Old P ussian s udies in he ecen decades.
W. R. Schmals ieg is o be cong a ula ed o his e y use ul ool, which c owns
his c ea i e ca ee , does jus ice o he scien i ic p oduc ion o his colleagues and
pa es he way o u u e esea ch on Old P ussian.
Handed in on 28 May 2015.
DANIEL PETIT
École no male supé ieu e
45, ue d’Ulm, 75005 Pa is, F ance
daniel.pe i @ens.