Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius?

BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: the history of lexicography in Lithuania Minor; the history of the Lithuanian written language. WAS FRIEDRICH WILHELM HAACK THE AUTHOR OF THE SO-CALLED PRAGUE MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY?1 Is Friedrich Wilhelm Haack the Author of the So-Called Prague Manuscript Dictionary?2 ABSTRACT The article analyzes the question of authorship of the so-called Prague manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary (first half of the eighteenth century), which Ilja Lemeškin discovered a few years ago in the National Library of the Czech Republic (NK ČR: XVI.F.30). The aim of the article is to establish whether the lexicographer and Evangelical Lutheran pastor in Lithuania Minor Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754) could have been the author of this dictionary. The provenance inscribed at the beginning of the manuscript, which states “Auctor Hacke,” allows such a hypothesis to be advanced. 1 The article was prepared as part of the project A study and preparation for publication of the manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (early eighteenth century) (supervisor Prof. Dr. Grasilda Blažienė), included in the programme Standardization, Use, Development and Dissemination of the State Language, 2006–2015 The study was supported by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Agreement No. K-4/2012). 2 The article is written under the framework of the project The Research and Editing of the Manuscript German-Lithuanian Dictionary Attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (Beginning of the 18th Century) (supervisor Prof. Dr. Grasilda Blažienė) under the programme of Standardisation, Use, Development and Dissemination of State Language in the Period of 2006–2015. The research was sponsored by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (Contract No. K-4/2012). KEYWORDS: lexicography of Lithuania Minor, Prague manuscript dictionary, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, authorship. KEYWORDS: lexicography of Lithuania Minor, the Prague manuscript Dictionary, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, authorship. 292 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Is Friedrich Wilhelm Haack the author of the so-called Prague manuscript dictionary? To answer the question raised above, the article considers whether “Hacke,” mentioned in the manuscript’s donation entry, can be identified with Friedrich Wilhelm Haack. It also discusses the nature of the dictionary text and briefly reviews its relationship to other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionaries from Lithuania Minor. Drawing on Haack’s autographs found in German archives, it compares his handwriting with that of the Prague dictionary’s copyist. ANNOTATION The issue of authorship of the so-called Prague manuscript German-Lithuanian Dictionary (first half of the 18th century) which was found by Ilya Lemeshkin in the National Library of the Czech Republic few years ago (NK ČR: XVI.F.30) is analysed in the article. The aim of the article is to investigate if the lexicographer and Evangelical Lutheran priest of Lithuania Minor Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754) could be the author of the dictionary. Such an assumption is preconditioned due to the provenience at the beginning of the manuscript which states ‘Auctor Hacke’. In order to answer this question the article discusses if the ‘Hacke’ mentioned in the donation inscription could be identified with Friedrich Wilhelm Haack; also the character of dictionary text is examined and the relation to other manuscript German-Lithuanian dictionaries of Lithuania Minor is briefly reviewed; based on Haack’s autographs found in German archives his handwriting is compared to the handwriting of the rewriter of the Prague Dictionary. 1. INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2010, habil. dr. Ilja Lemeškin, associate professor at Charles University in Prague, found a manuscript—a German–Lithuanian dictionary (Národní knihovna České republiky [NK ČR]: XVI.F.30; hereafter P)3—at the National Library of the Czech Republic. It makes a substantial contribution to the heritage of manuscript lexicography in Lithuania Minor. This r-alphabetical dictionary expands the group of manuscript bilingual dictionaries from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that have come down to us. The Prague German–Lithuanian dictionary (P 2r–344v), which is accompanied by a brief etymological study—or, more precisely, only its beginnings (P 345r)—has no title page. As the manuscript’s binding shows, it probably never had one, and its first page is a page of dictionary text. Thus, there is no authentic information about the author (compiler or copyist), the time and place of its creation, or, still less, the sources of the text. Like any anonymous source, this manuscript, which has only recently come to researchers’ attention, therefore first prompts questions of attribution—authorship, dating, and localization. Some questions concerning the attribution of P have already been partly answered. Lemeškin’s analysis of the paper used in the manuscript indicates that the German–Lithuanian dictionary was newly— 3 For more on the archeographic description of this lexicographic source, the circumstances of its discovery, and its place in nineteenth-century Czech Lithuanian studies, see Lemeškin 2012: 31–57. Straipsniai / Articles 293 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ The paper used is watermarked with two designs and can be dated to 1683 and 1712. The paper of Part P, devoted to etymological study, as the third watermark shows, began to be manufactured in 1701 (Lemeškin 2012: 52–53). Thus, 1712 is the indisputable terminus post quem for this manuscript. It is generally thought that P may have originated in the third or fourth decade of the eighteenth century (Lemeškin 2012: 31; Lemeškin 2013: 269). Nevertheless, the precise place of P in the chronological sequence of surviving eighteenth-century manuscript dictionaries from Lithuania Minor remains to be established. Identification of the fourth watermark might help refine its dating. Before arriving in Prague, and earlier in Vienna, the manuscript spent some time in Halle (see below), but P was probably prepared not there but in East Prussia, since it was written on paper from the workshops of Finken and Trutnova, active there in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Lemeškin 2012: 52–53; Lemeškin 2013: 278). When considering the question of this dictionary’s authorship, the starting point should be the first provenance note at the beginning of the manuscript, on the flyleaf—more precisely, the donation inscription (see also Fig. 1): Auctor Hacke. ‖ War Prediger in Lithauen. Hat ‖ zu Halle studirt. Seine Sprach=‖lehre soll auf4 dem Waißenhause ‖ gedruckt seÿn. Dono dedit ‖ {I. / D.}5 Baumgarten. (P 1r) Translation The author Hacke. He was a preacher in Lithuania. He studied in Halle. His grammar textbook is said to have been published at the Orphanage. Donated by {I. / D.} Baumgarten. Most likely, the donor who gave the manuscript to an unidentified person can be identified as the renowned eighteenth-century professor of theology at the University of Halle, Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (1706–1757)6 (Lemeškin 2012: 54), whose personal library also contained Lithuanian books (Kaunas 1996: 188), although it remains unclear whether the inscription was written in his own hand (Lemeškin 2013: 277). In any case, Baumgarten must have been one of the manuscript’s first owners. As the donation inscription shows, the person named as the author of P is identified by the surname “Hacke.” This surname is also written on the manuscript’s spine: “Hacke ‖ Lexicon Lithuan=‖cum”. This raises the question of the relationship between this manuscript and Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754), known in the history of Lithuanian lexicography. 4 It is likely that this word in the inscription should be read as auf. Nevertheless, the shape of the final letter does not entirely rule out the possibility that the preposition auß is written here. 5 Curly braces { } are used here and below to indicate letters that are difficult to decipher. In this case, two readings of the letter are possible: I or D (for possible interpretations, see Lemeškin 2012: 55; Lemeškin 2013: 277). 6 For more on her, see the article by Prof. Dr. Grasilda Blažienė in this volume of Acta Linguistica Lithuanica. 294 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? 1 FIG. P 1r: dictionary manuscript donation entry; Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky: XVI.F.30 Ar Hakas galėjo būti P autorius? Šis klausimas jau keltas (Lemeškin 2012: 55, 57; Lemeškin 2013: 277), bet išsamiau tema neanalizuota, tad įtikinamai argumentuoto atsakymo kol kas nėra. Šio straipsnio tikslas – nustatyti, ar vadinamojo Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodyno autorystė7 gali būti priskirta Frydrichui Vilhelmui Hakui. Todėl svarbu: 1) išsiaiškinti, ar donacijos įraše minimas „Hacke“ iš tikrųjų identifikuotinas su Frydrichu Vilhelmu Haku (žr. 2 sk.); 2) aptarti žodyno teksto pobūdį (žr. 3.1 sk.) ir trumpai apžvelgti santykį su kitais XVII–XVIII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos rankraštiniais žodynais (žr. 3.2 sk.); 3) atlikti žodyno bei Hako autografų rašysenos analizę (žr. 4 sk.). 2. AN OVERVIEW OF FRIEDRICH WILHELM HACK’S BIOGRAPHY Friedrich Wilhelm Hack was born on April 8, 17078 in Kretingalė (Klaipėda district). His father was the Evangelical Lutheran pastor Erdman Hack (?–1731), one of the revisers of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism translation (LyK 145; 7 In what follows, references to the authorship of P will mean only the German–Lithuanian dictionary recorded in the manuscript; that is, the authorship inquiry does not include the etymological study begun at the end of the manuscript. 8 Hack is generally said to have been born in 1706, but the exact date written in his own hand in the documents of the University of Halle—April 8, 1707 (Haack [after 1728-09-02], Haack [1730-07-12 or later])—shows that he was actually born a year later (see Fig. 5). Straipsniai / Articles 295 B I R U T Ė T R I Š K A I T Ė Brž II 67). At the age of seventeen, on September 6, 1724, Hack matriculated at the University of Königsberg (“1724 [...] 6. Septembris Haack Ffdr. Wilh., Memel. Pruss.”; Erler 1911/1912: 322), where he studied theology for three years. Here he probably distinguished himself as an excellent speaker of Lithuanian, since he was entrusted with proofreading the 1727 New Testament, published under the auspices of Johann Jacob Quandt (1686–1772), professor of theology at the University of Königsberg and inspector of its Lithuanian Language Seminar9. It was therefore probably no coincidence that this edition of the New Testament later became the main source for the dictionary compiled by Hack. At the end of 1727, Hack went to Halle, the center of Pietist ideas, to continue his studies. He matriculated at the University of Halle on December 17, 172710, and attended the Lithuanian Language Seminar11, recently established there and headed by Gotthilf August Francke (1696–1769), the son of the renowned August Hermann Francke. Soon Hack himself began teaching Lithuanian alongside the seminar’s first lecturer, Johann Richter (1705–1754). After Richter returned to East Prussia, Hack served as the seminar’s lecturer for four years, until April 1732. Halle saw the most creative and productive years of Hack’s life. Together with the seminar’s students, he translated and published the treatise Ordnung des Heyls (Davadnas mokslas apie dūšios išganymą, Halle, 1729; Francke 1730-11-17: 2v) by the famous Halle Pietist Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen. It is known that further Pietist works were translated at the seminar at that time: Freylinghausen’s Compendium Theologiae (Trumpas teologijos mokslas) and August Hermann Francke’s Die Lehre vom Anfang des Christlichen Lebens (Mokslas apie krikščioniškojo gyvenimo pradžią), although no information has yet been found about what became of these translations (Aleknavičienė, Schiller 2002: 60, 64). Although Hack is not directly identified as the translator of these works, his contribution is beyond doubt. Hack’s most important creative legacy, however, is the Lithuanian–German and German–Lithuanian dictionary that appeared at the end of 1730, Vocabularium Litthvanico-Germanicum, et Germanico-Litthvanicum (hereafter HŽ)12. In the history of Lithuanian writing, it 9 Hack’s proofreading of the Lithuanian New Testament published in Königsberg in 1727 is mentioned by Johann Arnold Pauli, chief pastor of the Klaipėda ecclesiastical district (German Erzpriester), in a letter sent on 1727-09-10 from Klaipėda to Gotthilf August Francke in Halle (Pauli 1727-09-10; for the publication, see Winter 1954: 200–201). 10 This is attested by Hack’s entry in the University of Halle matriculation register (Haack 1727-12-17; Juntke 1960: 195; see Fig. 4). 11 The Lithuanian Language Seminar in Halle operated from 1727 to 1740 (Specht 1935: 36; Schiller 1994: 195). 12 Johann Arnold Pauli refers to the preparation of this dictionary in a letter sent on 1728-01-07 from Klaipėda to Gotthilf August Francke in Halle (Pauli 1728-01-07; for the publication, see Winter 1954: 201–203). 296 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? was destined to become the first printed parallel dictionary with Lithuanian as the headword language, that is, the first to present Lithuanian words in lemma positions13. The somewhat smaller German–Lithuanian section, whose microstructure is elementary, served rather as an index enabling readers to find a Lithuanian word in the first section (Drotvinas 1998: 86). The brief German-language grammar of Lithuanian appended to the dictionary was essentially based on Daniel Klein’s Grammatica Litvanica (1653) and Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum (1654) (Buchienė, Palionis 1957: 42–43; Zubaitienė 2012: 122), but Haack was an original lexicographer. In compiling his dictionary, he did not rely on the manuscript dictionaries prepared in Lithuania Minor as early as the seventeenth century, which had been circulating in copies for nearly a century and were known to him (one copy, made by his colleague Richter, was used for a time in the seminary as a teaching aid14); instead, he took an entirely different approach, compiling it with the aid of the latest translations of the New Testament (1727) and the Psalter (1728) into Lithuanian15. Thus, unlike the manuscript dictionaries compiled earlier, Haack’s dictionary essentially records only the vocabulary of these biblical books. This choice of sources was most likely guided by the intended audience—a theology student and translator of religious texts. In other words, Haack sought to compile a dictionary suited to the needs of the time, one useful both for teaching and learning Lithuanian among theology students and for the increasingly active translation of religious texts into Lithuanian16. In the spring of 1732, King Friedrich Wilhelm I (Friedrich Wilhelm I, 1688–1740) appointed Haack to accompany the Salzburgers migrating to East Prussia. As archival sources attest, Francke deeply regretted losing the docent at the seminary under his supervision and even asked the king for permission for Haack to return (Francke 1732-05-01). 13 It is possible that manuscript dictionaries with Lithuanian as the headword language had existed earlier. 14 This is the so-called Richter dictionary, still preserved in the archive of Francke’s Foundations in Halle (AFSt: J 84; see section 3.2). At the beginning of the manuscript are additions in Haack’s hand (Schiller 2009: 126), which may have been entered between 1728-06-18, when the dictionary was finished being copied, and April 1732, when Haack left Halle. 15 The sources of Haack’s dictionary—the 1727 New Testament and the 1728 Psalter—are identified both on its title page and in the preface written by Francke: “Darin alle im ‖ Neuen Teſtament und Pſalter ‖ befindliche Wörter nach dem Alpha=‖beth enthalten ſind” (HŽ 1r); “ein kleines ‖ Vocabel-Buch / darin die Wörter aus ‖ dem Neuen Teſtament und Pſalter / ſo ‖ ſie in Händen haben / enthalten wären” (Francke 1730-11-17: 3r). The latest research on this dictionary does not confirm that Haack used any other sources (see Zubaitienė 2012: 35–36, 122). 16 At that time, religious texts were actively being translated into Lithuanian at two academic institutions: at the University of Königsberg under Quandt’s direction and at the University of Halle under Francke’s. Although the principal aim of the Lithuanian Language Seminar established at each university was to prepare future Evangelical Lutheran pastors and teachers to work in the Lithuanian-speaking parishes of East Prussia, their directors, with the help of the seminar’s most proficient Lithuanian speakers, pursued additional aims as well: preparing educational literature and the missing translations of religious texts into Lithuanian. Straipsniai / Articles 297 B I R U T Ė T R I Š K A I T Ė Although permission was granted17, it did not reach Haack18. On his way to his homeland, in Berlin, Haack was ordained as a preacher to the emigrating Salzburgers. After returning to East Prussia, Haack was appointed deacon in Gumbinnen by royal rescript dated February 7, 173319. He also served as pastor at the new church in Gervishken (Gumbinnen district)20. Soon afterward, at the end of 1733, probably because of disagreements with Christoph Geystadt, the pastor of Gumbinnen, he was transferred to Pillkallen (Pillkallen district), where he served as pastor until the end of his life, on November 19, 1754 (Quandt 4 14v, 17r, 85v; Arnoldt 1777: 111, 129; Moeller 1968: 50, 110). Thus, this brief overview of Haack’s biography leaves no doubt that he is indeed to be identified with “Hacke,” mentioned in the donation entry. As stated there, Haack studied in Halle, published a grammar there (together with a dictionary), and, after returning to his homeland, served as a pastor in the Lithuanian-speaking parishes of East Prussia until the last days of his life (cf. Table 1). 1 T A B L E. Facts mentioned in Friedrich Wilhelm Haack’s biography and in the donation entry in P (1r) Facts mentioned in the donation entry in P Biographical facts about Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707-04-08–1754-11-19) Author Hacke. || He signed his name: Haack, Friederich Wilhelm, Haack, Friedericus Wilhelmus, Haack, Friedericus Gvilielmus; other forms of his surname: Haacke, Haak War Prediger in Lithauen. Deacon of Gumbinnen (1733) Pastor of Gervishken (1733) Pastor of Pillkallen (1733–1754) Has || studied at Halle. Theological studies at the University of Halle and teaching at the Lithuanian Language Seminar there (1727–1732) His language=||teaching is said to have been printed at the Orphanage. Vocabularivm Litthvanico-Germanicvm, et Germanico-Litthvanicvm [...] Nebſt einem Anhang einer kurtzgefaßten Litthauiſchen Grammatic (1730, Halle, Stephanus Orban) It is only an inaccurate conjecture that Hacke’s grammar, published together with the dictionary, must have been printed at the Orphanage (German Waisenhaus): “Seine Sprach=||lehre 17 This conclusion was drawn from Gotthilf August Francke’s letter of 1732–05–13 to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, in which he thanks him for permission for Hacke to return to Halle for half a year (Francke 1732–05–13). 18 This is stated in Hacke’s letter to Gotthilf August Francke, written from Stettin on 1732–05–19, after the king had granted permission to return to Halle (Haack 1732–05–19; for the publication, see Drotvinas 2001: 179–186). 19 This document is cited in Hacke’s letter of 1733–06–22 to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, from Königsberg to Berlin (?) (Haack 1733–06–22: 1r; see Fig. 7). 20 An Evangelical Lutheran church was built in Gerviškėnai in 1730. From 1733 to 1746, deacons from Gumbinnen served as pastors here (Moeller 1968: 42). 298 A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a L X X I Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? “is to be printed at the Orphanage ||” (P 1r). Although the Orphanage had a printing press, Hako’s Vocabolarium, as stated on its title page, was published at the press of Stephanus Orban, which operated at the University of Halle: “HALLE, || Druckts Stephanus Orban, Univerſ. Buchdr.” (HŽ 1r). The different spellings of the surname can be explained by the fact that its forms varied. Although Hakas himself, as can be inferred from his surviving autographs (see section 4), spelled his surname Haack (Haack 1727-12-17; Haack 1732-05-03; Haack 1732-05-19; Haack 1733-06-22), his father signed the Small Catechism as Haak21. Pauli and Quandt also spelled Hakas’s surname this way (Pauli 1727-09-10; Pauli 1728-01-07; Quandt 4 14v, 17r, 85v). Francke spelled it Haack (Francke 1730-11-17; Francke 1732-05-13). In archival documents, in addition to Haack and Haak, another form of Hakas’s surname was noted: Haacke (Friedrich Wilhelm I 1733-10-01a; Friedrich Wilhelm I 1733-10-01b). In general, this surname has had and continues to have various orthographic variants; compare: Haack, Haacke, Haak, Haake, Hack, Hacke, Hacken, Hak, Hake, Haken, Hakius (see the matriculation registers of the Universities of Königsberg and Halle [Erler 1917: 154–155, 157; Juntke 1960: 194]; see also Falkenhahn 1964: 256–257; Kohlheim, Kohlheim 2005: 300–301, 304). Next, it is necessary to determine whether the information provided in P’s donation entry—that Hakas is the author of this manuscript dictionary—is accurate. 3. THE SO-CALLED PRAGUE DICTIONARY—A COPY OF AN EARLIER MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY FROM LITHUANIA MINOR When analyzing the authorship of any text, it is important to establish its nature: whether it is an original, authentic text, that is, an autograph, or a copy. 3.1. Signs that P Is a Copy The physical features of the text—corrections caused by parablepsis or dittography22—indicate that the German–Lithuanian dictionary text recorded in P is not an original, but was copied from an earlier source. When reading the protograph and copying its text, the copyist’s gaze may sometimes leap forward to a later passage or return to one already read because of identical or similar words, morphemes, or phrases, 21 Compare: “Erdmann Haak Pfarrer in Deutſch Crottingen d[en] 18 Octob[e]r 1719” (LyK 145). 22 Apie nuorašams būdingas teksto ypatybes žr. Subačius 2001: 294–313. Straipsniai / Articles 299 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ thus either a subsequent fragment or one already copied is recopied. Both cases occur in P, and they are usually corrected. More common in P is parablepsis, in which, while copying the text, the copyist’s gaze skipped ahead and, because the beginnings of the words coincided, he copied a passage from a subsequent dictionary entry. On noticing this, he corrected it by scraping away the wrongly entered words or writing the required ones over them. For example, because the beginnings of the lines coincided (the so-called homoearktono), more precisely, because the first elements of adjacent headwords—compounds—were identical, Laβ-, the dictionary copyist, instead of entering Laβeifen, copied Laβdünckel, which in the protograph appeared one line below. On noticing the mistake, he corrected it by scraping away the compound’s second element, -dünckel, and entering -eifen in its place; cf.: P 156r Laβeifen [2]23 «←Laβdünckel»24 – Kirftuwas Kerteklis Laβdünckel [1] And here, next to the headword Bratβfan, the equivalent Giełźmas of the following headword, Bratβpieβ, was initially copied, but was later scraped away and the correct one entered in its place—Skauradą; cf.: P 44v Bratβfan – Skauradą «←Giełźmas» Bratβpieβ – Giełźmas A similar thing happened with the headword Churfürſt[ich]: here the equivalent Ercikene of the headword Churfürſtin, which appeared next, one line below, was entered immediately; later, after the error was noticed, it was corrected to Ercikįźkas (-įź- written over -ene); cf.: 23 Numbers entered above the line in the dictionary are enclosed in []. They indicate that, having already corrected the text against the protograph, the copyist noticed that the alphabetical order of the words still needed adjustment; he therefore numbered the headwords, thereby showing which dictionary entry should follow which. 24 Here and below, textual comments are given in angle brackets ‹ ›; the arrow ← indicates what the correction was made from. 300 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Is Friedrich Wilhelm Hack the author of the so-called Prague manuscript dictionary? P 50v Churfürltl[ich] – Elector[al] «←Ercikene» Churfürltin – Electress Much rarer are cases of dittography in P, when, while copying the text, the dictionary scribe’s gaze returned to a fragment of the protograph that had already been copied; that is, the scribe repeated words that had already been transcribed. For example, before the lemma Kindlich, the equivalent of the already copied lemma Kindifch, Waikifzkas, was initially entered; then, after y was written over s, it was corrected to Waikifzkay, cf.: P 144v Kindich – Waikifzkas Kindich will be P 145r Kindlich – Waikifzkay «←Waikifzkas» In addition to these, the dictionary also contains other errors which, it seems, were likewise made by the copyist of P, rather than being present in the protograph before him and copied blindly from it. The following cases and examples are worth noting: a) misreading of characters in the text being copied, e.g.: P 81v Brother-in-law – Zentą Prolis «corr. Brolis» P 256v Stepchildren – Awaikei «corr. Pawaikei» P 305v Foothill – Anikalnes «corr. Antkalnes» b) incorrect determination of the boundaries of words being copied, when two words are treated as one or one word as two, e.g.: P 134v Hellhound – Peklolžū «corr. Peklos lžū» Straipsniai / Articles 301 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ P 15r Work time – Work measure «corr. Darbimette» P 173r Milk vessel – A pūd of milk «corr. Pienpūdis» The nature of these latter errors provides information about the linguistic competence of P’s copyist. They suggest that the copyist’s knowledge of Lithuanian was still rather limited. It is therefore plausible that he copied the dictionary in order to learn the language. 3.2. P and other manuscript dictionaries of Lithuania Minor A closer look at P’s macrostructure and microstructure leaves no doubt that it belongs to the family of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century German–Lithuanian manuscript dictionaries from Lithuania Minor, which, as established by Vincas Urbutis (Urbutis 1987: 59–75; Urbutis 2008: 622–623), now comprises the following manuscripts that have survived to the present day: 1) Lexicon Lithuanicum (mid-seventeenth century, LMAVB RS: F 137 – 10, hereafter Lex); 2) Clavis Germanico-Lithvana (after 1680, LMAVB RS: F 137 13–14, hereafter C); 3) the so-called Richter dictionary (1728, AFSt: J 84, hereafter R); 4) the so-called Krause dictionary (the 1730s–1740s, LLTIB R: F 1 – 5792, hereafter K). Also assigned to this dictionary family is a dictionary that disappeared during the Second World War. Until then, like Lex, C, and K, it had been kept in the Prussian State Archive in Königsberg, in the Ludwig Rhesa collection, and bore the call number “Msc. 84 4°” (hereafter Q¹, Urbutis 1987: 70–75)25. Lex, R, K, Q¹, and partly also C26 derive from the same lost lexicographical source and represent at least two distinct prototypes of varying degrees, reconstructible by comparing them: *Lex and *Q, which later developed from it27. More precisely, the Lex that has survived to the present day is the only known copy of *Lex, whereas R, K, Q¹, and partly also C are new, revised and expanded editions of *Q, based on *Lex but already substantially developed (Urbutis 1987: 75; Urbutis 2008: 622–623). The manuscript’s discoverer, Lemeškin, also noted that P is related to this family of manuscript dictionaries from Lithuania Minor (Lemeškin 2012: 31; Lemeškin 2013: 270, 271). Examples substantiating this claim are presented below. P’s genetic links with Lex, C, R, K, and Q¹ are evidenced by almost any fragment of these dictionaries (see Tables 2 and 3). 25 Fragments of this dictionary are found in the works of Kazimieras Būga, Pranas Skardžius, and others (for the publication, see Zubaitienė 2009). 26 For a fuller discussion of the lexicographical origins of C, whose genesis is more complex, and its relationship to other German–Lithuanian manuscript dictionaries from Lithuania Minor, see Urbutis 1987: 70–75; Schiller 2002: 164–169; Triškaitė 2008: 44–74; Schiller 2009: 184–196. 27 Taip šį neišlikusį žodyną žymi Urbutis (1987: 74), o Christiane Schiller (2002: 165) – *KR arba *PRK (t. y. vok. Prä-Richter / Krause). 302 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? 2 TABLE. P common entries with Lex, C, R, K P 158v Lex 58r C I 1175, 1178–1179 R 150 K 322–323 Leg Henne Wiłzta Dedanti [1]²⁸ Leg=Henne. Wißta d édanti. [1] [Read] Henne Wiłzta Dedanti. Read Heñe Wiłzta deddan-ti ←dedenti. Legehöltzer Stellinges [2] Leg=Höltzer. [2] [Read] hölt-zer Read Höltzer Stelinges. To lay. To put down. To lie down. Leg[en] Deti, guldyti, gultili. [3] To lay. Dēmi, dejau, ſu, ti. e[t] Deddu. || Gul-dau, dzau, ſu, ti. || Gullu, ejau, ſu, ti. || Lauſús [...] [3] To lay. To put down. To lie down. à Deti, Praef. Demmi. To put down{i} Legen Deti. Gulditi. Gultili. [...] [4] [...] Lehn benches Solas atloßinnis [8] Lehn=Banck. Solas atloßinnis. [4] Lehn benches Solas atl{o/e}ßinnis. Lehn bench Solas atloßinnis. Lehn Atlo{ʒas [5] Lehn. Atloßas, ô. M. [5] Lehn Atloßas. Lehn Atloßas. Lehne[n] Życziti Ankſzczoti Lehne[n] 3iczyti, Ankßczoti ←A{k}kß-czoti› [6] Lehnen. Sȝlēju, au, ſu, ti. || Sȝlējuš, jaus, ſús, tis. [...] Stengiūs, aus, ſús, tis. || Pasſirem̄u, emjau, ſu, ti. || Ȝyçȝiju, au, ſu, ti. ¬Angßȝoju, jau,⁷²⁹ ¬Lykoti.⁷³⁰ [6] To lend. Żẏcziti. Ankſzczoti. To lend Zycciti. Ankſzczoti. [7] Lender. Ȝýczielis, cȝiô. M. Lehn Gutt [9] [Lehn=]Gutt. [7] Lehn goods Lehn Gutt Lehn Herr [10] [Lehn=]Herr. [8] [Lehn] lord Lehn Herr Lehre Learning Moklas. Pamokflas. Pamokinimas Lehre Learning, sermon, instruction. [11] Lehre. Moklas, ô. M. Pamókflas, ô. M. Pamokí̄nimas [...] [9] Lehre Learning. Ser-mon. Instruc-tion. Lehre Learning. Sermon. Instruction 28 In this segment of the macrostructure, the ordering of C and R entries differs somewhat from that of P (and from Lex and K). In the table, they are presented according to the order of entries in P, while their actual arrangement in the source is indicated by the numbering in square brackets. 29 Added later by the compiler of C. Here and below, the sign ¬ marks the boundaries of the commented fragment. 30 Added later by another person. Straipsniai / Articles 303 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ P 158v Lex 58r C I 1175, 1178–1179 R 150 K 322–323 Lehren Teach Lehren Teach. [12] To teach. Mokinnu, nau, lu, ti [...] [17] Lehren Mokȳti. Lehren Teach. Lehrer Teacher Teacher Mokitojis. [13] Teacher. Mokintojis, his. M. [...] [16] Teacher Mokitojis. Teacher Mokitojis Learned Mokſlus Learned Mokslus. [14] Learned. Mokĭlingas, masculine; ga, feminine; gay. [15] [Learn]ed Mokſlus. Learned Mokſlus. Year of instruction [15] Year=of instruction [10] [Year of] instruction Year of instruction Apprentice Mokintinnis Apprentice Mokintinis [16] [Apprent=ice]. Mokintinnis,ês ‹corr. iô›. M. [11] [Lehr]ling Apprentice. Lehrling Apprentice. LehrM[ei]ft[e]r Teacher Lehrmeister Teacher. [17] [Lehr=]Meister. Apprentice. [12] [Lehr] Meister Teacher. Lehr Meister Teacher. As can be seen, the commonalities linking the dictionaries are telling: not only do the headwords—that is, the German entries—coincide, but so does the Lithuanian part of the dictionary entries: the Lithuanian equivalents or their absence, their nature (a single word or a phrase), their number, and their order of presentation (equivalents or grammatical information recorded in only one particular dictionary are to be regarded as independent results of the protograph’s development). 3TABLE. P commonalities with Lex, R, K, Q1 P 63v Lex 26v–27r R 66–67 K 138 Q1?31 Honor, sheaf Częltis. Szlowe Słową Ehre Garbe cȥeltis. Ehre Garbe. Honor. Respect. Word. Praise. Favor. Ehre Garbe. Honor. Respect. Word. Ehre Garbe. Honor. Respect. Word Ehren Garbinti. To honor. To respect. To show respect. Ehren Garbinti, to honor, to respect. Ehren Garbinti, to honor, to respect. To show respect. To treat with respect. Ehren anthun, to heap honor on someone. Ehren Garbinti. To honor. To show respect. ehren Garbinti. To honor. To praise. Ehrendieb, thief of honor Ehren=Dieb Ehrendieb, thief of honor. [no data] EhrenKrantȥ, wreath of honor Ehren Krantȥ EhrenKrantȥ, wreath of honor. [no data] Prize of honor Kietenos ‹corr. Rietenos› Ehren Preiß Rietenos. EhrenPreiß of Rietenos ‹corr. Rietenos›. Ehrenpreiss Rietenos 31 The pages are unknown. Data on Q1 are taken from: Zubaitienė 2009: 162. 304 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? A detailed analysis of P’s relationship to the surviving and reconstructed seventeenth- and eighteenth-century manuscript dictionaries of Lithuania Minor is a topic for a separate study. For now, it can only be said that the examples show that P, like R, K, Q1, is not directly related to *Lex, but is related through its redaction *Q (cf. those dictionary entries that are absent from Lex but present in C, R, K, Q1). Among the surviving dictionaries, P is closest to K (cf. the Lithuanian equivalent Stellinges for the lemma Legehöltzer in Table 2; the Lithuanian equivalents Garbes waggis for Ehrendieb, Garbes wainiks for EhrenKrantz, and the incorrectly recorded Kietenos ‹corr. Rietenos› in both dictionaries for EhrenPreiß in Table 3). Thus, textual analysis shows that P is a copy reflecting layers of at least two earlier reconstructed manuscript dictionaries: 1) *Lex (indirectly, through *Q, which developed from it, or a copy of *Q); 2) *Q (directly or indirectly, through an intermediate dictionary). Therefore, when interpreting the words “Auctor Hacke” (“Author Hacke”) in the donation inscription and discussing P’s authorship in general, it is necessary to distinguish what may have been meant and what is to be sought: the author of the text or the person who made the copy. The chosen aspect of authorship determines different chronological boundaries for the scope of the search. In the first case, that is, when seeking the author of the text recorded in this dictionary, attention should be directed to the seventeenth century—it is precisely there that the compiler of *Lex (first half of the seventeenth century) and the compiler of its substantially expanded redaction *Q (second half of the seventeenth century)32 are to be sought. Clearly, Hack, born in 1707, could not possibly have been the author of the text recorded in P, which was prepared in the seventeenth century. In the second case, that is, in answering the question of who copied an earlier text and how a new lexicographic source—the so-called Prague Dictionary—came into being, attention should focus on the first half of the eighteenth century, that is, the period when the manuscript originated. First and foremost, it should be investigated whether Hack, mentioned on the manuscript’s spine and in the donation inscription, could have been the copyist of P. The only reliable way to establish this is to compare the handwriting of the dictionary’s copyist with Hack’s handwriting. 4. HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OF THE COPYIST OF THE SO-CALLED PRAGUE DICTIONARY AND OF HACK’S HANDWRITING An analysis of the handwriting of the copyist of P and of Hack is possible because Hack’s autographs have survived. They have been found in three German archives: 1) the Archive of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Archiv der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg [UA Halle]); 32 Schiller suggests that the author of *Q may have been the pastor of Katniava, Teofilis Šulcas (Theophil Schultz, 1629–1673), who prepared Kristupas Sapūnas’s grammar for publication and published it in 1673 (Schiller 2005: 154). Straipsniai / Articles 305 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ 2) the Archives of the Francke Foundations in Halle (Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen [AFSt]; 3) the Secret State Archives of Prussian Cultural Heritage in Berlin (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz zu Berlin [GStA PK]). At least six of Hack’s autographs are currently known. These are entries in documents of the University of Halle and letters addressed to Gotthilf August Francke and the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I: 1) Hack’s entry in the Halle University matriculation registers, 17 December 1727 (UA Halle: Rep 46, Nr. 3 [Matrikel 1724–1741]; see Fig. 4); 2) Hack’s entry in the Halle University Album Alumnorum, after 2 September 1728 (AFSt: W XX/III/5; see Fig. 5)33; 3) Hack’s entry in the Halle University Album Alumnorum, on or after 12 July 1730 (AFSt: W XX/III/5); 4) Hack’s letter to Gotthilf August Francke, from Berlin to Halle, 3 May 1732 (AFSt: H C 424:1; see Fig. 6); 5) Hack’s letter to Gotthilf August Francke, from Stettin to Halle, 19 May 1732 (AFSt: M 5 C 5:14)34; 6) Hack’s letter to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, from Königsberg to Berlin (?), 22 June 1733 (GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, EM 56 e 4, Nr. 22, 1r–2v; see Fig. 7). That these documents are unquestionably Hack’s autographs is demonstrated by the shared features of their handwriting. As can be seen, these autographs date from 1727–1733, that is, from roughly the same period as P (assuming it originated in the 1730s or 1740s), and are therefore particularly suitable for handwriting comparison. Hack’s entries in the Halle University matriculation registers and Album Alumnorum were written in Latin in the early modern humanistic hand35. Hack’s three letters, by contrast, are in German, written in early modern Gothic cursive, except for an occasional word or morpheme of non-German origin, which, in keeping with the paleographic convention of the time, was written in humanistic cursive. The Prague German–Lithuanian dictionary was written by a single person, apart from some later entries. It also uses two different scripts: the German headwords are written in early modern Gothic cursive, while the Lithuanian equivalents and words of Latin or other origin appearing in the German headword list (for example, names of months and place names) are written in the humanistic hand. The text of dictionary P can be compared only with examples in the same hand from Hack’s autographs. 33 I sincerely thank Dr. (hp) Ona Aleknavičienė for the reference to this archival document. 34 Šis laiškas jau publikuotas (žr. Drotvinas 2001: 179–186). 35 It should be noted that Album Alumnorum also contains several German entries in Hack’s hand, showing that he was entrusted with keeping this register for a time (recording information about later appointments of seminar attendees, and so forth). 306 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? 2 FIG. P 19v: dictionary fragment; Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic: XVI.F.30 The analysis of the handwriting of P’s copyist and Haack was based on the methodology for handwriting analysis used by forensic handwriting experts (Michel 1982; Kurapka, Malevski, Palskys, Kuklianskis 1998). In comparing the two hands and identifying similarities or differences, attention was focused on general handwriting features and specific features, the latter being the most stable and therefore having the greatest evidentiary value (Kurapka, Malevski, Palskys, Kuklianskis 1998: 205). Straipsniai / Articles 307 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ FIG. 3. P 109v: dictionary fragment; Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic: XVI.F.30 FIG. 4. Friedrich Wilhelm Haack’s entry in the University of Halle matriculation register, 1727-12-17; Halle, Martin Luther University Archive: Rep 46, No. 3 (Matrikel 1724–1741) 308 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ In assessing the overall graphic appearance of the handwriting of P’s copyist and Haack, and comparing P’s Gothic and humanistic script passages with corresponding passages in Haack’s autographs, it appears that these are the handwriting of different people (cf. Figs. 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 7). The impression remains unchanged when attention is focused on the forms and ways of connecting individual letters and their separate elements in the respective scripts. For instance, comparing examples of Gothic cursive from the Prague dictionary and Haack’s autographs shows especially marked differences in the forms of the letters D, E, G, K, T, V, a, e, g, h, k, r and others, as well as in their methods of connection (cf. Table 436). 4 TABLE. Early Modern Gothic cursive in P and Haack’s autographs P copyist’s text Haack’s autographs Durch Ewigkeit Gnade Herr König, Könige Pfarrer Tag, Tages Father, father’s 36The table presents excerpts from P and Hake’s autographs at their actual size. 310 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? When analyzing examples of humanist script, the differences in the forms and ways of connecting the letters A, D, I, P, f, l, ſ and others are evident (cf. Table 537). 5 T A B L E. Humanist script in P and Hake’s autographs Text of the copyist of P | Hake’s autographs April, Aprill | [manuscript excerpts] December, Decembr. | [manuscript excerpts] Ianuari[us], Ianuarij | [manuscript excerpts] Professor, Profelleur | [manuscript excerpts] Thus, comparison of the handwriting shows that the features characteristic of the handwriting of the copyist of P are not reflected in Hake’s autographs, and vice versa. Therefore, Hake cannot be considered the copyist of P. This conclusion is also supported by another argument that rules out identifying Hake with the copyist of P. As already mentioned, P contains Lithuanian equivalents incorrectly copied from the protograph (because the letters were misread or word boundaries were identified incorrectly; see Section 3.1), which attest to the copyist of P’s rather limited competence in Lithuanian. It seems implausible that Hake, a proofreader of the New Testament and compiler of a Lithuanian dictionary and grammar, could have made mistakes when copying Lithuanian words, especially those forming the lexical core of the language, e.g.: Prolis «corr. Brolis» P 81v, Awaikei «corr. Pawaikei» P 256v, and so on. On the contrary, it is even reasonable to suppose that Hake would not have carried over into his copy any errors present in the protograph, but would have corrected them. Returning to the manuscript’s donation entry at the beginning, which asserts Hake’s authorship, we must conclude that it is inaccurate: Hake is neither the author of the dictionary nor its copyist. The reason for the mistake is probably that the entry was made, as Lemeškin notes (Lemeškin 2013: 277), after Hake’s death, that is, after November 19, 1754—as indicated by the use of the past tense: “Auctor Hacke. || War Prediger in Lithauen.”38 (“Author Hacke. Was a preacher in Lithuania.”). More precisely 37The table presents excerpts from P and Hake’s autographs at their actual size. 38Emphasis added in the quotation. Straipsniai / Articles 311 B I R U T Ė T R I Š K A I T Ė That is to say, the provenance in the manuscript asserting Hako’s authorship appeared more than twenty years after Hakas left Halle in the spring of 1732. Dating this provenance in this way is entirely plausible, since the manuscript’s most likely donor, Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, outlived Hakas by two and a half years (he died on July 4, 1757). Thus, if the provenance was written in Baumgarten’s hand or at his dictation, it should be dated between the end of November 1754 and the beginning of July 1757; if the entry was made by someone else, it may be even later—up to 1777, when the manuscript entered the personal library of Joseph Zlobicky, a professor at the University of Vienna39. In any case, this donation entry attests that even after a quarter of a century or more, Hako’s name was still alive in the memory of the people of Halle. In considering why Hakas in particular was named as the author of manuscript P, there is no doubt that this was connected with his active work in the Halle Lithuanian Language Seminar. As already mentioned (see section 2), Hakas was the seminar’s second lecturer, teaching theology students Lithuanian for four years (1728–1732-04). Creative work at the seminar was at its most intensive precisely during this period. Under Francke’s supervision, not only Hakas himself worked on Lithuanian writings, but, under his guidance, seminar attendees were also involved in preparing them. Persistent work bore fruit—as noted, a collective translation of Freylinghausen’s treatise was published (1729), as were Hako’s two-part dictionary and Lithuanian grammar (1730); in addition, other religious works were translated (see section 2). Understandably, the decisive role in this work fell to Hakas, who came from Lithuanian-speaking Kretingalė and had an excellent command of Lithuanian; his contribution was the greatest. When he left for his homeland in April 1732, creative activity at the seminar ceased (Schiller 1994: 198). Thus, Hakas was the lecturer who left the deepest mark on the history of the Halle Lithuanian Language Seminar. Most likely, P’s donor Baumgarten associated this manuscript book, brought to Halle probably by one of the seminar attendees, with the Vocabularium prepared by Hakas and mistook it for his manuscript. It is probably no coincidence that the donation entry also mentions the grammar, published together with Hako’s dictionary. Thus, questions of P’s authorship—who wrote the dictionary and who later copied it—remain open. Perhaps the only way to answer these questions, which are important for the history of the text and the manuscript, is to search for documentary material and analyze handwriting. Archives should therefore be searched for autographs of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century students of the universities of Königsberg and Halle, and of pastors or precentors who served in Lithuanian parishes in East Prussia, as well as for documents attesting to their Lithuanian studies, which might help solve the mystery of the authorship of this manuscript and the text recorded in it. 39 See the second provenance on the free endpaper of P: “Ex Libris Iosephi Zlobický ‖ Professoris litteraturae Bo=‖hemicæ Vienæ 1777.” (P 1r). 312 A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a L X X I Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1. Textological analysis of the Prague manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary (first half of the eighteenth century) indicates that P is a copy of an earlier manuscript dictionary from Lithuania Minor. P reflects the texts of the anonymous dictionaries *Lex and *Q, compiled in the seventeenth century. 5.2. The compilers of the German–Lithuanian dictionary text recorded in P, as in the so-called Richter (1728) and Krause (1730s–1740s) dictionaries, which is multilayered in terms of its genesis, should be sought in the seventeenth century. Therefore, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754), who lived in the first half of the eighteenth century and to whom authorship of P is attributed in one of the manuscript’s provenances, cannot be considered the author of this dictionary text. 5.3. Hakas cannot be identified as the person who made the copy of the dictionary either. This was established by comparing the handwriting of P’s copyist with Hako’s handwriting, on the basis of his autographs found in German archives. 5.4. Until the copyist of this manuscript dictionary is identified, it is appropriate to continue referring to the manuscript not by Hako’s name but by that of the city where it is now held—that is, the Prague Dictionary. SOURCES AND LITERATURE Aleknavičienė Ona, Schiller Christiane 2002: Johannes Behrendtas – Dawádno Móklo apie Dujbios Ißgánimą (1729) redaktorius, recenzentas ir maldos vertėjas. – Archivum Lithuanicum 4, 43–78. Arnoldt Daniel Heinrich 1777: D. Daniel Heinrich Arnoldts, Königlich(en) Preußischen Oberhofpredigers und Consistorialraths, kurzgefaßte Nachrichten von allen seit der Reformation an den Lutherischen Kirchen in Ostpreußen gestandenen Predigern. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Wilhelm Benefeldt, Pfarrer in Arnau, Königsberg, bey Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung. 1777. BržA II – Vaclovas Biržiška, Aleksandrynas. Biographies, bibliographies, and biobibliographies of old Lithuanian writers who wrote before 1865, 2. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Chicago: JAV LB Kultūros Fondas, 1963. Buchienė Tamara, Palionis Jonas 1957: Pirmosios spausdintos lietuvių kalbos gramatikos. – Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika. 1653 metai. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 9–63. C – CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA [after 1680]; LMAVB RS: f. 137 13–14; facsimile edition: Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. A seventeenth-century manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary 1–2, edited by Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995–1997; 3–4, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997. Straipsniai / Articles 313 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ Drotvinas Vincentas 1998: F. W. Haacko „Vocabularyrim Litthvanico-Germanicum, et Germanico–Litthvanicum“ (Halle, 1730). – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 39, 82–99. Drotvinas Vincentas 2001: Friedricho Wilhelmo Haacko laiškas Gotthilfui Augustui Franckei. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 179–186. Erler Georg 1911/1912: The matriculation registers and lists of graduates of the Albertus University of Königsberg i. Pr. 2. The matriculations of 1657–1829. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot. Erler Georg 1917: Die Matrikel der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg i. Pr. 3. Personenregister und Heimatverzeichnis. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot. Falkenhahn Viktor 1964: Zu den Anfängen der Baltistik. – Beiträge zur Geschichte der Slawistik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 256–265. Francke Gotthilf August 1730-11-17: Preface. – HŽ, 2r–3v. Francke Gotthilf August 1732-05-01: Letter to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, from Halle to Berlin; AFSt: H C 424:2. Francke Gotthilf August 1732-05-13: Letter to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, from Halle to Berlin; AFSt: M 5 C 5:28. Friedrich Wilhelm I 1733-10-01a: Decree of the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, to the chief pastor of the Ragnit church district concerning Friedrich Wilhelm Haack’s induction into the parish of Pillkallen; GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, EM 118 e 3, Nr. 72. Friedrich Wilhelm I 1733-10-01b: Decree of the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, to the Ragnit district administrator concerning Friedrich Wilhelm Haack’s induction into the parish of Pillkallen; GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, EM 118 e 3, Nr. 72. Haack Friedrich Wilhelm 1727-12-17: Entry in the University of Halle matriculation registers; UA Halle: Rep 46, Nr. 3 (Matrikel 1724–1741). Haack Friedrich Wilhelm [after 1728-09-02]: Entry in “Album Alumnorum Mensae Regiae Borusicae provincialis ex regia liberalitate adparatae inde a Cal. Ian. MDCCXXVIII”. – Ordnung und Album des königlich preußischen Provinzial-Fre unbat?; AFSt: W XX/III/5. Haack Friedrich Wilhelm [1730-07-12 or later]: Entry in “Album Alumnorum Mensae Regiae Borusicae provincialis ex regia liberalitate adparatae inde a Cal. Ian. MDCCXXVIII”. – Ordnung und Album des königlich preußischen Provinzial-Freitischs; AFSt: W XX/III/5. Haack Friedrich Wilhelm 1732-05-03: Letter to Gotthilf August Francke from Berlin to Halle; AFSt: H C 424:1. Haack Friedrich Wilhelm 1732-05-19: Letter to Gotthilf August Francke from Stettin to Halle; AFSt: M 5 C 5:14. Haack Friedrich Wilhelm 1733-06-22: Letter to the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, from Königsberg to Berlin (?); GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, EM 56 e 4, Nr. 22, 1r–2v. 314 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Ar Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas – vadinamojo Prahos rankraštinio žodyno autorius? HŽ – VOCABVLARIVM LITTHVANICO-GERMANICVM, ET GERMANICO-LITTHVANICVM, containing all the words found in the New Testament and Psalter, arranged alphabetically; together with an appendix containing a concise Lithuanian GRAMMAR. Compiled by Friederich Wilhelm Haack / S.S. Theol. Cultore, at the time a lecturer in the Lithuanian Seminary in Halle. HALLE, printed by Stephanus Orban, University printer. Juntke Fritz 1960: Matrikel der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 1. 1690–1730. Halle: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt. K – The so-called Krause manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary [1830s–1840s]; LLTIB R: f. 1 – 5792. Kaunas Domas 1996: Mažosios Lietuvos knyga. Lietuviškos knygos raida 1547–1940. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Kohlheim Rosa, Kohlheim Volker 2005: Duden Familiennamen. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag. Kurapka Egidijus, Malevski Hendryk, Palskys Eugenijus, Kuklianskis Samuelis 1998: Kriminalistikos technikos pagrindai. Vilnius: Eugrimas. Lemeškin Ilja 2012: Friedrichui Wilhelmui Haackui priskiriamas Prahos rankraštinis vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. – Mažoji Lietuva: paribio kultūros tyrimai. Kalbų ir kultūrų sankirtų archyvai 3. Vilnius: Europos kalbų ir kultūrų dialogo tyrėjų asociacija, 31–58. Lemeškin Ilja 2013: Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 269–279. Lex – LEXICON LITHUANICUM [mid-17th century]; LMAVB RS: f. 137 – 10; documentary edition: Lexicon Lithuanicum. A 17th-century manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary, prepared by Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987. LyK – [Heinrich Johann Lysius] 1993: Mažasis katekizmas, pagal Berlyno rankraštį parengė Pietro Umberto Dini. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Michel Lothar 1982: Gerichtliche Schriftvergleichung. Eine Einführung in Grundlagen, Methoden und Praxis. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Moeller Friedwald 1968: Altpreußisches evangelisches Pfarrerbuch von der Reformation bis zur Vertreibung im Jahre 1945 1. Die Kirchspiele und ihre Stellenbesetzungen. Hamburg: Selbstverlag des Vereins für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e. V. P – The so-called Prague manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary [first half of the 18th century]; NK ČR: XVI.F.30. Pauli Johann Arnold 1727-09-10: Letter to Gotthilf August Francke from Klaipėda to Halle; AFSt: H C 467:3. Straipsniai / Articles 315 BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ Pauli Johann Arnold 1728–01–07: Letter to Gotthilf August Francke from Klaipėda to Halle; AFSt: H C 467:1. Q¹ – Manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary [1830s–1840s?; lost; former shelfmark of the Prussian State Archive in Königsberg: Msc. 84 4º]. Quandt 4 – [Johann Jacob Quandt, before 1772] Preuss. Presbyterologie 4; GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, Hs. 2. R – The so-called Richter manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary, 1728; AFSt: J 84. Schiller Christiane 1994: Das Litauische Seminar in Halle (1727–1740) und seine Mitglieder. Auf Spurensuche. – Acta Baltica 32, 195–223. Schiller Christiane 2002: Clavis Germanico-Lithvana – ein Werk von Friedrich Prätorius d.Ä.? – Linguistica Baltica 10, 159–172. Schiller Christiane 2005: Wie alt ist ein Wörterbuch? Überlegungen zur relativen Chronologie von Wörterbüchern. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 153–159. Schiller Christiane 2009: Zur Geschichte der preußisch-litauischen Lexikographie. Die handschriftliche Lexikographie bis 1744. Berlin (Habilitationsschrift). Specht Franz 1935: Das Litauische Seminar an der Universität Halle. – Archivum Philologicum 5, 36–53. Subačius Paulius 2001: Tekstologija. Teorijos ir praktikos gairės. Vilnius: Aidai. Triškaitė Birutė 2008: Rankraštinio Mažosios Lietuvos žodyno Clavis Germanico-Lithvana geneze (daktaro disertacija). Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. Urbutis Vincas 1987: 1728 m. klaipėdiškių žodyno leksikografiniai šaltiniai. – Baltistica 23(1), 57–75. Urbutis Vincas 2008: Žodynų istorija. – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 622–628. Winter Eduard 1954: Die Pflege der West- und Südslavischen Sprachen in Halle im 18. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zur Geschichte des bürgerlichen Nationwerdens der west- und südslavischen Völker. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Zubaitienė Vilma 2009: Neišlikusių XVIII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos rankraštinių žodynų fragmentai. Bibliotheca Archivi Lithuanici 8. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zubaitienė Vilma 2012: Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas, Vocאבularium Liththvanico-Germanicum, et Germanico-Litthvanicum... Nebst einem Anhang einer kurtzgefaßten Litthauischen Grammatic (1730) 2. Studija, indeksai, rodyklės. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 316 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Was Friedrich Wilhelm Haack the Author of the So-Called Prague Manuscript Dictionary? Is Friedrich Wilhelm Haack the Author of the So-Called Prague Manuscript Dictionary? SUMMARY The issue of authorship of the so-called Prague manuscript German-Lithuanian Dictionary (first half of the 18th century) which was found by Ilya Lemeshkin in the National Library of the Czech Republic a few years ago (Národní knihovna České republiky: XVI.F.30; hereinafter referred to as the Prague Dictionary) is analysed in this article. The aim of the article is to investigate whether the lexicographer and Evangelical Lutheran priest of Lithuania Minor Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754) could be the author of the dictionary. Such an assumption is preconditioned by the provenience at the beginning of the manuscript, which states: ‘Auctor Hacke. || War Prediger in Lithauen. Hat || зu Halle ſtudirt. Seine Sprach=||lehre ſoll auf dem Waiſenhauſe || gedruckt ſeyn [...].’. In order to answer this question the article discusses if the ‘Hacke’ mentioned in the donation inscription could be identified with Friedrich Wilhelm Haack. Despite a slight deviation in surname form (Hacke vs. Haack), a short review of Haack’s biography witnesses that he was the one. While analysing the issue of the authorship it was meant that the word ‘Auctor’ could have been perceived not only as a text author, but also as a rewriter of the text, thus, the character of the text of the Prague Dictionary was discussed. The textual analysis revealed that the Dictionary of Prague is not an original work of lexicography but a transcript of a previous dictionary. Having compared the Prague Dictionary to other manuscript German-Lithuanian dictionaries compiled in Lithuania Minor (i.e. Lexicon Lithuanicum, Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, the so-called Richter and Krause dictionaries) it has been established that they share common origin and the Prague Dictionary depicts the texts of at least two dictionaries compiled in the 17th century. Hence, Haack who lived in the first half of the 18th century could not be the author of the 17th century text recorded in the Prague Dictionary. Based on Haack’s autographs found in German archives his handwriting was compared to the handwriting of the rewriter of the Prague Dictionary and the following conclusion that Haack cannot even be identified with the rewriter of the dictionary has been drawn. Thus, the conducted research states that the information in the manuscript provenience is not exact, i.e. Haack was neither the author of the Prague Dictionary nor its rewriter. It is most likely, that the grantor of the Prague Dictionary treated it as the manuscript of Vocabularium Litthvanico-Germanicum, et Germanico-Litthvanicum (Halle, 1730) by Haack. Submitted on 1 December 2014. BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language 5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 317