Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje

ILJA LEMEŠKIN Charles University in Prague Research interests: Old Baltic literature and writing, comparative folkloristics, lexicography, and the history of Baltic studies. A MANUSCRIPT GERMAN–LITHUANIAN DICTIONARY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ATTRIBUTED TO FRIEDRICH WILHELM HAACK1 Manuscript German–Lithuanian Dictionary Credited to Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack in the Czech Republic2 A B S T R A C T A Lithuanian studies lexicographic source preserved at the Clementinum, dating from the third to fourth decades of the eighteenth century, entered the academic milieu of Vienna and Prague no later than 1777. This article examines the history, from 1777 to 1861, of the Prague manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary in connection with Austria. It seeks to identify the dictionary’s owners and the ranks of researchers who “used” it. The article asks why and under what circumstances the dictionary came to Vienna and later to Prague, and what made it important. 1 This article was prepared as part of a project funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language: Research and Preparation for Publication of the Manuscript German–Lithuanian Dictionary Attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (early eighteenth century) (Contract No. K-4/2012, concluded on 2012-02-01). 2 The article was written within the framework of the project The Research and Redaction of the Manuscript German-Lithuanian Dictionary Credited to Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack (beginning of the 18th century). (Contract No. K-4/2012, concluded on 01/02/2012). K E Y W O R D S: German–Lithuanian dictionary, East Prussian lexicography, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, Motiejus Philonomas Benešovskis, Josef Valentin Zlobickis, Josef Dobrovskis, Pavel Josef Šafárik, František Ladislav Čelakovskis, Leopoldas Geitleris. K E Y W O R D S: German–Lithuanian dictionary, lexicography of East Prussia, Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack, Matouš Benešovský Philonomus, Josef Valentin Zlobický, Josef Dobrovský, Pavel Josef Šafárik; František Čelakovský, Leopold Geitler. 318 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI A Manuscript German–Lithuanian Dictionary Attributed to Friedrich Wilhelm Hack in the Czech Republic ANNOTATION The Lituanistic lexicographic source stored in the Clementinum and dating back to the third and fourth decades of the 18th century found its way to the academic environment of Vienna–Prague no later than in 1777. The Austrian history of the Prague manuscript of the German – Lithuanian dictionary between the periods of 1777–1861 is analysed in the article. It is attempted to identify the owners of the dictionary alongside with the researchers – ‘users’. The question why and under what circumstances the dictionary appeared in Vienna and later in Prague, and what significance it contained is raised. The codex entitled Hacke. Lexicon Lithuanicum (inscription on the spine) is currently held at the Klementinum, in the Manuscripts and Early Printed Books Department of the National Library of the Czech Republic (Národní knihovna Oddělení rukopisů a starých tisků, shelfmark XVI.F.30). The manuscript book, dated to the third or fourth decade of the eighteenth century, consists of two parts. The first (2r–344v) is a German–Lithuanian dictionary representing the group of copies from Lithuania Minor, which includes: Lexicon Lithuanicum3, Krause’s dictionary4, Richter’s dictionary5, Clavis Germanico–Lithvana6, and the dictionary shelfmarked Msc. 84 4o7. The second part (beginning at 345r) is a much more original and advanced lexicographical project, Observatio de origine Verborum Littwhaniorum, or, more precisely, its beginning (for more on the manuscript source, its structure, the nature of its constituent parts, and its authorship, see Lemeškin 2012, 2013). Judging by the watermarks, this lexicographical monument, produced in Lithuania Minor, probably reached Halle soon afterwards. This is evidenced by a donation inscription (1r) mentioning local Halle circumstances, which attributes the dictionary to Friedrich Wilhelm Hack (Friedrich Wilhelm Haack): The author, Hacke, was a preacher in Lithuania. He studied at Halle. His grammar is said to have been printed at the orphanage. Donated by [D]. Baumgarten= 3Mid-seventeenth century; held at LMAB RS: f. 137–10; facsimile: Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987. 4Third–fourth decades of the eighteenth century; held at LLTIB R: f. 1 – 5792. For the dating of the manuscript, see Drotvinas 1984. 5 Richter’s (or Klaipėda) dictionary is dated 1728; held in the archive of the Francke Foundations in Halle: AFSt J 84. 6 Held at LMAB RS: f. 137 13–14; published by Vincentas Drotvinas in 1995–1997 – Clavis Germanico-Lithvana 1995–1997. 7Until the Second World War, it was held in the Rėza collection of the Secret Royal Archives in Königsberg; it is currently considered lost. Straipsniai / Articles 319 ILJA LEMEŠKIN “The author Hacke was a preacher in Lithuania. He studied in Halle. His linguistic work must have been / probably was published by the Weisenhaus press. Presented by Baumgarten.” The following provenance note (1r) points to another context in which the lexicographical monument circulated—the academic milieu of Austria-Hungary: Ex Libris Josephi Zlobický Professoris litteratura Bo= hemica Vienna 1777. In 1875, the Czech Slavist and Lithuanianist Leopold Geitler (1847–1885) made modest use of the data in the manuscript dictionary. In his Beiträge zu Nesselmanns litauischem wörterbuch, he included (Geitler 1875: 74–123) the lexemes merlė (p. 96), patupėlis (p. 103), and pranaras (p. 104), with the note aus einem in der prager bibliothek aufbewahrten lit. wörterbuche. It is unclear in what year the dictionary he used entered the “Prague Library,” that is, the then Imperial-Royal Public and University Library of Prague. The library stamp REGIAE BIBLIOTH. ACAD. PRAGEN., impressed on several leaves of the manuscript book, was in use from the library’s founding—that is, from 1777—until the beginning of the 19th century. The dictionary is also listed in the library’s oldest catalogue of holdings (from the first half of the 19th century), specifically in its main section, which covers the period up to 1861. Thus, the lexicographical work originating in Lithuania Minor is firmly attested in the territory of Austria-Hungary for the period 1777–1861. This also raises the following questions: 1. More precisely, when—that is, in 1777 or earlier—why, and under what circumstances did the dictionary become the property of Josef Valentín Zlobický (Zlobický)? 2. Why and when did the dictionary leave Vienna for Prague, and at whose initiative did it enter the holdings of the public university library? 3. Which Prague Balticists had access to the dictionary; that is, how and in what ways did it influence the development of 19th-century Czech philology? We will seek answers to these and other questions in this article. 1. To shed light on the emergence of Lithuanian lexicographic material, its dissemination, and its relevance in Czechia, we will initially turn our attention to an earlier period. Looking back at the history of linguistics, specifically to the late sixteenth century, helps us better understand the attitude of Prague philologists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries toward the lexical resources of the Baltic languages. At the level of language purity, the Lithuanian theme first emerges in Czechia in 1587. The work Knijžka slow Czěských wyložených, published in Prague by the proto-Slavist Matěj Philonomus Benešovský (Matouš Benešovský Philonomus, 1550–1595), 320 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje A Book of Czech Words Explained: Whence They Have Their Origin and What Their Meaning Is, Knihovna Národního musea, shelfmark: 26.D.41 whence they have their origin (that is) and what their meaning is (“A little book of Czech words explaining where they come from and what they mean”) is considered the first etymological dictionary of a Slavic language. Lithuanian appears in it not in the main text (as is customary today), but in the author’s preface, where ideas about purifying the Czech language are advanced. From our modern perspective, the role of Lithuanian in this preface is also unusual. It is understood not as one of the fully fledged realizations of the preface, but as a frightening example. Lithuanian here becomes an ecolinguistic scarecrow, which should warn more self-aware Czechs and direct them toward pure Czech speech: How much will we differ from a parrot, a magpie, and other birds that can speak in human language but without reason, because they do not know what they are saying? Thus, when we mix many German and Latin words into our language and no longer understand them, we will resemble those senseless birds that speak just as they have been taught, according to what has been suggested for their chattering. Eventually, it will inevitably happen that we will have a mixed language, much like Lithuania, a nation whose name signifies a union of various peoples, since Litva is Straipsniai / Articles 321 ILJA LEMEŠKIN Collectium nomen, denoting a multitude of diverse people, who [the people] have a single tangle of Greek, Slavic, Italian, and German languages. Therefore, I am not so surprised by unlearned people, who repeat others indiscriminately, without regard for reason [meanings]. I am surprised by those who claim to be learned, or truly are [learned], yet include in their writings many unfamiliar, unpleasant words that are often genuinely difficult to pronounce. Why use the word Erbanuńky, why Halspant, Armpant and other awkward words that countless people do not understand? Why should I not say Přezwědnějí in Czech, but instead use the corrupted Greek word pranostyka, which obscures the meaning and sense? (Benešovský 1587: 6–7)8 It seems unusual that M. Benešovský, also known as the author of the 1577 Grammatica bohemica, should have alarmed contemporary society specifically about Lithuanian. It must have been unfamiliar to Czech ears. Perhaps a similarly severe claim made about a language more accessible to Czechs would have drawn objections from readers. In this respect, the example of a supposedly “contaminated” and “mixed” distant language may have been much more convenient. Yet whatever his motives, when speaking about Lithuanian and making some claims about its nature, the author must still have based his reflections on something concrete. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he had some personal—that is, first-hand, if fragmentary—experience (there is reason to believe that he briefly visited Poland as an attendant on an embassy). He may also have acquired his opinion of this language elsewhere, that is, he may simply have repeated it in his work. A possible source can also be suggested. Such information may have been disseminated in Czechia by the Czech Jesuit Baltazar Hostounský (*1535–1600 06 07), who, after returning from Vilnius in 1571, taught Latin, Greek, and theology at the Prague Jesuit College (for more, see Narbutas 2011: 58–60). At that very time, Matěj Benešovský was due to complete his studies at the college (we learn of his intention to finish his studies with the Jesuits from documentary sources; for more, see Koupil 2007: 223–234). The view of Lithuanian as a mixture of languages may have been shaped by the Jesuits who founded the Vilnius College, but it may also have been inherited from earlier times. We find echoes of it already in the nineteenth century, for example, in Simonas Daukantas’s literary polemic with learned men, in whose eyes “the Lithuanian language was supposedly a mixture of all kinds of languages” (Daukantas 1976: 64). Furthermore, another important circumstance should be taken into account. M. Benešovský was closely connected with the Emaus Monastery, where he served as pastor until 1592. In this Utraquist monastery in Prague’s New Town, now also called Na Slovanech, the Slavonic liturgy survived the longest (Hůňáček 1975). It is thought that, in keeping with the intentions of its founder, Charles IV, and his political plans, forces and relevant literary resources needed to expand the empire eastward were gathered here. At the beginning of the century, this place of special significance for Slavonic writing may also have served Francis Skorina, who, according to Petr Voit’s attribution, depicted the monastery (as a token of gratitude) in his Ruthenian Prague Bible—in the illustration Осада Иерусалима (Книги... царств... Praha, 1518, f. 183; Voit 2014). Unfortunately, our 8 This and the other quotations were translated by the article’s author. 322 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje The description of the monastery library did not survive, so we cannot determine which Slavic and Baltic monuments were then kept in the monastery. In any case, the opinion about the characteristics of the Lithuanian language disseminated in Prague in 1587 arose from comparisons with Slavic languages, to which the book under discussion was directly devoted. The grammatical structure of the latter, i.e. the Slavic languages, had by then been described fairly well (also thanks to M. Benešovský himself), whereas a grammar of Lithuanian was still awaited until 1653. Naturally, the unfavorable view of Lithuanian was based not on comparisons between grammatical features, but on manuscript monuments of a non-linguistic nature, specifically their vocabulary. Thus, within the framework of the component theory (Dini 2009), lexical resources were interpreted. The component layers of the Lithuanian lexicon were accordingly distinguished as Greek, Slavic, Italian, and German. Lexicographic sources (in the Middle Ages, those of the Elbing Dictionary type) were best suited to this purpose. For a long time, they were used to infer the characteristics of languages and their mutual relations, particularly beyond the borders of ethnic Lithuania. Unfortunately, this method of work did not end with the period when pale comparative linguistics was taking shape in Bohemia. It remained widespread in the eighteenth century and even into the first half of the nineteenth. The traditional practice of working with dictionaries, inherited from antiquity, probably also determined the creation of the German–Lithuanian dictionary of Lithuania Minor in Vienna and later in Prague. A look at M. Benešovský’s book reveals another important circumstance that encouraged interest in and study of Lithuanian lexicography both at the end of the sixteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth. Lithuanian dictionaries were particularly important for determining the spread of Slavic languages, or peoples. This aim is realized clearly in M. Benešovský’s work. Emphasizing the importance of the “Czech-Slavic language” and disparaging German, the author attempts to encompass the entire vast geography of the Slavic world: A second reason prompts me to publish this work: so that all Germans may know that German, as a mixed language, is not spoken only by Germans, but that many other lands also belong to the same German-speaking realm, for example Bavaria, Swabia, the Low Countries, and Straipsniai / Articles 323 ILJA LEMEŠKIN other regions better known to them. Likewise, the Czech language is not found only in the land of the Czechs; there are more than a hundred lands where our Slavic language is spoken: Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia, the lands of Lesser Poland and Greater Poland, Masuria, Podlasie, Great Russia, White Russia, Volhynia, Podolia, the land of Kyiv, Severia, the Kashubian lands, and many others in the Kingdom of Poland. Moreover, there are many regions in the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Among the Serbian people. Many lands are [under] Turkish rule. In the Kingdom of Hungary, in Dalmatia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Liburnia, Slovenia, and the Kingdom of Bosnia. All these peoples use one Slavic language; therefore, our language cannot be narrow. [...] In whose language did Cicero attain great honor and praise?—Clearly, in his native one. Demosthenes, too, is renowned for his eloquence in the language in which he was born. We also know that neither Greek nor Latin can equal the Slavic language, since all those Greek lands now speak Slavic. Croatian has also spread widely in Turkish dominions. Greek and Latin have perished, lingering somewhat among learned people, but there is no separate land that speaks either Greek or Latin. Our language, however, has encompassed a large part of the world to such an extent that no other [language] beneath the vault of heaven can equal it completely. (Benešovský 1587: 5, 7–8) It goes without saying that, because of its supposed impurity, Lithuanian does not rank among the prestigious Slavic languages. Lithuania’s Collectiuum nomen is absent from the long list of Slavic lands, among Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia, Poland, and so on. The author’s argument is shaped by the level of linguistic thought in the sixteenth century. From a modern perspective, the nature of research in that century seems rather peculiar, yet its principal conclusion—that Lithuanian does not belong to the Slavic languages—is strikingly advanced. The significance of this 1587 conclusion becomes clear in the context of philology in the first half of the nineteenth century, when the Balts were still often classified as Slavs. There is no doubt that the dictionary of Halle provenance was appealing and useful in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for resolving the question of the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic peoples, which had been current since the time of M. Benešovský. That is probably why the dictionary appeared in Vienna and later in Prague. The continuity of ideas and linguistic research is well illustrated by the work of the Czech philologist František Ladislav Čelakovský (Čelakovský, 1799–1852) in the first half of the nineteenth century. F. L. Čelakovský first emerged as a Balticist in 1825, publishing Slowanské národní písně (vol. 1 – 1822, vol. 2 – 1825, vol. 3 – 1827). In the second volume he included three Lithuanian songs taken from Philipp Ruhig’s Lietuvių kalbos kilmės, būdo ir savybių tyrinėjimo: Laučenj newěsty (Asz atsisakiau sawo mocžuttei…, p. 200–202 = Ruhig, Nr. 3, p. 77–78), Nepracowité děwče (Asz turrėjau žirgužėli…, p. 202–205 = Ruhig, Nr. 2, p. 76–77), Dceruška wyprowodziwšj milého (Anksti rytą, rytūži…, p. 205–206 = Ruhig, Nr. 1, p. 75–76). All the songs in this substantial three-volume collection were published in the original language with parallel translations into Czech. This was done so that readers could see for themselves that the languages were related. The inclusion of Lithuanian songs in this collection shows that the editor was interested in the similarity between the Baltic and Slavic languages. 324 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje Why Lithuanian songs appeared in a collection of Slavic songs is explained in considerable detail by F. L. Čelakovský himself, drawing on linguistic arguments and M. Benešovský’s claims: These three charming songs are taken from Ruigys’s treatise on the Lithuanian language, appended to his dictionary and his son’s grammar. Lessing and Herder have amply reported on their beauty. Do they rightly or wrongly belong in the collection “Slavic Songs”? This question—and another, even more important one: can Lithuanian be classed among the Slavic languages?—can easily be answered. A comparison of the grammatical structure and vocabulary of Lithuanian and the Slavic languages immediately shows that all the numerous Slavic languages are more alike and more closely related to one another than any Slavic language is to Lithuanian, when compared from either perspective. It has not yet been decided among which of the more independent languages this mixture of a multinational language might be classified. Nor has it been settled whether it may be called an independent language (as the learned Polish gentleman [Ksaveras] Bogušas asserts and argues), closely related to Latvian, in other words, the language of Courland. In the work mentioned above, Ruigys regards Greek as the grandmother of Lithuanian and, to prove this, presents about four hundred words that sound alike or have the same root. Yet the Slavic languages can just as well be regarded as that same grandmother. Straipsniai / Articles 325 ILJA LEMEŠKIN Having examined the same Ruigys’s dictionary (though incomplete), I found more than six hundred words that sound alike or share a root9 with the Slavic languages, not counting compounds and derivatives. I would, however, agree that Lithuanian’s grammatical structure has more in common with Greek than with the Slavic10 languages, though even this is quite limited. Another kinship is found with Latin and Germanic languages, as well as with the Romani (Gypsy11) language, but its causes must be sought further by drawing on Sanskrit. It follows that, even if Lithuanian cannot be classed among the Slavic languages, this language—together with Latvian and the extinct Old Prussian (as far as can be judged from its remnants)—is more closely related to the Slavic languages than to Greek, Latin, or Germanic languages, and thus belongs, at least in part, to our branch. So let Lithuanian songs, here too, on these pages, be understood as a more distant relative of the Slavs. Dr. Rėza promised to publish a fuller collection of Lithuanian songs soon (1818); I do not know whether this happened. (Čelakovský 1825: 220–222) In 1825, a fairly extensive note on the Lithuanian language, its character, and its relationship to other languages, especially the Slavic ones, was published in Slavonic Folk Songs; the note clearly has a textual connection with the 1587 Prague linguistic publication (M. Benešovský: Nebo Lytwa geft Collectium nomen / lidu množ[t]wí rozličného znamenagicy / Kterýž z Ržckého / z Slovanského / z Wlafkého a z Německého yazyku gednu zpllete- 9 A researcher and interpreter of Slavic languages can more easily explain and derive, by drawing on Lithuanian, the origin of certain words that are difficult to make out from the vocabulary (resources) of his native language. For example, the word nevėsta, Lithuanian nevėdes, comes from vedu, infinitive vesti, which means: a) our “I lead,” b) “I marry, I get married,” as in Latin ducere (uxorem). Thus our nevėsta would be as if ‘not led,’ ‘unmarried,’ despite the soft ė, which readily turns into a soft [sound] on Slavic tongues. Likewise, pljce [lungs] from iszplečiu, etc. 10 It is worth noting that the present-tense first-person singular ending –u (or –mi, which is Greek) consistently corresponds everywhere, as in the Slavic languages, to the infinitive ending – –ti, and is likewise inflected, e.g.: metu, mesti, glaudžiu, glausti, etc. 11 For example, Lithuanian ašzara, Romanian avs ‘tear,’ avsapav ‘to shed tears’; Lithuanian bàras, Romanian bar ‘garden’; Lithuanian butinay, Romanian but ‘much’; Lithuanian rändas, Romanian randav ‘crates’; Lithuanian rytas, Romanian ratàha ‘in the morning,’ etc. 326 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje nicy magí – F. L. Čelakovský: Nenīt geštė rozhodnuto, ke kterému ze samostatněgších gazyků poměšek tento mnohonárodné mluwy could be assigned), was of great significance. August Schleicher provided a comprehensive answer to the question raised by F. L. Čelakovský in the middle of the century (Schleicher 1853: 320–334). F. L. Čelakovský’s discussion is relevant to us because of its connection with the handwritten German–Lithuanian dictionary held at the Clementinum. The 1825 publication attests that, while working with P. Ruigys’s dictionary, F. L. Čelakovský selected more than six hundred words that sound similar to, or share a root with, Slavic languages. These lexemes formed the core of a Lithuanian-language dictionary whose aim was to reveal the similarity between Lithuanian and the Slavic languages. This core of shared Baltic and Slavic vocabulary was expanded from 1825 until approximately 1852, and was expanded precisely on the basis of the lexicographic work from Lithuania Minor that concerns us (more on this below). Thus, several general conclusions can be drawn regarding the emergence of the German–Lithuanian dictionary under discussion and its reception in Czechia: a. The manuscript dictionary, attributed by contemporaries to F. W. Hacke, is not local in relation to Prague or Vienna. It did not originate in the collection of the Emaus Monastery, nor was it created by the Jesuits who worked in Vilnius (in this sense, the first encounter with this lexicographic monument was disappointing). The dictionary’s emergence in Austria-Hungary was a secondary, late phenomenon, prompted by academic and linguistic considerations; b. The use of lexical resources (including those of the Lithuanian language), with the properties of the languages under study inferred through component theory, had been characteristic of linguistic scholarship in Czechia since at least the late sixteenth century. This encouraged the systematic collection and study of handwritten dictionaries, and later of printed ones as well. Similar methodology was already being applied at the beginning of the nineteenth century; c. The arrival in Austria-Hungary of Lithuanian material, including the dictionary of Lithuania Minor, was determined by the long-standing relevance of comparative Slavistics and the question of relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. 2. The first known owner of the dictionary in Austria-Hungary is identified in the 1777 provenance note as a professor of Bohemian literature in Vienna. J. V. Zlobický (1743–1810) held this position from October 7, 1775, until his death. His appointment as the first professor of the Czech language and literature at the University of Vienna was connected with his organizational achievements, above all with the preparation of the study plan for Slavic languages Entwurf eines Slawischen Instituts, which sought to reform the Viennese institution of higher learning by introducing the teaching of living languages. Even earlier, on October 24, 1773, Maria Theresa, in recognition of another achievement (the 1773 Czech translation of the midwifery manual Wedenj k prawému, a dokonalému Babjmu Uměnj: we Wjdni s Sjulcowým Pjſmem) Straipsniai / Articles 327 ILJA LEMEŠKIN appointed J. V. Zlobický as a teacher of Czech at the Imperial and Royal Theresian Military Academy in Vienna’s Neustadt. His university income was not sufficiently high, so the gifted philologist had to work as an official at the Supreme Court Office (Oberste Justizstelle), where he also attained a high rank. He had to devote considerable time and effort to censorship and translation, and also earned money as a private tutor to the children of Vienna’s aristocracy. J. V. Zlobický’s diverse activities hindered his scholarly work, and as a result most of his projects remained unrealized or unfinished; among the latter was the writing of a grammar of the Slavic languages. The development of a comparative grammar of the Slavic languages was closely connected with his professorship at the military academy and, from 1775, at the University of Vienna. The concept of Slavistics is revealed by the aforementioned study plan prepared by J. V. Zlobický, Entwurf eines Slavischen Instituts (Reichel 2004: 238–242). According to the plan, Slavistic subjects were explored in lectures (three to four hours per week), some of which took place in the scholar’s apartment. There (now Bäckerstraße 14), the two-semester course began with an introduction to Slavistics, which could not dispense with discussing Lithuanian (Baltic) language. Teaching at home (across the street from the university) was useful because the researcher could at any time retrieve a required publication or manuscript from his personal library, use it in teaching, or lend it out (including the German–Lithuanian dictionary). Among other topics, the introduction examined the diversity of the Slavic languages, the Proto-Slavic language, and the reasons for its fragmentation. Unfortunately, the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages was never completed or published. Around the 1780s, the scholar handed the preparatory materials to his student Maximilián Václav Šimek (1748–1798), but the “ungrateful ass” (as the teacher later called the continuator of his work) did not complete the project (the materials prepared by J. V. Zlobický for a Czech grammar were published in his own name, without proper attribution, additions, or changes: M. Schimek, Handbuch für einen Lehrer der bömischen Literatur, Wien: gedruckt bei Christian Friederich Wappler, 1785)12. It is not easy to determine when and why the handwritten German–Lithuanian dictionary left J. V. Zlobický’s vast personal library. After the philologist’s death, the library met a sad fate. The collection of 17,000 book items was, unfortunately, broken up and gradually dispersed. We have only inventories drawn up at the initiative of the philologist’s heirs, which allow us to imagine the contents of the library. One inventory known to us is held in Vienna and another in Prague, but neither lists the dictionary. 12 Habil. Dr. Tatána Vykypělová conducted an extensive study of Maximilián Šimek’s handwritten legacy (Vykypělová 2012). The researcher kindly provided advice concerning fragments of M. Šimek’s manuscript grammar of all the Slavic languages. There is no mention or discussion of the Lithuanian language here. Nor are any lexicographic sources mentioned. 328 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje The source entitled Katalog slavik knihovny J. V. Zlobického, preserved in the library of the National Museum of Prague (Knihovna Národního muzea, IX E 37a), states (27r–28v): Straipsniai / Articles 329 ILJA LEMEŠKIN 1747 Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian Dictionary. Königsberg 8. 1755 The Bible, that is: The Whole Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament. Königsberg. 8. 880 p. 1754 The Prophets, with those Books that are called Apocrypha. Königsberg. 8. 891–1416. 1755 New Testament. Königsberg. 8. 364 p. In essence, we have two publications: P. Ruhig’s 1747 Lithuanian–German and German–Lithuanian dictionary (Littauisch-deutsches und deutsch-littauisches Lexicon, worinnen ein hinlänglicher Vorrath an Wörtern und Redensarten, welche sowol in der H. Schrift, als in allerley Handlungen und Verkehr der menschlichen Gesellschafften vorkommen, befindlich ist / mit möglichster Sorgfalt, vieljährigem Fleiss, und Beyhülfe der erfahrensten Kenner dieser Sprache gesammelt von Philipp Ruhig, Pfarrern und Seniore zu Walterkehmen, Insterburgischen Hauptamtes. 1747) and the second edition of Jonas Bretkūnas’s Bible, prepared by Adomas Frydrichas Schimelpenigis (Biblia, tai eſti: Wissas Szventas Rásżtas, Séno ir Naujo Testamento / pagal wokiszką pérstáttimą d. Mertino Luteraus, su kiekwieno pérskyrimo trumpu praneszimu, ir reikalingu pazenklinnimu tu paczû žodźû, kurrie kittose pérskyrimose randomi, nû kellû mokytojû Lietuwoj’ lietuwiszkay pérstattytas, ir antrą kartą iszspáustas. 1755), whose constituent parts were: Prarakai, su tomis knygomis kurros wadd vamos Apokrypa [...] and Naujas Testamentas, musû Pono bey Iszgannytojo Jezaus Kristaus. The Austrian National Library in Vienna holds Catalog of Printed and Manuscript Books Relating to the History of the Slavs, Especially the Czechs (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Sammlung von Handschriften und alten Drucken, cod. 13788), compiled by Josef Dobrovský (Dobrovský), which supplements the list of sources for Baltic studies with another book (f. 50v): Polish-Latin-Lithuanian Dictionary: a work [...] by Father Georgius Elger. S. J. Vilnae 1683. 8. (674P). The Baltic studies section of the library probably was not limited to the publications listed above. Over time, the library’s holdings changed. Until the 1770s, while comparative Slavic studies remained of interest, Lithuanian studies sources must have been considerably more numerous. The manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary from Lithuania Minor provides a clear illustration (the researcher had the dictionary in his library at least from 1777, but the bibliographic lists do not record it). J. V. Zlobickis collaborated and maintained contacts with the entire academic community of Vienna and Prague. He gladly lent or gave books he owned, especially those that were no longer relevant to him at the time, to close colleagues for whom they were more useful. This was probably how the dictionary changed hands and eventually ended up at Prague’s Clementinum. Due to a lack of information, nothing more specific can be said about when and under what circumstances the dictionary came into J. V. Zlobickis’s hands. He may have acquired it at a book auction in Vienna or while travelling abroad. The book may have been 330 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje to inherit from his predecessor (at the military academy), Wiedemann, whose accumulated library provided the basis for his personal library (Reichel 2004: 28). The source Katalog slavik knihovny J. V. Zlobického, preserved in the Library of the National Museum of the Czech Republic, partially (indirectly) reveals J. V. Zlobickis’s attitude toward the Lithuanian language. In the list of publications and written sources important to Slavic studies, Lituanica is listed alongside Lufatica (the other categories are: Cyrillica; Glagolitica; Carniolica; Carniolica miscellanea; Russica; Vodnikiana; Dalmatica, Croatica et. Slavonica; Adminicula ad rem Slavicam; Bohemica; Polonica). Its proximity specifically to Sorbian (Lusatian) philology might seem surprising today, but at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries such an association appears not to have been unusual or rare. The Lithuanian language was viewed through the lens of Sorbian (and, to a lesser extent, Polish) languages. This perspective is revealed in F. L. Čelakovský’s botanical epigram from the first half of the nineteenth century, Routa, “Rue”: Why do dear Lithuanian girls and Polish girls, and those Lusatian Sorbian women, weave wreaths from rue and sing songs about rue? Fortunate peoples do not identify with bitter rue; only an oppressed people has chosen it as an emblem. (Čelakovský 1850: 102) Translation: Why do Lithuanian girls, dear Polish girls, and those Lusatian Sorbs sing songs about rue as they weave wreaths from it? Fortunate peoples do not identify with bitter rue; only subjugated peoples choose it as an example. 3. Why and when did the dictionary come from Vienna to Prague, and at whose initiative did it enter the holdings of the public university library? To answer this question, it would be necessary to survey the community of Prague philologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and identify the scholars who were interested in Baltic studies and considered the relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. There were not many of them, which makes the task considerably easier. At the turn of the century, the Czech philologist and historian Josef Dobrovský (1753–1829), a Jesuit and the founder of Czech Slavic studies, played a decisive role in resolving the question of the Baltic and Slavic peoples. In 1788, his article “On the Places in Europe Where the Slavs Have Lived since Ancient Times […]” (Über die ältesten Sitze der Slawen in Europa […]), appeared. In it, the author argued: The Baltic coast near the mouth of the Vistula is the most ancient homeland of the Wends, in other words, the Slavs. Here, settlements of theirs had existed since time immemorial, many centuries before Christ, since the Latvians, Prussians, and Lithuanians—who are also related to them in language—lived here or in the nearby vicinity. No other language in all of Europe is so similar to the Slavic language Straipsniai / Articles 331 ILJA LEMEŠKIN such as Old Prussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. I regard these latter three as dialects of a single language (the Slavic language is slightly less similar to the languages of Asia than German is). Among the Germanic languages, Slavic is more closely related to the Scandinavian, Danish, Swedish, and Low German dialects, but it undoubtedly shows a much greater affinity with Latin. Lithuanian stands midway between the latter and the Slavic languages. (Dobrovský 1788: XIX–XX) The firmly advanced opinion must have been based on a more thorough comparison of the languages under discussion. J. Dobrovský’s views could hardly have been influenced by the ideas of J. V. Zlobickis, with whom the Prague scholar maintained close creative ties for many years. However, the Viennese Slavist could certainly have sent a useful source to Prague. Pavel Josef Šafařik (also Šafárik, 1795–1861), a Slavist, literary historian, ethnographer, linguist, and writer who continued J. Dobrovský’s work, shared the same localization of the Slavic homeland—the Baltic coast near the mouth of the Vistula—and authored Slovanské starožitnosti (1837 and 1865, Prague). From 1841 he worked as curator of the Prague University Library, and from 1848 as its director; given his broad interests in Baltic studies, it is therefore reasonable to regard the appearance of the manuscript dictionary at the Clementinum as P. J. Šafařik’s achievement. The author of Slav Antiquities consciously and systematically gathered Lithuanian material, collecting relevant publications and manuscript sources and making copies of Lithuanian monuments. In the summer of 1852, August Schleicher sent him, “my highly esteemed fatherly supporter in my studies,” reports from East Prussia on the successes of the Lithuanian studies expedition (Schleicher 2008: 670–739). A. Schleicher thanked “the illustrious Mr Šafařík” in his article “O jazyku litevském, zvláště ohledem na slovanský,” which examines in depth the question of Baltic and Slavic relations that mattered so much to both of them. The manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary preserved at the Clementinum was undoubtedly useful and handy to P. J. Šafařík in briefly describing the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic peoples and languages in his work Slavic Antiquities (Part I, Chapter III, An Overview of Foreign Tribes, subsection §19, The Lithuanian Tribe, pp. 359–377). 4. We will also review other scholars who might have used the manuscript dictionary in the first half of the 19th century. We must begin with P. J. Šafařík and the qualitatively new level to which he raised Baltic and Slavic studies. In discussing P. J. Šafařík and his contemporaries, it should be noted that some of the university librarian’s ideas were distorted over time. P. J. Šafařík’s name is now generally associated with the derivation of the Slavs from the Carpathian region. In this respect, his views are identical to Oleg Trubachov’s ideas. It is true that the scholar often mentions the Tatras in his works, stating that the Slavs lived “beyond the Tatras,” “on the other side of the Tatras.” The actual situation, however, is somewhat more complex. 332 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje In fact, P. J. Šafařík’s opinion on the Slavic homeland differs in no way from the ideas J. Dobrovský had expressed much earlier. In his Slav Antiquities, he directly cites J. Dobrovský as the source of his position (p. 360): “We regard the peoples of the Lithuanian stock as the ancient inhabitants of our homeland, who in ancient, deeply prehistoric times lived on the Baltic coast together with their Slavic brothers” (Šafařík 1837: 366). He goes on to write about the kinship between the Balts and Slavs: “We understand the Lithuanian and Slavic peoples of prehistoric times as branches of the same stock; yet in historical times, for external reasons, they diverged so greatly that we now regard them as distinct. Nevertheless, we consider these stocks to be the closest of all the other Indo-Europeans. Therefore, within the whole of the Indo-European tribes, we place these two fraternal stocks together and side by side, collectively calling them Wends (Vendae). Their separation from the Lithuanian stock undoubtedly occurred soon after their migration to Europe” (Šafařík 1837: 361). According to P. J. Šafařík, the subsequent development was determined by the intervention of foreign peoples in the common Baltic and Slavic region. Their peaceful life was disrupted by “the Goths and other Germans.” Their different responses to Gothic pressure eventually led to a division between the Slavs and Balts. Specifically, the Balts who remained in their own lands came under Gothic rule, while the Slavs seeking freedom withdrew farther away—“deeper into the lands near the Tatras.” The linguist and historian explains the greater archaism of Baltic languages’ morphological structure compared with Slavic in his own way, in line with the Czech (and other Slavic) national revival perspective: “one (the Lithuanian language) became filled with foreign elements and petrified many centuries before Christ, while the other (Slavic) followed its own path, developed freely and independently, and, like a fresh and vigorous plant, everywhere unfolded and extended the branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits of its many-branched shoots” (Šafařík 1837: 362). Thus, the Slovak P. J. Šafařík also adopted and continued J. Dobrovský’s view. The role played by the Balts is noteworthy. In 19th-century Prague, scholars actively searched for the Slavic homeland, whereas the location of the ancient Balts raised no questions (320 BC–175 AD). P. J. Šafařík himself substantiated the Balts’ areas of settlement by invoking the Baltic Sea’s Baltic etymology. Given the similarity of languages and cultures, researchers also used the Balts as a basis for locating the Slavs. In the search for the Slavic homeland, the Balts served as a starting point. This is precisely what led to the derivation of the homeland of the Slavs (the same Balts, only the freedom-seeking part of them) from the Baltic Sea coast. As an example of P. J. Šafařík’s way of thinking, we offer the following passage of a generalizing nature: “The early inhabitants of the Baltic coast near the mouth of the Vistula were Slavs, whom the Goths later drove from there (probably in the 4th century BC). We cannot state with certainty what the situation of the two fraternal peoples, the Lithuanians and the Slavs, was, especially along the Amber Coast, or what their relations with one another were. Yet it may be assumed that, as children of one stock, their languages at that time differed little or only slightly, and their religion and customs were closely related. They lived peacefully and calmly alongside one another throughout that coastal region. Trading amber, they were known to ancient authors as Wends, extending from the Slavs, beyond the Tatras, toward the Adriatic coast. Of warlike Straipsniai / Articles 333 ILJA LEMEŠKIN The invasion of the lands of the Wends, into the coastal region and the Vistula, by the Goths and their kinsmen, now known as the Vindelici or Vandals, the expulsion of the Wends from there, and the conquest of the Lithuanian peoples changed the once happy relations between the two peoples. Driven by the Goths and other Germans from the Baltic Sea, and by the Celts from the Adriatic Sea, the Slavs, seeing no other way out and loving a free and peaceful life, withdrew still farther north, where they met no resistance. The Lithuanian peoples, mixed with the Goths and other Germans and having among themselves also Finnic-Ugric elements, gradually lost their pure ethnic character and consequently grew distant from the Slavs” (Šafarík 1837: 366). However, the linguist F. L. Čelakovský disagrees with P. J. Šafarík’s view; he, too, drew data from the manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary from Lithuania Minor. The shared features of Baltic and Slavic lexicons that he found prompted F. L. Čelakovský to undertake, as already mentioned, a special lexicographic project. The dictionary, on which he worked until his death13, advanced a distinct linguistic concept. F. L. Čelakovský expounded it extensively in his exchanges with colleagues and in lectures at the universities of Wrocław and Prague: At last we see the special and interesting relationship between the Lithuanian language (and, together with it, its twins—the Latvian and the extinct Old Prussian languages) and the Slavic languages, a relationship that draws the attention of every Slavist. This language deserves, in general, to receive greater care, especially while it is still alive in the world; for, given its rapid decline and the expansion of neighboring languages (German on one side, Russian on the other), it may happen that in less than a couple of centuries our descendants will search in vain for Lithuanians. The grammar of the Lithuanian language is highly authentic and precise, but its lexicon is overrun and contaminated with foreign elements. Nearly half of the words in modern Lithuanian are entirely Slavic. Most of this vocabulary came from Polish and Russian, which is readily explained by the historically well-known millennium of living side by side. It is impossible to suppose that another portion of the shared Lithuanian and Slavic roots denoting simple concepts also arose only in the era of Christianity: we are most inclined to trace it to the prehistoric source from which, for example, the kinship between Sanskrit and the Slavic languages also derives. Yet another body of fundamental words is wholly distinctive and characteristic of Lithuanian alone. Here, too, we find some borrowings from Germanic, Finnish, and other languages. Four hundred years ago, we still see the area inhabited by the Lithuanian language and people as very extensive—the grand dukes’ scepter reached even the Black Sea. But linguistics sometimes sheds light on centuries about which history is silent. With its help, we learn that the Lithuanian tribe lived not only along the entire Baltic Sea, but also established settlements deep in Central Europe. What else can one think when, in the records of Pomerania, Rügen, Mecklenburg, and Brandenburg from the eleventh century onward 13 The excerpt on kinship terms, dated to the beginning of 1851, was taken from G. F. Nesselmann’s 1850 dictionary. F. L. Čelakovský received it from a bookseller on February 13, 1851. 334 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje there are many place names that can be understood only on the basis of the Lithuanian language. What other conclusion can one draw? Only that this people must once have lived here. The Lithuanian branches undoubtedly extended far into the territory inhabited by the Slavs; it is equally evident that, from ancient times, the Slavs were drawn chiefly to this people, gradually merging with it into a single whole. What is strange about that? There was plenty of empty land everywhere; the Lithuanian tribe’s steadfast nature, inclined toward the peaceful life of the farmer, was well suited to our Slavic one, so one people could not only settle very successfully beside another, but also among them (we see examples of this among our Hungarian neighbors). To support the arguments set out here with evidence, I shall select one from among many, the most interesting because it concerns our homeland. It is well known that Slavic languages contain word roots attested everywhere, that is, known and used in every Slavic language. There are also words that have spread only within a larger or smaller group of languages. Finally, there are words found in only one or another language, but naturally no one doubts that they are Slavic. We, too, have a certain number of roots regarded as our own, although they occur only in Czech. When we look at words and names for which we find no equivalents in Slavic or other related languages, we notice that they are used in Lithuanian in precisely the same or a slightly altered form. What conclusion are we therefore compelled to draw? Undoubtedly, that we Czechs must once have encountered and had close dealings with modern Lithuanians. But history, in all that it encompasses, offers not the slightest trace testifying to a community of this kind having lasted for any length of time between us and this people. Therefore nothing remains but to let our thoughts range freely and suppose that this kinship reaches back to times from which no written monuments have survived. Of the many such words I have managed to collect, I offer only a few: švarný: szwarus; náramný: nerammus; sluka = slankė, la. slohka; luňák = lingė ide. Waihe from lingau “to fly upward in circles”; ožanka (the herb teucrium): ožys, and our herb is also called kozlík “little billy goat”; zákampí: kampas; chomol: kamuolys; krbatý: karbūtas; vyvaditi: iszwadoju; klábositi: kalbu, kalbėsis; šarapatka: szerpétos; loudati se = lendu; kmen = kamėnas; zvířetnice: zvěřinně, and so on. It would be futile to try to explain some of our place names and hydronyms using Slavic linguistic data; in Lithuanian, however, they immediately acquire sound and meaning, for example: Ūpa, Ūpice, Opava: Lithuanian uppė; Labe from labas; Ogra, Ohře from geras; the Ploušnice River near the town of Děčín, which flows into the Elbe, from plusze (cf. Rokytnice); the place Řisuty in the Rakovník and Litomyšl regions: Lithuanian reszutis; Lkouš near the town of Lokšany from lokis (we also have Medvėdis); Ula, the male name Hula and Hulin, Hulice, Lithuanian ŭla (Sláła at Skalky); Lobze from lobis; Doksy near Doksany: the common Lithuanian male name Doksa, attested since the fourteenth century. Similar names pointing to Lithuanian can also be found in Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia, and elsewhere. All this shows how widespread a people this was in times unknown to us, and how greatly it has diminished today. (Čelakovský 1877: 64–66) Straipsniai / Articles 335 Litevský slovník, Knihovna národního musea, sign. IV.A.11 336 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Straipsniai / Articles 337 ILJA LEMEŠKIN Thus, F. L. Čelakovský sought to reveal a prehistoric neighborhood, when the ancestors of the Czechs and Lithuanians came into particularly close and successful contact. F. L. Čelakovský understood modern Lithuanian morphology as “authentic and precise”; it corresponded most closely to the grammar of the Slavic languages. It was precisely because of the similarity and close kinship of the Baltic and Slavic, Czech and Lithuanian languages that, in the first half of the 19th century, a distinctive conception emerged according to which the Lithuanians (Balts) originated in Bohemia itself. F. L. Čelakovský’s efforts to reveal the prehistoric neighborhood in which the ancestors of the Czechs and Lithuanians interacted especially closely and successfully in a mountain-ringed basin (Česká kotlina) are clearly evident in his lectures to students in Wrocław and Prague. The idea of a common period in the development of the Balts and Slavs, its localization in Bohemia, and its substantiation were served precisely by the Lithuanian Language Dictionary (Knihovna Národního muzea, sign.: IV A 11). The selection of words, their method of explanation, and the tendency toward etymologizing all support this. It can be said that, by its very nature, F. L. Čelakovský’s dictionary, which in any case developed from M. Benešovský’s booklet, was the precursor of Reinhold Trautmann’s Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch (Göttingen, 1923). The ideas advanced by F. L. Čelakovský and the corresponding manuscript Lithuanian dictionary revise our understanding of the history of the central Baltic-Slavic question. In the annals of Baltic and Slavic studies, A. Schleicher’s hypothesis concerning the existence of a common Baltic-Slavic proto-language takes chronological precedence. By established tradition, it is called classical, whereas the effort to reconstruct a period of shared development, during which these languages drew closer, is classified among newer models. However, some pages in the history of Czech Baltic studies show that this supposed innovation is merely a conception that has been forgotten by almost everyone, one first expressed and argued for as early as the first half of the 19th century. It seems that A. Schleicher’s idea of a Baltic-Slavic proto-language emerged and developed in opposition to F. L. Čelakovský’s earlier theory. From the perspective of source studies, it is especially important to emphasize that, in developing his linguistic conception, F. L. Čelakovský drew on material from the manuscript German-Lithuanian dictionary. This is indicated by dictionary entries featuring words attested in dictionaries attributed to F. W. Hack and in related dictionaries. Thus, Leopold Geitler was not the first researcher to use the dictionary in 1875. Before him, the Romantic philologist F. L. Čelakovský examined the lexical material of Lithuania Minor, writing, from 1825 to 1852, a dictionary of Baltic and Slavic lexical correspondences that supported the theory of Baltic and Slavic origins, ethnogenesis, and glottogenesis that he propagated. The dictionary’s arrival at the Clementinum—that is, the Imperial Royal Public and University Library in Prague—was probably connected with another prominent figure in Baltic and Slavic studies in the first half of the 19th century, P. J. Šafárik, who, drawing on similar sources, addressed the same Baltic-Slavic issues in fundamentally 338 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje a different way. His views coincided with the findings of J. Dobrovský’s research. And the Jesuit J. Dobrovský—as a close-minded ally and colleague of J. V. Zlobický—may be interpreted as an intermediary through whom the German-Lithuanian dictionary or dictionaries came to Prague (the dictionary of P. Ruhig, also used by F. L. Čelakovský and others, may likewise have come from J. V. Zlobický’s personal library). All the aforementioned individuals, continuing M. Benešovský’s line of research—that is, by thoroughly investigating issues concerning the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages—worked systematically with printed and manuscript dictionaries. A. Schleicher’s acquaintance with the Prague dictionary must be examined separately. LITERATŪRA Benešovský Matouš Philonomus 1587: Knižka slow Čžeských wyložených odkud swůj počátek magí (totiž) yaký gest gegich rozum. Sepsaná od Kněže Mathausse Philonoma, Pjsaře Konsystorže Pražské. Wytisstěna w Starém Městě Pražském w Jmpressy Jiříka Dačického. Clavis Germanico–Lithvana 1995–1997: Clavis Germanico–Lithvana. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Čelakovský František L. 1825: Slowanské národní pjsně sebrané Frant. Ladisl. Čelakowským. T. 2, V Praze: Pjsmem J. owd. Vetterlowé z Wildenbrunu. Čelakovský František L. 1850: Kvití – Časopis Musea království českého 24(1), 99–102. Čelakovský František L. 1877: Čtení o počátcích dějin vzdělanosti a literatury slovanských. Praha: V kommissí u Františka Řivnáče. Daukantas Simonas 1976: Raštai 1. Vilnius: Vaga. Dini Pietro U. 2009: Baltų kalbotyros apyaušriai. Baltų kalbų paleokomparatyvistinės sampratos kalbotyros istoriografijos kontekste. – Archivum Lithuanicum 11, 439–462. Dobrovský Josef 1788: Uiber die ältesten Sitze der Slawen in Europa, und ihre Verbreitung seit dem sechsten Jahrhundert; insbesondere über das Stammvolk der Mährer, und ihre Geschichte bis zur Einsetzung des Herzogs Rastislaw – Josef Vratislav Monse. Versuch einer kurzgefaßten politischen Landesgeschichte des Markgrafthums Mähren. Bd. 2. Vom Jahr 1182 bis 1306. Mit vorausgeschickter Abhandlung über die ältesten Sitze der Slawen. Olmutz, IX–LII. Drotvinas Vincentas 1984: Kada parašytas vadinamasis Krauzės žodynas. – Baltistica 20(2), 163–167. Geitler Leopold 1875: Litauische studien. Auswahl aus den ältesten denkmlälern, dialectische beispiele, lexikalische und sprachwissenschaftliche beiträge von Dr. Leopold Geitler. Prag: T. Mourek. Straipsniai / Articles 339 ILJA LEMEŠKIN Hůňáček Václav 1975: Klášter Na slovanech a počátky východoslovanských studií u nás. – Z tradice slovanské kultury v Čechách. Praha: Universita Karlova. Koupil Ondřej 2007: Grammatikáři. Gramatologická a kulturní reflexe češtiny 1533–1672. Praha: Karolinëm. Lemeškin Ilja 2010: Františeko Ladislavo Čelakovskio lietuvių kalbos žodynas. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 98–113. Lemeškin Ilja 2012: Friedrichui Wilhelmui Haackui priskiriamas Prahos rankraštinis vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. – Mažoji Lietuva: paribio kultūros tyrimai. Vilnius: Petro ofsetas, 31–58. Lemeškin Ilja 2013: Prahos vokiečių–lietuvių rankraštinio žodyno autorystės klausimu. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 269–279. Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987: Lexicon Lithuanicum. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Narbutas Sigitas 2011: Praha–Vilnius: jėzuitų poveikis lietuvių kultūros raidai. – Lietuvos Mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių biblioteka. 2007 / 2008. Vilnius, 52–70. Reichel Walter 2004: Josef Valentín Zlobický – první profesor českého jazyka a literatury: život, působení a zásluhy na pozadí osvícenství. – Vídeňský podíl na počátcích českého národního obrození. J. V. Zlobický (1743–1810) a současníci: život, dílo, korespondence. Praha: Academia, 24–42. Schleicher August 1853: O jazyku litevském, zvláště ohledem na slovanský. – Časopis Českého Museum 27. Praha, 320–334. Schleicher August 2008: A. Schleicherio laiškai iš Lietuvos P. Šafarikui. – Lituanistinis Augusto Schleicherio palikimas 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 670–739. Šafářik Pavel Josef 1837: Slovanské starožitnosti w Praze: tiskem Jana Spurného. Vykypělová Taťána 2012: Maximilian Schimek: Bemerkungen zu seiner Mitarbeit an Josef Zlobickýs Projekt einer gesamtslawischen Sprachlehre und zu beider Zerwürfnis. – Miscellanea Vindobonensia Bohemica. In Erinnerung an den 200. Todestag von Josef Valentin Zlobický. Wien: Holzhausen, 37–61 (Bohemoslavica abscondita 1.). Voit Petr 2014: Новые сведения о деятельности Франциска Скорины в Праге (1517–1519) (Atiduota spausdinti.) 340 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Rankraštinis Frydrichui Wilhelmui Hakui priskiriamas vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas Čekijoje Manuscript German–Lithuanian Dictionary Credited to Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack in the Czech Republic S U M M A R Y While analysing the history of the Prague manuscript of the German – Lithuanian dictionary a very special Austro-Hungarian context can be clearly observed. The dictionary was witnessed in Vienna in 1777 and in 1875 the dictionary was undoubtedly referred by Leopold Geitler. However, the owner of the dictionary Josef Valentin Zlobický and Leopold Geitler will remain the only ones who touched this lexicographical source. There is a substantial reason to presume that prior to Geitler, in the first half and the middle of the 19th century, the lexical material of the East Prussia was analysed by the philologist romantic František Čelakovský who was compiling the dictionary of Baltic – Slavic lexical generalities in the period of 1825 – 1852. The coming of the manuscript dictionary in Clementinum, i.e. in Imperial and Royal Public and University Library of Prague will most probably be related to one more personality of Baltistics and Slavistics of the first half of the 19th century Pavel Jozef Šafárik. He was referring to the same sources, but approached the issues of the Balts-Slavs differently than František Čelakovský. His approaches towards the ethnogenesis and glotogenesis of the Balts-Slavs accorded with the attitudes of his predecessor Josef Dobrovský. The Jesuit J. Dobrovský, as a close supporter and a colleague of J. V. Zlobický, should be presumed as a person mediator with the help of who the German – Lithuanian dictionary appeared in Prague. The coming of the manuscript German – Lithuanian dictionary in Vienna was most probably decided by the scientific interests of J. V. Zlobický, the undertaking of the comparative grammar of all Slavic languages to be precise. The Czechs are inclined on treating the Lithuanian language as a separate, i.e. non-Slavic language from the time of Matouš Benešovský (1587). J. V. Zlobický could compare it to the Sorbian language. However, in this case, the Baltic-Slavic issue was important for the researcher in the seventh decade of the 18th century, and his then available manuscript source was convenient in searching for an appropriate explanation and reasoning of arguments of lexical character. All the above mentioned individuals took on the research direction of Matouš Benešovský i.e. they consistently worked with printed and manuscript dictionaries while thoroughly analysing the issues of Baltic-Slavic language relations. Įteikta 2014 m. gruodžio 5 d. ILJA LEMEŠKIN Prahos Karolio universitetas Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1, Czech Republic [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 341