Bazelio ketureilis / dvieilis – dovanų prašymo pavyzdys

ILIJA LEMEŠKIN Charles University in Prague Research interests: Old Baltic literature and writing, comparative folklore studies, lexicography, and the history of Baltic studies. THE QUATRAIN / COUPLET OF BASEL – AN EXAMPLE OF A PLEA FOR GIFTS1 Quatrain / Couplet of Basel: Example of a Plea for Gifts ABSTRACT This article may be regarded as a continuation of Diego Ardoino’s 2012 study, since the connection between the colophon and the Prussian text is further explored here. The Prussian inscription is understood as a short piece of sung, or recitative, folklore (a quatrain), closely related to Christmas carols (and other calendar-related works associated with the house-visiting ritual). Both the figurine of a person bowing (with an outstretched hand) and the German note may be linked to the context of caroling and asking for gifts; together with the Prussian inscription, they form a kind of continuation of the colophon. This supports the previously expressed assumption that the copyist of Nicola Oresme’s work was Prussian. A somewhat different linguistic interpretation of the Prussian text is proposed. 1 In the 2013–2014 academic year, a new course was introduced in the master’s programme in Baltic studies at Charles University: Fundamentals of Old Prussian and Reading Texts. Previously, the author of this article had studied the Baltic diaspora in fourteenth-century Prague, which may have contributed to the appearance of the Basel text; consequently, during the first semester, considerably more time was devoted to analyzing this particular monument. The group of students consisted of Іера Ivanova and Jan Bičovský. Working with them led to the development of the article’s general conception, which acquired its present form at the urging of Prof. Grasilda Blažienė. The comments and references of the reviewer, Prof. Pietro Umberto Dini, and Dr. Rolandas Kregždys were especially important. The aspects relating to folklore studies were discussed further with Prof. Bronislava Kerbelytė and Prof. Jurijus Novikovas. However, the work presented here cannot be considered a completed study. Folklore material is presented only minimally, just enough to reveal the general structural features of the works being compared. In accordance with the principles of historical-geographical folklore studies, the analysis draws primarily on Baltic (Lithuanian) and Slavic (East Slavic; and, given the possibility of genre diffusion, also Czech) material. The corpus of comparative texts would benefit from expansion, since there is a strong likelihood of finding further textual, typological, and genetic correspondences. Some of the grammatical issues raised here also remain insufficiently examined. K E Y W O R D S: Prussian couplet / quatrain of Basel, Christmas carols, plea for gifts. K E Y W O R D S: Prussian couplet / quatrain of Basel, Christmas carols, plea for gifts. Straipsniai / Articles 11 ANNOTATION The article can be considered a continuity of research initiated by Diego Ardoino in 2012 as it expands the relationship between a colophon and a Prussian text in yet a different respect. The inscription in the Prussian language is understood as a piece of singing or recitative folklore (quatrain), which is very akin to Christmas carols (and other calendar pieces of the house-to-house visiting ritual). Both a figure of a bowing man (with a stretched hand) and a German note, which, together with the Prussian inscription, make a peculiar continuity of the colophon, can be associated with the context of Christmas carolling and pleading for gifts. It supports the previous assumption that the rewriter who transcribed the work by Nicola Oresme was Prussian. The author proposes a slightly different linguistic interpretation of the Prussian text. Isn’t it time for you to give and bestow, master? Not a ruble, master, nor a half-ruble, but at least one golden grivna, sir, or a little glass of wine and a little glass of beer. (Обрядовая поэзия 1989: 84) Deciphering and reading the Prussian little poem is closely connected with interpreting the purpose of the inscription and the circumstances in which the text arose. The linguistic understanding of the text also depends on one’s view of the person who made the inscription. The authorship of a student has been debated the longest: “[...] BPT is a humorous-ironic expression, uttered (while drinking) probably by one student to another student (a friend) [...]” (Mažiulis 1975: 130). This assumption made it possible to excuse the imperfection of the hexameter and the addition of the letter -e as “the slang and punning character of the language of young learners” (Mažiulis 1975: 125). The image of the “student,” which proved very useful for interpreting the text, legitimized a kind of “error hunting.” Given the tiny length of the text, the number of graphic emendations seems disproportionate. The chain of errors discerned calls for verification (Bammesberger 1998; Dini 2000b, 397–400), especially when, setting aside the tavern setting, one considers a different content for the couplet (Schmid 1982), as well as other candidates for authorship of the Basel little poem: a monk (Purkartas 1983), a student well versed in book culture (Ardoino 2012b), and, finally, a professional copyist (Schaeken 2006; Lemeškin 2013). It would probably be useful to begin an alternative reading of the Basel text, and the justification for such a reading, by establishing the authorial element, or at least by raising this methodological problem. For it is still unclear whether the Prussian himself came up with the whole sentence or made use of some ready-made formula. And if he drew on something, did he reproduce that earlier example verbatim? It would be hard to believe that the Prussian precisely reproduced a sentence he had read somewhere—that is, copied it—with many errors from the original. An oral, that is, folkloric, text, by contrast, is usually polished, and so should not contain unclear linguistic features. 12 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Perhaps this is precisely why the copyist is most often also seen as the author, although there are no strong arguments to support this possibility. In any case, researchers find traces of hexameter in the Basel couplet. Vytautas Mažiulis was the first to formulate this idea, albeit very cautiously: “It seems that these two lines are written in hexameter, although their dactyls and spondees are rather artificial” (Mažiulis 1975: 125). An interesting connection with the hexameter in the colophon Omnibus omnia non mea sompnia dicere possum was revealed by Diego Ardoino (Ardoino 2012a: 350–354). Naturally, in view of the structure of the hexameter and the presentation of the Prussian text on the page, the sentence was interpreted (synchronically) as a distich: Kayle rekyłe · thoneaw labonache thewelyłe · Eg · koyte · poyte · nykoyte · pēnega doyte · However, taking into account the rhythmic echo2, internal rhyme (Kayle – labonache; rekyłe – thewelyłe; poyte – doyte; eg koyte – nykoyte), and the parallelism in parts of speech, their forms, and semantics (discussed below), it would be possible to divide the stanza into four lines. To do so, however, one must remove thoneaw, which lengthens the line and appears to be optional: Kayle rekyłe ·?? U – U labonache thewelyłe ·???? U U – U Eg · koyte · poyte · U – U – U nykoyte · pēnega doyte · U – U – U U – U Thus, thoneaw could be regarded as an insertion which, by giving the text a new metrical form (under the influence of the hexameter in the colophon), negates the original essence of the little poem, “you already don’t,” or performs some other function (discussed below). In other words, it may be useful to distinguish two layers in the Basel text: an original, oral one and an authorial one. The innovative character and authorial reworking may be seen in the insertion of thoneaw and in the addition of the element -e, which together produce the five-foot thread of the first stanza, reminiscent of a hexameter. It seems that the little poem under discussion could be aptly interpreted in the context of begging for alms and the giving of gifts. This does not mean that the person who left the inscription ever actually held out a hand and begged on Charles Bridge or elsewhere. The most prominent motifs of asking for gifts are found in Christmas carols. The Basel quatrain should be compared with them above all, and not only because of similarities in content or style. The colophon itself permits, and indeed compels, this comparison: it is associated with the Latin hexameter, the figure of a person with an outstretched hand, and the Prussian text, since there the completion of the copying of Nicola Oresme’s work Qu-estiones Super Quattuor Libros Methororum is linked precisely to the Christmas season—in vigilia epiphanie: Besides the assonance <oy> in the lines, one can apparently discern traces of alliteration: Kayle rekyłe · / labona[t]he thewelyłe · / Eg · koyte · poyte · / nykoyte · pēnega doyte. Straipsniai / Articles 13 1 FIG. Fragment f. 63r – Universitätsbibliothek Basel, shelfmark F.V.2. Photographed and kindly permitted for use in this publication by Diego Ardoino In the year of our Lord 1369, the questions on meteorology were completed by the hand of the one who wrote them, and on the eve of Epiphany, by the hand of the one who wrote them. I can tell everyone everything, but not my dreams. Amen. The final line of the colophon determined the epic format of the following text. But between the colophon and the Prussian entry that follows, one can perhaps discern another close connection. The little figure of a “beggar” and the Prussian inscription correspond to the time of the source’s transcription specified in the colophon—the eve of Epiphany. The time of year and the songs heard only then probably prompted the appearance of an entry with related content. 14 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Individual words could be interpreted as follows: 1. The phrase Kayle reky|e is interpreted as a greeting addressed to the same addressee denoted by pron. tho (in the insertion thoneaw) and by the words labonache thewely|e in the second line. This interpretation is plausible, but another solution can also be proposed, one that would account for the ending -e in the word Kayle and the use of the Prussian lexeme *rīkis ‘Lord’. In this position, the phrase may function not as a form of address but as a greeting, thus meaning not “hello, sir” but the universal “good day, hello.” There are many greetings based on an imperative verb and a lexeme meaning “God,” e.g.: Prussian Deiwa engraudīs, Lithuanian Skalsink Dieve, Padėk Dieve, Latvian Dievs svētī, Palīdz Dievs, German Grüß Gott, Czech Pozdrav pánbůh, Zdař Bůh (cf. Russian спасибо, from *спаси богъ), and so on. This would mean that an imperative could have been used alongside the vocative reky|e ‘God’. No verb with the stem kail- is attested in Prussian monuments. The closest parallel is found in the Slavic languages: Old Church Slavonic уплъгти ‘to heal oneself, recover’, imperative forms уплъви, уплъвите; Russian исцелять, целить, Ukrainian цілити, Belarusian целіў, Serbian уцијелити, Slovenian čeliti, Czech celeti, Polish celić, etc. On the basis of the surviving Prussian lexicographic material and the etymology of Prussian adj. kails ‘healthy’ (PEŽ II 71–73), one could reconstruct the denominative infinitive *kail-ētvei ‘to be healthy, strong; to make healthy, strong’ (cf. Baltic adj. *kaita- ‘hot, warm’ → Prussian verb kaitētvei ‘to be kindled, excited’ (see PEŽ I 268)). Since God is traditionally addressed informally, a 2nd person singular imperative Prussian *kail-ei-s ‘[you] be healthy, strong; make [someone] healthy, strong’ would be expected. Given the possibility that the ending -s is secondary (Endzelīns 1982: 129), one may assume that a short form *kail-ei existed, corresponding to Vilnius dialect rāšai, in old writings pamī|ākai AK, įchlausai Mž, atadārai DP. The shortening of the ending can also be explained by a simple contraction of an etiquette interjection (cf. labdien, labryt, padėkdie, Czech Bóh tebe poždraw > pozdraw tě bůh > těbůh; dobro jutro > dobrojtro, dobroytro > dobrýtro, dobrejtro). Thus Prussian *kaileʳ rīķis < *kailei[s] rīķis ‘good day’ would originally have meant “make [me] whole, healthy, God.” Due to the lack of data, it is impossible to provide incontrovertible grammatical evidence to support this form. The proposed interpretation is useful because it motivates the use of the lexeme *rīķis ‘Lord’ (which seems somewhat unusual when speaking of a specific human addressee) and the letter -e at the end of the word Kayle. In addition to the parallels cited in other languages (the exact semantic equivalent would be Czech Pozdrav pánbůh), folkloric poetics³ would also support an etiquette interjection in this position, since such an opening greeting fits the Christmas- 3 Cf. also a Slovak Christmas carol that begins with the shortened form Kyrie eleison (Greek Κύριε ἐλέησον ‘Lord, have mercy’): Kyrie, it is good, Kyrie, it is not bad, Kyrie, let us learn; whoever has come to you will be good to us. Let us go to him today, and into this world the little Jesus has come down. The goats and sheep graze up on the mountain. And quickly, briskly, let us visit. (Slovak carols... 1992: 117) Straipsniai / Articles 15 the opening formulas of the songs. The situation of arriving at another household, naturally, called for greeting the people who lived there politely in order to obtain treats: Good evening, kalėda, Our master of the house, kalėda, Our master of the house, kalėda, The master of this house, [kalėda]. Is our master of the house at home, kalėda? (nr. 390, Kl 359 – Dainynas XX 632) Good evening to you, good people! We do not come alone, We are leading a goat! (Календарно–обрядовая... 1981, Nr. 5). Be well, master of the house, Something in your yard Is rustling and humming, A holy evening! (Голас... 1995: 336–337) 2. The reconstructed formula of etiquette, *kaileis rīkīs, began the Christmas caroler’s monologue. It greeted everyone encountered in the new place, after which requests were to follow, directed at the individual people giving kalėda (the more, the greater the haul). These specific requests, of course, were framed with appropriate forms of address: to the master of the house, his wife, and the children (depending on the particular situation). The distribution of addressees is well illustrated, for example, by these Lithuanian songs: Where shall I go singing Christmas carols? Grow, grass, beneath the little horse, kalėda. I shall go to Pūčius to sing Christmas carols, Grow, grass, beneath the little horse, kalėda. Pūcienė will give a slab of bacon, Grow, grass, beneath the little horse, kalėda. And Pūciūtė a link of sausage, Grow, grass, beneath the little horse, kalėda. Pūcys gives a bottle of schnapps, Grow, grass, beneath the little horse, kalėda. (nr. 375 A1, Kl 356 – Dainynas XX 614–615) 16 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Give us, dear father – a little barrel of rye, Hey, Christmas carol, Kaledzyca.... Give us, dear brother – a little barrel of wheat, Hey, Christmas carol, Kaledzyca.... Give us, dear mother, give us a little gift, Hey, Christmas carol, Kaledzyca.... Give us, dear sister – a feather bed, Hey, Christmas carol, Kaledzyca.... (nr. 377 A, Kl 357, 345 – Dainynas XX 614–615) Thus, in the position following the interjection Kayle rekyſe (1), that is, in place (2) labonache thewelyſe, we would expect a vocative or a nominative functioning as one (semantic model: 1. “May God bless you!”; 2. “[...] master”). Although the ending of the noun thewelyſe coincides with that of the vocative rekyſe in the first line, according to the traditional interpretation of the text it is usually treated as nominative singular (“you are no longer our father” or “you are no longer a good uncle”). As in the first case, the additional -e may be explained by metrical considerations. However, it seems that we have no formal or semantic grounds for ruling out interpreting thewelyſe (analogous to rekyſe, whose vocative function seems to be universally acknowledged) as a realization of the vocative. The word can be understood as a lexical honorific used to address an older person who is not a relative. The specificity of the form of address also provides good grounds for using the lexeme *tevelis, since otherwise (if we work with the nominative—“you are not who”), we are forced to assume a semantic shift: “father” > “father’s brother” > “uncle”. Such a vocative form of address, as if addressing one’s father, is characteristic of house-visiting customs and the folk compositions accompanying them. Its roots undoubtedly lie in the traditional village social order and the realities of everyday life, traces of which can still be found today (for example, in interactions with elderly informants during field expeditions). As an example of a Lithuanian Christmas carol, one could cite the song given above: “Give us, dear father / A little barrel of rye...” (no. 377 A, Kl 357, 345 – Dainynas XX 614–615). No further cases have been found because the Lithuanian Christmas carol genre has survived only sparsely, but numerous Slavic and other parallels can be listed. In them, gifts are requested from the fathers of gentlemen and the mothers of ladies encountered along the way while caroling. For example: Náš pantáto rozmilý, Poslyšte nás tu chvíli, Co vám budeme zpívat, Radostně vypravovat. (Zíbrt 1910: 10) Straipsniai / Articles 17 Lady of the house, our neighbor, I have come for a Christmas gift; If you haven’t two ducats, Give at least a golden nut, Borrow one from the master of the house; I’ll take it to little Jesus, the poor little boy. “Lady of the house, neighbor, I have come for Christmas gifts; if you have no two ducats, give at least a golden nut, borrow one from the master of the house; I’ll take it to little Jesus, the poor little boy.” (Zíbrt 1910: 11) Mistress of the house, our good father, Give a gift to the visiting carolers: A pair of eggs, A piece of pie, A pie with onions, So there’ll be something to gobble; And if you don’t want to give, We’ll go tease the dogs, Knead the mud, Make people laugh. (Новиков 2002: 196) In the case of the word labonache, the graphic emendation proposed by Wolfgang P. Schmid is persuasive: <-s-> instead of <-ch->. In the context of requests for Christmas gifts, his suggested reading labo(n)naxse, i.e. “our good one,” would also be suitable (Schmid 1982: 288). The phrase na[s]e thewelyfe ‘our little father’ would fit well, for example, with the previously mentioned form of address хозяюшка, наш батюшка, which is regularly attested in the caroling songs of Old Believers in the Belarusian-Lithuanian borderland. However, Kortlandt questions the validity of Schmid’s interpretation (Kortlandt 1998: 127), since we would expect nusonx in place of *nase. From a formal point of view, Bammesberger’s suggestion labona[kt]e ‘good night’ would be acceptable (Bammesberger 1998: 125). The force of Kortlandt’s critical remark that this phrase cannot be reconciled with the semantics of the text is partly diminished by the Christmas context. A good example is the opening of the Lithuanian song cited earlier: Good evening, Christmas gift…, but this would constrain us to assume that caroling began in the evening and could continue late into the night and/or that this particular lexeme suited the newly composed couplet in terms of meter and/or alliteration (cf. Prussian deinan, bītas). In keeping with the poetic paradigm of Christmas songs, before the form of address thewelyfe, a nominal epitheton constans denoting the owner of the farm being visited, the master of the house and yard (for example, “benefactor / good man / kindly little father”), or an imperative (“bring good things, little father”) would also fit well. Could the component –nase be interpreted as a verb? 18 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Could there be a trace of Prussian *nes ‘carry, transport’ (Prussian nassute ‘cargo ship’; according to Mažiulis, from Prussian *nesutīs – PEŽ III 170)? The compound would then contain a verb-derived iō stem, namely the nomen agentis Prussian *nesis, *nešėjas. The first element would in that case be either the adjective laba- ‘good’ (cf. Prussian labbasēgīsnan, labbapodingausnan, labbaiquotīsnan), or the noun accusative singular labban ‘wealth, property’. With the suffix iō, nomina actionis / nomina acti were formed from verbs (see Mažiulis 2004: 26), for example, Prussian boadis ‘a stab, thrust’ (see PŽE I 150). However, given the folkloric nature of the text, one might consider the influence of Slavic languages (cf. Lithuanian Slavic calques with the second element -nešys: žinianėšys, junganešys, vainiknešys, etc.). Mažiulis derived labonache from the Prussian adjective *lab-nas ‘good’, which eventually became *lab-anas > *lab-ants. The word’s root is traditionally compared with lab- ‘good’: Prussian labs, labas, labs. However, in light of the caroling context, it may be worth considering another possibility. Might this conceal a word meaning “master of the house, head of the household”: cf. Lithuanian labōnas ‘head, crown of the head, brain’, Lithuanian labonis ‘head; mind’, Lithuanian labōnė ‘forehead; head’, Old Slavic adjective ЛЪБЬНЪ ‘skull; frontal bone’, Tocharian lap ‘skull, head’, Church Slavonic ЛЪБЪ ‘skull’, Russian лобан ‘a person or animal with a large projecting forehead’, Serbian-Croatian дубина ‘skull’, Slovenian lubánja, Czech leb ‘same’, Polish leb ‘head’, and others. See also: Prussian arglobis ‘crown of the head’ (PŽE I 90–91), Prussian lubbo ‘board, ceiling’ (PŽE III 84–85). The semantic basis is obvious: “head” → “head of the family; senior member of the household, master of the house, leader.” A suffix *-at- could then have been added to *labon- (cf. deiwuts ‘blessed, saved’ < adj. *deivūta- < *deivāta- ‘divine, godly, blessed, saved’, PŽE I 193; Prussian nagotis ‘iron pot’ from *nagātīs ‘iron pot with legs’ < adj. Prussian *nagāta- ‘having legs’ < *nagā ‘leg, foot’ + suffix *-(ā)ta-; see PŽE III 159); in terms of word formation, compare Lithuanian galvōčius, galvōtis. Among the Christmas songs already cited, ponas randorius; хозяин; пан хозяин would correspond to the word labona[t]he, while the phrase labona[t]he thewelyfe – хозяюшка, наш батюшка; pantáto... would correspond to “mistress of the house, our good father; master of the house…”. These last two interpretations, in which a noun performs the function of epitheton constans (before the vocative thewelyfe), could help explain the interpretation of the German (?) ending -e⁴. Finally, in the context of the alms request under discussion, the view expressed in Christian Stang’s correspondence with William R. Schmalstieg (McCluskey, Schmalstieg, Zeps 1975: 162; Dini 2000a: 201) can be brought back into consideration: according to it, thoneaw denotes a specific person named (An)tonius: “Good day, Antonijau, our good little father.” This possibility is considered by Bammesberger (Bammesberger 1998, 125–126) and Dini (Dini 4 Perhaps another approach would be to interpret the form labonache diachronically as the accusative singular labban ‘good thing’ and (by analogy with *kail-ei-s in the first line) the second-person singular imperative nes-ei-s ‘carry!’ in Prussian. Historically, it might be possible to reconstruct an earlier form of the folkloric text, which may have been used before the Prussian verb *nes- was displaced by Prussian *pēdi-tvei ‘carry’: kail-e[i]-s rikis / labban nes-e[i]-s tewelis “make well, God, / bring good things, little father.” Since this reconstruction is based on another reconstruction, we place our speculation in a footnote. Straipsniai / Articles 19 2000b, 398), but rejects it as theoretical and unconvincing (Kortlandt 1998, 128). The practice of going around at Christmas provides her with additional support. Indeed, personal names are a common feature in Christmas songs, and there is great variety among them (KL 357, 345 A – Arlauskas, Arlauskienė, Barisa, Bielinis, Čelna, Ignotas, Janulevičienė, Kasparavičius, Kašeta, Saikauskas, Kabaras, Valatka, Valatkienė, Velička, Adelė, Gabriukas, Juozas, Petrutis; KL 357, 345 B – Baltramiejus, Grinkevičienė, Tamosius, Žukauskas, Žukauskienė): The lord rides along, Duos, Giving us Maceika, going around at Christmas, A barrel of oats, Christmas greetings. Christmas greetings. And he rode up to Mocėjienė’s— To Maceika’s manor, Pies, flax, Christmas greetings. Christmas greetings. (no. 380 B, KL 357, 345 – Dainynas XX 621) The use of a personal name is not at odds with the poetics of Christmas songs. On the contrary, a personal name can provide a good basis for the facultative nature of the problematic thoneaw. At this point in the spoken text, it could have been replaced by the name of any other neighbor or acquaintance being addressed. However, the slot often remained unfilled when addressing the whole family, a group of people, or a stranger. Thus, in such a case, one should abandon the usual division of thoneaw into tho ‘you’ and neaw ‘is not’. Moreover, if we allow a proper name after interj. *kailerīkīs, the authorial Prussian couplet will suddenly become much more hexametric, as the missing syllable will be supplied. For consideration, the following reconstruction could be proposed: – U U /– U U / – U U / – U? /? U U /– U K a y l e r e k y f e · [A n] t h o n e [i] a w l a b o(n) n a c h e t h e w e l y f e · The supplementation of the first syllable of the name Antonijus is justified by the writing practices of the time—word compression, particularly because of the lack of writing space. The scribe of the hexameter was certainly constrained: a given text had to fit on one line, without extending into the next column of the page. It goes without saying that the graphically reduced text was pronounced differently when read than it was written. The same mechanism could theoretically have operated in this case as well. Thus, if the comparison with the oral tradition of Christmas is well-founded, the first two lines of the Basel piece reflect the stages of greeting, addressing, and making a polite request. The following variants may be proposed as readings for further consideration: Kayle rekyfe · labonache thewelyfe · “Good day, / Greetings, sir, master father! / dear father! / our good father!” And as part of the secondary (authorial) couplet, with the variable and facultative [An]thoneaw: 20 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Kayle rekyfe · [A n] t h o n e a w labonache thewelyfe · “Good day, dear Antonijau, our good / master, father” “Good day, you are no longer our good / master, father” 3. Christmas, i.e. the request for and demand for material goods, is realized further, in the third and fourth lines. It is expressed by 2nd person plural imperative forms: poyte ‘water, drink’, doyte ‘give’. This explanation is the most acceptable from a formal point of view (McCluskey, Schmalstieg, Zeps 1975: 161; Bammesberger 1998: 122), but was rejected because it conflicts with the drinking-party context (which, in turn, was reconstructed from two consecutive “obscure” words, thoneaw and labonache): “From the context, it would seem that this is the infinitive of the Prussian verb ‘to drink’” (Mažiulis 1975: 129); “McCluskey, Schmalstieg, and Zep assume, in a formally acceptable way, that this might be an imperative, but then one would have to acknowledge the difficulties that arise in interpreting the text’s content” (Dini 2000b: 399). Perhaps the arguments set out above and the proposed reading of the text resolve some of the difficulties in understanding it? Since the use of the imperative mood in the context of Christmas begging seems entirely justified, the imperative form would also be motivated and would occur in the expected position. Meanwhile, identifying an infinitive required numerous emendations—to endings and root vowels. A similar approach was taken with the adjacent koyte and nykoyte. Although their form corresponds perfectly to the present 3rd person singular and plural (quoiōte ‘(he) wants’ III 57₁₉; quoiōte ‘(they) want’ III 99₅, quoiōtā ‘the same’ III 51₁₆), they were unnecessary for the context reconstructed at the time and the meaning assigned to the text. The words were understood as present 2nd person singular quoi ‘you want’ with the enclitic pronoun tu ‘you’ (which, a line above, should have been written as tho). Now, considering another context for the text’s emergence, it would make sense to return to the original form. Following the formal criterion, we distinguish: Eg: koyte: poyte conj. present 3rd person imperative singular, plural 2nd person plural nykoyte: pēnega doyte: present 3rd person genitive singular imperative singular, plural with 2nd person plural negation Instead of koyte and nykoyte, the present 2nd person plural would fit semantically (“If you want—give [us] something to drink; if you do not want to—give [us] money”), but then there would be a need to account for the swallowing of the ending –ti (quoiōtēti ‘you want’ III 107₉, III 115₂₀). It can hardly be “written off” as serving the rhyme, as is often done in the case of the Basel poem, or as haplology. A different semantic interpretation seems simpler: “If (the carolers / one) wants—water (them / him) [or: ‘drink (together)’]; if (he) does not want (to drink)—give [us] money.” The causative status of the verb poyte could be supported by Old Prussian nournu ‘to water’, imperative nou, noume ‘water, water (plural)’ (Russian noumb-numb, Polish poić-pić, etc.). Third-person forms Straipsniai / Articles 21 The use of koyte ir nykoyte could also be explained by the involvement of an intermediary. One can imagine a situation in which the visitor’s status does not really allow them to ask for alms in their own name, so an accompanying assistant takes on this task (for example, the collection of Christmas gifts by priests, which will be discussed below), or one in which the leader of a group asks for alms on behalf of all the carolers. In the first case, koyte ir nykoyte would be used as praes. 3 sg. (“if [he] wants…”), and in the second, as praes. 3 pl. (“if [they] want…”). It is worth investigating specifically whether caroling on behalf of a third person (one of the kings or Jesus) was a distinctive feature of the songs performed at the Feast of the Three Kings. One king, the black Balthazar, performed the ritual cleansing of the house, while his companions asked for a gift in return for his actions: We three kings, we come to you, wishing you happiness and health, happiness and health, many years! We have come to you from afar. From afar our journey is, We want to know your hearts. Our black friend in the back is sticking his chin out at you! He’ll smoke everywhere, and ask for a gift with us! (Zíbrt 2006, 63) In the context of Christmas carols, the use of the partitive genitive pēnega ‘money’ may also be better understood. It seems unnecessary to reconstruct a plural form (Schmid 1982: 289). In seeking financial assistance, the petitioner chooses a psychologically persuasive (diminutive, disparaging) approach, and therefore typically begs for a little bit of money, a small coin, a groat, a kopeck, and so on. There is evidence that gifts of money were characteristic specifically of caroling at the Feast of the Three Kings. This even became a kind of obligation, which in later times people actively resisted (Zíbrt 2006, 66). Finally, we find a similarity at the syntactic level as well. In Christmas and other songs that reflect the pursuit of gifts—that is, the desire to obtain some kind of goods—the petitioner traditionally wavers among various possibilities. The petitioner hopes to receive this, or that, or the other; and if not this, then at least that. Christmas songs contain many such lists of possible rewards: Carol, carol, granny dear, Give us a walnut or an apple here; If you don’t give us a walnut, I’ll punch a hole in your fur coat. “Carol, carol, granny dear, Give us a little nut or a little apple; If you don’t give us a little nut, I’ll pierce your fur coat.” (Zíbrt 1910: 12) Eastertide, Eastertide, give us painted eggs; if you won’t give us painted ones, give us at least white ones, and your hen will lay you some more. “Feasting, feasting until Low Sunday, give us dyed eggs; if you won’t give us dyed ones, give us at least white ones, and your hen will hatch you some more.” (A widely used Easter recitative to this day.) 22 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX You, host, don’t keep us waiting! Give us a gift quickly! Red-and-green grapevine! And since this frost of ours won’t let us stand for long, it tells you to serve us quickly. Red-and-green grapevine! Either a pie from the oven or a sieve from the loft. Red-and-green grapevine! Either a little jug of beer or a five-kopeck coin. Red-and-green grapevine! Either a pot of cabbage soup or a dish of pig intestines. Red-and-green grapevine! (Zalensky 1912: 183) Kolyada, Kolyada, give us a pie, or a slice of bread, or half a ruble, or a little hen with a tuft, a cockerel with a comb! Or a wisp of hay, or a pitchfork in your side. (Afanasyev Collection 2005: 134) The Christmas gift requested and received, of course, depended on the status of the caroler. A child received a gift suitable for a child, a married man one suitable for a man, a priest one suitable for a priest, and so on. One might receive a little nut with an apple, another a side of ham, and yet another a monetary gift. The content of the text under discussion, from the second half of the 14th century, in which drink and money figure, also indicates the intended recipient of this little work. Bearing in mind the previously used form of address to the master of the house being visited—“father”—he may have been a clergyman in minor orders (ordines minores), familiar with book culture and literacy; after all, such a gift (an annual payment) would probably be most fitting for him and for a priest. The “performer” of the little work could also have been, for example, a townsman working as a scribe, a philosopher—that is, a student—for whom caroling and other house-visiting customs were an important source of one-off income (he could ask for money, though he could hardly count on receiving it), or another person of similar social standing. One Czech satirical literary work of the 15th century may be of particular importance to us. It was created on the basis of Christmas carols of the time and records the customs of that era: On Christmas Eve give the priest a monetary gift and honor him with precious drink! On Christmas Eve, give the priest a generous monetary gift and honor him with an expensive drink. Straipsniai / Articles 23 Then wait for the bell-ringer between the feasts and the intermediary [priest], having prepared the carol gift. If you had no money to give them, you had to pay them in grain, cakes, and fruit. Later, wait for the bell-ringer between the holidays and [the priest as] intermediary, having prepared the Christmas gift. If you could not give them money, you had to pay in grain, cakes, and vegetables. (Husitské písně 1952: 125–131) Other sources confirm that the priest visited his parishioners most often on Christmas Eve. During his visit, he performed a certain New Year’s ritual—purifying the house with incense. Girls wishing to marry, or the mistress of the house herself, would sit in the place where the priest had sat, hoping to ensure the fertility of their domestic animals, and so on (Zíbrt 1889: 265–266). In return, the priest received gifts. From Christmas Eve until Epiphany, as a 15th-century Czech monument shows, lower-ranking clergy also went from house to house (likewise with incense), and they too were customarily given a monetary gift. But the priest also did not disdain extra earnings on Epiphany. An order from 1594 is known that prohibited priests from walking through the streets with a cross and visiting houses that day (Zíbrt 1889: 13). Finally, the last line of the colophon may also be connected with caroling and the skeptical “planning” of future gains Omnibus omnia non mea sompnia dicere possum. 4. Additionally, it would be worth briefly discussing the German sentence written on the pennant: ihs ich leid (today’s Epiphany carolers carry a star; earlier, they carried a cross, while the clergy carried incense). The inscription is translated as “Jesus, I suffer.” This meaning can also be aptly applied to caroling customs, since the petitioner may present himself as a poor man. However, it might be worthwhile to consider another possible reading: “Jesus, I lead” or “Jesus, I go.” The first meaning would imply the verb leiten ‘to lead’, which in Low German appears to have yielded leiden (cf. Dutch leiden). But this would mean that the High German pronoun form is combined with a Low German verb form. Can this possibility be ruled out? In the second case, we are compelled to investigate the etymology of the verb leiden. The secondary meaning ‘to suffer’ developed from ‘to go, to travel’. The semantic development can be traced differently depending on the region. What matters to us is that the new meaning reached the Baltic Sea around the beginning of the 14th century5. But can we suppose that the old meaning disappeared suddenly and uniformly everywhere? This interpretation of the German sentence would lend dynamism to the human figure. It is known that the Christmas carolers were well-organized groups. The distribution of roles is also revealed by Lithuanian Christmas carols: 5 “The semantic change first attested in Old High German apparently spread from south (Alemannic, Rhine Franconian) to north, reaching the coast around 1300 and entering Dutch, Frisian, and the Nordic languages from Low German” (Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen von Wolfgang Pfeifer. Available online: http://www.dwds.de/?qu=leiden). 24 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX Let’s go, boys, carol, carol, After Christmas, beg, carol. Those who grab—chase the dogs, carol, Those who are devout—say prayers, carol, Those who are bold—ask for bread, carol. (no. 374, KL 365 – Dainynas XX 613) “Some asked, others carried,” and among those asking was one experienced caroler—the leader, who represented the whole group (cf. Old Believer Lithuanian–Belarusian вожатый, Ukrainian береза́, атаман; Belarusian начинальник; Serbian домаћин, дедај, старешина; Bulgarian станеник, цар, etc.). He would begin, lead, and speak on behalf of everyone (this may also have determined the use of the second-person plural koyte ir nykoyte). The carolers were identified according to him; otherwise, the same group might end up caroling in one place more than once. An address to Jesus would also be unsurprising, since alms were often asked in Jesus’ name and for his benefit (“Little Jesus doesn’t want milk… give [him] a thaler”; cf. “If [Little Jesus] wants it, give [it] to him to drink; if he doesn’t, give him money”): A little son was born there; he sends me to you so that you would give him Christmas alms, and I will give them to him. He does not want bread; his mother has fed him; rather, you should send a thaler or a ducat. I beg you kindly, give me something and let me go; I have no time to stand here, for I must still rock the child in Bethlehem. “A little son was born there; he sends me to you, so that you would give him Christmas alms, and I will pass them on to him. He does not want bread; his mother fed him; you should rather send a thaler or a ducat. I kindly ask you, reward me; I have no time to stand here; I still have to rock the child in Bethlehem.” Kaleda-maleda! Give a flatbread, Not for me, a sinner— For the Heavenly King… (Korepova 2009: 48) All this suggests that the little figure depicted may represent a caroling scene, and that the Prussian text may be understood as words spoken by the leader of the carolers or by a cleric visiting homes (or someone from a priest’s circle of assistants). The combination of image and text recalls a modern comic strip, in which a character’s words hang in a speech bubble. The difference is that the short text in Prussian reveals the character’s verbal expression, whereas the German inscription serves a different purpose. It describes the situation. Elements of the Basel Codex (63r) potentially associated with the Christmas season strongly resemble the so-called Three Kings Straipsniai / Articles 25 letters (kolední lístky tříkrálové), with which carolers rewarded more distinguished hosts and for which they received a more generous Christmas gift. The image (printed and standardized in later times, of course6) was accompanied here by a handwritten Christmas carol or a short Christmas poem of the writer’s own composition. The distribution of Christmas Epiphany letters was widespread in Bohemia as early as the eighteenth century (Zíbrt 2006: 62–63, 199; Zíbrt 1905: 199). Thus, comparing the Basel text with Christmas songs can be justified on several levels at once. First, there are similarities in style and content. As in examples of Christmas-gift requests, several components can be distinguished in it: a greeting (though not necessarily so)7, a polite address, and an exhortation expressed by an imperative. The things requested, i.e. a drink or money, the address to the host thewelyf, and, finally, the time of caroling point to an author-performer from a lower-clergy milieu, at least this may be surmised in light of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Bohemian realities. No less important is the context in which the Prussian inscription appears in the manuscript itself. The colophon, accompanied by a Latin hexameter, a human figure, a German note, and a short Prussian text, refers directly to the Christmas season, specifically to the eve of Epiphany. Thus, both the little figure of a beggar and the flag, as well as the text in Prussian, may be interpreted as integral components of the colophon. This would support the idea expressed earlier that the scribe who copied Nicola Oresme’s work was Prussian. In terms of genre, the combination of image and text would recall something far removed from the drinking verse tradition (Trinksprüche)—a Christmas Epiphany sheet (tříkrálové lístky). Taking into account the possible origins of the Prussian text, which lead back to house-visiting customs and calendrical folklore, it probably becomes possible to shed light on the genesis of the Prussian piece. The couplet, somewhat resembling a hexameter, most likely developed from a quatrain that was recast in two ways, probably for metrical reasons: an optional (An)thoneaw was inserted, and the ending -e was added to rekyf, thewelyf. The newly proposed interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the Prussian text invites a somewhat different linguistic analysis, especially in the case of the second part of the piece, where one must be guided primarily by formal criteria. The traditional understanding of the text is based on the pattern: address – negative description of the addressee – justification of this description. That is: “Greetings, host, you are not our good dear father; if you want to drink, but do not want to give money.” As an alternative, the following is proposed: greeting – polite address (from the caroler to the host) – an order-request expressed by an infinitive. That is: “Good day, host dear father; if you wish (visitors, little Jesus)—give us drink; if you do not wish—give us money,” or “Greetings, sir, our good dear father; if you wish (visitors, little Jesus)—give us drink; if you do not wish—give us money.” 6A couple of them were published by Zíbrt (1905). 7 The interjection would add another function to the text, but it is not actually necessary. One can also do without it and retain the traditional “greetings, sir.” In that case, we would have two successive forms of address, which is normal—folklore contains many tautologies: “Greetings, sir, benefactor dear father...” 26 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX The proposed reading of the text would place the Prussian piece among the venerable written monuments, a series beginning with Gilgamesh and ending, in the closely related milieu, with the Lithuanian 1262 chronicle. It would differ from the tale of Sovijus essentially in its language. Thus, the oldest Baltic text may at the same time also be the oldest Baltic folklore work recorded in its original language. L I T E R A T U R E A r d o i n o D i e g o 2012a: On the current location of the Old Prussian Trace of Basel. – Baltistica 47(2), 349–358. A r d o i n o D i e g o 2012b: La Traccia di Basilea nel suo contesto tedesco-latino: aspetti codicologico, paleografico e filologico. – Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология-XVI (чтения памяти И.М. Тронского), ред. Николай Н. Казанский. Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 19–33. B a m m e s b e r g e r A l f r e d 1998: Anmerkungen zum Baseler Epigramm. – Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 121–126. Dainynas XX – Lithuanian Folk Song Collection 20. Advent and Christmas Songs. Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, 2007. D i n i P i e t r o U m b e r t o 2000a: Sul ‘Frammento di Basilea’ e altri inediti nel carteggio fra Chr. Stang e W. R. Schmalstieg. – Res Balticae 6, 195–209. D i n i P i e t r o U. 2000b: Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. E n d z e l ī n s J ā n i s 1982: Selected Works 4. Rīga: Zinātne. Husitské písně 1952: Husitské písně. Praha: Československý spisovatel. K o r t l a n d t F r e d e r i k 1998: Who is who in the Old Prussian Epigram. – Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 127–128. L e m e š k i n I l j a 2013: The Prussian Glosses of Basel and the Balts of Prague. – Baltistica 48(1), 103–117. M c C l u s k e y S t e p h e n C., S c h m a l s t i e g W i l l i a m R., Z e p s V a l d i s J. 1975: The Basel epigram: A new minor text in Old Prussian. – General Linguistics 15, 159–165. M a ž i u l i s V y t a u t a s 1975: The oldest monument of Baltic writing. – Baltistica 11(2), 125–131. M a ž i u l i s V y t a u t a s 2004: Prūsų kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. PEŽ I–IV – M a ž i u l i s V. Etymological Dictionary of the Prussian Language 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988–1997. P u r k a r t J o s e f 1983: The Old Prussian Basel epigram: an interpretation. – General Linguistics 23, 29–36. Straipsniai / Articles 27 Schaken Jos 2006: Observations on the Old Prussian Basel epigram. – International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44–45, 331–342. Schmid Wolfgang P. 1982: Jesus, ich leid. – Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 50. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 205–208. Slovenské koledy 1992: Slovenské koledy: Od Štedrého večera do Troch kráľov. Bratislava: Práca. Zíbrt Čeněk 1889: Staročeské výroční obyčeje, pověry, slavnosti a zábavy prostonárodní pokud o nich vypravují písemné památky až po náš věk. Příspěvek ke kulturním dějinám českým. Praha: Nákladem J.R. Vilímka. Zíbrt Čeněk 1905: Lístky, rozdávané při koledních obchůzkách Tříkrálových. – Český lid 14, 199–201. Zíbrt Čeněk 1910: Hoj, ty Štědrý večere... (Od Vánoc koledou do Nového roku). Praha: Nakladatelství F. Šimáčka. Zíbrt Čeněk 2006: Veselé chvíle v životě lidu českého. Praha: Vyšehrad. Афанасьевский сборник 2005: Афанасьевский сборник. Материалы и исследования. Выпуск III. Календарные обряды и обрядовая поэзия Воронежской области. Воронеж: Издательство Воронежского государственного университета. Голас... 1995: Голас з невъчэрпнай і жыватворнай крыніцы. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка. Заленский Эдуард 1912: Что поет современная деревня Псковского уезда. Псков: Электрическая типо-литография губернского земства. Календарно-обрядовая... 1981: Календарно-обрядовая поэзия сибиряков. Новосибирск: Наука. Корепова Клара 2009: Русские календарные обряды и праздники Нижегородского Поволжья. Санкт-Петербург: Тропа Троянова. Новиков Юрий 2002: Волочебный обряд у старообрядцев Литвы и Беларуси (тексты). – Slavistica Vilnensis (Kalbotyra 51(2)), 185–196. Обрядовая поэзия. Москва: Современник, 1989. Quatrain / Couplet of Basel: Example of a Plea for Gifts SUMMARY A famous Prussian inscription, found in 1975 in one of the codices of the Public and University Library of Basel, is still considered the oldest Baltic text, which is often interpreted in the context of a student’s joke, not very successful in grammatical terms. A conventional 28 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXIX understanding is already in need of verification, which is actively driven by a different understanding of the text content and other candidates for the authorship of the Prussian couplet. An alternative reading starts with the etiology of the text. The element of authorship is briefly considered: whether a Prussian devised the whole sentence by himself or he used some ready-made wording. It enables us to separate between the layer of oral, i.e. folklore, text features and an author’s layer in the Prussian inscription. By removing inserts, attempts are made to reconstruct the primary form, i.e. the singing or recitative quatrain actually used. The author further focuses on the relationship between a Prussian piece of text and a Latin colophon, which defines the time when the source was transcribed, i.e. the eve of the Epiphany. The season and the songs pertaining to that time of the year enables and even forces us to try to trace the identity to Christmas carols containing explicit motifs of pleading for gifts. The analysis of individual words begins with the phrase Kayle rekyfe, which is not interpreted as a greeting address “Hello, Sir” but as a greeting “Good Day”, which is reminiscent of e.g. Lithuanian Skalsink dieve, Czech Pozdrav pánbůh by its composition. The imperative would motivate the use of an “additive”-e in the word Kayle and the lexeme rekyfe “God”. The interjection in this position would also be supported by the poetics of Christmas carols because the coming to one’s home was closely linked to the proper greeting of the host and the hostess. By the composition of Christmas carols, the address(es) to the people met could take up the following position. It is expressed by a vocative form thewelyfe in the Prussian text. A word labonache preceding it is interpreted according to Schmid as “our good”. Epiteton constans “good-doer”, imperative form “bring wealth”, subst. voc. “host”, which would also support the begging tradition, are interpreted as well. A possibility is considered that the word thoneaw indicates a specific person named (An)tonio. Examples are given showing that the use of personal names in Christmas carols is a commonplace phenomenon, which, in turn, substantiates the facultative character of thoneaw. The interpretation of the end of the Prussian text is based on a formal criterion that permits us to reconstruct the element of order-plea of Christmas carols expressed in the imperative: “If (the Christmas caroller) wishes so – give him to drink, if he does not – bring him a penny”. Resemblance can be seen on the level of syntax. Whereas the things asked by Christmas carollers describe their social belonging, the Czech customs of the 14th–15th century get into the centre of attention. It is concluded that the text of such wording would be more suitable to the clergymen of lower rank. Received on December 20, 2013. ILJA LEMEŠKIN Charles University in Prague Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1, Czech Republic [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 29