Acta Linguistica Lithuanica

LVIII (2008), 17 – 51

Offering and altar. The origin and semantic motivation of the words

Dainius Razauskas

Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore

The article deals with the Lithuanian terms for sacrifice and altar, auka and aukuras. After a statement of the problem and a survey of research, the author argues for a connection between auka and aukuoti ‘lift up, sway’ on the basis of historical data on ancient Lithuanian religion and of typological evidence (the practice of lifting up offerings). The second word, aukuras ‘altar’, also shown by historical sources to be genuine, could be explained (taking into account its parallel form aukaras) as containing the same root auk-, with -ura- and -ara- as parallel suffixes used to derive nomina instrumenti.

1. OFFERING

Perhaps the first to attempt an etymology of the Lithuanian word auka in 1909 was the prominent Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns. He explained that it had arisen from the verb aukauti ‘to sacrifice’, which he conjectured had been formed from the prefix au- ‘away’ (= Russian у-) and the verb kauti ‘to beat’; thus aukauti would originally have meant ‘to kill’ (as in Russian у-бить) (Endzelīns 1974: 70–71).

Kazimieras Būga categorically disagreed with Endzelīns, and on that occasion, in 1912, put forward his explanation, which became canonical: “The words aukauti ‘to sacrifice’, auka ‘sacrifice’ and aukuras ‘altar’ became part of the Lithuanian language thanks to the writer S. Daukantas. I will give several quotations from Daukantas: He called him Aukopirmas, from the words auka and pirmas, as the one who must first of all be aukauti or worshipped; …they prayed on high mountains, which they called auko mountains, from the word aukauti, they called them…; They also had sacred aukurus, or altars, on mountains they called auko mountains, or alko mountains, as well as hillforts and large stones, on

17

Dainius Razauskas

which they prayed and aukavo to the gods, or feasted them—as the word borrowed from Belarusian is used today—and made offerings to them…; At the entrance there was an aukūras, on which they aukavę livestock, and an eternal fire, stoked with oak logs, burned day and night” (Būga 1958: 355–356)¹ and so on. We will give one more telling example that Būga omitted: Here, in front of that chapel, stood an aukūras, or altar, where they auką kūrino or burned livestock dedicated to Perūnas (Daukantas 1976 1: 514). Būga continues: “J. Endzelīns considers the verb aukauti […] to be composed of the prefix au- =, Slavic у-, and the original verb kāuti ‘to beat’. It is difficult to agree with this explanation of the word. It seems more likely to me that all three words—aukauti, auka and aukuras—are Daukantas’s inventions. Lithuanians call barrow-shaped hills, with or without groves, ālko kalnas or ālkos kalnas. […] In some dialects, for example around Skuodas, ālka or ālkas kalns (dial.) is pronounced aūka or aūkas kalns, with l occasionally changing to u; cf. eastern Lithuanian aukūnė instead of alkūnė ‘elbow’. In Daukantas’s dialect, too, ālka kalns was pronounced aūka kalns. […] Folk accounts say of the ālko(s) or aūko(s) hills that their ancestors, when they were pagans, made offerings to the gods on them. Influenced by accounts of offerings on hills called aūka kalns, Daukantas decided that the name aūka kalns was exactly the same as apieras kalns, hence the conclusion: auka is apiera ‘sacrifice’. From the word auka, reconstructed in this way and endowed in Daukantas’s imagination with the meaning ‘sacrifice’, derivatives were eventually concocted: aukauti ‘to sacrifice’ and aukūras ‘sacrificial altar’ (on the model of ugniā-kuro). The word auka is known in living colloquial speech only in the expression aukos kalns (in the northwestern corner of Telšiai County), which originally meant ‘a hill with a sacred grove on top’; cf. ālkas ‘grove’” (Būga 1958: 356–357).

In 1943, another eminent Lithuanian linguist, Pranas Skardžius, endorsed this view. In his words, “the present-day auka ‘offering’ may have arisen entirely by chance. We do not encounter it at all before Daukantas; nor do we find it in his earliest writings. His later writings show that he subsequently began avoiding both apieros and altorius and apieravoti quite deliberately, solely for nationalistic reasons. Thus, for example, in Būdė he writes: They also had sacred aukurus, or altars, on mountains they called auko mountains, or ālko mountains, and hillforts, and large stones, on which they prayed and aukavo to the gods, or feasted them—as the word borrowed from Belarusian is used today—and made offerings to them.”

¹ Daukantas’s quotations are given according to the modern edition: Daukantas (1976 1: 490, 511, 522 and 513, respectively). All emphases here and below, unless otherwise indicated, are mine.

18

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

Since alka(s), as other sources indicate, in addition to its probably older meaning ‘a grove, a small wood, a sacred grove, a copse, Hain’, may once have been associated with the worship of gods (e.g.: ‘they worship fire, the earth, snakes, adders, thunder, trees, alkus, forest spirits, goblins, and other devils Daukša) and with sacrifice (e.g.: alkos kalnas ‘a mountain where offerings were sacrificed’ Juška, alkas [= offerings, sacrifices] they brought livestock to Rokytai for the patron saint of animals, St. Roch Alsėdžiai; cf. also Latvian elka kalns ‘a hill of deities, a sacred hill for the religious rites of pagans’, Gothic alhs ‘sanctuary’, etc.), it may somehow (perhaps by analogy with such clusters as áudra || áldra, etc.) have been transformed into auką and begun to be used in the sense of apieros. Later Valančius, the Aušrininkai, and others took it from Daukantas, and in this way it became established in the present standard language’ (Skardžius 1943: 586–587, see also 592, 596; emphasis by Skardžius)².

Finally, this interpretation was enshrined in the “Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary,” whose first volume appeared in 1962, by³ Ernestas Fraenkelis: “aukà ‘Opfer [sacrifice]’, aukáuti ‘freiwillige Beiträge ensammlen [to contribute something voluntarily]’, aukóti ‘opfern [to sacrifice]’. Introduced into the literary language by Daukantas in place of apierà, apieravóti, respectively afiera, afieravoti, from Polish ofiera, ofierować”; in turn, “aũkuras = ‘altar’ was formed from aukà, by analogy with ugnìakuras [‘fireplace’].” However, Fraenkel adds something else as well—he surmises that other words, almost identical in sound and long familiar in the language, helped these words take root, namely: “The following existing words also contributed to this: aukúoti ‘hebopfern [to offer up by raising]’, aukãvimo apierà ‘Hebopfer [offering by raising]’, auk(u)oti ‘ein Kind auf- und niederheben [to lift a child up and down]’ (Bretkūnas), = and Latvian aũklēt ‘ein Kind warten, es auf Händen tragen und schaukeln [to care for a child, carry and rock it in one’s arms]’, aũkla ‘Kinderwärterin [child minder]’, Lithuanian áuklė ‘the same’,

² Daukantas’s quotation is given according to a modern edition: Daukantas (1976 1: 522). Daukantas also used the words auka, aukauti extensively in his other works. Here are some more telling examples from “A Narrative of the Deeds of the Lithuanian Nation in Ancient Times”: By that ever-green oak stood a sanctuary, where they offered sacrifices, or offerings, to those deities, and an eternal fire, fed with oak logs, burned; The third group were called kirvaičiai, who slaughtered animals for sacrifice, or offering…; Brutenis allowed him to give sacrifices, or offerings, to the gods…; …the ancient Swedes sacrificed to their gods every spring… and so forth (Daukantas 1976 2: 33, 34, 41, 49, see also 29, 38, 40–43, 47, 50, etc.). For auka and aukavimas mentioned in Daukantas’s other works, see Klimavičius (2003: 178–179) (my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Vykintas Vaitkevičius for pointing me to the aforementioned Klimavičius article and the A. Girdenis article mentioned below!).

³ See already Buck (1949: 1468), etc.

19

DAINIUS RAZAUSKAS

ūkauti ‘auf Armen tragen, warten, pflegen, zärtlich behandeln [to carry in one’s arms, care for, look after, treat tenderly]’, ukūotis ‘sich schaukeln, schwanken, watscheln [to rock oneself, sway, waddle]’, Latvian u(i)cināt, ucīt ‘(Kinder) auf den Händen und Füßen dämmen [to soothe (a child) by rocking it on one’s arms or legs]’, ucītis ‘Wiege [cradle]’. These words are related to Gothic auhūma ‘higher, above’, Welsh uchel ‘high’, and the Prussian intensifying particle ucka-, used to express the superlative degree” (Fraenkel 1962–1965: 24–25)⁴. Thus, in Fraenkel’s view, the words auka, aukoti were introduced into the literary language by Daukantas, on the one hand, but took root there thanks to the aforementioned old words already known from earlier times, on the other. Some of these, however, immediately raise the question of whether auka is a neologism at all, but let us not get ahead of ourselves.

In 1967, I. Ermanytė published an article devoted to the word aukà. She too seems to agree with Būga’s and Skardžius’s interpretation, but, taking Fraenkel’s view into account, does so much more cautiously: she attributes to Daukantas not the word’s origin, but only its spread in the language: “The word aukà and its derivatives aukáuti and aūkur as spread in our language through S. Daukantas’s “The Character of the Ancient Lithuanian Highlanders and Samogitians” (1845). Previously, loanwords were used in place of these words: afierà and apierà (from Polish ofiara), afieravóti and apieravóti (from Polish ofiarować), and altõrius (from Polish ołtarz or Belarusian алтарь). The origin of the word aukà has been the subject of much discussion and debate. K. Būga, Pr. Skardžius, and E. Fraenkel have each addressed it more than once in their works. Some linked the word more closely with álkas, alkà, others with words containing the root auk-” (Ermanytė 1967: 38). I. Ermanytė then also recalls linguists’ doubts concerning the alternation of the sounds (hard) l and u, which alone enabled Būga and Skardžius to propose the aforementioned hypotheses. It is noteworthy that the possibility of such a sound alternation in the relevant dialects was questioned above all by Būga and Skardžius themselves. According to Ermanytė, “this sound alternation, whose product was S. Daukantas’s auka, gave rise to serious discussion among some of our well-known linguists. In a letter to J. Endzelīns dated April 17, 1910, K. Būga wrote that ‘áldra… cannot be explained as deriving from áudra in the Kvedarna and Rietavas dialects […], because in these dialects the change of u into t and t into u is entirely unknown’. K. Būga held a similar view in his work “On Lithuanian Personal Names.” Pr. Skardžius, drawing on K. Būga’s research, likewise maintained that it is difficult to find genuine and reliable examples of sporadic sound alternation between u and l in Samogitia, since the Samogitian—

⁴ In addition to the words mentioned by Fraenkel, one may also cite uknoti, ukóti, ūk(u)oti, ūkuoti ‘to rock (usually a child in one’s arms), to sway, to rock, auk(u)oti’, the interjection ūko used to describe rocking a baby in one’s arms, and so on; see LKŽ_XVII 412, 442.

20

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

the Samogitian velar l is not as hard as that of the eastern Aukštaitians. And yet K. Būga concluded in the first fascicle of the Dictionary that âldra can hardly be distinguished from áudra, and that it must have acquired the consonant l from another word of similar meaning, e.g., âldu, aldėti ‘to shout’, Latvian âldaris ‘noisemaker, fool, etc.’ (Ermanytė 1967: 39–40; see Būga 1958: 208; Būga 1961: 818).

Thus, the sound l appears here not directly from u, but rather as if borrowed from words of similar meaning and sound, thereby essentially adopting the very root of those words; likewise, the word auka, which acquired the sound u from the old words with the root auk- mentioned above, also essentially adopts that very root auk- and is therefore, in fact, a word of this auk- root.

For this reason, it is worth listening more closely to the doubts raised by Skardžius, mentioned by Ermanytė, concerning the alternation of the sounds l and u and the direct conclusions that follow from this about the origin of the word aukà. Responding to Būga’s explanation, Skardžius writes: “The auką and aukurą that Daukantas began using in his Būde must be explained somewhat differently. […] Here auka is so unambiguously juxtaposed with alka(s) that many may readily get the idea that auka could have derived from alka(s), especially since velar l turns into u in some of our dialects […]. And K. Būga has indeed already expressed this view. E. Fraenkel later agreed with it. But a phonetic obstacle immediately arises here: the Samogitian velar l is not as hard as that of the eastern Aukštaitians, so in Samogitian dialects we find no fully reliable examples of al turning into au […]. The relationship between the diphthongs al and au in Samogitian âldroje and áudroje can also be explained non-phonetically. Likewise, mãukna ‘spruce bark’ =, Latvian maũkna ‘the same’ is first and foremost to be linked with maũkti, Latvian màukt, not with Vabalninkas málkna, which cannot be distinguished from málka […]. Even now it seems to me that, when forming auką, Daukantas may have had in mind not only alką, but also some other words of similar sound, for example aukuoti ‘to raise [(up)]’ and so on” (Skardžius 1998: 408–409; some references omitted in the quotation)⁵. To put it plainly, auka may well be a word with the root auk-, coined by Daukantas (or merely used by him, see below) under the influence of alko(s), and not vice versa.

I. Ermanytė also turns to words with the root auk- and discusses them in greater detail: “Words with the root auk- were already known and used in our writings considerably earlier than S. Daukantas’s Būdas. The word aukuoti is found in M. Daukša’s Postilė, K. Donelaitis’s Metai, and K. G. Milkus’s Žodynas, while aukavimas is attested—

⁵ It is interesting that this article by Skardžius was first published in 1937 (Archivum Philologicum 4, pp. 192–199), that is, six years before the explanation cited above, in which he echoed Būga. This shows that he certainly held no firm opinion.

21

Dainius Razauskas

ed in P. Ruigys’s Dictionary. Aukuoti meant ‘to carry, rock, cradle, lift a baby up and down’ in these authors’ writings. J. Bretkūnas also uses this word in his Bible translation, for example: And put it all upon the hands of Aaron and his sons, and wave (above: aukūk) it to the Lord (Exodus 29:24). And take the breast of the ram of Aaron’s ordination and wave (above: aukūk) it before the Lord (Exodus 29:26). Here aukūoti means ‘to raise (up), lift’. Incidentally, Donelaitis also uses the verb aukuoti not merely with the sense ‘to carry, rock, cradle, lift a baby up and down’, but alongside garbinti ‘to worship’, or even as its synonym; compare Pavasario linksmybės 305–307, where girls who have made dolls out of rags rocking on their elbows worshipped a doll [a little child] (Donelaitis 1994: 23). Nevertheless, Fraenkel’s authority prevents I. Ermanytė from drawing any further conclusions; instead, she merely repeats Fraenkel, even narrowing and simplifying his own interpretation somewhat ‘out of caution’: “In E. Fraenkel’s opinion, all these words contributed to the emergence of the word aukà from the misinterpreted words ãl̄kas, alkà” (Ermanytė 1967: 40). Finally, it is said that “the word aūcuras was also coined by S. Daukantas”, and Būga is quoted once again in support (Ermanytė 1967: 42).

Building on Ermanytė’s work, but also making broader suggestions, Aleksandras Vanagas, in his Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms, published in 1981, explains Lithuanian hydronyms such as Auk-ūpė, Aūk-upis, among others: “Attempts have been made to connect the root auk- with Lithuanian aukà (B. Savukynas).⁶ In that case, these would be relatively recent hydronyms, originally bearing a meaning connected with beliefs and superstitions. The word aukà is thought to have been coined by S. Daukantas (E. Fraenkel). The verbal root auk- is known from much earlier sources—from M. Daukša’s ‘Postilė’, K. Donelaitis’s ‘Metai’, K. G. Milkus’s ‘Žodynas’, and others (I. Ermanytė). This is the verb aukuoti ‘to carry, rock, cradle, lift a baby up and down’ (ibid.). In J. Bretkūnas’s writings, this word already means ‘to raise (up), lift’, i.e., it is almost synonymous with aukóti; compare: lift it to the Lord (above: aukūk) (ibid.). Thus, place names containing auk- can be connected with this or a similar verb. They would then date from a considerably earlier period than the aukà found in S. Daukantas’s writings”; finally, “Latvian Aūce river, Auciņš river, Autzil lake, and the like may be etymologically closer to Lithuanian hydronyms containing auk-”; all these “Lithuanian and Latvian place names could be compared with Lithuanian aukūoti ‘to rock, sway, lull’

⁶ Savukynas (1960: 298); pats žodis aukà čia išvis niekaip neaiškinamas

22

Auka ir aukuras Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

(LKŽ I, 63), Latvian aukāt ‘to run’ (Mühlenbach and Endzelin, Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1, 221), and perhaps also Latvian aūka ‘storm, whirlwind’ (ibid.)” (Vanagas 1981: 52–53).

Here, by comparing aukóti with aukúoti ‘to raise (up), lift’, a direct suggestion is already being made of an etymology for the word aukà different from the one proposed by Būga, although very tentatively and not very clearly.

Zigmas Zinkevičius, however, expresses his doubts about the widespread view of the origin of the words aukà, aukuras very clearly in volume IV of his History of the Lithuanian Language, The Lithuanian Language in the 18th–19th Centuries, published in 1990, but unfortunately offers no justification for them: “The widespread view that Daukantas’s neologisms are the words aukà, aukuras is doubtful” (Zinkevičius 1990: 152).

It is unclear whether the professor was prompted to doubt this by the linguists’ works already mentioned, or whether, before preparing this volume for publication, he had nevertheless managed to read Jonas Palionis’s short but finally decisive article “On the Origin of the Words aukà and aukóti,” published in the second half of 1989, unfortunately in German in what was then East Germany, and therefore little known in Lithuania.

J. Palionis recalled and repeated Skardžius’s doubts about the alternation of Samogitian velar l and u (Palionis 1989: 212) and drew attention to several more sources in which the verb aukúoti is used in the sense ‘to rock, move a baby up and down’ (for example, Jaugelis-Telega’s 1653 Knyga nobaznystės, among others), as well as to the use of that verb in the sense ‘to raise, lift’, a meaning very close to that of modern aukoti, in Bible translations published in East Prussia in 1735 and 1755 (for example: Lygey kaip jis tai aukūj’ nū jāučio, dėkawonės, vietoj apierój’ [in a modern translation, “just as it was taken from the fellowship offering aukos jaučio” Lev 4.10]) (Palionis 1989: 210–211). Palionis also noted that the verb aukúoti ‘to raise, lift’ had already been used before Daukantas in at least three sources in the form now customary, aukóti, namely: in those same 1753 and 1755 Bible editions (Wien’s tur a u k ô t, fawo rankôs fâuję plonû kwiecźmileciû = German Es soll einer heben eine Hand voll Semmel [“Each priest’s grain offering” Lev 6.16]) and, in participial form, in the margin of the manuscript of J. Bretkūnas’s Bible translation (aukojmanghi, underlined aukauẇamo, Kruti [“You shall consecrate the breast presented as a wave offering” Ex 29.27]) (Palionis 1989: 211; cf. already Būga 1959: 642). Finally—and this is the decisive and conclusive argument—Palionis points to a source in which the noun aukà itself is used before Daukantas in its modern meaning: “K. Būga and his followers, the linguists P. Skardžius and E. Fraenkel, who worked later

23

Dainius Razauskas

and others tended to regard the word auką, meaning ‘Opfer’, as an innovation by S. Daukantas. […] However, there is evidence that this word was used in the aforementioned sense in written sources even earlier, before Daukantas. It is recorded in a collection of sermons preached in Šiauliai in 1720 by an unknown person, entitled Contiones litvanicae by J. Biržiška, which is now held at Vilnius University (collection I, D 23). In the twenty-second sermon (Concio Litvanica pro Dominica 22 post Pentecosten), we find the following sentence: Praszau jusu waykialay mana, tegul miayte Wieszpaties dieva szvyrdij jusu kaip didžiausia auka, batay tasay cysnius nuog musu bus jam wdzieczna… Although the sentence itself is not entirely intelligible (a grammatical link is missing), it is clear from it that the word aukà is used either in the sense of Old Lithuanian apiera ‘Opfer’, or in the closely related Lithuanian sense of dovana ‘Gabe’” (Palionis 1989: 210). J. Palionis concludes that “the old word aukà, whose original meaning may have been ‘raising’ (of things intended for a deity), was displaced after the adoption of Christianity by the Polish afiera / apiera (Old Polish ofiera). This loanword was introduced by the authors of early Lithuanian writings (M. Mažvydas, M. Daukša, M. Petkevičius, and others) as a kind of canonized religious term. […]. Thus, there is no clear basis whatever for regarding either auka or aukoti (or aukauti, aukoti) as, in K. Būga’s words, ‘Daukantas’s invention’. S. Daukantas could have taken these words from the spoken language of his time, primarily from the old Samogitian dialect, whose speakers must have used them in the sense ‘raising’, and perhaps also in the narrower sense ‘raising a particular object to a deity, sacrifice’” (Palionis 1989: 211–212). Moreover, “the fact that auką is an old word, first used in the vernacular, is also attested,” according to J. Palionis, “by its verbal derivatives aukuóti, aukóti, aukáuti” (Palionis 1989: 210), which he therefore derives from the original noun aukà, and not vice versa.

In 2003, Jonas Klimavičius also published an article on the question under discussion, “Auka, apiera, atnaša: features of their history and usage” (Klimavičius 2003: 170–193). Admittedly, Klimavičius seems to have overlooked Palionis’s decisive discovery that the word auka in its modern meaning was already in use before Daukantas. Even so, after once again thoroughly reviewing all the available material and the statements of many of the aforementioned authors, beginning with Būga, he essentially reaches the same conclusion: “S. Daukantas may have heard auką in his native dialect”; thus, “it is unclear how S. Daukantas arrived at it, but it is clear that auka did not come out of nowhere, but has the most genuine Lithuanian base, aukuoti. In any case, S. Daukantas rescued a national word that was disappearing from the language (in general)”; therefore, “K. Būga’s view that auka is a semi-neologism coined by S. Daukantas (from the phrase aukos / alkos kalnas

24

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

ji perprasm inant), koreguotina“ (Klimavičius 2003: 179, 190). Beje, autorius primena, kad jau 1961 m., taigi dar prieš pasirodant Fraenkelio žodyno pirmajam tomui, žodžių auka, aukauju, aukavimas Daukanto neologizmams neskyrė Jonas Kruopas (Klimavičius 2003: 178). Tik kaip ir I. Erm anytė (bei kai kurie kiti kalbininkai, šiaip jau pasisakę už aukos autentiškumą), J. Klimavičius, atrodo, yra linkęs dėl visa ko paaukoti aukurą – laikyti jį Daukanto išradimu (Klimavičius 2003: 177–178).

After all that has been said, one may add only that the old Slavic name for a sacrifice, *žьrtva, was also displaced by loanwords in many Slavic languages (for example, in the Balkans by the Turkism курбан, among the Poles by the Latinism ofiara, and so on) and was rarely used in the oral folk tradition of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Buškevič 1999: 209). Thus, the spread of apieros in Lithuanian gives no reason to doubt the antiquity of aukos. J. Klimavičius also drew attention to this, giving a telling example that illustrates the phenomenon, recorded from spoken language (in Mielagėnai, Ignalina district): Kokia viera, tokia apiera (Klimavičius 2003: 181–182)⁷.

Nor, incidentally, does the fact that Daukantas regularly accompanies the word auka with an explanation provide any reason to doubt its authenticity: …auka, arba apiera… (see above). He does the same with other native words displaced by loanwords that he wishes to restore to usage, for example: …lytus ir ligos sudergė jo visą kariauną, arba vaiską…; …kurie sergėtų nuo antpuolių pašalius, arba malas…; …danams duoklę, arba donį, mokėti; Tą metą lietuviai kalnėnai vėl mandė, arba prabavojo, laimės pietiniuose Guduose; Kas per priežastis buvo to neap-kentimo krikščionių vieros, arba tikybos, gali ją kiekvienas numanyti (Daukantas 1976 2: 45, 50, 52, 84, 98), and so on.

In 2006, Aleksas Girdenis also published an article devoted to the etymology of aukos (Girdenis 2006: 375–378). He fully supports J. Palionis, who “proved beyond doubt that aukà cannot be an invention of Simonas Daukantas, as had previously been thought,” and calls the sentence containing the noun auka, discovered by Palionis in the early eighteenth-century Contiones lityanicae, “an absolutely certain argument” (and offers several further arguments of his own) that the word aukà is not a neologism. Finally, “the very possibility of such a neologism being formed from the word ãlkas or alkà is highly doubtful: in the Northern Samogitian dialect, the change t → ų is very difficult to imagine” (Girdenis 2006: 375; emphasis by Girdenis). Thus, “Lithuanian aukà is not

⁷ Example from LKŽ, 205; see Grigas (1987: 532, no. 565), where two parallels, Belarusian and Polish, are cited (the earliest Lithuanian attestations date from the mid-nineteenth century).

25

Dainius Razauskas

“an innovation by Simonas Daukantas—this was already demonstrated in 1989 by Jonas Palionis” (Girdenis 2006: 377). A. Girdenis derives the verb aukóti and the compound noun auku-ras (as a simplified compound from aukakuras) from the noun aukà. However, the verbs aukauti and aukuoti in early writings, meaning ‘to lift, rock, lull’, are, in his words, “hardly related to aukai” (Girdenis 2006: 375–376). For A. Girdenis tends to explain the word aukà in an entirely different way—namely, to derive it from *avikà < *aùiká ‘sheep’ (= Old Indian aviká, Slavic ovьca) (Girdenis 2006: 376, 377). “Bearing in mind the loss of the vowel [i] in the word *ažikã, which turned it into the modern õžka, we can easily imagine a similar change in the word *aùiká or its later variant *avikà” (Girdenis 2006: 377). Girdenis devoted most of his attention to the formal, phonetic possibility of such a change, while describing its semantic possibility in three sentences: “Knowing that for many peoples the sheep is the principal sacrificial animal, we may assume with considerable confidence that this was also the case in ancient Lithuanian culture. Perhaps larger animals—oxen and the like—were sacrificed only on very solemn or extremely important and sacred occasions. Therefore, the old *aùiká could easily have acquired the more abstract, sacral meaning ‘sacrifice’ as well” (Girdenis 2006: 376). In reality, however, matters are not so simple. It would be worth checking, first, whether the fact that “for many peoples the sheep is the principal sacrificial animal” can indeed lead to a word for ‘sacrifice’ being formed from the name of a sheep (and, more generally, whether words for ‘sacrifice’ arise from the names of sacrificial offerings); and, second, whether “this was also the case in ancient Lithuanian culture.” So, first: in C. D. Buck’s Indo-European Synonyms, among all the words listed as expressing the concept ‘sacrifice’ in various Indo-European languages, not one derives from the name of an offering, and thus neither from the name of a sheep; the only one that is nevertheless connected with the word for sheep (Gothic saups) attests to the opposite semantic development (because mutton was usually roasted or boiled for the sacrifice, Old Norse sauðr ‘sheep’ developed from it); the principal semantic sources of the concept ‘sacrifice’ in Indo-European languages are the meanings ‘what is brought, given, presented’, ‘what is consecrated, sacred’, ‘that by which a deity is praised or glorified’, and ‘what is burned (roasted, boiled) in fire (smoke)’ (Buck 1949: 1467–1469, no. 22.15; see 157, no. 3.25)⁸. And

⁸ Taip pat žr. de Vries (1962: 464, 478); pastarojo autoriaus žodžiais, „avis šitaip tapo pavadinta todėl, kad ji paprastai būdavo aukojama“ (abiejų žodžių, gotų saups ‘auka’ ir sen. skand. sauðr ‘avis’, gilesnis semantinis pamatas yra reikšmė ‘kas kepta, virta’, plg. sen. skand. sjōða, sen. anglų sēoðan ‘virti’ ir kt.). Tokią pačią semantinę raidą, beje, liudija ir rusų žodis жертва ‘auka’, kuriuo Viatkos gubernijoje vadi

26

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilme bei semantine motyvacija

Secondly: in Norbertas Vėlius’s collected principal sources Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniuose, up to the end of the fifteenth century, among the many references to the sacrifice of livestock and other things, the sacrifice of a sheep is mentioned just once—and then together with a calf. Jonas Dlugošas writes that, having imprudently violated a sacred grove and consequently fallen ill, the ancient Lithuanians made amends only through arietum et vitulorum holocaustis, “sacrifices of rams and calves” (BRMŠ₁ 555, cf. 576; for other sacrifices, see the index, 659–660). In sixteenth-century sources, the sacrifice of a sheep or ram is mentioned at least five times, but this is half as often as the sacrifice of a rooster, hen, or pig, and about four times less often than that of a goat (BRMŠ₂, see index, 722–724). Of course, Norbertas Vėlius’s collection could perhaps be supplemented with one or another little-known source, but this would hardly change the overall picture very much. Thus, if the Lithuanians had indeed coined the word “aukai” from the name of an animal sacrificed, it would be more likely to have been a he-goat or she-goat rather than a sheep. On the other hand, if the noun auka is etymologically connected with the verbs aukauti, aukoti and aukoti (!) in their original sense of “to raise, to lift up,” and is therefore semantically grounded in the meaning “that which is raised, lifted up,” as J. Palionis most clearly formulated and most of the linguists mentioned above conjectured, beginning in part with E. Fraenkel, both the formal, phonetic requirements and the semantic ones would be met—both typologically (“raised” = “consecrated, holy” + “given, offered to a deity”) and historically, since, as we shall soon see, the Lithuanians often did indeed lift up their sacrifices⁹. However, it is useful to approach this by first stepping back a little and following a path blazed not by linguists but by mythologists, though it is no less winding.

Before that, however, we should mention Giedrius Subačius’s short article on aukai, published in 2007. He endorses A. Girdenis’s etymology and emphasizes that S. Daukantas did not create this word but popularized it, since, in general, “he was very much inclined to seek out and collect forgotten words. Most likely

a ram slaughtered on the occasion of a church feast (Словарь русских народных говоров 9: 144; many thanks to habil. dr. Sergei Temchin for pointing out this last example to me!).

⁹ Auką kilme siejant su aukauti, įdomu būtų atkreipti dėmesį į latvių ucītis ‘ėriukas’, kurį A. Sabaliauskas šiaip jau yra linkęs laikyti atsiradusiu iš atitinkamo garšažodžio (Sabaliauskas 1968: 119). Bet palyginę šį žodį su anksčiau minėtais la. ucināt, ucit ‘sūpuoti, aukouti (vaiką)’ ir dargi ucitīs ‘lopšys’, giminiškais su lie. aukuoti, čia galėtume įtarti iš dalies panašią semantinę raidą, kaip nuo gotų saups ‘auka’ prie sen. skand. sauðr ‘avis’ bei nuo rusų жертва ‘auka’ prie dial. жертва ‘avinas’, būtent: (‘kas kilnojama, pakelta, pakylėta’ >) ‘auka’ > ‘avis, eriukas’.

27

Dainius Razauskas

somewhere in old writings, Daukantas (like Palionis later) found the forgotten auka, which had also disappeared from the dialects. It may have been forgotten because it was traditionally associated only with a pagan—not a Christian—form of sacrifice. While auka was still alive in the dialects (we may guess, until sometime in the eighteenth century, or perhaps during that century), it must have evoked inappropriate pagan associations. The word auka could have lost its old pagan connotation only by being forgotten—it could be revived without the negative connotation only once Daukantas had found it in old writings” (Subačius 2007: 133–134; emphasis by Subačius).

In any case, linguists have recently come to unanimous agreement that auka is an old Lithuanian word, not a neologism.

It should be said that the view that auka is an old Lithuanian word was expressed already in the interwar period by someone who was not a linguist at all: Pranas Dovydaitis. Although he acknowledged that the word had spread into the standard language through Daukantas, he reversed the relationship between the words auka and alka, and regarded the latter as deriving from the former. In volume II of the 1934 Lietuviškosios enciklopedijos, in an article devoted to aukai, having mentioned the apierą / afierą of old writings, he writes that “from 1845, in the written language of Daukantas’s Būdo and Valančius’s 1848 Žemaičių vyskupystės, and more generally, auka takes root, while in living speech it has survived in the form alkos, especially in the names of hills.” Moreover, he offers his own etymology of the word auka, and quite categorically: “In a certain sense, sacrifice is an adjunct to prayer; prayer is the more passive and receptive element of every true and living religion, whereas sacrifice satisfies man’s active and donative inclination. The inherent affinity between sacrifice and prayer is also shown by the name for sacrifice in Lithuanian, which undoubtedly derives from the same stem as the Greek word euchē (verb eúchomai), meaning ‘prayer, request, vow’” (Dovydaitis 1934: 150). It should immediately be noted that the Greek word εὐχή ‘prayer, supplication, vow, etc.’ (< Indo-European *euegʰ-h-: Frisk 1960: 596; Pokorny 1959: 348; Benveniste 1995: 374–380, etc.) cannot be connected with Lithuanian auka for formal reasons alone (sound laws); linguists therefore paid no attention at all to Pranas Dovydaitis’s etymology. Ethnologists and historians, however, did take note, and in turn paid little heed to linguists. For instance, Pranė Dundulienė, no less categorical than Pranas Dovydaitis, writes: “The Lithuanian word auka, without a doubt, derives from the same stem as the Greek word euchē, meaning prayer, request, vow” (Dundulienė 1990: 175).

Gintaras Beresnevičius followed Dovydaitis as well, noting in his Religijotyros įvade

28

Auka ir aukuras Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

…having said that “a sacrifice is a phenomenon close to prayer,” he goes on to assert boldly (perhaps quoting Dundulienė) that “the Lithuanian word for sacrifice derives from the same stem as the Greek word euchē, meaning ‘prayer,’ ‘request,’ ‘vow’” (Beresnevičius 1997: 180). Beresnevičius remains faithful to Dovydaitis’s initiative in his last book as well, Lietuvių religija ir mitologija: “Aukojimas, auka, as a religious term, should be associated with Greek euchē, meaning ‘request,’ ‘prayer,’ ‘vow’” (Beresnevičius 2004: 39). This time, to be sure, he also mentions Būga’s conjecture that the word is Daukantas’s neologism, but, intuitively unable to agree with it and seeing no other alternative, he sides with Dovydaitis. In his words, “nevertheless, in this dispute the first explanation is probably better founded, and the Lithuanian modes of sacrifice may also confirm it” (Beresnevičius 2004: 39–40). The mention of “Lithuanian modes of sacrifice” shows that Gintaras Beresnevičius’s intuition, although burdened by the entirely unnecessary association with εὐχή, was otherwise leading him in the right direction. For he observed that “descriptions of Lithuanian sacrifices also emphasize the element of raising the sacrificial animal up, while aukuoti in Lithuanian also means ‘to rock,’ ‘to sway,’ ‘to lift upward (a baby)’—just as the sacrificial animal is raised up during sowing and harvest festivals” (Beresnevičius 2004: 40)¹⁰. What Gintaras Beresnevičius actually did here was to offer an additional and very weighty semantic argument for associating the word auka with aukuoti, an argument overlooked by linguists: he drew attention to the characteristically Lithuanian practice of making sacrifices by lifting up and raising the offering, and thus demonstrated a very compelling

¹⁰ The meaning of aukuoti, ‘to lift a baby up and down,’ is not, in fact, very far removed from sacrificing or offering. One need only recall Abraham, who placed his only son Isaac on the altar as his most precious offering (Gen 22:1–12). According to M. Eliade, “even the abhorrent sacrifice of children, their offering to Moloch, had a profound religious meaning. Through such a sacrifice, people returned to the deity what belonged to it, since the firstborn was often regarded as God’s child” (Eliade 1996: 163). Besides the Jews, Phoenicians, and Semites in general, many primitive and ancient peoples sacrificed children: the Greeks, Germans, Polynesians, East African peoples, the Yaga of Angola, the Mbaya of South America, the Lengua of Gran Chaco, and others (Frazer 1995: 286–287, 289–290; Tylor 1989: 478, 480–481). According to Daukantas, the Lithuanians, too, “burned crippled and blind children, those born that way, to the gods as offerings” (Daukantas 1976 1: 80). Child sacrifice is recalled by certain motifs in Lithuanian folktales—for example, the story of a father who carries his daughter off to drown her because he cannot think of a name for her, but meets a laumė on the way and gives her the daughter he was taking to drown (BsLP, 222–223); finally, the international tale known conventionally as “The Faithful Servant” (ATU 516) is very widespread in Lithuania, and in many variants the servant, turned to stone, is brought back to life with a child’s blood (see Balys 2002: 65: No. 516). The Lithuanian word vaikas ‘child’ itself also seems to be cognate with Latin victima ‘(living) sacrifice’: see, on the one hand, Fraenkel (1962–1965: 1180–1181, 1213–1214); Walde, Hofmann (1938: 782), and, on the other, Toporov (1987: 219); Toporov (1988: 32); Toporov (1989: 47).

29

Dainius R az auskas

a basis for the meaning ‘sacrifice’ (and correspondingly ‘to sacrifice’) to arise from the meaning ‘raising’ (and correspondingly ‘to lift, to raise up’).

It is worth arranging in sequence examples attesting to this conception of sacrifice (cf. Beresnevičius 2004: 183–186).

In The Sudovian Book (ca. 1520–1530), we find a cup of beer being lifted during a sacrifice: Das Fest heissen sie die heiligung Pargrubrij. In allen Dorffern kommen sie zusammen in ein haus. Aldo ist bestalt eine Tonne biers oder zwo vnd der Wourschkaite hebt eine Schalen voll Biers auff mit der hand vnd bittet: du grosser mechtiger Gott Pargrubrius... “They call this feast the sacrifice to Pergrubrius. In all the villages they gather in one house. A large barrel or two of beer is provided here. The chief raises a flat cup full of beer with his hand and prays: O great and mighty god Pergrubrius...” (BRMŠ_II 130, 145; translated by Vytautas Balaišis and Sigitas Plaušinaitis).

The same source goes on to describe a goat being sacrificed by lifting it up: Item wan sie den Bock heiligen wollen, kommen vier oder sehs dörffer zusammen. Seind Ir viell, so kauffen sie einen Bollen vnd kommen alle in ein Haus. Da machen sie ein lang fewer; die weiber bringen weitzenmehl vnd teigen das ein. Den bock oder Bollen bringen sie vor den Wourschkaity, der leget beide hende auff jnen vnd spricht anruffende alle Götter... Darnach furen sie Inen in die scheuren, da heben sie den Bock auff, gehen alle vmbher. Der Wourschkaity ruffet aber einmal alle götter... “Thus, when they wish to sacrifice a goat, four or six villages gather together. If there are many of them, they buy a bull and all gather in one house. There they make a good fire; the women bring wheat flour and knead the dough. They bring the goat or bull before the chief, who lays both hands on it and speaks, invoking all the gods... Then they lead the goat into the barn, raise it, and everyone walks around it. The chief once again calls upon all the gods...” (BRMŠ_II 132, 147; translated by Vytautas Balaišis and Sigitas Plaušinaitis).

Similarly, Jonas Maleckis-Sandeckis, “On the Religion and Sacrifices of the Ancient Prussians, Livonians, and Other Neighboring Tribes” (1551): Litandi uero ritus est talis, Congregato populi coetu in horreo, adducitur caper, quem Vurschaytes illorum sacrificulus mactaturus, imponit uictimae utramque manum, inuocatque ordine daemones, quos ipsi Deos esse credunt... His daemonibus inuocatis, quotquot adsunt in horreo, omnes simul extollunt caprum, sublimemque tenent, donec canatur hymnus; quo finito, rursus demittunt ac sistunt caprum in terram. Tum sacrificulus admonet populum, ut solenne hoc sacrificium, a maioribus pie institutum, summa cum ueneratione faciant, eiusque memoriam religiose ad pos-

30

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

teros conseruent “And the custom of sacrifice is as follows. When a crowd of people has gathered in the barn, a he-goat is brought in, which their chief priest, the Viršaitis, intends to sacrifice. He lays both hands on the victim and calls out, one after another, the demons whom he believes to be gods… Having summoned these demons, all those in the barn together lift the he-goat and hold it aloft while a hymn is sung. When it is finished, they lower the he-goat again and set it on the ground. Then the chief priest urges the people to perform with the greatest reverence this sacrifice, begun by their ancestors and pleasing to the gods, and to preserve its memory sacredly for posterity” (BRMŠ_II 203, 204, 208; translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė).

Motiejus Strijkovskis, in “The Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia, and All Rus’” (1582), describes the raising of both a he-goat and a “pot” of beer: …tam Wurschajt ich, to jest ofiarnik, albo raczej czarownik, weźmie garniec piwa, a podniow-szy go wzgórę, prosi boga Pergrubiusa… “Their Viršaitis, that is, the sacrificer, or rather sorcerer, takes a pot of beer, raises it up and thus prays to the god Pergrubius…” (BRMŠ_II 515, 549; translated by Dominykas Urbas).

Then Viršaitis, their priest, having placed a wreath on his head according to pagan custom, lays his hand on a goat or a bull and beseeches all the gods, each separately, whom I listed above, to deign graciously to accept from them the rite and sacrifice of that festival; and, taking the bull or goat by the horns, they lead it to the threshing barn and raise it up all the men upward, while the priest, that is, Viršaitis, having girded himself with a towel, calls upon all the gods once again, saying: “Behold, this is a glorious sacrifice and a memorial of our fathers, so that we may appease the wrath of our gods…” “Then Viršaitis, their priest, according to pagan custom, having put a wreath on his head, places his hand on a goat or a bull and entreats all the gods, each individually, whom I listed earlier, to graciously accept from them the rite and sacrifice of that festival. Taking the bull or goat by the horns, he leads it into the threshing barn, where the men, taking hold of it, lift it up, while the priest, that Viršaitis, having girded himself with a towel, calls upon all the gods again and says: Behold, a splendid sacrifice and a memorial of our fathers, so that the wrath of our gods may be appeased” (BRMŠ_II 516, 550; translated by Dominykas Urbas).

Jonas Lasic kis quotes Jonas Maleckis-Sandeckis verbatim in “On the Gods of the Samogitians, Other Sarmatians, and False Christians” (c. 1582): His inuocatis, quotquot adsunt in horreo, omnes simul extollunt caprum, sublimemque tenent, donec canatur hymnus… “Having summoned these [gods], all those in the barn together lift the he-goat and hold it aloft while a hymn is sung” (BRMŠ_II 587; Lasicius 1969: 47; my translation, cf. above).

31

Dainius Razauskas

In chapter 7 (§13) of book 5 of Matas Pretorijus’s “Prussian Delights” (second half of the 17th century), he mentions a small loaf of bread being lifted during an offering: …drauff greiffet er zu seinem Brodtchen, hebet das in die Höhe mit beyden Händen, siehet gen Himmel und spricht: „O Gott, dir sey Danck vor diese deine Gabe, gieb uns künfftigs Jahre grössere u bessere“, und so machen alle, die da niedergekniet haben, wenn sie ihr Brodt annehmen “after that he takes his little loaf, lifts it up with both hands, looks toward heaven and says: ‘O God, thank You for this gift of Yours; in the coming years give us a larger and better one’; and all those who have knelt do likewise when they take their bread” (Praetorius 2006: 516, 518; cf. BRMŠ_III 189; based on the translations by Jonas Kilius [Praetorius 2006: 517, 519] and Dominykas Urbas [BRMŠ_III 294]).

In chapter 10 (§3–4), the sacrifice of a he-goat is mentioned again: …trägt er Gott vor sein Opfer, etwa also: „Nun Gott, vor deine grosse Güte, daß wir haben können gesund unsern Mist aufführen und den Acker betüngen, schenken wir Dir diesen Bock, denn wir dir zu Ehren schlachten und an dich gedenc kende verzehren wollen. Sey uns freundlich, Herr“ etc. etc. In dem er dieses bethet, pflegen etliche den Bock in die Höhe zu halten“he presents his offering to God, approximately as follows: ‘Now, God, for Your great kindness, because we have been able to haul our manure and fertilize the field in good health, we give You this he-goat, which we intend to slaughter in Your honor and eat in remembrance of You. Be gracious to us, Lord,’ etc., etc. While he prays thus, some customarily hold the he-goat aloft” (Praetorius 2006: 530; cf. BRMŠ_III 194; based on the translations by Jonas Kilius [Praetorius 2006: 531] and Dominykas Urbas [BRMŠ_III 298]).

In chapter 1 (§7) of book 6, there is another offering of bread: Drauff hebt er das Brodt in die Höhe gen Himmel sehend und sprechend: „Diewe, passotink mus“, „Gott, sättige uns““Then he lifts the bread up, looking toward heaven and saying: ‘God, satisfy us’” (Praetorius 2006: 550; cf. BRMŠ_III 199; based on the translations by Jonas Kilius [Praetorius 2006: 551] and Dominykas Urbas [BRMŠ_III 302]). Here the explanation of this conception of sacrifice is also evident: to lift up means to raise toward heaven, to God.

Also noteworthy in this regard is the “raising of tables,” mentioned in the “Reports on the Condition of the Diocese of Samogitia,” specifically in the 1639 report of the missionary Jurgis Šavinskis: Et communiores omnibus fere rusticani et oppidani feria, chielt uve stalu ab oblatione mensarum nuncupatur; quae oblatio sive agape in cibandis pauperibus, pia reciprocatione nunc tenetur “And the feasts celebrated by almost all peasants and townspeople are called chielt uve stalu, ‘from the offering of tables’;

32

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

“This offering, or agape, intended to feed the poor through sincere sharing of food, is still celebrated today” (BRMŠ_III 493; my translation). Here the text itself requires us to add that Lat. oblatio ‘offering, oblation’ also means specifically ‘religious sacrifice’—it is the suppletive form of the verb offere ‘to present, offer, sacrifice’, which gave us the familiar apiera. Thus, the Lithuanian expression keltuvė(s) stalų is explained in Latin by oblatio mensarum, “the offering of tables,” or simply “the sacrifice of tables.” Hence raising (=aukovimas!) here means precisely sacrifice. It is well known, after all, that the table was once the “home altar,” so sacrifice in connection with a table need not sound strange at all.

We have further similar evidence from the “Diary of Pastoral Activities of the Vilnius Jesuit Academy College,” namely from Ignas Ostrovskis’s 1718 report: …laboratum est insuper, ut eradicaretur superstitio inveterata, dicta Kielimey Statu id est Mensarum Solemnia, quae in Veteri deducta Ethnicismo, huiusque invariableter apud Christianum plebem in non nullis locis perseverant, ubi statis anni temporibus dum laut(i)us pascunt ventrem, simul pascunt daemonem, et animas defunctorum cibo nutriunt consumptibili “…efforts were also made to eradicate the entrenched superstition called Kėlimai stalų, that is, the Table festivities, which had come down from paganism and has persisted unchanged among Christian common folk in some places to this day: at certain times of the year, while they feast more lavishly to feed their bellies, they also feed the demon with food; likewise, they nourish the souls of the dead” (BRMŠ_IV 115, 120; translated by Marcelinas Ročka, reviewed and revised by Eugenija Ulčinaitė; cf. Lebedys 1976: 208–209; Vėlius 1986: 29). It is noteworthy that Lithuanian festivities is precisely the equivalent of Latin solemnia—it has the same root as kelti, kėlimas and is moreover used in the plural, like the aforementioned kėlimai. And “feasting demons” and “feeding souls” again clearly point to this having been a religious sacrifice.

Cf. corresponding expressions from the earliest Lithuanian writings right up to recent colloquial speech (as they gradually became more domestic in character): Then he set a table for them, and they ate and drank J. Bretkūnas (1590); A man who lays or sets a table, or invites some guests; his table was always set with roasts and the very best drink J. Bretkūnas (1591); He sets out a consecration for us M. Daukša (1599); He would look for travelers for whom he could set a table and provide food K. Sirvydas (1644); I set a wedding feast P. Ruigys’s dictionary (1747); The host, making merry, laid on a feast or drinking party for his household S. Daukantas; So once she thought to prepare dinner A. Baranauskas’s dictionary (1920); I laid on a royal dinner in Notėnai, Salantai district; If my brother doesn’t want to,

33

Dainius Razauskas

let him not hold a wedding feast for me; I’ll hold one myself Viekšniai, Akmenė district; They’ll eat that meat quickly—they’ll have a feast Pociūnėliai, Šeduva district (LKŽ 545).

As late as the beginning of the 19th century, the deity’s blessing sought through sacrifice was understood in just this way, as attested by Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s 1800 “Lithuanian–German and German–Lithuanian Dictionary”: the Lithuanian invocation of an offering to the Earth, žemynėlė žiedėklė! pakylėk mūsų Rankų Darbus is translated into German as: du bluethbringende Erde, segne das Werk unserer Haende. War ehemals der Wunsch oder das Gebet der heidnischen Littauer, wenn sie Bier tranken, auch davon etwas auf die Erde goßen “O Earth that bears flowers, bless the work of our hands. [This] was once the wish or prayer of the pagan Lithuanians when they drank beer and poured a little of it onto the ground” (BRMŠ_IV 82; my translation; cf. LFCh 33).

Moreover, the drink offered in sacrifice was often not simply poured out, but rather splashed upward. For example, according to A. Juška, at weddings “after the wedding breakfast the bride leaves the table and goes to the middle of the floor. Having stepped into the circle, she drinks mead or wine and pours it upward, onto the ceiling, and then goes to dance with the groom” (Juška 1955: 343 [= LFCh 143], see 587). Similarly, at christenings, as recorded in 1888 in Serbentai village, Šimkaičiai rural district, from Domininkas Mačiulis, everyone, while drinking their portion, must save a drop of vodka and, after jumping up, pour it onto the ceiling; finally, the informant adds, they do the same at fairs, when drinking the customary extra round (DvPSO 210, 389)¹¹. Moreover, as recorded by Vincas Sinkevičius at the end of the 19th century, At Kūčios, after sitting down at the table to eat supper, one must first scoop up a handful of peas and, they say, scatter them onto the ceiling and say: ‘As these peas bounce as they fall, so may all my animals bounce throughout the year’ (BsJK 332, no. 2). In 1953, the following Kūčios custom was recorded in Jusegiris village, Papilys area, Biržai district: The head of the household, our stepfather, takes some beans, eats a few and throws a few upward. They hit the ceiling and fall onto the table. As he tossed the beans or wheat, he would say: ‘Kūč Kalėdos!’ They said this had to be done so that the crops would grow very well (LFCh 33–34).

Likewise, in traditional youth coming-of-age rites at the beginning of the 20th century, according to Žilvytis B. Šaknys, “actions symbolizing separation from the old social structure were often followed by lifting. [The lifting] was performed with particular ceremony on an object symbolizing a change in social status—a bench, a garlanded chair, often a chopping block, or, comically, a basket. The lifted novice was seen even by participants farther away, talking among themselves or even quite drunk […].”

¹¹ Plačiau apie šį paprotį žr.: Greimas (1990: 274–276); Vaitkevičienė (2003: 11) ir kt.

34

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

In this way, the attention of the maximum possible number of witnesses was focused. The participants themselves most often understood this action as a sign of special respect. Lifting—a vertical displacement, like the horizontal displacement expressed by jumping and swinging—is closely associated with critical moments in the life of an individual and a community. When lifting the head of the household, people often marked the completion of some important task, a name day, or a birthday; lifting in this way could confer the status of a bachelor, a maiden, or a head of household, and even take it away. Thus lifting is a fairly universal symbol of a change in status” (Šaknys 1996: 96)¹²—in other words, it points to an initiation.

Cf. also the meaning of the word pakylėtas, close to ‘blessed’, ‘consecrated’; likewise pakilùs, meaning ‘solemn’. Finally, the previously mentioned iškilmės ‘festivities’ are also noteworthy in this respect. Their original meaning is precisely iškėlimas ‘raising’, perhaps as in the aforementioned raising of the tables, or perhaps raising in general, lifting as consecration, as sacrifice (=aukavimas), and the ritual communal feast and celebration that accompany it. Thus the original meaning of iškilmingas ‘solemn’ is likewise precisely ‘associated with sacrifice, with sacrificial rites, with a feast’ in the literal sense of the word. In turn, festivities as a ritual communal feast, and celebrating as a banquet, are also connected with the custom of raising a glass before drinking (cf. LKŽ_V, 546; in earlier times, apparently, raising it and then pouring some out), which still recalls the notion of offering by raising. This, of course, is not a Lithuanian custom alone. Nor, by any means, is sacrifice by raising peculiar only to Lithuanians. Essentially, it is universal—a universal phenomenon.

Thus, for example, sacrifice was understood by the Latvians. The annual reports of the Jesuits of Riga, specifically Father Janis Stribinis’s 1606 report, describe a barrel of beer being raised during sacrifices: Popus senex cum aliis senibus, conceptis verbis murmurantes dona praesentant et offerunt, postmodum aliquot accurrunt et Tonnam Cereuisiae eleuant in altum. Popus, antequam incipiant bibere, ex Tilia colligit aspergillum et circumstantes aspergit. Postea parantur ignes in multis locis, et partem oblatarum (pinguedinem scilicet) in rogum coniiciunt. Putant etiam nunquam deos exaudituros illos sine Cereuisia “The old priest, together with the other elders, murmuring prescribed words, presents and offers gifts; afterward, a few run up and raise up high a barrel of beer. Before beginning to drink, the priest gathers a sprinkler made from linden branches and sprinkles those standing around. Then fires are lit in many places, and part of the offerings (namely, the fat) is thrown onto the pyre. They also believe that the gods will never hear them without beer” (BRMŠ_III 550–

¹² Plg. jaunavedžių „pakėlimą“ į šeimininkus (Juška 1955: 585).

35

Dainius R az auskas

551, 555; translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė). It need only be added that Latin offerunt can formally also be translated as “they offer up” (not “they put together”), and Latin oblatorum as “of offerings” (not “of gifts”). Although a gift and an offering are, in any case, very closely related concepts (cf. the Lithuanian dovana, meaning ‘offering’, with telling examples in LKŽ_II 616). Thus here too we have an offering made by raising it up.

The same is found in Father Erdmno Tolgsdorff’s report of 1606: Sacrificulos habent Lothauorum aliquos senes; quorum primas oblaturas praefatas hostias, adiunctis sibi duobus ex senioribus, conceptis uerbis altiori uoce murmurando sub aliqua sanctarum arborum, oblationis offert, quo facto, occurrunt aliquot, qui cum praefatis, arreptam caereusiae tonnam, in altum eleuant, in quam demum fronde tiliae intincta populum aspergit: tum uarijs ignibus accensis, adipeque iniecto, crematoque (sine quae caeremonia nullam hostiam faciunt) circa arbores sanctas choreas ducentes… “There are some old men among the Latvians who act as sacrificers; their chief, offering the aforementioned victims, murmurs certain words in a low voice beneath one of the sacred trees, together with two other elders; when the offering is complete, several people come running and, taking a barrel of beer, raise it up; then, having dipped a linden branch into it, he sprinkles the people. Next, after lighting fires in many places, they throw fat into them and burn it (without this ceremony they perform no sacrifices), dancing around the sacred trees…” (BRMŠ_II 552–553, 557; translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė).

Finally, the word holy—specifically, the Latvian word sweh̄ts (in modern spelling, svēts)—according to Gotthard Friedrich Stender’s 1789 Latvian-language dictionary, also meant theuer und hoch, “precious and high, great” (BRMŠ_IV 238; translated by Lilija Kudirkienė and Alfonsas Tekorius), thus elevated, raised up.

On St Basil’s Day (January 14), Russians would slaughter a piglet, and “before eating, the head of the family would raise the bowl containing the freshly prepared piglet up, saying: ‘May the sows farrow, the ewes lamb, and the cows calve’” (Kriničnaja 2001: 263–234). In general, during some Slavic rites at a communal table, before dividing up the offering, people would raise it above their heads: Russians raised a bowl containing a New Year’s piglet; South Slavs raised bread during family singing and worship; Ukrainians raised a table [!] at memorial feasts (Buškevič 1999: 213). The ritual raising of bread on various occasions was also practiced by Russians (Sumcov 1996: 110, 242). Among the Slavs, ritual splashing of drink and throwing food upward were also widespread (for example, in Volhynia, porridge was thrown at the ceiling on Christmas Eve) (Sumcov 1996: 186). In the view of researchers, “throwing upward could be understood as magic intended to encourage vigorous plant growth, …

36

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

…prompting vigorous plant growth. Such actions (together with raising objects and jumping) were performed when sowing flax, hemp, and grain. For example, the sower would toss upward in the field the first or last handful of grain, an egg brought for the purpose, or a small bag for grain”; however, “quite different semantic emphases are associated with acts of throwing upward, apparently intended to send an object to the ‘upper world’” (Vinogradova 1995: 264; see Agapkina 1996: 220–221; cf. the aforementioned Lithuanian bread raised for God). People were also lifted up as a sign of respect among the Slavs (Agapkina 1996: 230).

Among the more distant examples worth mentioning here, following Edward B. Tylor, are “the custom of the Talens of Burma, when dining, to raise a dish before beginning to eat, offering it to the natu (spirit), and, finally, the Indian custom of raising a pinch of rice above one’s head before eating and mentally offering it to Shiva or Vishnu” (Tylor 1989: 475–476).

Thus, the sacrificial practices of Lithuanians and, indirectly, of other peoples fully confirm the etymological connection between the words auka, aukóti and aukúoti, ‘to raise, lift (upward)’. At the same time, they reveal the basis and core of the concept of sacrifice and offering in Lithuanian tradition: raising, lifting upward, toward the heavens (to God), elevation.

In any case, this semantic motivation of sacrifice fits quite neatly into the broader typology. For example, Latin altāre (or altāria, altārium) derives from the adjective altus, ‘high’ (Kuzavinis 1996: 49; Walde, Hofmann 1938: 32); in other words, one way or another, the Romans had to raise or elevate the sacrifice onto the altar. Latin mactatio, ‘sacrifice’, originally means precisely ‘exaltation, raising up’; macto, -āre, ‘to slaughter a sacrificial victim, to sacrifice’, originally meant ‘to exalt, raise up, make great’, and shares a root with Latin magnus, ‘large, high’ (Walde, Hofmann 1954: 5; Benveniste 1995: 369)¹³. Interestingly, Lithuanian gérti ir gìrti, initially as ritual acts, seem to derive from the same original meaning, ‘to raise’ (a cup and one’s voice, respectively), that is, from the Indo-European root *gʰer- / *gʰr- ‘to raise’ (Mažiulis 1984: 13). The Slavic word for sacrifice *žьrtva is based on this very root (Černych 1999 1: 300; Vasmer 1996 2: 50). The concept of holiness is directly connected with sacrifice and offering (cf. Latin sacrificāre < sacr um facere, Lithuanian švęsti meaning ‘to offer sacrifice’, LKŽ_xv 520, etc.), and the Indo-European word *ḱu̯ento- that denoted it (> Lithuanian šventas, Slavic *svętъ, Avestan Iranian

¹³ Perhaps—‘to exalt, raise up through offerings, to make the god great’; in this regard, cf. Daukantas: “…they made offerings to their gods…” (see above).

37

DAINIUS RAZAUSKAS

spanta-, Vedic śvānta-, etc.) apparently had the original meaning ‘grown, increased, risen’, and is itself etymologically related to the Indo-European root *ḱeu- ‘to grow, increase’ (> Vedic śū- [śvayati ‘grows, increases’], Avestan sū- ‘to grow, increase’, etc.): thus the Vedic epithet śvānta- for the ritual fire meant precisely that it had “grown”: grown taller, leapt up, risen upward from the firewood placed in it or from the poured-in combustible offering¹⁴ (cf. the Jewish burnt offering ‘ōla(h), which, in J. Skvireckas’s definition, “means that which rises upward”; see Klimavičius 2003: 184). Hence the word denoting holiness among the Iranians of Avestan times, spanta-, continued also to mean growth, increase, abundance (Zaehner 2003: 42, 45, 77).

K. Karulis likewise associated the Baltic root *auk- ‘to (in)crease, multiply’, discussed above, precisely with growth, height, calling it simply a “parallel form” of the root *aug- (Karulis 1992 1: 87). In any case, there is a certain phonetic “diffusion” between the two roots as well; cf. Old Prussian *auktas ‘high’ = and Lithuanian past passive participle augtas, Latvian augts, Old Church Slavonic auctus ‘increased, enlarged’ (Mažiulis 1988: 114; Toporov 1975: 151–153); cf. Būga’s derivation of the word auklė as < *aug-klė directly from augti (Būga 1959: 153, 409; Būga 1961: 711)¹⁵. In Skirmantas Valentas’s view, perhaps this is a “merger of the meanings of auka and augti in one morpheme” (Valentas 1997: 70). Interesting in this regard is a song about the sacrifice of a goat, recorded by B. Tamulevičius around 1865 (for the popularity of which in Lithuania, see above), beginning with the words: You, little billy-goat, black-bearded one, / Grow, grow, grow... (BsLP 266, No. IX.15, see 421; LTs, 181, No. 193; Sruoga 2003: 373, etc.)—the question arises whether the lexeme auk, repeated three times, in which we now hear only the imperative of the verb augti ‘to grow’, was not in fact related (at the very least associatively, and perhaps even etymologically) to the root of the words auka, aukauti, aukoti and auk(u)oti?

If the Lithuanian words auka and aukoti are not 19th-century neologisms but old words that, as E. Fraenkel pointed out, have cognates in other Indo-European languages (Gothic auhūma ‘higher, above’, Welsh uchel ‘high’, the Old Prussian superlative prefix ucka-), then their origins thus reach back to Indo-

Mayrhofer (1976: 404, see 399–400); Benveniste (1995: 344–346); Toporov (1987: 192–194, 202); Toporov (1988: 17, 27, 35); Toporov (1989: 9–13t); Toporov (1992: 25); see Pokorny (1959: 630, cf. 592–594).

¹⁵ Būgai pritarė P. Skardžius (Skardžius 1943: 199), A. Salys (žr. Klimavičius 2003: 174).

38

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

Proto-European times¹⁶, it becomes possible to interpret an entire series of corresponding linguistic facts in all the Baltic languages quite differently from the accepted view. Besides the Prussian superlative prefix ucka- (*uka-, on which see Mažiulis 1997: 209), mentioned by Fraenkel, one must first recall that this prefix occurs in the name of the god *Ukapirmo (see ibid.), whose concept (according to the accepted interpretation, this is the god “First of All”) thus acquires a new nuance—and Daukantas’s view mentioned at the beginning, that he called himAukopirmas from the words auka ‘sacrifice’ and pirmas ‘first’, as one who must above all be sacrificed or worshipped, no longer seems entirely groundless. Further, the Prussian name for the predatory bird griffin, aukis, derived from a specifically reconstructed Prussian root *auk- ‘to utter a particular voice or sound’, corresponding to Lithuanian áukterti ‘to hoot, to screech’, úkti ‘to call (of an owl)’, ūkas ‘owl’, Latvian aūka ‘storm, whirlwind’, Russian укать ‘to hoot, to call’, and others (Mažiulis 1988: 111–112; Топоров 1975: 148; Karaliūnas 1987: 134), can now also be linked with Lithuanian auka (‘sacrifice’). (Assuming that its Prussian counterpart had a secondary meaning ‘prey’, typologically we could compare Prussian aukis with the English generic name for a predatory bird, bird of prey, especially since English prey ‘quarry’ can in turn be synonymous with ‘victim’; cf. to fall a prey to ‘to become someone’s victim’ [Piesarskas, Svečevicius 1991: 67]). And although the accepted etymology of the Prussian name for the griffin bird remains quite convincing, the corresponding interpretation of place names sounds highly doubtful and far-fetched. There were certainly many such place names in the Baltic lands (not counting Aukakalnius). In Prussia: a locality near Vėluva, by the Pregolya River, Auka or Aukai (Auco 1353, Aucken 1419), Lake Aukulis (Aucul 1353) or Aukelis (Aukel 1417, later German Okull-See), the Auklapė River (Auclappen 1419; ‘river’ in Prussian is ape, so the root contains the same formative -l- as Lithuanian auklė); in Latvia: Àukas, Àuca-purvs, Aūce, Aūces-ezars, Auces-pļava, Aūcene, Auciņš, Aūči, and others; in Lithuania: Aukena (recorded in Polish as Awkena, unidentified), Aukūpė (and the village Aukupėnai) near Kėdainiai, Aūkupis near Dotnuva, Aukupỹs near Krekenava and Aukupỹs near Viešintos, perhaps Aukspirta near Sintautai (and its tributary Aukspirta, and a marsh of the same name; according to

¹⁶ Here one may mention the separate Indo-European root reconstructed for this purpose by S. Feist, *ok- ‘high, upwards’; as well as the connections proposed by M.-M. Rādulescu with the Romanian (Dacian-substrate) interjection (h)ut’a, used to describe rocking (a baby) in one’s arms or on one’s lap, and with the Old Indian adjective ucca- ‘high’ and adverbs uccā-, uccāih ‘upwards’; only in the latter case would one have to regard *udka- as the original stem form (> Baltic *utka- > *uka-): Rādulescu (1994: 84–90).

39

Dainius Razauskas

A. Vanagas, “the origin is entirely unclear”), Lake Aūkrakštis near Daugai (possibly also the rivers Aūkšupis, Aukšninė, and the marsh Aūksabalė)¹⁷. Two rivers in the upper Dnieper basin with names of Baltic origin are also noteworthy: Уча, perhaps corresponding to the aforementioned Latvian Aūce, and at least three with names of Baltic origin but “unclear” meaning, Овчеса (Toporov, Trubačev 1962: 199, 211), which may now be conjectured to have been *Aukesa (cf. Очеса < *Аkеса: Toporov, Trubačev 1962: 200). Worth noting is the settlement Aukaimis in Lithuania, mentioned for the first time by Peter of Dusburg (1285) (Otekaym: Prūsijos žemės kronika III. 226; Ōukaym: III. 247, 280, 290), associated with a hillfort at the confluence of the Ančia and Ūkis near Batakiai¹⁸ (regarding Ūkis¹⁹, cf. the aforementioned ūkauti, ūkuoti, ūkuoti and similar forms alongside aukūoti). In this connection, V. Vaitkevičius’s words are also well-founded: “such village names as Auksūdys (Kretinga and Mažeikiai districts), formed from the word auka or aukoti and the element sūd- (sūduva ‘quagmire in a bog; bog pool)’ may perhaps also attest to ancient rites associated with marshes” (Vaitkevičius 2003: 153)²⁰. Finally, personal names should also be taken into account, such as the Lithuanian surnames Aukėnas and Aukūnas (LPŽ₁ 138, 139). All these linguistic facts have hitherto been explained by linguists

¹⁷ LAŽ₁₁ 18; LUEŽ 9–10; Palionis (1989: 212) (who sees in these place names additional support for the authenticity of the word offering: “The facts presented, in my opinion, clearly demonstrate the folk origin of the word offering”); Pėteraitis (1997: 58–59, 69) (according to V. Peteraicio’s interpretation, “auk- with the -k- formant is derived from Indo-European *au- ‘source, flow’,” but he also proposes comparing “Latvian aukāt ‘to run’, āuka ‘whirlwind’, Lithuanian aukūoti ‘to rock, sway’. Perhaps Prussian auks ‘bird of prey, griffin’ is a distant relative too”); Vanagas (1981: 52–53); Toporov (1975: 148); see partly Būga (1961: 256); Klimavičius (2003: 173).

¹⁸ Dusburgietis (1985: 215, 227, 243–244, 250, žr. 414), BRMŠ₁ 339, 342, 350, 352, žr. 355; istoriko R. Batūros Aukaimis pavadintas „šventu kaimu“ (BRMŠ₁ 329); toliau Aukaimį, N. Vėliaus irgi priskirtą „mitinę prasmę turintiems vietovardžiams“ (taigi, matyt, sietą su žodžiu auka), dar mini, pavyzdžiui, „Kryžiuočių karo kelių į Lietuvą aprašymai“ (BRMŠ₁ 428, 430, 431, 433, 434, 438, 439, 441, 442). Trumpai dar žr.: LE₁₁ 155. Gal iš naujo vertas dėmesio ir jotvingių bendrinis daiktavardis aucuma ‘kaimas’ (Zinkevičius 1984: 9–10; Zinkevičius 1885: 69–70). Plg. Daukanto atitinkamai aiškinamą Ukmergę: „Dausprungas paupy Šventosios upės įkūręs pilį, vardu Vilkmergę, arba Aukamerį“ (Daukantas 1976 ²: 51).

¹⁹ A. Vanago siejama su ūkas ‘migla, ūkana’ (Vanagas 1981: 352).

²⁰ Nevertheless: “It should be noted that there may have been a greater number of marshes called Alkomis, but because of the alternation alka / auka, their name Alkai changed to Aukai. Such marshes are known in the Kėdainiai and Panevėžys districts” (Vaitkevičius 2003: 155). This forced, artificial explanation is now unnecessary, being questionable simply because of the supposed “alternation alka / auka” (see above).

40

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

in a great variety of ways. Of course, some of those explanations may be correct and may remain valid, but now, with sacrifice rehabilitated, they all need to be fundamentally reconsidered.

2. THE ALTAR

Among the linguistic facts requiring reconsideration is a word directly associated with Lithuanian mythology—the divine name Bieaukuri. In the Jesuit annual reports of 1611 (Annuae litterae Societatis Jesu), the Lithuanian peasants who remained faithful to pagan customs are described as follows: Varios hi Deastros antiquae vanitatis monstra redolentes colebant; Žemopati, terrestrem diceres, Plutonem, si te ad antiquos referas; Andeui, Neptunum, Bieaukuri frugum custodem, Pagirni Cererem, Vsspeleni lares Vestamve, aliosque similes “[They] worshipped various deities redolent of the monsters of ancient folly: Žemėpatis, supposedly the [god] of the earth, or Pluto, if one refers to antiquity; Andei[n]is—Neptune; the guardian of the harvest, Bieaukuri; Pagirnis—Ceres; Užpelenis—the household hearth, Vesta; and other similar [deities]” (BRMŠ_II 625; my translation; cf. 633; also cf. Lebedys 1976: 208).

All the deities listed here are more or less known in Lithuanian mythology, their names more or less transparent, and this source mentions them almost entirely without distortion: Žemopati—Žemėpatis, the lord of the earth; Andeui, Andei[n]is—namely, Water (cf. Lithuanian dialectal andenis, anduo ‘water’)²¹; Pagirni—Pagirnis, the one beneath the millstones; finally, Vsspel eni—Užpelenis, the one “behind the ashes,” that is, behind the hearth (cf. the common noun Lithuanian užpelenis ‘place behind the ashes, the hearth’: LKŽ-Ž_XVII 677). The only one in this list unknown from other sources is Bieaukuri. Since the Jesuit missionaries can hardly be suspected of being seized by national romanticism and inventing new Lithuanian pagan deities, and since the names of all the other familiar deities they mention are rendered quite accurately, the Lithuanian ear can hear Bieaukuri no less fluently as Beaukuri, literally, as one who is without an altar (i.e. one who has no altar dedicated to him). Jurgis Lebedys interpreted this divine name in precisely this way, without the slightest doubt or even explanation, when translating the cited passage (Lebedys 1976: 208); so did Norbertas Vėlius, writing about seventeenth-century Lithuanian mythology (Vėlius 1986: 31), and Algirdas Julius Greimas, conjecturing that the name here supposedly described the wind god Vėjopatis

²¹ LKŽ, 134, 135; Greimas (1990: 388). There are objections to such associations of this divine name, but this is not the place to examine them in depth.

41

Dainius Razauskas

ar tiesiog Vėjas (Greimas 1990: 434, 489)²². Tačiau tokia šio dievavardžio interpretacija, šiaip ar taip, reikalauja pripažinti lietuvių kalboje jau XVII a. buvus žodį au karas

In general, researchers avoided Bieaukuri’s name, all the more since it is mentioned only once and, to boot, without any clearer comment—except that he is said to be frugum custos, literally ‘guardian of the crops’ (or ‘protector’: Vėlius 1986: 31). Sometimes, too, the established verdict of linguists on altar worked retroactively. For instance, in 1985 Jonas Balys wrote: “As a rule, we can accept as genuine only the names of gods mentioned by at least two independent sources. Hence many Old Prussian gods must also be ruled out. Some sort of misunderstanding is also involved in names of gods or demons mentioned only once by seventeenth-century Jesuit missionaries, such as Nosolas (Long-nose?)²³ and Beaukuris. Perhaps the person questioned answered: Any one, and so a new divine name came into being. Perhaps some semanticist will come up with the idea that it means ‘a god without an altar,’ unaware that the word altar is a recent coinage” (Balys 2000: 348). Despite the impatient categoricalness characteristic of this respected folklorist, it is highly revealing that—apparently unconsciously, following his native-language intuition—he himself hears and pronounces the written form of the name Bieaukuri as Beaukuri.”

If, however, we were to turn the argumentation right side up and try to base theoretical reasoning on facts, however scant, rather than the other way around, then the aforementioned “semanticist,” whose inevitable appearance Balys foresaw, would turn out to be entirely right—for this Bieaukuri alone, as Beaukuris, would require us to look far more cautiously at the assumption, advanced by Būga, that the words sacrifice and altar are Daukantas’s coinages. All the more so since Būga himself proposed his hypothesis only on the pretext of Endzelīns’s artificial etymology, and very cautiously: “It seems more likely to me that all three words—aukauti, auka and altar—are Daukantas’s inventions.” Yet now this hypothesis, hastily accepted as the final word on the matter, must itself be sacrificed on the altar of truth, as we have seen from the linguists’ works reviewed.

In turn, the name of the god Beaukuris, mentioned in 1611, may be considered an additional argument that the word sacrifice is ancient, and a decisive argument for such

²² Given that Beaukuris is thus a god to whom sacrifices are not made (or at least are not made on an altar), and that he is associated with the god of storms and winds, it is interesting that in Latvian the word auka denotes ‘a storm, a whirlwind’.

²³ The reference is to Nosolum from that same source, recorded in 1601 (BRMŠ_II 624, 631).

42

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

the word aukuras being present, there is likewise no basis whatsoever for assigning it to “Daukantas’s neologisms”.

Moreover, it is worth taking a fresh look at the Lithuanian deity mentioned in passing by Wilhelm Martinus in 1666, named Gabjau kuras: Absint Perkunas, Litu- ans, Babilasque Gabartai, / Nec non Gabjau kurs Baubeque žemėpati “May Perkūnas, the Lithuanian and Babylonian, and the Gabartai perish, / and likewise Gabjau kuras, and Baubas, and Žemėpatis” (BRMŠ_III 61, 62; my translation). One may hypothesize that the word *gabjaukur as denotes not a deity, but rather the hearth of the barn deity Gabjaujas or the fire deity Gabija.hearth

Finally, a sacrificial hearth is also found in early folklore records. For example, in a tale recorded from Jonas Valinčius of Vaitkabalai village, Vilkaviškis district, and published in 1902 in volume II of J. Basanavičius’s “Lithuanian Tales,” we find the sentence: – “I will build a church,” and, placing the cheese in the middle, he says: “There will bean altar (altar), and soon it will be built (BsLP_II 127, see 5, 483). Of course, a record from the end of the nineteenth century, considered on its own, cannot be an argument against Daukantas’s authorship; nevertheless, it is interesting that the word is mentioned here in a form different from Daukantas’s: not aukur as but aukaras. The form aukaras is attested both in the 1884 “Aušra” and in M. Miežinis’s 1894 Lithuanian–Latvian–Polish–Russian Dictionary (LKŽ_I 474). J. Basanavičius also used the feminine form auk ara, for example, in a speech delivered on December 27, 1906, at the opening of the first Lithuanian art exhibition in Vilnius: “...beneath the great altar of Vilnius Cathedral...” (Basana- vičius 1970: 722)²⁴. P. Skardžius regards the word as one of the neologisms coined by the Aušrininkai, citing as evidence an obviously secondary “folk etymology”: “supposedly from auka + Latv. āra ‘open space, open, bare field’” (Skardžius 1943: 594). K. Būga, however, considered the “Lietuvis” editorial office to be the “culprit” behind this form of the word—clearly, given the chronology, without justification—as the office explained its formation quite differently: “The ‘Lietuvis’ (1907, No. 5, p. 76) editorial office took it upon itself to alter the word au kuras ‘altar,’ hitherto used in written language, into auk-arą, reasoning that this word derives from auka ‘sacrifice’ and ara ‘altar.’ This explanation by the ‘Lietuvis’ editorial office is entirely mistaken, for it is contradicted by linguistic facts”: aukaras “cannot contain the word *ara ‘altar,’ because that word does not exist in Lithuanian,” while the equivalent of Latin āra, which the ‘Lietuvis’ editorial office had in mind, if it existed in Lithuanian, would, according to the sound laws of the language, sound quite

²⁴ I thank Dr. Vytautas Tumėnas for pointing out this latter example to me!

43

Dainius Razauskas

kitaip (Būga 1958: 114). Šis Būgos sukritikuotas aiškinimas irgi tėra jau esamo žodžio „liaudies etimologija“, juoba kad pats žodis, kaip matėme, vartotas ne tik raštų kalboje, bet ir tautosakoje, ir dargi gerokai prieš minėtą „Lietuvio“ numerį. Kaip pradžioje buvo užsiminta, Būga manė žodį aukuras Daukantą sukūrus „pagal ugniā-kuro pavyzdį“. Kritikuodamas aukarą jis šį savo aiškinimą išplėtoja: „Žodį aukuras reikėtų, etymologiškos rašybos prisilaikant, rašyti su dviem k, t. y. auk-kuras. Auk-kuras yra sutrumpintas iš *auka-kurá-, nom. pl. auk(a)-kurãi. Auk-kuras yra padarytas analogiškai su ugniā-kuras ‘очаг, der Feuerherd = pelenas’ (Kvėdarna): aũkkuras – ‘auku kūrinimo (= deginimo) vieta’“ (Būga 1958: 114).

However, Būga’s own explanation can also be regarded as a kind of “scholarly folk etymology,” prompted by Daukantas’s “folk etymology,” through which he sought only to explain the word, not to create it (recall: Here, in front of that chapel, stood an aukuras, or altar, where they burned offerings, or burned animals consecrated to Perūnas).

The words aukuras and aukaras may indeed be considered formations consisting of the root auk- and the suffixes -ura- and -ara-.

Lithuanian has many words with these suffixes; most importantly, there are quite a number of paired forms of the same word, one with each suffix. For example, čiūkaras ‘roof top, ridge, roof crest’ and ‘attic, roof gutter’: čiūkuras ‘same’; daũbaras ‘hollow’: dauburà ‘hollow, depression’; gaĩmaras ‘person who does not eat, emaciated person, weakling’: gaĩmuras ‘same’; gaĩgaras ‘mountain peak, ridge, hillock’: gaĩguras ‘rise in the ground’s surface, small mound’; kaukarà, kaũkaras ‘small hill, hill, mound’ and ‘mountain peak’: kauku-ra, kaũkuras ‘same’; kaũparas ‘mound’: kaũpuras ‘rise, hump, mound’; kėmaras ‘piece’: kėmuras ‘bunch, heap, multitude’; kùkštaras ‘load carried on one’s back’: kùkšturas ‘same’; pumparas ‘bud’: puñpuras; cf. stãbaras ‘leafless plant stem, dry leafless branch, brushwood’ and ‘someone stiff and awkward’, stabãris ‘withered, non-juicy plant’: stabùris ‘heavy, immobile person’, staburys ‘stalk’; stùbaras ‘spine’: stùburas; žãbaras ‘small leafless branch, twig’: plural žãburai (e.g. from Žeimelis, Pakruojis district: Bring some little twigs; we’ll soon get a fire going); žiežara ‘irritable person’: žiežura ‘same’; žiežmara ‘witch’: žiežmurà ‘gloomy person’, and many others²⁵. Cf.

²⁵ See Skardžius (1943: 302–303, 307–308); LKŽ_II 140, 145, 310; LKŽ_III 31, 32, 167, 168; LKŽ_V 420, 429, 437, 441, 553, 565; LKŽ_VI 804, 807; LKŽ_X 907, 910; LKŽ_XIII 602–603, 614, 1005, 1006–1007; LKŽ_XX 11, 25, 561, 564; cf. Būga (1958: 133).

44

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

personal names Bādaras: Badura; Daubaras: Dauburas, etc. (LPŽ_I 151, 152, 465, 466).

Thus, it may be hypothesized that au kuru and aukaras are nouns formed from the verbal root auk- (aukáuti, aukóti, aukúoti) with the suffixes -ura- and -ara- (formally, names of instruments of action), denoting the relevant implement or structure intended for sacrifice, on which the offering is lifted, raised (after being lifted up, it may also be burned, thereby again being raised upward with the smoke, toward the sky). In that case, the Lithuanian aukuras, aukaras is close in its semantic motivation to the aforementioned Latin altāre, altāria, altārium, formed from the adjective altus ‘high’.

In any case, it is clear from everything said that aukuras, or aukaras, too, is evidently by no means a neologism coined by Daukantas, but an old Lithuanian word, perhaps as old as auka.

3. CONCLUSION

Thus, at least there is no longer any need to rack our brains over what the ancient Lithuanians called the sacrifices they had offered since time immemorial, and the altars on which they offered them—terms attested in written sources from the end of the 14th century onward—in the “History of Poland,” written by Jan Długosz in the 15th century, in his account of Lithuania’s acceptance of Christianity in 1387: …templum et aram, in quibus hostiarum fiebat immolatio, disrumpli… “to demolish the temple and the altar, where sacrifices were offered” (BRMŠ_I 552, 572; translated by Daiva Mažiulytė; see Jurginis 1976: 51, 62)²⁶.

The ancient Lithuanians apparently called their sacrifices and altars aukomis and aukurais or aukarais, never imagining that their descendants would try to take these words away from them.

ŠALTINIAI

ATU: The Types of International Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography, based on the system of Antti Aarne and Stith Thompson by Hans-Jörg Uther, Helsinki, 2004 (nurodomas teksto numeris).

²⁶ Lie. atnašauti, atnaša rasi jau tikrai bus naujadarai, ne visai tiksliai nusižiūrėti, tarpininkaujant lenkiškai apieri, nuo lotynų offero, -re pirmine reikšme ‘nešti priešais’ (Klimavičius 2003: 182–191)

45

DAINIUS RAZAUSKAS

BRMŠ₁: Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, sudarė Norbertas Vėlius, 1: Nuo seniausių laikų iki XV amžiaus pabaigos, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996.

BRMŠ₂: Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, sudarė Norbertas Vėlius, 2: XVI amžius, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2001.

BRMŠ₃: Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, sudarė Norbertas Vėlius, 3: XVII amžius, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003.

BRMŠ₄: Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, sudarė Norbertas Vėlius, 4: XVIII amžius, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2005.

BsJK: Juodoji knyga, surinko Jonas Basanavičius, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004.

BsLP₁₋ᵢᵢ: Lietuviškos pasakos, surinko Jonas Basanavičius, 1–2, Vilnius: Vaga, 2001–2003.

DvPSO: Pasakos, sakmės, oracijos, surinko Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis, Vilnius, 1973.

LFCh: Lietuvių folkloro chrestomatija, parengė Bronislava Kelbertė, Bronė Stundžienė, Vilnius: Regnum fondas, 1996.

L.AŽᵢᵢ: Lietuvos TSR administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas 2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1976.

LEᵢᵢ: Lietuviškoji enciklopedija 2, Kaunas: Sp ausdos fondas.

LKŽᵢ₋ₓₓ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius, 1956–2002.

LPŽᵢ: Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas, ats. red. A. Vanagas, 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985.

LTsᵢ: Lietuvių tautosaka 1: Dainos, Vilnius, 1962.

LUEŽ: Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, Vilnius, 1963.

LITERATŪRA

AGAPKINA, T. A. [Т. А. Агапкина,] 1996: Концепт движения в обрядовой мифологии славян (на материале весеннего календарного цикла). In:

46

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

T. A. Агапкина, ред., Концепт движения в языке и культуре. Москва: Индрик, 213–254.

Balys, J. 2000, 2002: Raštai 2, 3. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas.

Basanavičius, J. 1970: Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius: Vaga.

Benveniste, E. [Э. Бенвенист] 1995: Словарь индоевропейских социальных терминов. Москва: Прогресс.

Beresnevičius, G. 1997: Religijotyros įvadas. Vilnius: Aidai.

Beresnevičius, G. 2004: Lietuvių religija ir mitologija: Sisteminė studija. Vilnius: Tyto Alba.

Buck, C. D. 1949: A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. A Contribution to the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Būga, K. 1958, 1959, 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 1, 2, 3. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Buškevič, S. P. [С. П. Бушкевич] 1999: Жертва. Славянские древности: Этнолингвистический словарь в пяти томах, под редакцией Н. И. Толстого, 2. Москва: Международные отношения, 208–215.

Černych, P. Ja. [П. Я. Черных] 1999: Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка 1–2. Москва: Русский язык.

Daukantas, S. 1976: Raštai 1–2. Vilnius: Vaga.

Donelaitis, K. 1994: Metai ir pasakėčios. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Dovydaitis, Pr. 1934: „Auka“. In: Lietuviškoji enciklopedija 2. Kaunas: Spaudos fondas.

Dunduliene, P. 1990: Senovės lietuvių mitologija ir religija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Dusburgietis, P. 1985: Prūsijos žemės kronika. Vilnius: Vaga.

Eliade, M. [М. Элиаде] 1996: Мифы, сновидения, мистерии. Москва: Рефл-бук.

Endzelīns, J. 1974: Darbu izlase 2. Rīgā: Zinātne.

47

Dainius Razauskas

Ermanyte, I. 1967: S. Daukanto aukà ir kiti bendrašakniai žodžiai. Kalbos kultūra 12, 38–42.

Fraenkel, E. 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.

Frazer, J. G., 1995: The Golden Bough: A study in Magic and Religion. London: Papermac.

Frisk, H. 1960: Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1. Heidelberg: Winter.

Girdenis, A. 2006: Lie. aukà – iš *aũkā ‘avis’. Baltistica 41 (3), 375–378.

Greimas, A. J. 1990: Tautos atminties beieškant. Apie dievus ir žmones. Vilnius–Chicago: Mokslas–Algimanto Mackaus knygų leidimo fondas.

Grigas, K. 1987: Patarlų paralelės: Lietuvių patarlės su latvių, baltarusių, rusų, lenkų, vokiečių, anglų, lotynų, prancūzų, ispanų atitikmenimis. Vilnius: Vaga.

Jurginis, J. 1976: Pagonybės ir krikščionybės santykiai Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Mintis.

Juška, A. 1955: Svotbinė rėda veliuონiečių lietuvių. In: Lietuviškos svotbinės dainos, užrašytos Antano Juškos ir išleistos Jono Juškos 2. Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla.

Karaliūnas, S. 1987: Baltų kalbų struktūrų bendrybės ir jų kilmė. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Karulis, K. 1992: Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca I–II. Rīga: Avots.

Klimavičius, J. 2003: Auka, apiera, atnaša: istorijos ir vartosenos bruožai. In: Leksikografijos ir leksikologijos problemos. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 170–194.

Kriničnaja, N. A. [Н. А. Криничная] 2001: Русская народная мифологическая проза: истоки и полисемантизм образов 1: Бывлички, бывалщины, легенды, поверья о духах-«хозяевах». Санкт-Петербург: Наука.

Kuzavinis, K. 1996: Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Lasicus, J. 1969: De diis samagitarum caeterorumque sarmatarum et falsorum christianorum. Vilnius: Vaga.

48

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

Lebedys, J. 1976: Lietuvių kalba XVII–XVIII a. viešajame gyvenime. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Mayrhofer, M. 1976: Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen 3. Heidelberg: Winter.

Mažiulis, V. 1984: Ide. *g'er- ‘kelti’. Baltistica 20 (1), 11–14.

Mažiulis, V. 1988: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Mažiulis, V. 1997: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Palionis, J. 1989: Zur Entstehung der Wörter aukà ‘Opfer’ und aukóti ‘opfern’. Zeitschrift für Slavistik 34 (2), 210.

Peteraitis, V. 1997: Mažosios Lietuvos ir Tvankstos vietovardžiai: Jų kilmė ir reikšmė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Piesarskas, B., Sveč evičius, B. 1991: Lietuvių–anglų kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Pokorny, J. 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1. Bern–München: Franke.

Praetorius, M. 2006: Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne 3. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas.

Rădulescu, M.-M. 1994: Latvian u(i)cā!, ucāt, ucītis: Dacian (h)uţa!, a(h)uţa, uţuţ. Baltistica 28 (1), 84–90.

Sabaliauskas, A. 1968: Baltų kalbų naminių gyvulių pavadinimai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 10, 101–190.

Savukynas, B. 1960: Ežerų vardai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 289–300.

Skardžius, P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (= Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996.)

Skardžius, P. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

49

Dainius Razauskas

Sruoga, B. 2003: Raštai 9: Tautosakos studijos 1921–1947. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas.

Subačius, G. 2007: Kelios istorinės pastabos apie žodį auka. Baltistica 42 (1), 133–134.

Sumcov, N. F. [Н. Ф. Сумцов] 1996: Символика славянских обрядов: Избранные труды. Москва: Восточная литература.

Šaknys, Ž. B. 1996: Jaunimo brandos apeigos Lietuvoje XIX a. pabaigoje–XX a. pirmojoje pusėje. Vilnius: Pradai.

Tylor, E. B. [Э. Б. Тайлор] 1989: Первобытная культура. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы.

Toporov, V. N [В. Н. Топоров] 1975: Прусский язык: Словарь A–D. Москва: Наука.

Toporov, V. N [В. Н. Топоров] 1987: Об одном архаичном индоевропейском элементе в древнерусской духовной культуре: *svęt-. Языки культуры и проблемы переводимости. Москва: Наука, 184–252.

Toporov, V. N [В. Н. Топоров] 1988: Язык и культура: об одном слове-символе (к 1000-летию христианства на Руси и 600-летию его в Литве). Балто-славянские исследования 1986. Москва: Наука, 3–44.

Toporov, V. N [В. Н. Топоров] 1989: Из славянской языческой терминологии: индоевропейские истоки и тенденции развития. Этимология 1986–1987, 3–50.

Toporov, V. N [В. Н. Топоров] 1992: Еще раз о фракийском всаднике в балканской и индоевропейской перспективе. Балканские чтения 1: Образ мира в слове и ритуале, Москва: Институт славяноведения и балканистики РАН, 3–32.

Toporov, V. N & O. N. Trubačev [В. Н. Топоров, О. Н. Трубачев] 1962: Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья. Москва: Наука.

Vaitkevičienė, D. 2003: Apeiginis palabinimas. Liaudies kultūra 2003, Nr. 2, 8–14.

50

Auka ir aukuras. Žodžių kilmė bei semantinė motyvacija

Vaitkevičius, V. 2003: Alkai: Baltų šventviečių studija. Vilnius: Diemedis.

Valentas, S. 1997: Lingvistinis pasaulis poezijoje. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Vanagas, A. 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Vasmer, M. [М. Фасмер] 1996: Этимологический словарь русского языка 1–4. Перевод с немецкого и дополнения О. Н. Трубачева. Санкт-Петербург: Азбука.

Velius, N. 1986: Senovės lietuvių religija ir mitologija. Krikščionybė ir jos socialinis vaidmuo Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Mintis.

Vinogradova, A. N. [А. Н. Виноградова] 1995: Бросать. Славянские древности: Этнолингвистический словарь в пяти томах, под редакцией Н. И. Толстого, 1. Москва: Международные отношения, 264–266.

Vries, Jan de 1962: Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Walde, A., Hofmann, J. B. 1938, 1954: Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch von A. Walde. 3., neubearbeitete Auflage von J. B. Hofmann, 1, 2. Heidelberg: Winter.

Zaehner, R. C. 2003: The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London: Phoenix.

Zinkevičius, Z. [З. Зинкевичюс] 1984: Польско-ятвяжский словарик? Балто-славянские исследования 1983, 3–29.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1985: Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? Baltistica 21 (1), 61–82.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4: Lietuvių kalba XVIII–XIX a. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Dainius Razauskas Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas Antakalnio 6, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected]

51