ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LIII (2005), 1–8

Waidelotte¹

To Jonas Palionis, vaidila of Lithuanian linguistics

Leszek Bednarczuk

Kraków

This article deals with the Baltic formation underlying the Polish and German forms Wajdelota, Waidelotte, attested in the literature as the name of the ancient pagan priests of the Balts, and comments on some morphologic and semantic aspects of this denomination.

The word waidellota entered Polish thanks to Adam Mickiewicz, who adapted one of the names for a pagan Prussian priest to describe the prophet of the nation in the Romantic era. Entire generations of young Poles encountered this word, from the Belvedere conspirators to today’s secondary-school students, for whom Konrad Wallenrod is required reading. Readers of the original and of more than twenty translations each adopted the word’s semantic field in their own way, while the titles The Song of the Vaidila, The Tale of the Vaidila remained in their memory. Few of them seriously wondered whether the Lithuanian vaidilas appearing in Grażyna and Konrad Wallenrod really existed in pagan Lithuania, and what they were called in Lithuanian. It is not entirely clear how waidellota sounded in Prussian and what it actually meant, what its morphological structure was, or what functional equivalents it had in the pagan religious systems of the Lithuanians, Slavs, and other Indo-Europeans. We shall try to answer these questions on the basis of etymological research.

Aleksander Brückner took an unequivocally negative position on the authenticity of the word waidellota as early as 1904 (1904/1984: 49), later asserting in his etymological dictionary of Polish that waidellota was “a fictitious word, entirely foreign to the Lithuanians; derived from German waideln, Waidler ‘about Prussian sorcerer-diviners’ [about Prussian bards], which in turn comes from Prussian waidlemai² ‘we play the kanklės.’” This explanation was repeated in the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Słownik wyrazów obcych, SWO 757) and Doroszewski’s dictionary (SJP^x 820). Other researchers of the Prussian language, however, regard the term Waidelott(e), recorded in various sources and later used by Prussian Germans, as authentic, and explain its formation on the basis of either Prussian evidence (Reinhold Trautmann) or Lithuanian evidence (Kazimieras Būga, Janis Endzelīns, Ernestas Fraenkelis).

¹ The article was first published in Polish in the journal Język polski 76, 1996, 264–273.

² The Prussian form waidlemai is known and is cited in the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Słownik wyrazów obcych, 1954); unfortunately, the 1991 edition gave incorrect information, stating that the term waidellota originated in the nineteenth century.

2 |

LESZEK BEDNARCZUK

Pirmiausia turime nepamiršti (žr. Kleiner 1948: I 354, II 71–72), kad žinių apie pagonių prūsų istoriją ir religiją Mickevičius sėmėsi iš XIX a. vokiečių tyrinėtojų, daugiausia iš Augusto von Kotzebue (1808) ir Franzo Mone (1822), kurie tikriausiai nebuvo susipažinę su Simono Grunau kronika (apie 1530 m.), pagrindiniu informacijos apie prūsų wajdelotas šaltiniu, išleistu 1877–1896 m.

In Grunau’s chronicle, the word in question is recorded in several graphic variants (Waidelott(e), Waidlott(e), Waidolott(e)); German morphological adaptations of it are also attested: Waid(e)ler ‘sorcerer’, waideley ‘sorcery’ and waidelen ‘to practice sorcery’. Georgas Nesselmannas (1836) and Janis Endzelynas (1943/1982: 332) also cite the forms weidelutt, weidulutt. Several other spellings of this term are known from the 19th century: Vaidalottes (Mone 1822: 85), Wejdalota (Narbutt 1835: 255–258), Weidalyt (Kraszewski 1847: 108), Wajdeluta (Konrado Valenrodo autograph, IV 330, cf. SJAM_IX 526).

It is difficult to determine which old sources these forms were taken from, but it is clear that they all derive from the Old Prussian German form Waidelotte, which also gave rise to Lithuanian vaidel(i)otas and Mickevičius’s wajdelota. The form apparently closest to the prototype in Prussian is Waidlott(e).

Kazimieras Būga devoted one of his studies to the word Waidelotte (1909/1958: 185–188). In his view, it is a diminutive derived from Old Prussian German Waidel-er, whose Lithuanian equivalent is the surname Vaidilas (in written sources Woydillo). Būga argues that the following names for a pagan priest existed in Prussian: *vaidilas, from which *vaidil-ūtis was formed, and the feminine form of the latter, *vai-dil-ūtė. Būga connects the word *vaidilas with Indo-European *uoid- ‘to know’, describing its original meaning as ‘sapiens, sapientia praedictus’ (endowed with wisdom), and, in terms of semantic motivation, comparing it with Lithuanian žynys, žiniuonis—words derived from the verb žinoti ‘to know’. In Būga’s view, the Prussian verb *vaid(i)litvei can also be derived from *vaidilas; cf. the 1 pl. present waidleimai ‘wir zeubern’ in the 1561 Enchiridion. As can be seen, the proposed direction of word formation is the opposite of the one Brückner envisaged.

Panašias į Būgos mintis dėsto Fraenkelis (1955–1965: 1179–1180, 1214–1216)³, siedamas prūsų waidelotte su lietuvių vaidila(s) ‘aktorius’, (?) ‘keliaujantis dainininkas, burtininkas, vaidila’ (nepatikrintais duomenimis). Tačiau jis dar papildomai nurodo ir prūsų waidinna (praes. 3 sg.) ‘rodo’, lietuvių vaidinti, vaidas ‘vaiduoklis’, veizdėti, veidas, vaizdas. Visus šiuos žodžius Fraenkelis kildina (su tam tikrais fonetiniais sunkumais, nes nepaaiškina kai kurių minėtų formų -z-) iš ide. *ueid- ‘matyti’, taigi kitaip nei Būga, kuris pamatu ėmė *uoid- ‘žinoti’.

Endzelynas (1943/1982: 331–332) identifies the stem (3 sg.) *vaid(e/i)lēj(a) in the Prussian form waidleimai, cites the forms waidelotte and waide/ulutt (as does Nesselmannas), quotes Būga’s interpretation, and, alongside Lithuanian žynys, cites the Latvian Curonianism (with n preserved before t) zinte ‘sorcery’ (1948/1971: 92).

Trautmannas (1910: 454–455), panašiai kaip Brückneris ir kitaip nei Būga, aiškindamas prūsų waidelotte, pradeda nuo formos waidleimai. Jo manymu, veiksmažodis *waidle(i)ti turi iteratyvinę priesagą -lā-/-lē- (panašus formantas žinomas lietuvių kalboje) ir yra vestinas iš waist ‘žinoti’ (1 pl. waid-imai). Iš šio kamieno Trautmannas

³The entries for vaidas and veizdėti are rather chaotically arranged, and the etymological explanations have not been fully thought through. A genetic connection between waidleimai and waidinna, as well as Lithuanian veizdėti, raises certain doubts.

WAJDELOTA

3

derives from agent noun *waidlōtojis, cf. artoys = Lithuanian artojas. As parallels, Old Russian vědb ‘(secret) knowledge, magic’ and vědunь ‘sorcerer’, and Old Indian vidā́the ‘the priest’s knowledge of divine secrets’ and vídyā ‘the art of magic’ are presented.

This etymology is more convincing than Būga’s explanations, but its weak point is that Prussian has no verbs with a suffix corresponding to Lithuanian -lioti. In Jan Otrębski’s view (1965: 351–354), this iterative-diminutive suffix should be considered a variant of -ioti, formed through the addition of the diminutive noun suffix -el-/-al-; therefore, the connection between Lithuanian -lioti and Prussian waidleimai is doubtful.

In my view, the form waidleimai should be understood as containing the conjunctive morpheme -lai-, used to express a wish. As Christian Stang has observed (1942: 263), these forms most often occur in compound subordinate purpose clauses. The case of waidleimai is precisely such an instance:

kai mes... ni... waidleimai (Enchiridion 29, 3)

das wir... nicht... zaubern

‘so that we would not practice sorcery (engage in magic)’

This is an agglutinative form in the Prussian language. In the texts, forms in the third person are most common, with -lai occurring at the end of the word; in other cases, however, this morpheme is inserted between the stem and the ending, e.g.: 2 sg. quot-lai-si ‘that you might want’, 2 pl. quotij-laj-ti ‘that you might want’, 1 pl. turi-li-mai ‘that we might have’. If waidleimai is taken as a conjunctive form of waid-imai ‘we know’, one can discern a semantic shift from ‘to know, to have knowledge’ to ‘to command secret knowledge, to practise magic’. The form -lei- in place of the expected -lai- causes no great difficulty. It is harder to explain why the noun was derived not from the infinitive but from the modal stem. The abundance of infinitive formants in Prussian suggests that certain infinitives may also have had a modal function. The agent noun nomen agentis *waid-lai-tojis ‘one who has (is obliged to use) hidden knowledge’ could have been derived from the stem of such a modal infinitive, waid-lai; with the advent of Christianity, it acquired the meaning ‘one engaged in magic, sorcerer’.

The Prussian term for a seer has also left numerous traces in the region’s onomastics. The geographical gazetteer for the Lithuanian part of Suvalkija records the locality Wajdeloty near Lake Dusia; on a German map from 1915 it is called Wajdaloty (cf. the forms mentioned earlier, wajdal-, wajdol-), while in Lithuanian it is Vaideliotai. One may speculate that this name arrived with emigrants from Teutonic-controlled Prussia, who settled here because of the forms of religious life they practiced. The basis of the place name should be a personal name—a nickname or a surname. The surname Wejdleit can also be derived from the Prussian term for a seer; today it is found mainly in the Elbe region—18 of the 30 surnames included in PESEL⁴ come from there.

To summarize the foregoing discussion, the word spelled Wajdelott(e) and so forth, which had the form *waid-lai-tojis in Prussian, is an agent noun

⁴Several years ago, in the cemetery of Jagodno village, beside the lake of the same name, I came across the surname WEDELEIT on a German gravestone. It may therefore be argued that surnames derived from Wajdlott(e) were known in the territory of East Prussia.

4

LESZEK BEDNARCZUK

-tojis is a derivative of the verb waist ‘to know’, formed from the modal stem waid-lai-. Since no such verb is known in the East Baltic languages, the derivative mentioned above should be regarded as an innovation of the Prussian language. In pagan times this was the name given to certain clerics (seers), who concerned themselves with acquiring and transmitting secret religious knowledge; after Christianity took hold, this activity came to be regarded as witchcraft. The practice must have been so widespread that Weidele, Weideler, Weidelotten, weideln entered the vocabulary of the descendants of Germanized Prussians (Frischbier 1883: 460).

As can be seen, the word under discussion is etymologized on the basis of Prussian linguistic evidence, which raises the question of its equivalent in the religious system of pagan Lithuania. The answer can be found in the aforementioned study by Būga, which draws attention to the semantic parallelism between Prussian waidelotte and Lithuanian žynys (‘seer’) (: žinoti ‘to know’). It should only be added that the word žynys, a derivative formed with the format -jo-, has a lengthened root vowel, which may indicate its archaism (Otrębski 1965: 68). Today the word has retained its old meaning, and when used with the adjective piktas it can mean ‘wizard, enchanter’. In old Lithuanian texts, žynys corresponds to the Polish wieszczek ‘prophet, diviner’, while the verb wieszczyć means ‘to prophesy, to act as a seer’. Among other Lithuanian derivatives, besides žiniuonis (Būga) and žin(i)ūnas (Otrębski 1965: 68), perhaps the most interesting is žinčius (Skardžius 1943: 79, 334, from Merkinė). Brückner (1903/1974: 67) and Būga (1909/1958: 180–183) discern this very word when reading the sentence by Jan Długosz (X 210, 1387): “Ignis... a sacerdote... qui eorum lingua znicz appellabatur”. The formant -čius is characteristic of deverbal personal names (Otrębski 1965: 246). Endzelīns (1948/1971: 92) derives the word from the unattested nomen actionis *žintis, related to Latvian žinte ‘magic’ < *žintjā, which may be regarded as an innovation in East Baltic religious terminology.

The form znicz recorded by Długosz was incorrectly interpreted in the sixteenth century as ‘sacred fire’; compare:

The fire they called Znicz, which always burned; whoever passed by had to add a piece of wood to it (Stryjkowski, ca. 1580/1978: 236)

In the nineteenth century, admirers of old Lithuania widely disseminated this meaning⁵, and in our times, in Polish, znicz has become a symbol commemorating national heroes and the dead, as well as the Olympic Games.

As the facts discussed show, the Prussian and Lithuanian terms for a cleric (seer) arose independently, but according to a common pattern: nomen agentis formed from a verb meaning ‘to know, to engage in secret knowledge’. The absence of a shared term can be explained by the loss of the verb *vaid- in the East Baltic languages, where it was displaced by the semantically similar *žin-ā- ‘to know’, which also had the religious-magical meaning ‘to engage in secret, hidden knowledge’.

⁵ Janas Karłowiczius (1875: 327–328, 375), o po to ir Būga (ten pat) klaidingą Długoszo teksto interpretaciją atitaisė, bet abu, remdamiesi XVIII a. leidimu, pateikė žodžio forma Zincz, o ne taip, kaip buvo Długoszo originale – Znicz, plg. 1961–1985 m. leidimą (X 210).

Wajdelota

| 5

In this respect, the Slavic languages are closer to Prussian, since they have several terms for practitioners of religious-magical rites derived from the verbal stem *vėd-. Structurally closest to Prussian *waid-lai-tojis / wajdelota is the Common Slavic term for a ‘seer, prophet, wizard, enchanter’, *vėd-tjo- > *věščь, attested chiefly in the adjectival form *věščь-jb. As in Prussian German, where the forms Waidolottinne, Waidlin(ne) are known, Slavic also has feminine forms—*věšča(ja), *věščica—which became more widespread and lasted longer because of the special role of women in this activity. On the other hand, the word *vėd-bma, known chiefly from Russian evidence, is probably derived from the deverbal abstractum ‘secret knowledge, magic’ (compare Old Russian věd-b ‘the power of a wonder-worker, enchantments, magic, knowledge’). This is indicated by the categorical meaning of the formant -ma, which primarily forms nomina actionis and resultati, e.g. Lithuanian tarti – tar-ma, Slavic *kuč-bma ‘hair bun’ (Otrebski 1965: 154–155; Sławski 1976: 14–15).

The same semantic field includes numerous Russian derivatives formed from the stem *vėd-: the old forms vědunb, vědunja, vědunica, vědunixa; vědbstvo, vědunje, vědbmenje (SRJ₃ 50); dialect forms (chiefly in northern Russian and Belarusian regions) ved’mica, ved’movat’; ved’mak, ved’mačka, ved’mačit’; Belarusian v’az’m’ar, v’az’marka; Polish dialectal wiedźmiarstwo; Russian dialectal ved’movstvo, ved’movšče, and the like.

In the Proto-Slavic period, the verb *věščiti, the nomen actionis *věščьenje, the nomen resultati *věščьba, and *věščьco, *věščьko, *věščerb, established chiefly in the western and southern Slavic groups, as well as Russian *věščьmb, and the like, were formed from the stem *věšč-.

The words presented here form clearly visible word-formation paradigms—series of derivatives. Such a paradigm consists of Proto-Slavic derivatives from *věšč- ‘to prophesy’ and Old Russian derivatives from věd- ‘to possess secret knowledge and use it (to practice magic)’:

agent noun verb action noun result noun věščь(jb), věšča(ja), věščica, věščiti věščьenje věščьba vědunb, vědunja, vědbma věděti vědunbje, vědbmenbje vědb

The abundance of inherited derivatives indicates that this religious-magical activity must have remained vigorous in the late prehistoric period, while new independent formations in individual languages and dialects (especially Belarusian and Kashubian; see Boryś, Popowska-Taborska 1994) attest to the continuation of this activity in Christian times as well. Some of the lexemes mentioned found their way into Bible translations; compare Old Polish wieszczec, wieszcznik, wieszczy; wieszcze-nie, wieszczba (SS₉ 198–199). Many of these terms, especially those referring to women engaged in this activity, entered the sphere of folk magic and demonology; compare Old Polish “wieszcza baba (z) Zakrzewa scilicet czari” (1476), “strigori al. wyesczyce” (1420). Similarly, in Polish dialects, where wieszcz(y), wiesz-cza, wieszcz yca mean ‘vampire (of either sex), mermaid, female devil’, the development of meaning can be illustrated by the following sentence: “Wiesz-czy...

6 |

L E S Z E K B E D N A R C Z U K

comes out of the grave and prophesies (3 sg.), and as far as his cries can be heard, so far people must die” (SGP_VI 120, recorded in Lesser Poland⁶). The Polish dialect word nie-wiada ‘a degenerate, foundling, etc.’ should also be included in the lexical field under discussion: “A child (born of a vampire and a woman) turns into a nie-wiada after seven years” (Karłowicz, SGP_III 315, Lublin region).

A comparison of the Prussian and Slavic terms for a cleric-seer shows that they share structural and semantic similarities. In both cases, verbs reflecting PIE *uoid- ‘to know’ were used in the sense ‘to possess secret knowledge and make use of it’, while derivatives formed from them with similar suffixes, nomina agentis, mean ‘one who knows; a wise man-seer who, by means of his secret knowledge, divined (prophesied) future events’. Slavic-language evidence reliably shows that women, too, engaged in this activity, while the Prussian evidence makes this plausible. In Christian times, the meanings of these words independently shifted in both language groups to ‘sorcerer’.

It should be noted that derivatives from *uoid- belonging to the spheres of religion and magic are found not only in Prussian and Slavic, but also in other PIE languages. A parallel from Sanskrit cited by Trautmann (1910: 455) was mentioned above, and Būga drew attention to a similar semantic development in the Celtic term for a seer (druid): Gaulish druidae, druides, from *dru-uid- ‘knowing much, deeply’, but with a different root vowel. The striking similarity between the spiritual leaders and organizers of resistance among two oppressed peoples in different parts of Europe, at different times, cannot fail to attract attention.

As Būga already observed in the study mentioned above, the name for the Lithuanian pagan cleric—the seer—was similarly motivated, based on the verb žino-ti ‘to know’, which displaced the Prussian waist cognate in the East Baltic languages, meaning ‘to know, to understand’. Today žynys means ‘wise person’ and may be used to describe a pagan cleric or cult representative (cf. Egyptian priest), or be associated with herbalism and knowledge of medicinal plants and folk medicine. A Slavic parallel that may be offered here is *zna-xorb, which referred to a practitioner of healing magic (whereas derivatives from *věd(tjo)- belonged to the sphere of faith). This raises the question: what did the roots *uoid- ‘to know’ and *ǵnō- ‘to recognize’ mean in Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European times, and what did their nominal derivatives mean?

From the perspective of Indo-European morphology, the answer is relatively straightforward: *uoid- belonged to the perfect system and had all its characteristics: it was intransitive and aspectually neutral; no other tense forms were derived from it; it denoted a state resulting from an earlier activity; and in some languages it could be used in narration and, more rarely, to convey indirectly known information (the Sanskrit and Albanian evidential). The root *ǵnō- was an aorist stem: it denoted a bounded, transitive, punctual action. Alongside it there was probably an inchoative -sko- present, and already in the proto-language a series of nouns had been formed: nomen agentis *ǵnō-tēr/l, nomen actionis *ǵnō-ti-, nomen obiecti *ǵnō-mn-, nomen instrumenti *ǵnō-tlo- (Pokorny 1949–1969: 376–378). In some languages, verbs formed on the basis of *ǵnō- overshadowed the derivatives of *uoid- or restricted their

⁶ In Belarusian dialects around Vitebsk and in northern Russia, the word veščica ‘witch’ is an epithet for the magpie, because it announces some news. It is believed there that a veščica, leaving her body beneath a mortar, can turn into a magpie and fly out through the chimney; cf. ESBM_II 117–118.

WAJDELOTA

7

usage: New Greek, Latin, New English, East Baltic, South and East Slavic (Buck 1949: 17.17).

These stems are much more difficult to analyze etymologically—to determine their original meanings and genetic connections with other roots. In the case of *uoid, it appears that it should be derived from *ueid- ‘to see’, so the original meaning was ‘I know because I have seen’. It is difficult to find a motivation for the root *ǵnō- within the PIE system, but one may recall Herman Hirt’s hypothesis (1900: 3), which proposed deriving *ǵnō- from *ǵen + e/o- ‘to beget, to bear fruit; to arise; to be related by blood, to be close’ (a physical-sensory motivation can be discerned here semantically; for more, see Trubačev 1959: 154–156).

Further material for distinguishing these verbs is provided by their use in phraseological expressions, various proverbs and sayings (NKP_III 665–670, 908–914). This distinction should have been inherited from the Proto-Slavic period and has parallels in other languages. As can be seen, the verb ‘to know, to understand’ was initially associated with spiritual knowledge and inner religious experience, whereas ‘to recognize’ described an ability based on observation and sensory experience. If there was a root in the Proto-Indo-European period meaning intellectual, spiritual knowledge (understanding), then there must also have been cultivators of that knowledge, who could be called ‘wise men’ and held the status of clerics-prophets⁷. Their field of activity was the expression of the world of ideas through prophecy, giving instructions, and proclaiming truths of faith.

In ancient India, this knowledge (understanding) was expressed in the form of the Vedas, which provided the foundations of philosophy, theology, law, logic, and linguistics. Its origins probably reach back to the Proto-Indo-European period. In the Baltic and Slavic languages, we find numerous names for those who cultivated this knowledge (cf. the Prussian and Slavic material discussed above). It may be supposed that the most distinguished representatives of this activity were also interested in thinking about language. Given the semantics of wieszcz, wiedzieć, wiedza, which have been examined, they were distinguished by a desire for knowledge, deep insight, and inventive thought—qualities characteristic of the etymologist today. Thus, Professor Vytautas Mažiulis’s description as the vaidila of Baltic and Prussian etymology is no exaggeration.

ABBREVIATIONS

ĖSBM – Мартынаў, В. У., ред., Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы, Мінск, 1978.

NKP – Krzyżanowski, J., ed., Nowa księga przysłów polskich 1–4, Warsaw, 1969–1972.

SG – Chlebowski, B., ed., Słownik geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego 1–15, Warsaw, 1880–1902.

SGP – Karłowicz, J., ed., Słownik gwar polskich 1–6, Kraków, 1900–1911.

SJAM – Górski, K., Hrabec, S., eds., Słownik języka Adama Mickiewicza 1–11, Wrocław, 1962–1983.

SJP – Doroszewski W., ed., Słownik języka polskiego 1–11, Warsaw, 1958–1969.

SRJ – Богатова, Г. А., ed., Словарь русского языка XI–XVII вв. Moscow, 1975–.

SS – Urbańczyk, S., ed., Słownik staropolski, Kraków, 1953–.

SWO – Słownik wyrazów obcych, Warsaw, 1954.

⁷In the Proto-Indo-European period there were various categories of priests. Redard (1974: 191–195), drawing on Messapic to-bara(s), Vedic prā-bhartṛ- and Avestan fra-bəratar-, reconstructed the name of one of them—‘offerer, sacrificer’.

8 |

L E S Z E K B E D N A R C Z U K

LITERATŪRA

BORÝS, W., POPOWSKA-TABORSKA, H. 1994: Słownik etymologiczny kaszubszczyzny 1, Warszawa.

BRÜCKNER, A. 1903/1974: Dawność i znaczenia języka polskiego. Początki i rozwój języka polskiego, Warszawa, 42–72.

BRÜCKNER, A. 1904/1984: Starożytna Litwa, Olsztyn.

BRÜCKNER, A. 1927–1957: Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Warszawa.

BUCK, C. D. 1949: A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages, Chicago.

BŪGA, K. 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius

DŁUGOSZ, J. 1961–1985: Roczniki czyli Kroniki sławnego Królestwa Polskiego 1–12, Warszawa.

ENDZELĪNS, J. 1943/1982: Senprūšu valoda. Darbu izlase 4/2, Rīga.

ENDZELĪNS, J. 1948/1971: Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages, Hague–Paris.

FRAENKEL, E. 1955–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg

FRISCHBIER, H. 1883: Preussisches Wörterbuch, Berlin.

GRUNAU, S (apie 1530; 1877–1896): Preussiche Chronik, Leipzig.

HIRT, H. 1900: Der indogermanische Ablaut, Strassburg.

KARŁOWICZ, J. 1875: O języku litewskim. Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Wydziału Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności 2, 135–376.

KLEINER, J. 1948: Mickiewicz 1–2, Lublin.

KOTZEBUE, A. von 1808: Preußens ältere Geschichte, Riga.

KRASZEWSKI, J. I. 1847: Litwa 1, Warszawa.

MONE, F. 1822: Geschichte des Heidentums im nördlichen Europa, Leipzig.

NARBUTT, T. 1835: Dzieje starożytne narodu litewskiego 1, Wilno.

NESSELMANN, G. H. F 1836· cituojama iš Endzelīns 1982: 332.

OTRĘBSKI, J. 1965: Gramatyka języka litewskiego 2, Warszawa.

POKORNY, J. 1949–1969: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern.

REDARD, G. 1974 Sur la nom indo-européen de prêtre. Studia indoeuropejskie, Wrocław, 191–195.

SKARDŽIUS, P. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius.

SŁAWSKI, F. 1976· Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego. Słownik prasłowiański 2, 13–60.

STANG, CH. S. 1942: Das slavische und baltische Verbum, Oslo.

STRYJKOWSKI, M. apie 1580/1978: O początkach... narodu litewskiego, Warszawa.

TRAUTMANN, R. 1910: Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, Göttingen.

TRUBAČEV, O. 1959: История славянских терминов родства и некоторых древнейших терминов общественного строя, Москва.

Leszek Bednarczuk ul. Grabowskiego 5/5 PL-31 126 Kraków

Vertė Eugenija Vaitkevičiūtė