Lozorius Zengštokas. „Giesmes Chriksczionischkos ir Duchaunischkos ir jų šaltiniai“

116 | Reviews LITERACY Govt, R. 1973: A about du travel de F. de Saussure en Lithuania. Cahters Ferdinand de Saussure 23, 7-24. Mauro, T. de 1972: Critical biographical et notes on F, de Saussure. In: F. de Saussure, General de Language Course, Paris: Payot, 319-404. Smoczwski, W. 2000: Old Lithuanian Zmuo, Zmunj poza na prabaltyckich rzeczowmkéw atematycznych. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 43, 18-33. Sane, Cu. S. 1966: Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages. Oslo: Unwversitetsforlaget. Zinxevicius, Z. 1980: Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vilei8io g. 5, 10308, Vilnius, Lithuania Lazorius ZENGSTOKAS GIESMES CHRIKSTIONISCHKOS IR DUKHAUNISCHKOS IR JU SOURCES Parengé Guwo Micueuit Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2004, 584 p., ISBN 9955-584-71-8 2005 at the beginning of the month,,Balty lanky“ publishing house (2004 month date) iSleido i8 karto ne bibliografiretenybe tapusj Lazarus ZengStoko 1612 might sing Giesmes Chrysktionischkos ir Duchaunischkos. The rarity has become because, although the books ,,developir ment permits parémé State Lithuanian Language Commission Lietuvos Republics Seimo* (p. 4), Almost to End of 2005 This publication j did not reach the ir bookstores, o the publisher itself also claims to no longer have it. jo Until now, there have been various questions: This publication was intended ir for why Publication sponsored by the State Lithuanian Language Commission is not available anywhere? After all, it is unreasonable to say that The State Lithuanian Language Commission has already begun to support the personal licenses of private producers. O gal Does this publication want to remind us of the Soviet,,global deficit* times?.. The publication begins with the preparation of the book Guido Michelin bilingual ‘Jvadu’ (Lithuanian) k. - p. 7-13; English k. - p. 14-21). Po jo printed text of the hymn of Lazaros Zengstokas with Saliniai (p. 22-523), reprints of the hymn in the Berlin copy su Fusion (p. 524-526), 3 accessoi§ ries, kuriy only first —,In the Vilnius copy there are trikstami lapai and rankrastinés giesmés in the Berlin copy* (p. 527-548) — is directly related su Song of Songs (second ir third, t. y. ,,A few examples i8 1588 m. A hymnal published in Karaliaucius Clergy Songs and Psalms" (p. 549-558) ir Here are some examples: i$ 1599 m. A hymn published in Nuremberg Clergy Songs and Psalmen“ (p. 559-571) is more illustrative), and at the end —,,Sources and bibliography“ (p. 572-573) and,,Song texts by the first verses“ (p. 574-584). The author of the reviewed book,,[vade“, briefly indicates the relationship of the hymn of Lazaros Zeng3tokas with the earlier hymns of Martynas Mazvydas and Jonas Bretkiinas and describes the two copies of the hymn that have survived to the present day. 50 ,,until Zeng8toko edition has been published more than a generation, preparing 81 {217 in the publication a question arose, which Lithuanian version to present Salia photographed text: MazZvydo or Bretkiino. An important factor in this choice is the fact that Zengstock, when reprinting the texts, often referred to the last edition, i.e., the 1589 edition, so he chose to always present the Lithuanic Saltinj of the photographed text, as Bretkiin had indicated, especially when discussing those cases where the morphology, lexicon or syntax of the Giesmiy Chriksczionischky had been changed* (p. 8). Both from the point of view of textology and when comparing the texts of all three hymns, Guido Michelini- ’s remarks are essentially correct. However, occasionally Salia presents a rewritten Bretkinin text of the photographed L. ZengStok hymnbook. In this publication there is a more extensive commentary, even though the very title of the reviewed publication,,Lazoriaus Zengtoko Gesmes Chriksccionischkos ir Duchaunischkos ir jie Saltiniai* obliges us to present as accurate as possible Zengstok texts in Saltiniai. In addition, the title of the book prepared by ZengStok, Giesmes Chriksczionischkas and Duchaunischkas aiS, clearly says that the basis of this book is the hymns of Mazvydas and Bretkiinas. Todél that third part of the Zengstok hymns printed texts, which were already in both MaZvydo and Bretkiino hymns, analyzed in this publication, without any doubt, should be detailed. In other words, the reader and researcher of the literary Lithuanian language should get a precise answer from the reviewed publication, whether Zeng Stok used Mazvydo hymns in preparing these texts or not. Now, from the fact that Zeng Stoke,,more often referred to the last edition*, it seems to be possible to understand that Bretkin's 1589 convolute was not always relied upon for the preparation of these texts. But more specifically, in which cases and for which texts Bretkin was not limited only, unfortunately, neither,,- [vade“, nor iSnaSos nowhere nor Zodeliu is mentioned. Therefore, there is immediately doubt whether Guido Michelinis has precisely determined the Lithuanian Saltinj for the kiirinis printed in Siems at least a couple of times before Zeng8toko. After all, as Inga Strungyté has already observed,,,the analysis of the hymns showed that on Zengstok's work desk lay not only These two books (i.e. the hymns of Mazvydas and Bretkiinas. —J. K.), but also Mazvydas's Catechism' (Strungyté 2004: 73). Of course, no problem with the selection of the source does not arise for any Lithuanian only because of the texts printed in 26 13 Mazvydo Giesmės Chriksczoniskose and also because of 25, which were taken from Bretktin- 's religious book of 1589, where these hymns were also printed for the first time (p. 8). However, G. Michelini- 's statement on the same page that,,for the history of the Lithuanian language (emphasis my —J. K.) the first-printed hymns of the ZengStok hymn are more important* (p. 8) is not accurate and requires further commentary, because for the history of the Lithuanian language these texts have not existed. For every language historian it is obvious that the new texts of Zengstoko giesmiy in Lithuanian 1 ‘In fact, further in this work, after discussing the coincidences of Zengstoko with Mazvydo gresmynas and Catechism, the author states in the attached 11 iSnai, that she mentioned,,Zeng8toko corrections and coincidences with Mazvydo giesmynas also nodé and Guido Michelinis in a recently published book (Michelini 2004). The Italian linguist did not notice any connection with Mazvydas' Catechism" (Strungyté 2005: 73, in. 11). Since Strungyté inaSoje does not indicate the pages of the book now reviewed, it is not clear where she read Guido Michelini- 's instructions. For the sake of accuracy, it should be added that neither in the introduction of the reviewed publication, nor in the 51 and 50 song texts, which were already printed before ZengStok: Mazvydo and Bretkiino publications, in the commentaries attached, which in many cases actually indicate Bretkiino and ZengStok's (not all!) corrections, it is not specifically mentioned that it is here that ZengStok's text is closer to Mazvydo- 's text. Such a conclusion, when comparing the presented facts, the reader must make for himself (cf. pages of the reviewed publication: 35 —i&n. 1, 43 iSn_ 1; 51 —18n. 1; 53 i8n. 1; 57 -i8n. 1; 63 - in, 1; 67 isn. 2; 69 —i8n. 1; 73 -18n 1; 81 -—in 1; 83 -15n 1; 91 —in. 3; 129 -18n. 1; 175 ifn. 1; 183 i8n 1; 199 in. 2, 201 isn 11 —in. 3; 217—18n. 1; 269 ign. 91 —isn. 1; 339 2; 341 -i8n 2; 397 iSn. 1, 415 —i8n. 1; 447 —i$n. 1; 449—8n. 1; 459 ~ i8n. 2; 465 —i8n. 1, 493 iSn. 3). 118 | RECENZIJOS history of no jtaka neturejo ir vargu ar tures. If they could have any influence, it would be on ir the history of Lithuanian ne language, but not on the history of literary language. Todél is not very pleased when in a linguistic publication prepared by a professional linguist you find such inaccurately used linguistic terms. Such a synonymic interpretation of the term history of the ir Lithuanian language is permissible, all the more so since linguistics and the humanities ar is perhaps the most precise science. i8 Therefore, it would be desirable that the works prepared by linguists were more precise in the use of linguistic terms. Probably the most space ,,vade* prof. G. Michelin award for newly translated ir first time For the printed hymns, which are iS 49 (but, according to the publisher of the reviewed publication, the song texts Danguisies mus Tiewe, Tawesp wienop Jesus. Christe ir Wieschpats mana wiernas shepherd lyrics ,,can be considered new ty patients The translations of the verses used by the composers of the Lithuanian hymn, which appeared earlier.” (p. 8). Since the title of the book states that in this publication beside Lithuanian giesmiy text are presented ir Salted, so you'll want it Here find a more ir accurate definition, because ir In this case, it remains unclear ar whether the texts of the aforeme15 ntioned songs are real new ar translations or are only new translations. O maybe just a new version of the translation? So if goodbye, Guido According to Michelini, the L. text of the Zengstoko hymn is printed for the first 52 time (with only ka the three mentioned hymns) The largest group consists of translatioi8 ns from the German language. 27 It is written by him. Applications Siy giesmiy 27 lietuviSkus pavadinimus, parengejas teigia, kad,,visi The German texts used in the Lithuanian translation iSleisti XVI a." (p. 9). Ir tohau clarifies that only one i8 jy i8printed M. Liutherio Gerstliche Lieder in Part 2, 14 - 1584 m. Nuremberg iSleistame giesmyne Psalms/Spiritual Songs and Church chant. Furthermore, there are pridiires, that biitent Nürnberge ,,XVI At the end of the century, in the well-known hymn Geistliche Songs and Psalms (p. 9) are 22 Lithuanian song German equivalents, the author further makes the following conclusion: ,Whereas du i8 fifth In this edition we want to add the translation, [...] only three texts do not j 1611 m. have a corresponding in the Nuremberg hymns, which could be used by the authors of the translations in Lithuanian language* j (italics mine) - J. K.) (p. 9) So, well, it seems, prof. G. Michelini's reasoning is incoherent. I5 The reader of this author's introduction may draw another conclusion, that ZengStokas ir jo helper could take advantage of: ir 1611 m. German hymns. But, considering the to conditions of book production at the time ir and the technical possibilities of the printing press, there is a great doubt that this was the case. In this, possible darkt, does not really ir believe the author of the book, because po several eiluciy already claims that Sio ,,the singers of the hymn were not bitnians (emphasis my - J. K.) had to use the mentioned huterony publications, because he could have po 1588 m. In Karaliaučius Wéjus{giesmynq ,,Clerical Songs and Psalmen“, in which the German 24 originals are printed with Lithuanian translations* (p. 9). IS the latter quotes, logically thinking, one can make only one i’conclusion, that first of all the Lithuanian songwriter- ’s rengeyy eyes, no doubt, turned be j 1588 m, The German hymn published in the Kingdom, which was also Lutheran, the Nuremberg hymn may o have been only an addition Salty. Todél ar ne too much Guido Michelinio »Ivade* main parts ZengStok hymn Saltiniy, even though they were required (as the title of the book suggests) as accurately as possible. Now it ir remains quite clear, ne when the Lithuanian translation of the Source is determined relatively accurately, when only o approximately, even if there is no further statement 1S that the newly translated 22 song Sources are presented according to Song of the King (p. 9), i8eitu, that ultimately the preparer tends to think that the main new iy REVIEWS {119 i8versty giesmiy Saltinis vis délto bus buves bitent Six 1588 m. A hymn published in Karaliaucius Clergy Songs and Psalms. Further reading prof. G. Michelinio ,.vada“ explains ir another interesting thing. It seems that in preparing This book was guided by the principle ,,that only be for others“. The fact that This assertion is not broken by the pirate, every i§ reader, it seems, can be convinced by reading the explanation of Prof. G. Michelini. »Zengstoko Giesmes Chrikscztonischkos $j ir Duchaunischka reprinted in a photographic way defective ik Lithuanian Academy of Sciences library copy, the broken pages supplemented by also defective (in other places) on the pages of a copy of the State Priestly Cultural Heritage Library in Berlin; that it is clearer to see, in which places the reprinted copy is defective, decided to reprint the second sheets, only in the appendix reprinted with photographic biid... " j o (p. 10; italic mine — J. K.) 18 once the question arises, from when a defective specimen becomes unique? Logically speaking, since In this case we have du to defective specimens of the same specimen, according to prof. G. Michelin principle, now need photographic way separately iSpusti A copy of the State Prison Cultural Heritage Library in Berlin, reprinted from the pages in it 18 Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Then we would definitely have i8tisin) text. Unfortunately, a publication based on these principles has not been published so far. Ir kazin ar they are necessary, even that In Lithuania up to So no one would do that. Be of, if parengéjas so much tro’ko i&skirti defective parts of the specimen in Lithuania, this i Photocopies taken from the Berlin copy could be marked with a special Zenklu (In today's technical conditions this is apparently not difficult to do1), re-writing is 0 jy provided in the appendices. ir Then we're gonna have to get out of here ZengStoko text, between the o ne photographed text jterptus rewritten pages, the more so that In the Vilnius copy, the re-written texts were inserted only ne , spoils * photographed, Zeng8toko text, but in a sense misleads ir the reader, because the redrawing is not kept only the original ne The length of the string of text but (1), made with r greater or lesser errors (2). 1. Plg. giesmés Tawefp Schaukiu Jefu Fonts 1st stanza Michelini pergola, printed p. 230 (a) the su original, the photocopy of which is printed in I the appendix p. 528 (b): a) Tawefp Schaukiu Jefu Fonts / Jfchklaufik mana fchaukfma / Dukem lofka {cheme c3efe / neul3leifk man filwarta / Ape tikra Faith of speech / Ta 2000-2001 tu / / Artumui but geru tawa / {3 others were arrested. b) Tawefp Schaukiu Jefu Fonts / Jfchklaufik mana [chouksma / Dikeem Lofka [cheme cgefe / neul3= leifk man filwarta / Ape tikra Faith in the Ta heart / no= rek tu man diiti taw / giwenti / Artimu: but geru / tawa [3others were detained. 2. ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS p. 230 DUkem p. 528 Ditkem p. 230 Ta p. 528 Ta p. 232 atmin’s / ...Link{min's p. 529 atmines / ... Linkfmines p. 234 Togidelei p. 530 Togdelei to, Sio digrafo 120 | REVIEWS p. 234 PUliu p. 530 Pilliu p. 236 Per p. 531 per p. 408 DUk p. 532 Dik p. 408 dime p. 532 dime p. 408 dUk p. 533 dik p. 410 th0 p. 534 thi p. 410 dUft (3x) p. 534 ditt p. 410 DUft p. 534 Diift p. 410 fchaukenc3Ufus p. 534 fchaukenc3tifus On the same occasion Gia simply needs to add that, following this principle and taking into account the usual place of the photocopies of the ZengStok hymnbook, two of the ones prepared by him seem,,,pameté,, and dél this the reviewed publication is in a sense also defective. For, starting with the song Pagimde mumus fchen diena and ending with the song Schwenta DwafJe mufump,,,Registro,, there is no photocopy in the first appendix (cf. pp. 544-545), and the re-writing (p. 523) of the list of songs in this interval is printed. Therefore, in the Berlin copy this sheet is there, because if it was not in this copy, then we would probably not have found this part of the,,Registry“ in the ZengStok hymnal. Discussing the creation of Saltiniy’s reprinted texts, the book’s editor states that it is,,following the principles adopted in Michelini’s previous publications: the current Font is used, and the non-gothic letters (todél, e.g., f is replaced by s) and the vowel letters with ‘Sakele’ are presented in a slightly different form; The original V/v pre-S prefixes are rewritten U/u, and the second (and occasionally subsequent) capital letter in a longer Word is replaced by a lowercase j (e.g., ATeik j Ateik)“ (p. 11). This explanation and the examples given with it, in my opinion, are insufficient. First of all, nothing is shown, what the current Font is iSpléstas. Is the essence of the iSplétimo only the digraph used in it or something else? 8, ar ir Be utosena reikSmé ir M. Mazvydo ir J. In Bretkin's hymns, it seems, not quite adequate, so for the newcomer to the knowledge of the ancient finds, 3j fact, it seems, also not worth reminding. If ,,isplésto current Font* essence consists only of f , then perhaps the reader will be curious to know why it is given a distinct value, since it actually constitutes the i8 same ji nilgoji* fir 3. It is also necessary to specify,,.vade“ by giving at least one ir example, which of course the reader does i8 not need to re-write in the text, how the original vowel letters are represented with,,Sakele*. Thus, if what has been said, it seems, there is no doubt, that in previous publications G. Michelinis accepted principles, which he guided and preparing the §j publication, not to the end aiSkiis and this discussion requires specification, because in scientific publications (as his prepared books almost always named Prof. G. Michelinis) chosen principles were able to raise no doubt and additional questions to the reader. Also ambiguous is the assertion that the reviewed publication should only define more precisely the relationship of the Zengstoko hymn with Mazvydo and Bretkiino hymns, but better explain the importance of the Zengstoko book in the history of Lithuanian hymns, supporting this with specific data (for example, the fact that in the new edition of the hymn, the hymn of Mazvydas is replaced by the hymn of Bretkiino). ir 30 The text of this publication, — among which are such valuable original semi-original ar pieces as Christe geribes diena praeia, Chwola taw buk saldus Diewe, Teip Diews swieta pamileia — taken from Klein's hymn of 1666). Be doubt, negative J. Lebedie's assessme- [...], su nt with i8 which esmés agrees ir REVIEWS [| 121 Z. Zinkeviéius [...], is too one-sidedSkas* (p. 11). From the statement of G. Michelinis it can be concluded that the authors of the hymns of Mafijos Lietuva quite independently selected the texts for the hymns they were preparing and wrote them from their own perspective. This was not the case in I8, because the song organizers were not free and the tradition had to be maintained. Todél part of the then populary consistory approved hymn and traveled i§ hymn j hymn. It follows that Daniel Klein added 30 new ZengStok hymns, and therefore it is not necessary to consider the ZengStok hymn as something distinct from the others, even though, according to Jurgis Lebedzis, Klein added more than half of the hymns in his 1666 hymn to Mazvydo, Bretkiino and ZengStok hymns (Lebedzis 1998: 107). 1977: 115). Whereas: Klein, while preparing New Giefmiu The book used all three previous hymns, of course, in the Zengtok hymn it only uses the texts first printed in the Siamese hymn. Thus, the fact that Klein used Zengstok- ’s hymnal is not a specific feature of this hymnal, because, as V. Birziska has rightly observed in 1944, “each newly prepared hymnal was not a new original work, but an addition or correction of an older one” (Birziska 1998: 462). On the other hand, in order to refute or at least to make the reader doubt the evaluation of the Zengstok hymn by Jurgis Lebedzius and Zigmantas Zinkevičius, it seems not enough to say that it is “too one-sided- ”, but at least one other example should be given. And when there is no such example, the impression is created that this is said only in order to accomplish their work. In order to avoid the impression that these are mere words and that there is sometimes unnecessary harassment, it remains to recall once again the assessment of Jurgis Lebedzis that this,,the hymn is not meaningful neither in terms of literary language nor in terms of poetry“ (Lebedys 1977: 110-111). Thus, both Lebedys and Zinkevičius, when they evaluate Zeng3toko hymnal and say that he did not contribute to the literary language of greater significance, do not overdo anything, because his contribution to the history of the Lithuanian literary language can not be compared with either L. Réza's Psalteris Dovydo or D. Klein's hymnal. Moreover, Lebedy adds that not only in terms of the written language, but also in terms of the poetry (emphasis my — J. K.) it is not meaningful. This statement of Lebedis is not denied by the works of Juozas Girdzijauskas, the best Lithuanian poetry scholar, who, speaking about the editing of Mazvydo texty poetry, says that Bretkiino- ,,the efforts in this case are much more consistent than ZengStoko” (Girdzijauskas 1966: 69). Moreover, remembering the meticulousness of Jurgis Lebedzis, it is hardly possible that he, when evaluating the hymn of Lazaros ZengStokas, could have taken into account G. Ostermejerio First History of Lithuanian Hymns, published in German in 1793, as G. Michelinis tends to argue (see p. 13, iin, 49). Until Siol, Gia had focused mainly on “I[vado” statements that raised more or less doubt and seemed to require some or other clarification. However, it should not be assumed that Michelini Gia does not present any new facts. First of all, having at his disposal the original Lithuanian Protestant hymnals in other languages, he significantly corrected Dainora Pociity’s,- ,.XVI-XVII a. priisy Lietuvos baZnytiniy giesmiy sarasa“ (see Pociity 1995: 147-175), because the compiler of this list, preparing the monograph XVI-XVII a. protestanty bagnytinés giesmés, did not have such a possibility. Also, the publication now reviewed differs from the previous one prepared by Guido Michelini and published in the publishing house,,Balty lanky“ in that the quality of the photocopies is incomparably better than, say, the one of Simon Vaisnoras Zemcziuga Theologischka and J. Bretkiinas. Giesmuy Duchauny copy, although the diacritics in the Siamese edition should be clearer. Anyway, this publication is already bitty can be used, if, as it was said, jj can be bity buy. 122 | REVIEWS After Zengstoko giesmiy lietuvisky Saltiniy translation, in the commentaries often discussed the issues of translation and editing of previously printed texts in Lithuanian hymns. However, after a closer reading and analysis of these comments, the question still arises, by what criteria they were written. The thing is, that in one place the preparator quite detailedly records all the changes in these comments (cf. p. 37, iSn. 1; p. 47, 18n. 1, etc.), elsewhere they are not even mentioned, although there are sometimes even more changes when they are not mentioned. This can be easily confirmed by comparing the comments added to the reprinted text of ZengStok i8 Mazvydo giesmynas (a) and iS Bretktino 1586 mety leidinys (b): a) for example, the following comments are given to Mazvydo texts Awinelis Pona Diewa and Pone Diewe auk(czaufefis:,; Text and melody are based on Gesmes Chriksczonskas (p. 260-263). Zengstokas replaced Wede j Weda (1st stanza)* (p. 159, iSn. 1) and,,The text is given according to Gesmes Chriksczonuskas (p. 409-412). It may be considered as a free translation of Luther’s hymn Dis sind die heilgen zehen Gebot, presented on pp. 42b-43b (cf. Michelini’s edition Martynas Mazvydo rastai ir jie šaltiniai, p. 471). ZengStokas amended Newoksi j Newoki (p. 205, i8n. 1)’. And to the texts,,Skambak linkfmai balse mana“ and,,O Jefau Chrifte fwieta atpirktojau isnaSose“ the following comments are given:,,The text is presented according to Gesmes Chriksczoniskas“ (p. 368-372) (p. 277, ign. 2) ir ,,The text is presented according to Gesmes Chrysochoniskas (p. 425-429). Maybe it is an original ktrin* (p. 473, 18n. 1). By comparing the commentaries to Mazvydas' reprinted texts, it is logical to conclude that the last two texts of Mazvydas were reprinted by Zeng Stok without any changes. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The two last texts of Mazvydas were slightly edited by ZengStokas. In Mazvydo giesmés text Skambek linkjmai balfe mana Mazvydo gime Mz 370, ZengStokas replaced j gimes; order Mz 370, —i budu (p. 278); kuna dtino Mz 371, —j diino kuna; fchwentam Duchui Mz 372, and Schwentai Dwaffei (p. 280). Furthermore, we replace the hymn O Jefau Chrifte fwieta in the redeemer's text. Cia mumus Mz 426, replaced by 1 mus (p. 472); nieSai ir aigdas Mz 427,,~ i fchafchai ir aides (p. 474); Births and deaths Mz. 427,,~j The birth of watks (p. 474); Jog Mz 427,, ~ i Jeng (p. 474); J.D. M.D. 429, —j Jng Diewa (tikéti) (p. (b) It's like that ir i§ Bretktine Giesmium Duchauny bei Cancionero taken from giesmiy comments. For example, to the hymns Pilliu Adama pageda and Fiket manefp bila Chriftus perraSu the following comments are added:,,The text is based on the Hymn Duchaunas (hymn no. 41). Zengstok replaced am$na smerczia j amfinu smercziu (3rd stanza) and added Amen* at the end (p. 235, isn. 1). ,,The text is presented according to Giesmes Duchaunas (giesmé nr. 66). Zengstock replaced tur ir ghis i ghissai tur (9th strophe)* (p. 309, i8n, 1). G. Michelinis adds the following comments to the re-writing of the hymns Mes meldgiam waikai tawi and O Diewe Malonus buki: »The text is based on the hymn Duchaunas (hymn no. 64)« (p. 405, i8n. 1) and,,The text is based on the hymn Duchaunas (hymn no. 59)“ (p. 461, iSn. 1). Thus Gia Weity, that Zengtok j his hymn These Bretkin texts were translated without changing anything in them. In the song Mes meldgiam vaikai tawi ZenStokas Bretkiino line PerSegnok burna sawa pakeité j Perfegnok nasrais fawa, and in the line Aprodik meile tawa /Jr wissa gelbéki —j parodik meile tawa /Jr wiffam... (p. In the hymn O Diewe Malonus biiki, the composer of the reviewed hymn Zengstok replaced the lines of Bretkin's text Nig mana wiffa piktibe, Tawesp keli taifiti, Tada ifch offieru with Niig mana wi/fu piktibiu (p. 460), Tawesp tayfiti (p. 462), Kada ifch affieru (p. 462). D238: These examples, in my opinion, show quite clearly that in a scientific journal such a freely chosen commentary is also not a good thing. The principles of commentary together with the principles of publication should be discussed more clearly in the title of the book. Now it is possible to assume that when the author had time or desire, he indicated the differences in the text, and when he had no time or desire, he was satisfied with the reference to where the text was taken. And once again, the most fearful readers of the reviewed publication, who for the luck of Smiles do not know how to get the publication, should be aware that the transliterations of Mazvydas and Bretkin presented in this G. Michelinis publication (the texts in these languages are not checked for transliterations) contain as much or as little inaccuracy, so it is not worth relying only on the transliterations presented by G. Michelinis, but each time they should be checked for their originality. In order to make it easier and more convenient to navigate, the inaccuracies observed in the texts of M. Mazvydas (1) and J. Bretkiinas (2) are presented here. 1 INACCURACIES IN THE REWRITED TEXT OF M. MAZVYDO Recen: G. Michelinio Original (Mz) Original (MZ) text mo rewriting of the publication pages page 2 41 Jsraela:/- 54142 Jfraela: 41 su tewais musu: 542, fu tewais mufu 12-13 107 Potam drebeya 443,,-444, Potam drebeiya (ya Be= is a curator) 107 Toks smerti pripme 444, Toke fmerti prieme 107 kurf priemei 445, kure priemei 119 non-removable 448,, non-removable 123 Ir kop 453,, ir kop 139 grabop 2765 grabob 167 to reign 246, to reign 207 No friends sawa 411, No friends fawa 215 dngui 587, dangui 277 czista 369, cgiftas 281 O kings 419, O King 285 Garbinkiem 422, Garbinkiem 359 mirsim Rodi 417, mirfim /Rodi naz 475 Del 426, Diel 124 | REVIEWS 2. INACCURACIES IN THE REWRITED TEXT BY J. BRETKIN G. Michelini J. Bretkinin 2001 edition —_Rewriting of the original text ir Book page hymn number page 35 teip Diewas esti GD1 21 yes Diewas eft 35 Nig GD1 21 Nug 59 is GD4 25 elti 59 Diews dawe GD4 25 Diewas dawe 61 Wool blankets and blankets GD 4 26 Walnai taw ple&dams 61 gesme GbD4 26 poison 65 Yes esti GD 48 100 Yes eft 65 Marias Mergaites GD 48 101 Marias mergaites 69 palinksmink GD 50 103 Palinkfmink 73 Be angina... GD 51 104 Be Angina... / paBeidima paeidima 73 est ghis li./GD51 105 elt ghis li. 81 O Schwenta GDS 27 O fchwenta as 113 Rasbainiks GD 63 121 How Ralbainic acid 113 ischpleschita buwa GD 63 121 ifchplefchita 131 Swents GD 10 32 {chwents 139 smertis Riwats GD11 33 {mertis /Riwats meile/ meile / 205 us stoieise GD 16 39 us ftoieife 209 us nig GD 17 39 mumus nig 209 man širdis GD 17 39 man [širdis 209 Neu muschk GD 17 40 NeuSumufchk 229 O ghrieschnasis GD 67 128 O griefchnafis 239 Bag wind GD 42 90 Bag wind 265 dik mumus Paraphrasis 162 dak mums 317 Prie saw GD 73 139 Prieg faw 417 Forgive us GD 37 74 Adeifk mums 435 biauriais GD 24 50 biauriais 4A7 Tiews GD 38 80 Diews 447 east GD 38 80 efti 449 walia GD 38 81 wale 457 nail GD 28 55 nail 457 Nai nu GD 28 55 Nig nu 459 bik taw Heaven GD 29 56 buk taw Heaven 465 people GD 60 115 people 499 As Collectos 227 as brad 505 ti Kollectos 233 biirna diiti 513 atsiusk Collectos 241 atfiuntk