ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LI (2004), 69–80

The hymn revisions of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century East Prussian hymnals

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

Vilniaus universitetas

A comparison between the hymns contained in Mažvydas’ Catechism and their counterparts in Mažvydas’ and Vilentas’, Bretkūnas’, Sengstock’s and Klein’s hymnals shows that the successive editors introduced minor corrections but (with the exception of one hymn in Klein’s collection) did not thoroughly revise the texts. Sengstock’s corrections are based, in some instances, not only on Mažvydas and Bretkūnas, but also on the 1547 Catechism. Klein was much more consistent than his predecessors in correcting imperfections in language and versification.

1. More than one scholar has studied the language, versification, and melodic text of Mažvydas’s Catechism hymns; however, no more detailed comparison of the Catechism hymns with variants reprinted in later hymnals has yet been made. This comparison is interesting because it reveals the editors’ attitude toward old hymns, helps uncover the motives behind some of the changes, and makes it possible to trace which earlier books the editors used. Some revisions to old hymns were not systematic; for example, just a few changes to versification in Mažvydas’s or Bretkūnas’s hymnal cannot be described as an attempt to regularize the hymns’ syllabic structure, but such corrections do demonstrate the editors’ efforts. Therefore, the article also presents individual corrections that cannot be generalized, but which provide information about the work carried out by the editors as language editors. This time, a comparative text-analysis method was used to compare the hymns in Mažvydas’s Catechism with their variants in the hymnals of Martynas Mažvydas and Baltramiejus Vilentas, Jonas Bretkūnas, Lozorius Zengštokas, and Danielius Kleinas.

1.1. The first agents of the Reformation sought to extend the relatively modest tradition of congregational singing that had emerged in the late Middle Ages. They gradually added to their repertoire folk hymns from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, as well as the few translations from Latin of the most popular festive hymns, which appeared in the late Middle Ages (Pociūtė 1995: 51).

In 1547, two publications containing hymns were issued in local languages in the Duchy of Prussia. These were Seklucjano’s hymnal Pieśni duchowne and, a few months later, Mažvydas’s Katekizmas, which contained 11 hymns printed with musical notation. The latter publication was unusual, since hymns were generally either omitted from catechisms altogether or only the principal hymn, “Dievo prisakymai,” was printed in them (Pociūtė 1995: 14). It was probably not Mažvydas himself, but Duke Albrecht or his advisers, who believed that the Lithuanian catechism should be printed with hymns, which at the time played an exceptionally important role in Lutheran liturgy (Michelini 2000: 11). The Duke wanted

70 |

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

to establish the standard foundations of Lutheran faith in Prussia, and Mažvydas may therefore have been advised to draw on Seklucjano’s hymnal (Michelini 2000: 11). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Christian Stang established that this hymnal was the principal source used to translate seven hymns in the Katekizmo (Stang 1929: 29–47).

The most popular psalm in the Duchy of Prussia, “Liaupflink dufcha mana pana,” composed in verse by Johann Graumann (Poliander), pastor in Königsberg, was included in the Katekizmą (Pociūtė 1995: 15). Another equally popular psalm of the period, “Sulimilk ant mufu Diewe,” was intended for funeral rites. Other texts are attributed to Luther, adaptations of medieval hymns¹, and a hymn by the Czech reformer Jan Hus². The last three hymns are not associated with Seklucjano’s hymnal: “Bernelis gime mumus,” one of the variants of the popular medieval hymn “Dies est leticiae,” and the evening hymn “Chriftau Dena effi ir fchweibe” may have been translated directly from a Latin source³. The programmatic Protestant hymn “O Diewe kurfs dangui ebi” (a Catholic Litany adapted by Johan Frederis), translated by J. Zablockis from the German text “O Gott Vatter im hymelreich” (Michelini 2000: 114), was printed in the Katekizme. The source for the translation of the versified medieval Decalogue “Tas eft Dieva prilikimas,” with which the small hymnal begins, was probably the hymn “Tocz iest boże prikazanie” from Seklucjano’s 1545 Katekizmo.

2. IN MAŽVYDAS’S HYMNAL almost all the hymns from the 1547 Lithuanian Katekizmo were reprinted, except “Thiewe mufu Danguielis,” which in the Katekizme was translated on the basis of the hymn “Oicze nasz, któryś jest w niebie” (from Seklucjano’s 1547 hymnal), while a new translation of Luther’s hymn “Vater unser im himelreich” was included in Mažvydas’s hymnal (Michelini 2000: 443).

Some corrections suggest that greater attention was paid to the features of the original hymn and that the translation was brought closer to its source. Lexis was adjusted in this way. For instance, Katekizmo (gen. pl.) funu is replaced by waiku⁴: ant fawa miloiu funu / MžK 6₂₆ → Ant fawa miluyu waiku / MžG₁₁, cf. Polish nad swemi milemi dziećmi⁵; gen. sg. fweikatas is corrected to acc. sg. ifchganima, cf.: Be tawęs gauti fweikatas MžK 7₄ → Be tawes gauti ifchganima MžG₁₁, cf. Polish być zbawiona bez łaski twej. (Polish zbawiona ‘saved’). In the hymnal, compared with the Katekizmu, the translation is further improved, correcting forms that slipped through as overly literal translations: At mufchku iu ftrelas beganczias / MžK 5₁₅ → Atmufchk io ftrelas beganczias / MžG₁₁, cf. German Wend von uns ab sein feurig pfeil. The noun linksmintoja was matched to the Lithuanian equivalent sg. f. dvasia, since the Katekizme follows the grammatical form of the masc. noun duch: Ligfmintaiu mes wad inam / MžK 3₅ → Linksmintoie mes wadinam / MžG₁₁, cf. Cieszycielem cię zowiemy. In the works “Liaupflink dufcha mana pa-

¹ “Mes tikim ijg wenagi Diewa,” “Paprafchaim fchwentales dwafes,” “Schwenta Dwafe mufump ateik,” “Thiewe mufu Danguielis.”

² “Jefus Chriftus ifch gilbetas mufu.”

³ The Lithuanian hymn “Bernelis gime mumus” does not yet have an exact equivalent.

⁴ In the abbreviations, the superscript number identifies the hymn in Mažvydas’s Katekizmo in the same order in which it is printed in the Katekizme, while the subscript number identifies the line of the hymn; for example, the hymn “Schwenta Dwafe mufump ateik” is the third in the Katekizme, and so forth.

⁵ Here and elsewhere, correspondences between translations are identified with reference to Michelini (2000).

MAŽVYDO KATEKIZMO GIESMIŲ REDAKCIJOS

71

In “na” and “Paprafcham ſchwentafes dwafes,” the borrowing laſka was corrected several times to its Lithuanian equivalent meilė. (in the original laſka).

The structure of the hymns was also revised (a stanza or line was omitted or inserted). In the hymn “Bernelis gime mumus,” line 60 and the fifth stanza were added. The additional segment (Ing ghi tikedami) at the end of the stanza balanced the number of lines in the verse—it was the only one to have nine instead of ten.

The older type of syllabic versification was characterized by an approximately equal number of syllables in the lines, identical grammatical endings, assonance, and rhyme (Girdzijauskas 2001: 448–449). Mažvydas’s Katekizmo hymns are versified according to a similar principle, although not smoothly. Syllabic meter was also observed in Mažvydas’s hymnal; inaccuracies were not generally corrected, with a few exceptions. The stanza of the hymn “Schwenta Dwale muſump ateik” has the metrical structure 8/8/8/7. Mažvydas made a fairly simple adjustment to the awkward final line—he shortened the word vienybė[je] by one syllable: Venibe Diewa garbinta. MŽK 3₂₄ → venib Diewa garbinta. MŽGII. Deviations from the meter are likewise removed in the hymn “O Diewe kurſ dangui ebi,” whose former metrical scheme of 8/8/9/9/8/8 is improved to 8/8/9/8/8/8; compare: Venibe Diewa amſinagi / MŽK 5₄ → Venib Diewa amſinagi / MŽGII. End rhymes are also improved: Dufcha mana tu platink / Cjeſti ir garbe Dewui. MŽK 6₄₇–₄₈ → Platink tu dufcha mana / Cjeſti ir garbe Diewa. MŽGII. When the hymn “Liaupſlink dufcha mana pana” was reprinted—a hymn without which church liturgy at the time is unimaginable—the melodic text was corrected and a fifth stanza was added in print: the traditional veneration and glorification of the Holy Trinity at the end of the hymn.

Changing circumstances of the time were also taken into account. Mažvydas reprinted Zablocki’s Litany “O Diewe kurſ dangui ebi” in the hymnal without its thirteenth stanza, which was dedicated to Dorothea, wife of Duke Albrecht of Prussia (wishing her good health and the birth of a healthy child); she had died after Mažvydas’s Katekizmo was published (Kaunas 1999: 17). The stanza therefore had to be deleted.

The language of the hymns was also edited. Efforts were made to avoid archaic and Samogitian forms (the long vowel /ā/ was increasingly changed to /ō/; in the stem and at the end of a word, the Samogitian diphthong /ie/ was replaced by the Aukštaitian long /ė/, represented in writing by /e/, etc.)⁶.

3. BRETKŪNAS did not include the hymn “Bernelis gime mumus” in the collection Giefmes Duchau nas, published in 1589. Dainora Pociūtė notes that, when compiling the hymnal, Bretkūnas rejected Catholic texts still sung in the Middle Ages, aiming to include as many hymns as possible composed during the Reformation, especially by Martin Luther. This was probably why he may also have rejected the Catholic hymn “Bernelis gime mumus.” In the Middle Ages, this hymn was sung not only in Latin but also in the vernacular languages of Europe (Pociūtė 1995: 17). As far as is known, the hymn in question was not included in Protestant publications of the time from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, or Prussia. If Mažvydas included the presumed translation in the first Lithuanian book and in the 1566 hymnal, it may be inferred that the Lithuanian hymn, too, was popular.

⁶ Phonetic and morphological corrections in greater detail will not be discussed, since they have been consistently described in the literature; see, for example, Palionis (1967, 1995), Zinkevičius (1988).

72 |

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

This hymnal also omitted the hymns “Tas eft Dieva prifakimas” and “Papralchaim ſchwentales dwafes.” There is, however, a text with a similar opening, “Praſchikime ſchwentaię Dwarffia,” but it differs substantially thereafter; apparently, this is a new translation from another (German) source, “Nu bitten wir der heyligen Geist” (see Michelini 2001: 36–37).

Like the editors of Mažvydas’s hymnal, Bretkūnas sought to bring the texts closer to the original: Jei tu pats ſau gali ſweikata dūti. MžG_II 10₃₂ → Jei tu pats ſau pagalba gali dūti. BGD, cf. German so du selber dir helffen wilt.

As in Mažvydas’s hymnal, the translation was improved. Following the Polish source, Mažvydas had retained a mismatched gender form alongside sg. f. dvasia, since Polish duch is sg. masc.: Malones ghis ſawa mums neſchikſt / MžG_II 8₂₆ → Malones ghi ſawa mums neſchikſcht / BGD⁷. The versification, rhyme, and end assonances of the hymns were also revised: ßindanczias was adjusted to match the final word ſiunkingas in the preceding line: Saugak ir ßindanczias waikus/ MžK 5₈₆ → Saugok ir waikus ßindanczias / BGD. In another instance the athematic verb form esti was chosen, thus filling a one-syllable shortfall in the line: Kurs amßins eſti ſu Tiewu BGD 8₁₄. To conform to the syllabic meter, the allative form with the postposition -pi was written instead of Mažvydas’s -p, for example: Steikes muſumpi ir ne truk / BGD 11₂₇. In one hymn Bretkūnas probably inserted a pronoun for metrical reasons: dūk malone ßmaneſu MžG_II 3₁₀ → Dūk malone tu ßmoneſu BGD.

Bretkūnas also edited the language of the translations to some extent, but somewhat differently from the editors of Mažvydas’s hymnal. In dative singular nouns with an o-stem, the form was occasionally given the ending -u (instead of Mažvydas’s -ui): Maieſtatu BGD 5₅₅, kunigaikſchcziu BGD 5₆₇, milietoiu BGD 5₆₈. Other linguistic revisions were essentially the same as in Mažvydas’s hymnal—the form /ā/ was abandoned (→ /ō/)⁸, as was the Samogitian dative plural ending -ims (→ -iems)⁹—but they were much more consistent. However, Bretkūnas’s reduction of /o/ in unstressed endings remained uncorrected. Words in the middle of a line were more often edited in this way, while the final word of a line was usually left unchanged¹⁰.

Probably for metrical reasons, a feature of the South Samogitian subdialect characteristic of Mažvydas’s speech was retained: the narrowing of the instrumental singular ending -ia, represented graphically by the letter <i>, for example: Taweſp ſchaukèm naſrais taip ir ſchirdi/ Jeib mus neapleiftumbi BGD 11_25–26; Idant potem gera ſchirdi / Galetu tawe garbinti BGD 5_83–84.

⁷ Žengštokas relied on Bretkūnas’s version and retained in his hymnal the feminine form of the pronoun. Klein nevertheless edited it in his own way, understanding that it is not the spirit but God who is unstinting with grace.

⁸ baßia MžG_II 5₃₈ → Sßodza BGD, Apſaugak MžG_II 5₂₅ → Apſaugok BGD, naglas MžG_II 5₂₆ → noglos BGD.

⁹ *sweikims* MžG_II 10₂₇ → *ſweikiems* BGD, *Turintims* MžG_II 5₉₂ → *Turintiems* BGD, *ghims* MžG_II 5₉₉ → *iems* BGD, *wiſims* MžG_II 7₁₇ → *wiſjiems* BGD, *Lauientims* MžG_II 6₂₂ → *Liauientiems* BGD.

¹⁰ This is a rather peculiar editorial choice on Bretkūnas’s part—even if the rhyme had been changed, it would not have suffered (for example, in successive lines ending with the words iſchgangima and ſugrieſchima, changing the vowel /a/ to /o/ would still preserve the systematic end assonances). On the other hand, Bretkūnas was well acquainted with both usages. In Frydland, where he came from, there was no reduction of long vowels in unstressed endings; but in Labguva, where he began working in 1587, the long vowel in unstressed endings was reduced (see Zinkevičius 1988: 71–72) and coincided with Mažvydas’s usage, which is probably why it was not always corrected.

MAŽVYDO KATEKIZMO GIESMIŲ REDAKCIJOS | 73

Since Bretkūnas takes over from Mažvydas’s hymnal only hymns with added or omitted stanzas and with linguistic and metrical revisions, it is likely that he did not use Mažvydas’s Katekizmu.

4. ZENGŠTOKAS’S OWN hymnal, Giesmes Chríkſćioníſchkos ir Duchauſniſchkos, was printed in 1612. Eight hymns from Mažvydas’s Katekizmo are included here. All of them, except the hymn “Bernelis gime mumus,” had been printed in Bretkūnas’s hymnal. Thus, Zengštokas restored to his hymnal the medieval hymn “Bernelis gime mumus,” which was probably still as popular at the time as it had been in Mažvydas’s day. This is the first indication that Zengštokas used two collections of hymns—Bretkūnas’s 1589 Giefmes Duch[a]unas and Mažvydas’s hymnal. A systematic analysis of the hymns has shown that not only these two books, but also Mažvydas’s Katekizmas. lay on Zengštokas’s desk. One piece of evidence that Zengštokas drew on the Katekizmu, can be found in the hymn “Bernelis gime mumus.” Zengštokas repeated a line printed in the Katekizme, which had already been replaced with other words in the hymnal: buki cʒeſtis ir garbe / MžK 9₆₃ → Buki cʒeſtis wienamui / MžG₁₁ → buki cʒeſtis ir garbe / ZG. Another clear reference to the Katekizmą occurs in Zablockis’s Litany “O Diewe kurſ danguj eſi.” Here he chooses the verb neapleiſk instead of nepraſtok, which appears in the hymnal and Bretkūnas’s version: Ach weſchpate mus neapleiſk / MžK 5₂₇ → Ach weſchpate muſs nepraſtak / MžG₁₁ → Ach Wieſchpatie mus nepraſtok / BGD → Ach wieſchpatie mus neapleiſk / ZG. Since no further lexical or syntactic changes have been observed, it is quite difficult to determine from the spelling and other features of the hymn whether, when editing other works, Zengštokas also used the Katekizmu, since he merely implemented even more consistently the linguistic corrections to the hymns begun by Bretkūnas.

It is important to note that, when editing Zablockis’s Litany, Zengštokas also drew on a copy of Mažvydas’s hymnal. In one line, the word order agrees not with Bretkūnas’s works, but with Mažvydas’s hymnal: Liŋkſmin̄k tu pats ſchitus didei / MžG₁₁ 9₅ → Liŋkſmin̄k ſchitus tu pats didei / BGD → Liŋkſmin̄k tu pats ſchitus didei / ZG. When revising the psalm “Liaupſlink duſcha mana pana,” Zengštokas likewise used Mažvydas’s hymnal. Bretkūnas chose the pronoun tava, whereas Zengštokas used the pronoun savo, which is also used in the version of the hymn in Mažvydas’s hymnal; cf.: Ba daukſin gieribe ſawa / MžG₁₁ 6₃ → Ba daukſin geribe tawa / BGD → Ba daukſin geribe ſawa / ZG. Another correction was noted in the same hymn, one that Zengštokas is unlikely to have devised himself. Bretkūnas seems to have preferred ponui Kristui to Mažvydas’s noun atpirktuoju. Zengštokas returned to the version in Mažvydas’s hymnal¹¹. Cf.: Jeſui muſu atpirktoujui / MžG₁ 6₅₂ → Jeſui Chriſtui muſu Ponui / BGD → Jeſui muſu atpirk-toui / ZG.

There are further examples suggesting that, when correcting the old hymns, Zengštokas used not only Bretkūnas’s hymnals but also Mažvydas’s 1566 and 1570 hymnals. From them he may have copied shorter athematic forms of the verb and prefixes for-

¹¹ Guido Michelini also pointed out the aforementioned corrections by Zengštokas and the parallels with Mažvydas’s hymnal in his recently published book (Michelini 2004). However, the Italian linguist did not notice the connections with Mažvydas’s Katekizmu.

74

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

forms. Cf.: Kurs amƀins eſt fu tewu / MžG₁₁ ₈₁₄ → Kurs amƀins eſti fu Tiewu / BGD → Kurs amƀins eſt fu Tiewu / ZG; Ba io mokſła [weikegi tur uƀ iūka. MžG₁₁ ₁₀₂₈ → ba io mokſła [weikeghi tur uƀ iūka. BGD → Ba io mokſła [weikeghi tur uƀ iūka ZG; Kaip tu pats gawai nūg Diewa Tewa MžG₁₁ ₁₀₄₀ → Kaip tu pats gawai nugi Diewa Tiewa. BGD → kaip tu pats gawai nug Diewa Tewa ZG.

On the other hand, Zengštokas may also have edited these lines himself, without the influence of an additional text, since corrections of this kind (rather primitive and uncreative), intended to avoid an uneven number of syllables in a line, were common. Nevertheless, it seems that Zengštokas did not set about correcting deviations from syllabism in the old hymns (with one exception). These corrections, then, were probably not made independently either.

The rendering of the long vowel /ā/ in place of Bretkūnas’s /ō/, as well as some orthographic forms, can likewise be interpreted as copying from Mažvydas’s hymnal. Cf.: filpnams bei ferƀanczams / MžG₁₁ ₅₈₇ → filpnoms bei ferƀanczioms / BGD → filpnams bei ferƀanczams / ZG; Redik materis ir Sunus / MžG₁₁ ₅₁₁₅ → Redik materis ir ſunus / BGD → Redik materis ir Sunus / ZG; ſchito nak tie MžG₁₁ ₁₁ → ſchita Nak te BGD → ſchito naktie ZG.

Zengštokas was rather inconsistent in his choice of how to represent the long vowel /ā/ orthographically. This is reflected in the text “O Diewe kurſ dąngui eßi.” In one word or syllable he writes <o>, in another <a>. Since in several cases his choice of <a> coincided with Mažvydas’s hymnal, it may be assumed that, when editing this text, Zengštokas used both Bretkūnas’s and Mažvydas’s hymnals, and to some extent the Katekizmu. However, the orthography of the other hymns is closer to Bretkūnas’s.

Although Zengštokas was a fairly consistent follower of his predecessors and continuer of their corrections, he also made some changes entirely on his own. For example, in several places he transformed the text of the Litany “O Diewe kurſ dąngui eßi”: Saugok tu mus ſunus ſawa. BGD 5₂₄ → Saugok tu mus tawa ranka. ZG; Diewe ſaugok tawa ranka. BGD 5₆₀ → Jeſau ſaugok tawa ranka. ZG; Dūk miera tarp wiſſu Panu / BGD 5₆₁ → Dūk miera tarp wiſſu ſmoniu / ZG.

Zengštokas was criticized by his contemporaries (he alludes to this in the preface to his hymnal, “To the Revered Ministers of the Lithuanian Churches,” cf. Koženiauskienė, ed., 1990: 236) and by later hymnal compilers, who claimed that, while editing the legacy of Bretkūnas and Mažvydas, he introduced errors and distorted the meaning of words and expressions. As noted earlier, contemporaries may have reproached Zengštokas after noticing inconsistencies in the spelling, perhaps also because he sometimes reverted to an older version by Mažvydas. Nevertheless, Zengštokas’s work deserves more than criticism alone. His efforts as an editor to correct printing errors are evident, for example: pildanczin / BGD 7₂₇ → pildancziu ZG, teife BGD 7₂₇ → teifei ZG, gen. pl. kowa BGD 5₂₁ → kowu ZG, nur BGD 8₆ → nor ZG, wed mes eſmi futwerims tawa. BGD 7₆₄ → nes mes eſme futwerims tawa. ZG. He also noticed Mažvydas’s hypercorrect forms in the hymn “Gime mumus Bernelis” and corrected them: ßiedi MžG₁ ₁₂ → ßidi BGD. In the same hymn, he revised the grapheme <ą> used by Mažvydas in place of the diphthong /an/, for example: dągaus MžG₁ ₂₉ → dangaus ZG, dąguſu MžG₁ ₆₈ → dangūja ZG. In other hymns, Zengštokas changed Bretkūnas’s grapheme <o> to <ū>: doſt BGD 8₂₉ → dūſt ZG, dok BGD 7₃₇ → dūk ZG. Among the phonetic corrections, the use of the affricate /dž/ is noteworthy: verb, present tense, 3rd person atteid BGD 6₅ → attleidž ZG, adjective didem BGD

MAŽVYDO KATEKIZMO GIESMIŲ REDAKCIJOS

75

_6₄₅ → didżem ZG. The dative singular ending -u is corrected to -ui: kunigaikſchcziu BGD 5₆₇ → kunigaikſchcziu ZG, milietoiu BGD 5₆₈ → miletoiu ZG. Some phonetic and morphological corrections suggest that Zengštokas made efforts to bring the language of the hymns closer to the West Highland dialect of Prussian Lithuanian, e.g.: prijch BGD 7₁₄ → priefch ZG, instrumental singular ſmerti BGD 5₃₄ → ſmertim ZG (Sawa ſmerti iſchwadawai → ſawa ſmertim iſchwadawai).

Like his predecessors, Zengštokas continued to improve the translation. He changed word order and the preposition pro with the accusative to express cause: Pro ſawa malone MŽG 9₅₀ → per ſawa malone ZG. Zengštokas corrected the Slavic conjunction ved, which Bretkūnas had adopted from Mažvydas, to nes several times (ZG 7₂₁, 7₆₄). He edited the mismatched number of words left by his predecessors: Ir lapai krint ant ſemes / Ant kurio kaip weias uſchpus BGD 6₃₂₋₃₃ → Ir lapai krint ant ſemes / Ant kuriu kaip weias uſchpus ZG. Perhaps the following change could be considered unsuccessful: Ach Diewe neapleijk muſu / Duſchas ir kunus warguſu BGD 5₁₇₋₁₈ → Ach Diewe neapleijk muſu / Duſchas ir kuna warguſu ZG.

5. KLEINAS took almost all the old hymns from Zengštokas and printed them in the hymnal Naujos Gieſmju knygos, published in 1666. The hymn “O Diewe kurſ danguj eßi”¹², which Kleinas substantially revised, merits separate discussion. A comparison of the stanzas of Kleinas’s hymn and the German hymn “O Gott Vatter im Himelreich”¹³ reveals a connection between the two texts. Attention should be drawn to the following excerpts from the hymns of Zengštokas, Kleinas, and Luther:

(i) Stanza 2 (the last three lines)¹⁴:

ZENGŠTOKAS 10. Griekuſ muſu wiſſus uſßmirſchſch / 11. Del didzia ſuſſimilima / 12. ſaugok duſche taip ir kuna. KLEINAS 10. Mums kuna lobi, apſaugok / 11. Iß meiles ſuſſimik didżos 12. Ir ne apléik mus niekados. LIUTERIS Leib / Ehr und Gut behüt vor ſchad' ſey uns gnedig / und hilff uns Herr / verlaß uns nun unnd nimmermehr.

(ii) Stanza 4:

ZENGŠTOKAS 19. Apgink tu mus tawa rankal / 20. nug piktbiu ir kiek grieka/ KLEINAS 19. Saugok mus nun ir wisſada/ 20. Nū giedos ir ſuſgrieſbima/ LIUTERIS Behüt uns HErr zu allerſtund/ Für Jerthumb/ laſter/ Schand unnd Sünd/

¹² Kleinas titled it “O Diewe Tėwe Danguje”.

¹³ Printed in the book Martin Luther Geiſtliche Pſalmen Und Lieder, Nürnberg, 1658 (MAB, call no.: V–17/12099), 756–759.

¹⁴ In the German text, words that match those in Kleinas’s hymn are highlighted.

76 |

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

21. From war and battle/ 22. From great famine/ 23. From fire, water, and plague/ 24. Protect us with your hand.

21. From war and enemies/ 22. From famine and evil diseases/ 23. From the perils of water and fire/ 24. And from thunder and storms.

for war/ hate and enmity / poison and envy / from pestilence and swift illness/ from water / fire/ and hard times/ from tempest/ harmful wind.

It seems likely that Kleinas did not translate the hymn anew, but, on the basis of the aforementioned source by Liuteris, revised Zengštokas’s text¹⁵. That Kleinas did not slavishly follow the German original is evident from his creative and free adaptation. The length of Kleinas’s hymn also differs: it is one stanza longer than Liuteris’s (18 and 17), but considerably shorter than the original version of Mažvydas’s hymn (21). Incidentally, Kleinas himself mentions this hymn in the preface to his hymnal (“New Hymnbook: A Useful Preface with an Address to the Reader,” see Girdzijauskas, ed., 1985: 52–69) and explains why it needed revision: “How the penitential hymn ‘God the Father in Heaven’ (‘Gott Vater im Himmelreich’) had to be corrected—since it had neither correct meter nor clear construction, and its translator did not understand it—the devout reader will see for himself by comparing the earlier translation with our corrected version” (Girdzijauskas 1985: 57). Kleinas presented the hymn to the faithful with his initials. This version of the hymn was reprinted in later East Prussian hymnals¹⁶.

Kleinas, like his predecessors, sought to bring the translation closer to the original, for example: Iſchgi-da kiek ligga tawa / ZG ₆₆ → Ir gydo tawą ſilpnumą / KLNG, cf. Polish leczy wszelką niemoc twoję and German unn hailt dein Schwachhait gross; Jei tikieſi tu iſch ſchiradies wiſſos / ZG ₁₀₃₃ → Jey tikki tattai iß ßirdies dugna / KLNG, cf. Gleubſtu das von hertzen grunde.

Nevertheless, Kleinas was the first to undertake a decisive revision of the old translation. He repeatedly replaced a word used by Zengštokas with what he considered a more suitable synonym. For example, Zengštokas’s gailestis is replaced by malonę ‘mercy, compassion’ (LKŽVII 803); the Slavic loan nedastainai, dastainas ‘worthy, deserving of honor’ (LKŽII 308) is replaced with the Germanism nevertingai, neapgalėti ‘[not] to be able, [not] to manage’ (LKŽIII 63), neprimanyti ‘[not] to manage, [not] to be able’ (LKŽVII 838), and so on: wiſſur gaileſſi rodidams ZG ₆₁₆ → Wyſur malonę rodidams KLNG; kurs nedaſſainai ſtalop priſžengs ZG ₁₀₁₁ → Kurs nevertingay ſtalop priſžengs KLNG; Duſches muſu to neapgal ZG ₇₃ → Dußos muſu neprimana

¹⁵ The claim that Kleinas translated the hymn anew is precluded by certain lexical correspondences or similarities; cf. stanza 1:

1. O God, who art in heaven/ 2. O Jesus and Holy Spirit/ 3. O Holy Trinity of God/ 4. eternal unity of God/ 5. We beseech thee as beggars/ 6. Hear us graciously.

1. O God the Father in heaven/ 2. O JESUS and Holy Spirit/ 3. O Trinity praised by God/ 4. eternal unity of God/ 5. Hear us as we pray/ 6. As you have promised us.

¹⁶ It was precisely Kleinas’s version of the hymn that Rikovijus and Šusteris adopted; it appears in hymn collections from the late nineteenth century.

MAŽVYDO KATEKIZMO GIESMIŲ REDAKCIJOS | 77

KLNG (incidentally, the motive for this emendation may have been twofold—lexical and a feminine rhyme).

Kleinas sometimes replaced archaic words with newer ones, nasrai → burna; jauteti ‘to keep watch, to stay awake’ (LKŽ_IV 318) → budėti, cf.: Ir taip tikrai [kelp]i Jawa najrais / ZG 10₃₄ → Ir taip išpažysti Jawą burna / KLNG; Szirde dūk tawes jauteti / ZG 11₁₄ → bet širdį dūk wis buddeti / KLNG. More modern constructions were also adopted, for example, a participial construction was changed to a gerund: Meldenczius mus išch stipros wieros / ZG 7₆₂ → Meldžent mums iš stipprôs wierôs / KLNG.

What stands out is that the editing was complex in many cases. For example, in the hymn „Chriſtau Dena eſſi ir ſchwelibe“ a more precise word was chosen, thereby bringing the syllabic verse closer to isosyllabism. Kleinas revised the metrical pattern 10/7 to 8/8, adjusting the lines to an eight-syllable meter: Idant junkus fapnas neuſgrutu / Jeib welns mus neſugautu ZG 11_9–10 → Jeib junkus mieg’s ne užpultu / Ir weln’s mus neiškaditu KLNG. Other examples show that Kleinas’s revision may have been driven not only by the choice of a more precise word but also by the improvement of the metrical structure (the number of syllables in the lines was made uniform). For example: kitaip mes negalim biloti / ZG 7₂₉ → Bet kitaip negalim tarti KLNG; Kurio nuſtoiau per ſugrieſchima. ZG 7₄₈ → Pamelta per ſugrieſchima. KLNG (nustoti ‘to cease to exist, to lose’, see Urbas 1996: 250); Schis eſmi gadnas prabudima ZG 7₅₄ → Eſmi wertas pražudima KLNG (gadnas ‘suitable, worthy’ LKŽ_II 12); Atreme muſu piktybes. ZG 6₂₄ → Prawar muſu piktybes KLNG (atremti ‘to remove, drive away’, see Urbas 1996: 52).

In some cases, Kleinas revised both the versification and selected a newer word in place of one used by Zengštok that was archaic. Here penukšlas ‘food, fodder’ (LKŽ_XIX 78) is changed to valgį. Cf.: Ir tu penukſchlu duſche papeneiei. ZG 10₃₆ → Ir tu walgiu duβę pennėjei KLNG;

Generally, the numerous revisions to the versification of old hymns were most often made by changing word formation (for example, deriving a suffixed or prefixed form from a root word), or by inserting/omitting a monosyllabic word and selecting a different grammatical form.

The following changes related to versification can be distinguished:

1. Kleinas trumpino įvardžius, prie kurių prisisišliejusi postpozicinė dalelytė -ai arba atvirkščiai – minėtą dalelytę prirašė: kurſai numalde Diewa Tiewa narſu / ZG 10₂ → Kurs numalde Diewa Tewa ruſtu KLNG; Tas uβ malone ſmerti amβina gaus. ZG 10₁₂ → Taſſai už malónę ſmerti gaus. KLNG;

2. added a suffix or prefix (or dropped them): Ligei kaip padziuſt βoles / ZG 6₃₁ → Lygey kaip padźuſt’ žólėles / KLNG; Ant grieku muſu nepawiſdek / ZG 7₃₉ → Ant griekų muſu neweizdėk / KLNG; Serkti/ jaut/ gin ir reda/ ZG 8₁₀ → ſergti/ jaut’ apgin’ ir réda / KLNG;

3. chose the pronominal form or, conversely, avoided it: Wienibe Traices ſchventas / ZG 6₅₅ → Wienybę Traices βwentofes KLNG; eſti tikras Diewas / ZG 9₆ → Eſti tikkrąſis Diewas / KLNG; Mes tikim ing Dwaſſę ſchwentaię / ZG 8₂₃ → Mes tikim ing Dwáſę βwentą / KLNG; Idant negautumbei piktoſęs algos. ZG 10₂₄ → Jeib negautumbei piktôs algôs KLNG;

4. changed the number of the imperative or chose a shorter/longer imperative form. For example: Garbink koβnas wiernas / ZG 6₅₆ → Garbinkem wiernay koβnas / KLNG; Tu ſmोगau garbink Diewa Tiewa / ZG 10₁₃ → Tu žmogau garbinki Diewą Tėwą / KLNG;

78 |

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

5. inserted or omitted words (most often pronouns, less frequently adjectives, adverbs, and verbs). There are especially many line-metric adjustments of this type. Cf.: Kaip tews pats didei fuſſimilſt / ZG 6₂₅ → Kaip Tew’s diddey fuſſimilſta KLNG; Garba buk Diewui Tewui / ZG 6₄₉ → Garbė buk nu Diewui Tewui KLNG; Bet ſiprei tikiu tawa geribe: ZG 7₂₄ → Bet tikkiùs gėrybe tawa KLNG; Bet wiſſas piktibes nutremk. ZG 7₄₀ → Bet wiſſas piktybes nutremk. KLNG; Ant ſmerties biaưros dawe ſawa Sunu. ZG 10₁₆ → Ant ſmerties dáwe ſawa Sunu. KLNG; nug wiſſa pikta nor apginti / ZG 8₇ → nug wiſſo pikto apginti / KLNG;

6. chose words with more or fewer syllables: Ba io mokſla ſweikeghi tur uβ iūka. ZG 10₂₈ → Bet jo mokſlą jie tur už jūką. KLNG; the locative form is changed: Amžinai dangui buſim / ZG 8₃₂ → amžinay danguje buſim / KLNG;

7. syntactically rearranged the line to preserve syllabic meter: taip ir ſawa kraughi gerti wine ZG 10₈ → Ir jo kraują gėrtumbim wynė. KLNG.

Kleinas tended to regularize line endings and assonances, and also improved the rhymes of older hymns. Cf.: Apſchlek mus Diewe Iſopu / Ir iau cziſts bus kuns bei duſcha / ZG 7₃₄ → Apſblek mus Diewe Iſopu / Ir czylta bus duſia muſu / KLNG; gimęs eſti žmogus tikras / ir ich malones ſawa teijei / ZG 8_18–19 → gimęs eſti žmogus tikras; Ir iβ mėles ſawa didžios / KLNG; Mes tikim ing Jeſu Chriſtuſą / ZG 8₁₂ → Mes tikkim ing Jeſu Kriſtu / KLNG (in this case, the double ending was dropped; his predecessors had most likely copied it from the original. Once removed, the word was made to match the ending of the next line, Sunu).

Kleinas also edited the language of the translations. In his hymnal he applied the recommendations set out in his grammar (1653). For example, he used /o/ as the genitive ending and as the ending of the past tense of some verbs, although the ending /a/ was more usual in the Ragainė and, partly, Įsrutis districts (Grammatica Litvanica, cited from Kruopas et al., eds., 1957: 406): gen. sg. Diewa ZG 3₆ → Diewo KLNG; paliaugima ZG 3₁₂ → palaujimo KLNG; welna ZG 3₁₇ → wélnio KLNG. However, the editing is not always consistent; it is more systematic in the middle of a line. Apparently, because of the meter, nouns and verbs subject to word-final reduction also remained uncorrected¹⁷: “A letter or even a syllable with an apostrophe is not always dropped where it could be, but generally only where the short word sounds pleasant or the meter requires it” (Kruopas et al., eds., 1957: 429). Kleinas corrected the specific locative forms left by his predecessors in nouns with e- and i-stems: malone ZG 3₁₈ → malonej’ KLNG, karalyſte ZG 6₄₂ → Karalyſtej’ KLNG, Sirdie ZG 11₁₄ → βirdij KLNG.

Prakalboje Kleinas (Girdzijauskas 1985: 52–69) minėjo nemažą Zengštoko giesmyno trūkumą – nukrypimus nuo tikėjimo tiesų. Tikriausiai šitai jis įžvelgė ir iš Mažvydo Katekizmo atkelia­vusioje psalmėje „Suſimilk ant muſu Diewe“: Jog gimditis eſmi narſe tawa ZG 7₂₃ → Jog gimditis eſmi griekſu KLNG. Plg. su lenkiškos giesmės „Zmiłuj się nademną Boże“ atitikmeniu: żem się począł w twoim gniewie (lenk. gniew ‘pyktis, rūstybė, niršulys’), kuris sutampa su Zengštoko vertimu, perimtu iš pirmtakų. Tačiau 1625 m. Jono Rėzos išleistame Pſalteras Dowido (kuris Kleinui turėjo būti žinomas), identiškos numeracijos psalmėje (51) yra tokia formuluotė: Afch ich grieſchningos

¹⁷ Pirſchts ZG 3₁₄ → Pirβt’s KLNG, Diews ZG 7₁₉ → Diew’s KLNG, krint ZG 6₃₂ → krint’ KLNG.

MAŽVYDO KATEKIZMO GIESMIŲ REDAKCIJOS | 79

I was conceived from sinful seed / And my mother conceived me in sin. The German equivalent is given alongside: Sinde ich bin aus Sündlichem Samen gezeuget / Und meine Mutter hat mich in Sünden empfangen (RĖZA 187–188). Kleinas probably recalled these words from David’s psalm and corrected his own version accordingly.

6. CONCLUSIONS.

Comparing the hymns in Mažvydas’s Catechism with their counterparts in the hymnals of Mažvydas, Bretkūnas, Zengštokas, and Kleinas reveals that all the editors paid attention to the source texts and the fluency of the translations. All sought to bring the translations closer to the originals, editing the language and improving the translations. Bretkūnas adopted hymns from Mažvydas’s hymnal with various changes; it is likely that he did not use the Catechism. He also made minor adjustments to versification. The analysis shows that, when editing old hymns, Zengštokas drew on Bretkūnas’s collection, Mažvydas’s hymnal, and, to some extent, the 1547 Catechism. He continued to revise translations and forms that remained grammatically incongruous. Kleinas, drawing on the versions in Zengštokas’s hymnal, was the first editor to undertake a thorough revision of the old hymns. He brought some of them closer to isosyllabic versification. He often sought a synonymous equivalent for a word used by Zengštokas, and sometimes replaced archaic lexis or syntactic constructions with more modern ones. He also edited the language with versification in mind. He substantially reworked the hymn “O Diewe kurfs dangui eßi,” adopted from Zengštokas, and probably used a shorter source for the hymn “O Gott Vater im Himmelreich,” printed in Luther’s hymnal. No evidence has been found that Kleinas may have used Bretkūnas’s hymn collection or earlier hymnals.

The various revisions attest to each compiler’s efforts to adjust the language and versification of the hymns; nevertheless, these efforts were minimal (Kleinas alone can be singled out). The main reason the editors avoided substantial revisions was the tradition of stability in religious texts: changes would inconvenience singers accustomed to the old text. For the compilers (with the exception of Kleinas, and even in his case only to some extent), revising the language of the hymns was neither a primary nor an important concern; the most important thing was to convey and disseminate the truths of the faith accurately.

The author sincerely thanks Dr. Birutė Kabašinskaitė and Prof. Guido Michelini for their help in preparing the article, and for allowing her to use the electronic version of the psalm “Sufjmilk ant mufų Diewe” before the reprinting of Zengštokas’s hymnal.

ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES

BGD – [Jonas Bretkūnas] Spiritual Hymns / from German into the Lithuanian language / translated by several pastors of the Duchy of Prussia. Printed in Königsberg by Jurgis Osterbergeras, 1589 (MAB, sign: Mf 537).

KLNG – [Danielius Kleinas] New Hymn Books, in which the old hymns have been improved throughout our Lithuania with the approval of all church teachers / and new beautiful hymns added […] In Königsberg, printed at the expense of Friedrich Reusner, in the year 1662 (MAB, sign: LK–17/14).

MžG_I–II – [Martynas Mažvydas ir Baltramiejus Vilentas] Giefmes Chrīkſczoniskas gedomas Babniczoſu per Aduenta ir Kaledas ak Gramniczu. […] (quoted according to: The writings of Martynas Mažvydas and their sources, ed. Guido Michelini, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000).

MžK – [Martynas Mažvydas] THE CATECHISM IN SIMPLE WORDS... KÖNIGSBERG... 1547...

80 |

INGA STRUNGYTĖ

MžK– [Martynas Mažvydas] CATECHISMVS PRAf/tvy Szadei... KARALIAVCZVI... M. D. XLVII... (quoted according to: The writings of Martynas Mažvydas and their sources, ed. Guido Michelini, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000).

Rėza– [Jonas Rėza] Der Pfalter Davido Deutſch und Littauiſch Pfalteras Dowido WOKISCHKAI BELIETUWISCHKAI... Karaliauſboje Pruſſu... 1625 (VUB, sign.: FD 20).

ZG– [Lozorius Zengštokas] GIESMES Chrikiſcionischkos ir Duchauiſchkos / Per Wiſſus metų Baſzniczioje Diewa giedamos [...] 1612 Jſchſpauſtos Karalaucſciuie Pruſuſu/ Per Joną Fabriciu (MAB, sign: LK–17/8).

LITERATŪRA

Girdzijauskas, J., par., 1985: Lietuvių poetikos pradmenys, Vilnius: Vaga.

Girdzijauskas, J. 2001: Silabinė eilėdara. Id., Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 448–449.

Kaunas, D. 1999: Knygos dalia, Vilnius: Pradai.

Koženiauskienė, R., sud., 1990: XVI–XVIII a. prakalbos ir dedikacijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Kruopas, J. et al., red., 1957: Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

LKŽ = Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX, red.: J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas, K. Ulvydas, V. Vitkauskas, Vilnius, 1941–2002.

Michelini, G. 2000: Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Michelini, G. 2001: „Giesmes duchaunas“ ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos (tekstai ir jų šaltiniai), Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Michelini, G. 2004: Lozorius Zengštokas „Giesmes Chriks(c)ionischkos ir Duchau­nischkos ir jų šaltiniai“, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Palionis, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis.

Palionis, J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Pociūtė, D. 1995: XVI–XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės, Vilnius: Pradai.

Stang, Chr. S. 1929: Die Sprache des Litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas, Oslo.

Urbas, D. 1996: Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Zinkevičius, Z. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 3: Senųjų raštų kalba, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Inga Strungyte

Gauta 2004 08 30

[email protected]