Dainora Pociūtė, par. „Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos 1653“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LI (2004), 115-124 REVIEWS Reviews BOOK OF THE CHURCH CHRISTIAN 1653. FAX LICENSE. Prepared by Dainora Pociute. Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, MMIV, Ixv, 660 p., ISBN 9955-9408-0-8 The reviewed publication is unique in two respects. First of all, this monument of our writing is now easily accessible to a wider circle of researchers, because in Lithuanian libraries, as we know, there is only a microfilm of this important source from the middle of the 17th century and a counterfaction edition of the Knygos nobažnystės krikščioniškos (hereinafter: KN) published in 1684 in Karaliaučius. Therefore, it is very pleasing that the author, taking into account that the original of the Book of the Christian Church, preserved in Sweden, is the only known copy of the book, took the initiative to prepare a facsimile edition of this work, which would be useful both for the scientific study of the texts and for the deepening of Lithuanian studies at universities, in 2003, to mark the 350th anniversary of the book’s publication (p. ix). Secondly, this publication of the Lithuanian Literature and Folklore Institute is unique also in that the publishers of the book returned (if that can be said) to the “traditional” practice of publishing facsimiles of ancient writings, leaving behind the so-called background and completely justifiably refused the “modern” principle of presenting facsimiles of ancient writings not only without a background, but also in a reduced format, which was promoted for some time by Baltų lankų publishing house. Thus, following the “traditional” path, the publishers of this publication have clearly proved that it is not difficult to publish a good quality facsimile publication in our days. Therefore, the authors and publishers of this KN edition should not only be praised, but also thanked for not following the unknown trends, but for thinking first of all about the quality and importance of this publication for scientific research, not about commercial or other things. The publication consists of a Preface (pp. ix-x) and, of course, two unequal parts. These are the introductory article The Book of the Lithuanian Church (p. xiii-ixv) written by the well-known researcher of ancient Lithuanian literature Dainora Pociūte, which is equivalent to a separate study, and the photographic text of the KN (p. 1-660). From the quoted words of the Preface, setting out the aims of the publication, and from the subsequent statement that this edition “will be the beginning of further critical preparations and publications of individual parts of this work and their sources” (p. x; also cf. pp. xlvi, xlviii), it becomes clear why this edition does not contain more detailed comments. They'll have to wait. A reader less familiar with our old literature (and some higher schools are increasingly producing such people — even Lithuanianists) will learn from Pratarmė that after the counterfeit of the KN was published in Karaliaučius in 1684, the first edition of this book was very quickly forgotten and it was only discussed more seriously after the bibliographical compilation Polonica vetera Upsaliensia was published in Uppsala in 1958 by Jozef Trypučko, who was born in the Vilnius region, and which (p. 102, 162, 166) contained information about this convolute, which is kept in the library of the University of Uppsala. 116 | REVIEWS Perhaps the first person interested in this publication was Juozas Tumelis. After comparing the data published by Jozef Trypučka with the corresponding data of the copies stored in Lithuanian libraries, he noticed that they did not coincide. Then it became clear that the inscription “Now reprinted for the second time” on the front page of the copies in Lithuania does not indicate that the first edition is the Catechism of Merkelis Petkevičius of 1598 (hereinafter referred to as the Catechism) and is not intended to mislead the opponents of the Reformation, but is a fact that corresponds to reality. Nevertheless, in counterfeit copies of the KN in Lithuania there is one inscription misleading Catholics — the year of publication, the place of printing and the publisher. It is true that the statement at the beginning of the Preface, that “the Book of Christian Churches, published in Kėdainiai in 1653, was the most striking historical highlight of Lithuanian Calvinist literature, crowning the experience of a hundred years of Calvinist printing in Lithuania since the time when Mikalojus Radvila' Juodasis in his manor in Brasta in 1553 began a consistent history of the printed Lithuanian book” (emphasis mine — J. K.) (p. ix), immediately raises the question whether such a broad cultural aspect, which is undoubtedly necessary in examining Lithuanian matters, does not overshadow Lithuanian matters in this case? The introductory study of the Lithuanian Church book begins with the chapters “Radvilų Kėdainiai” (p. xiii— xvii) and “Kėdainių mokykla” (p. xviii-xx). The first contains more historical information about Kėdainiai and its former rulers, the second — not only about Kėdainiai College, but also about the collections of books that were in Kėdainiai at the time — libraries. Here the author of the study mentions the libraries of Prince Jonušas Radvila, Kėdainiai church and the personal collection of books of Samuelius Tomaševskis. At first glance, it would seem that the facts presented should not give rise to any doubt. However, when you recall the statement of the well-known Reformation researcher Inga Lukšaitė that until now “it is not quite clear whether the library of the Kėdainiai church and the gymnasium were one and the same library” (Lukšaitė 2001:15), then you inevitably ask yourself why this problem is not mentioned here. Does the author of the introductory study have reliable data that the library of the Kėdainiai church and the gymnasium (or college) was one and the same? If so, then it would have been useful to state all the arguments justifying such a thought, especially since Ingė Lukšaitė in another place of the same article, which is also used by Dainora Pociūtė, already writes about the library of Kėdainiai gymnasium, cf. „Kėdainių gimnazijos bibliotekos sąrašas ar katalogas nežinomas“ (Lukšaitė 2001: 16). It goes without saying that the linguist’s gaze immediately turns to the third section “Usage of Lithuanian in public life in Kėdainiai” (pp. xx-xxii), hoping to form a sufficient picture of the place occupied by the Lithuanian language in Kėdainiai at that time. But, after reading the section, one can conclude that its title does not quite correspond to the content. It was limited to the discussion of the use of Lithuanian language in religious matters. In addition, there are statements that need to be clarified here. For example, the chapter begins with the statement: “Although Polish was used in the Lithuanian Reformed Church from the beginning of its establishment, and became the main written language of the Church, at the beginning of the 17th century the Reformed synods took systematic measures to expand the use of Lithuanian, ordering catechesis and services to be held in Lithuanian” (p. xx). Here one would like to find out immediately, in which year the synods took measures to expand the use of the Lithuanian language, because the already repeatedly mentioned scholar of the history of the Reformation Ingė Lukšaitė states that “the protocols of the synods of the 16th century were burned”, 0 from the synod protocols that survived since 1611 “it is obvious that for several decades the preparation of Lithuanian books was not an important synod concern” (Lukšaitė 2001: 113). The author's name remains in the form Radvilas. REVIEWS | 117 7). If Dainora Pociūtė, when writing about measures to expand the use of the Lithuanian language, has in mind the general synod of 1627, in which Kristupas Minvydas was appointed priest of Kėdainiai, it is highly doubtful whether this synod can be attributed to the beginning of the 17th century. It is true that, as if to justify the title of the section, Dainora Pociūtė, not being as certain as Ingė Lukšaitė (2001: 14), speculates that in the Kėdainiai school Lithuanian “could have been used as an additional language of catechetical interpretation” (p. xxi). However, such a guess, in my opinion, is too low. Here it would probably have been very useful to examine how much Lithuanian language was needed by the officials of the Kėdainiai magistrate, even though the prerequisites for such an examination seem to exist (see Lukšaitė 2001: 17). However, perhaps the most doubts and various questions are raised by the section “Situation of Polish literature of the Reformed Church in the Church of Lithuania” (pp. xxii-xxvii), where at the very beginning it is repeated once again that the KN “was published in Kėdainiai in 1653, which indirectly marked the hundredth anniversary of Lithuanian evangelical literature and printing history” (pp. xxii). The Polish review of the publications begins with the assertion that it was started in 1553 by “the first Latin (!? my emphasis — J. K.) printing press in the Kingdom of Lithuania founded by Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny...” and continues with a review of the Small and Large Catechisms, the 1559 hymnal, the Brasta and Gdansk Bibles? and other Polish Reformed publications, which are undoubtedly important from a confessional and cultural point of view, but, in my opinion, have little to do with the emergence of the KN. On the contrary, the first Polish Calvinist publications more or less contributed to the establishment of the Polish language and pushed Lithuanian out of wider use. Therefore, such a comparatively extensive discussion of Polish publications is hardly justified from a Lithuanianist point of view, unless the author has sought to refute the desire of some Reformed historians to exaggerate their merits for Lithuanian literature (cf. Kregždė 1978*) or to emphasize once again that in its very beginning Calvinism was not a religion of the masses (peasants- ), but of the elect (elite) and turned to ordinary people only when it had already lost the fight against the at the time quite progressive Jesuit educational ideas. Of course, in order to justify the author, it can be argued that, reviewing Polish Reformed religious books, she sought to show how the religious texts that later entered the KN were codified and unified. This conclusion would follow from the end of this section. However, this conclusion is partly refuted by the author herself, who claims that the relationship of the KN hymnbook with the unified Polish Gdansk publications is ambiguous (p. xxvii). And this relationship will be revealed in detail in future publications. Furthermore, after a more intrusive examination of the statements in this section, such an analysis of Polish Reformed publications is not justified by the assertion that “the prepared Christian texts of the Knyga nobažnytė were primarily to reflect the orthodox system established in the first half of the 17th century, representing in Lithuanian the Polish texts of the Reformed Churches of Lithuania and Poland, which were codified after long disputes and deliberations” (p. xxvii). But it goes without saying that a publication issued for religious practice must comply with the codified texts. And the answer to the question, why this principle was not consistently adhered to by the authors of the KN hymnal, this review of Polish publications does not provide either. 2 It is only unclear why, when comparing the Brasta and Gdansk Bibles (p. xxvi-xxvii), Dainora Pociiite does not mention in her footnotes, along with other literature, Ginta Kavaliūnaitė’s dissertation, which also writes about both these Bibles and the principles of their translation (see Kavaliūnaitė 2003: 82-89). Dainora Pociūtė does not mention this publication, although she repeats the ideas written therein not only about the KN and its authors, but even some old mistakes, for example, about good quality paper produced in Kėdainiai marked with the filigree inscription Civitas Caiodunensis (see Kregždė 1978: 81-95). 118 | REVIEWS Further writing about the Kėdainiai Printing House, its founding and publications, Dainora Pociūtė also does not avoid extensive historical excursions, far exceeding chronological boundaries. For example, when discussing other Reformed (and not only Reformed) printing houses in the territory of the Kingdom of Lithuania, the author mentions the printing house in Slucke, which operated since 1672. Moreover, sometimes the perhaps slightly exaggerated desire to exalt the Reformed things overshadows the historical facts. This seems to have been the case when it was stated that the printing press in Slucke “was the only (emphasis my own — J. K.) printing press of the Lithuanian Democratic Republic (next to the Vilnius Academy printing press) that was operating at the time” (pp. Xxviii—xxix- ). Why the only one, if there was another? Unless Sluck’s printing house is called the only one because it did not print Lithuanian books. Discussing the historical data related to the preparation and printing of the KN, the author refers to a letter of Jonušas Radvila dated March 18, 1653, in which the duke suspected that the printing “obstacles were artificially caused because some local priests do not want to see the specified name of Telega” (p. xxxii). After quoting the translated sentence from Jonušas Radvila’s letter in the text, Dainora Pociūtė quotes them in Polish in footnote 81 and immediately adds: “In literary historiography, probably because of the wrong interpretation of this Radziwill’s quotation, there is a widespread reverse opinion, stating that Radziwill was indignant that Telega was mentioned as the author in the book about the priests’ invention” (p. xxxii). And after these words she points to the sources in which such an interpretation is presented: Václav Biržiška’s Alexandrynas, Juozas Tumelis’s article “Knygos nobažnystės krikščioniškos” (1653) on the issue of the first edition”, published in the 7th volume of Librarianship and Bibliography Issues, and Jurgis Lebedys’s Senąja lietuvių literatūra, but does not refer (maybe she hasn’t looked around?) to the repeatedly mentioned recent article by Ingė Lukšaitė, which repeats a similar interpretation”, although Dainora Pociūtė refers to this article relatively often. In the section “Authorship of the book” (pp. xxxiii-xxxiv) Dainora Pociūtė, based on the Polish NC “Talk to the pleasant reader” and the works of the linguist Antanas Jakulis, indicates who prepared or could have prepared which parts of this book. And after this complete and necessary overview, the author, without going into any detail, unexpectedly states that “in the 16th-17th centuries three variants of the written Lithuanian language had emerged” (p. xxxiv). Since so far only the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has been discussed, a reader less familiar with the early period of the history of the Lithuanian written language may conclude from such a statement that at that time three variants of the written language existed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Such ambiguities would not arise if the author of the study had at least detailed this statement or at least referred to the relevant literature. After introducing the readers to the authors of KN —Steponas Jaugelis Telega (pp. xxxiv—xxxvi), Samuelius Tomaševskis (pp. xxxvi-xxxvii), Jonas Božimovskis (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii) and Samuelius Minvydas (pp. xxxviii) — Dainora Pociūtė turns to the structure of the book (pp. xxxix-xl) and considers how many books make up the reviewed convolute. For some (Dalia Jakulytė, Zigmas Zinkevičius) claim that it consists of three books, while others (Juozas Tumelis, Ingė Lukšaitė (2001: 4), whose authorship is not specified, and with reservations the author herself) tend to consider it a collection of four books. In this case, it is assumed that the characteristic of a religious book has long been determined by genre specificity. 4 See: “Some doubts about the contribution of Samuel TamaSauskas (otherwise TomaSauskas, Tomaszewski, about 1605-1650) and Steponas Jaugelis Telega to the preparation of the hymnal were sown by Jonušas Radvila in his letter of 18 March 1653 to the elder Laurynas Kochanski, who noted that Telega’s authorship was a priests’ invention” (Lukšaitė 2001: 19). Dainora Pociuté writes: “Just as the Hebrew name of the Bible denoted ‘books’, so also Martynas Mažvydas’ Catechism, which was printed not only as a catechism, but also as a hymnal and an elementary (not counting dedications and prefaces, which accompanied many books of the time), was not called a single (although with continuous pagination) ‘book’, but ‘booklets’. Such examples have also been found in other languages in printed literature” (p. xl). Firstly, it was hardly necessary for the author to move from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to such distant times and lands, especially since neither the Hebrew Old Testament name Tanak (which, by the way, is also followed by Protestants, see Rubšys 1995: 1, 26) nor its meaning is given by the author. Secondly, in explaining the meaning of Martynas Mažvydas’s booklet, Dainora Pociūtė forgot to remind readers that the Ukrainian linguist Anatolijus Nepokupnas was interested in the meaning of this Vedic text. According to his data, Martynas Mažvydas’ booklets “do not mean ‘booklet’ or ‘this book’, as traditionally stated in Lithuanian language studies, but ‘handbook’” (Nepokupnas 1994: 75, 76). In addition, when examining the meaning of the Vedic booklet used by Martynas Mažvydas, we should probably not forget the form of the base word knyga in the 17th-century writings of Lesser Lithuania. Since in the 17th century manuscript dictionaries the Lithuanian equivalent of the German word Buch is book (pl. Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987: 106-107; Clavis Germanico-Lithuana 1997: 1, 408), it seems to be possible to suspect that the derivative knygeles may be a prepositional derivative of the plural form book. Since the arguments presented by Dainora Pociūte can be interpreted differently, therefore, without going into details, in this case it would be best to follow a precise bibliographical approach and talk about three books that have not only separate pagination, but also separate error corrections. This approach is also followed by the author herself when discussing individual parts of the CN (pp. xl-xlv). The introduction of the KN hymnbook (p. xl-xlii) begins with the statement that it “presents 100 psalm translations and 158 hymns (147 of them in various main parts of the hymnbook and 11 in the hymnbook supplement “Hymns of the Pridotka- ”)” (p. xl). But, apparently, having looked at the fact that the first half of this statement may mislead the reader (remembering the words of Samuel Chylinski quoted in p. xxxix, that this hymnbook contains “only 78 psalms of David, poetically translated from Polish”), the author immediately clarifies that this hymnbook actually prints only 78 psalms, of which 22 are presented in two translation variants. And almost immediately after this clarification, the assertion of Václav Biržiška that the KN hymnal “together with other publications of the Kėdainiai printing press in 1653 was not some newly prepared and written book, but only a second, enlarged and somewhat corrected and supplemented edition of the 1598 catechism, only without the Polish text” (Biržiška 1990: 1, 289). Everything that the author writes in this section is correct. However, it would have been even more convincing if Dainora Pociūtė had provided more statistical data here or in the section “The Relationship of the KN with the Catechism of Merkelis Petkevičius” (pp. xlv—xlvi). Because, taking into account that the PK has printed 40 translations of psalms and 41 psalm texts (i.e. Psalm 128 of the PK is presented in two translation variants) and that 8 of them (i.e. 26, 46, 67, 80, 82, 109, 117, 122) were abandoned in the KN hymnbook, we will get that, when preparing the KN hymnbook for printing, 46 psalms were translated into Lithuanian for the first time (i.e. 78 psalms of the KN — 32 psalms of the PK = 46 newly translated psalms). Even more obviously Dainora Pociūte’s idea is supported by the number of songs in the KN hymnal. Since the PK was printed only slightly over 50 hymns, it becomes clear that there is no basis for considering the KN as a reprint of the PK. On the same occasion, I would like to draw the attention of Dainora Pociūte to the fact that, when preparing the critical editions of the KN parts promised to the press on several occasions, she should try to explain why 22 of the KN hymns 120 | REVIEW Psalms (i.e. 1, 3, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 51, 68, 86, 91, 103, 113, 118 (KN, apparently, incorrectly marked cviii), 121, 127, 128, 130, 134, 142, 146) are presented in two translations. Was this presentation not sometimes influenced by the CP? After all, only a superficial comparison of the texts reveals that of these 22 psalms presented in two translation variants in the New Testament, as many as 17 (i.e. 1, 3, 23, 27, 28, 32, 51, 86, 91, 103, 121, 127, 128, 130, 134, 142, 146) have one translation variant that is closer to the text of the Old Testament. The remaining 5 psalms (i.e. 25, 30, 68, 113, 118), which have two translation variants in the KN hymnbook, are not in the PK. Perhaps by analyzing these questions it will be possible to find out why the authors of the KN hymnbook gave up 6 psalms of the PK (i.e. 26, 46, 67, 80, 82, 109, 117, 122)? In introducing readers to the KN postil Suma..., Dainora Pociūtė, based mainly on the provisional researches of Antanas Jakulis, draws readers’ attention to the fact that the texts of the Lithuanian version of Kedainiai and the Polish version of Grzegorz from Žarnowieca Postila are not adequate and are waiting for researchers. The opinion now established in the historiography of Lithuanian literature, that KN Suma is a translation by Grzegorz of Žarnowieca Postila, based on the knowledge of the Polish KN „Discourse to the kind reader”, is, of course, not accurate. It also remains to praise the author for the fact that in the relatively small section “Contrafaction of the 1684 Christian edition of the Book of the Church” (p. xlvi-lii), she has used mainly the works of Juozas Tumelis, which are not easily accessible to all readers today, not only clarifies them, but also clearly indicates how the second — contrafaction — edition of the Bible differs from the first. It also draws the attention of future readers to the fact that the counterfaction edition did not include the text of the Catechism of the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, but was based on a slightly expanded text of the Catechism published in a separate edition in 1680 in Karaliaučius. In describing the only currently known copy of the KN, Dainora Pociūtė discusses in detail the Latin and Polish entries in the Uppsala copy, and provides their translations. From them we learn that one of the authors of this book – Samuelis Minvydas – gave this copy of the KN to Paulius Gnatovskis, a priest of Žiuproniai church, on March 27, 1656. At the same time, I would like to draw both the author’s and the readers’ attention to the fact that there is an error in the translation of the first (Latin) entry by Paulius Gnatovskis, and instead of... the gift of the venerable Minvydas Stanislovas it should be the gift of the venerable Minvydas Samuelius (p. vi, line 2 from the top). The second important point is that while examining the records, the author also introduces the readers to the rather colourful personality of Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld, the former owner of this book in Sweden (p. lvi-lvii). Anyone who is interested in the history of the old Lithuanian book will be interested to read about the path of the fragment of the first edition of the KN, currently stored in the library of the Lithuanian Institute of Literature and Folklore (p. Iviii-lix). The article concludes with two chapters, which provide an overview of the history of the study of KN paper watermarks (p. lix-ixviii) and a description of the binding of the Uppsala specimen. From the first we learn that the first edition of KN was made of paper produced in two Vilnius paper mills (p. Ixii), and from the second that the Uppsala copy arrived in Sweden unbound, because the Swedish diplomat and collector Gabrielius Sparwenfeld used so-called “Dutch” paper made by the Frenchman Iuilledary Bauvais (p. Ixiv-Ixv). After turning the last page not only of the introduction, but also of the entire reviewed publication, we want to rejoice once again that the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore has published a very necessary and high-quality publication. And the author of the book Dainora Pociūte wants to ask not to delay too much in preparing REVIEWS | 121 critical releases of individual CN parts, although it is extremely difficult and meticulous work. The remarks made here, sometimes perhaps too subjective, were first of all intended to draw the attention of the editor to what should be clarified in future critical editions, what should be discussed more broadly. And if these remarks are at least slightly useful, then their author has achieved his goal. BiRžiška, V. 1990: Aleksandrynas 1, Vilnius: Sietynas. Clavis Germanico-Lithuana 1997. 17th-century German-- Lithuanian dictionary. Part I: A-E, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2003: Samuel Boguslavas Chylinskis's New Testament translation in relation to the originals. Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius. KReGZDE, J. 1978: Lithuanian Reformed Writing, Chicago: Devenių Cultural Foundation Publication. Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987. German-- Lithuanian dictionary of the 17th century, Vilnius: Mokslas. LukšaiTĖ, I. 1999: The Reformation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania Minor, Vilnius: White circles. LukšaAiTĖ, I. 2001: The cultural environment of the preparation of the Book of the Church (1653). 1653), a monument of Lithuanian culture of the 17th century, 4-29. Kėdainiai: Kėdainių region museum, NEepokuUPNAS, A. 1994: M. Mažvydo „Katekizmas“ —bylojancio vadovėlio (knygelių) vaizdas istorijos ir kultūros kontekste. Protestantism in Lithuania: History and Present, Vilnius: Apyaušris, 70-77. RuBSys, A. 1995: The Key to the Old Testament 1, Vilnius: Catholic World. Juozas Karaciejus Received 12/12/2004 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania BERTHOLD FORSSMAN LETTISCHE GRAMMATIK Dettelbach: J. H. Roll, 2001, 418 p., ISBN 3-89754-194-7 (Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 20) Berthold Forssman's Grammar of Latvian, as stated in its "Preface", is intended not only for Indo-Europeanists and Baltists, but also for Slavists and other linguists who are interested in both the current written Latvian language and the historical grammar of this language. Despite the late evidence in written sources, the Baltic languages are considered very archaic due to their phonetics and well-preserved flexional system. The author of the grammar also points out that the 1923 edition of the Latvian grammar by Janis Endzelyns was and still is an indispensable exemplary textbook, but it is too detailed, practically difficult to use and has no connections with the current Latvian literary language. Therefore, B. Forssman’s grammar is like a bridge between the current Latvian literary language and its historical treatment, and the synchronous chapters presented can be used as a starting lesson for the Latvian language interested. The author of the grammar also emphasizes that it is necessary for Indo-Europeanists to know the Lithuanian language, therefore in the diachronic sections the Lithuanian language material is used in contrast, but,