Friedrich Scholz, eds. “Textkritische Edition der Übersetzung des Psalters in die litauische Sprache von Johannes Bretke”

RECENZIJOS | 187 — p. 214 (visų žemaičių šio žodžio skiemuo -ki-, čia raseiniškiai vėl tokie savaimingi, atsimetę nuo visų žemaičių, bet plg. uuoki.tis — p. 39, uuoki.Čū:— p. 213). Vidūklėje 03 03 02 klausinéta, kaip tariamas Jūkainių kaimo pavadinimas, du žmonės ištarė jiūkain'u, lyg ir abejotina yra jū*kaini'u forma (p. 69). Korektūros klaidų, kaip didelis trumparegis, nelabai noriu nurodyti, bet į tokius duomenis, kaip brivolis (=brūolis) — p. 151, *va.lgi.,daw“ (=va.lgidava) — p. 211, petrines (=petrinés) — p. 213, ‘d.rklu! (=arklu) — p. 69, 'abu,dū (abudu) — p. 74, važū*dava (=važū*dava) — p. 206, vištums (=vištums) — p. 81, aiškiai nurodytina. Jaunoji mokslininkė įdėjo daug darbo, aprašė šimtų kilometrų ploto šnektas, netenkančias dėsningumo dalykų, paveldėtų tarmės ypatybių (nors dar daugelyje vietų galima rasti ir paveldė- tosios dėsningos tarmės vartotojų), bet ką rodo, tai Daiva Atkočaitytė turbūt ir pateikė. Kalbos istorijai ir tai yra svarbu. Reikėjo vengti tik nesutampančių tolygių formų ir žodžių, abejotinų akimirkos svyravimų, kalbant su (jauna ar jaunomis) išsipusčiusiomis mergikėmis. Leisdama šį darbą, ji neturėjo greta nė vieno žemaitelio varguolelio padėjėjo, nors dėkoja gan dideliam būriui patarėjų ir konsultantų. Vytautas Vitkauskas Gauta 2003 05 05 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva TEXTKRITISCHE EDITION DER ŪBERSETZUNG DES PSALTERS IN DIE LITAUISCHE SPRACHE VON JOHANNES BRETKE, PASTOR ZU LABIAU UND KONIGSBERG I. PR., NACH DER HANDSCHRIFT AUS DEM JAHRE 1580) UND DER ŪBERARBEITETEN FASSUNG DIESES PSALTERS VON JOHANNES REHSA, PASTOR ZU KONGSBERG I. PR., NACH DEM DRUCK AUS DEM JAHRE 1625 NEBST DER UBERSETZUNG DES PSALTERS IN DIE DEUTSCHE SPRACHE VON MARTIN LUTHER NACH DER AUSGA- BE AUS DEM JAHRE 1545 UNTER MITARBEIT VON FRIEDEMANN KLUGE. MIT EINER EINLEITUNG VERSEHEN UND HERAUSGEGEBEN VON FRIEDRICH SCHOLZ. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zūrich: Ferdinand Schoningh, 2002, LXXXI + 559 pi, ISBN 3-506-71681-6. (Biblia Slavica, Serie VI: Supplementum: Biblia Lithuanica, Reihe 2: Editionsbande, 6. Publis- hed by Hans Rothe and Friedrich Scholz with the collaboration of Christian Hannick and Ludger Udolph.) In the foreword (p. IX-X) Scholz writes that Johannes Bretke (Bretkūnas) completed the Lithuanian translation of the entire Holy Scriptures between March 1579 and November 1590, but until now only the Psalter had appeared before in print. This Psalter, translated between the 20th of May and the middle of July 1580, came into the hands of Johannes Rehsa, who revised and published it along with Luther's German translation in 1625 in the Laurenz Segebad press. The common statement that Rehsa's version differs little from Bretkūnas' translation is just not true as a glance at the two texts will easily show. The volume discussed here contains both Bretkūnas' original and Rehsa's revision on facing pages. At the request of Prof. Jonas Palionis 188 | RECENZIJOS of the University of Vilnius it was decided to add a version of Luther's German translation appearing before 1580, since this translation is not always easily available in Lithuania. This appears at the bottom of the page. The volume under review here is part of an extremely ambitious project to publish the entire Bretkūnas Bible translation (p. XI) in three series, series 1 to be facsimile volumes, series 2 to be edition volumes and series 3 to be commentaries. So far six volumes of Bretkūnas' manuscript have appeared in four facsimile volumes. In addition a commentary volume Bausteine zur Bretke- Forschung by Jochen D. Range has also appeared. I reviewed this latter volume and the facsimile volume of the Psalter in 1993 in Lituanus 39 (3), 72-84. I am looking forward to the appearance of Scholz’s commentary on Bretkiinas’ translation of the Psalter now in preparation. Here Scholz promises a comparison with Rehsa’s translation and the study of the relationship of Bretkunas’ translation to its various sources, Luther’s translation, the text of the Hebrew original, the Sep- tuagint and the Vulgate. Scholz also describes his first acquaintance with the manuscript of Bretkūnas' Bible transla- tion in 1949 in Gottingen in the office of Prof. Reinhard Wittram and the subsequent placement of the manuscript in the Geheime Staatsarchiv in Berlin. Fortunately Scholz was able to enlist the help of the very competent Jochen D. Range and then later Friedemann Kluge. The introduction informs us that although the facsimile edition is in general quite good, there are some corrections and glosses in the margins that are hardly legible or not legible at all. In a few cases the final letters of words on the verso side or the initial letters on the recto side were so close to the edge of the text in the fold of the manuscript that the camera could not pick them up. Someone who knows Bretkiinas’ orthography and grammar would have no trouble in supplying these for the most part, although we do encounter some surprises here. Sometimes the varying characteristics of the ink can be of help in determining an original form. When letters or syllab- les are deleted and new ones are written over the original, sometimes the darker ink of the original is visible through the lighter ink of the correction, allowing one to establish both the original and the correction (p. XX). Since both the original text and the corrected version can only be restored by using the manuscript, a critical commentary on the text is required in addi- tion to the facsimile edition. The introduction (pp. XXI-XXIV) offers also brief biographies and evaluations of the work of Bretkiinas and Rehsa. Following this is a description of the text and the way in which it was prepared for publication. Bretkiinas’ initial version (Grundschicht, abbreviated as GS) furnish- es the basis of the text printed here. At the same time corrections which were made immedia- tely or shortly after the initial version was written down are marked with the letters a, b, c, etc. and given as notes under the initial version. These corrections are labeled Stk (= Sofortkorrek- tur); later corrections are labeled KS (= Korrekturschicht). According to the introduction (p. XXXVI) Daniel Gallus made 28 corrections (labeled G) and Rehsa 136 (labeled R). (On p. XVIII the explanations of the abbreviations KS and R appear twice, an apparent oversight in proofreading.) The differences between Palionis’ 1983 edition and Scholz’s edition are evident from the very first verse of the first psalm: According to Scholz’ restoration of the original (GS) (p. 6): Gerai tam, kurfai newaikfch= | cjoia rode Diewa nefibijancju nei eit kieliu griefnuiu nei fiedsia || kur apioktieghi [iedsia; according to Palionis (1983: 183): Palaimintas <bijans Diewo teisus > ira tas wiras, kursai ne waikschczoio surinkime Diewo nefibijanczuju, nei sussisedeghime apioktuiu se- RECENZIJOS | 189 deio. nei ant kelio grieschnuiu stoweio. Scholz also gives this early Lutheran version: Wol dem der nicht wandelt im Rat der Gotlofen, Noch trifft auff den Weg der Siinder, Noch fitzet da die Spotter Jitzen. The Vulgate, however, has: Beatus est vir ille, qui non ambulat in consilio improborum, et viae peccatorum non insistit, ac in consessu derisorum non desidet; and the Septuagint has: paxagtog avn, Og 0dx émogeldy; Ev Bouky dosBOv, xai šv 636 apxptordv obx žoTn, nal dnt xa9ėdoa howu@v ox exadoey. The King James version has: ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the Counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.’ The words Gerai tam, kurfai... ‘It is good for the one, who...” of Bretkūnas' initial version seem to be closer to Luther's Wol dem der... than to the Latin Beatus est vir ille, qui... ‘Blessed is the man that...” or Greek uaxdgtog avne, 6s... I surmise that Luther made use of the Hebrew original, the corresponding first few words of which my colleague Prof. B. Halpern of the Penn State Jewish Studies program transliterates as 'ašrė ha-’is “Ser the meaning of which is not that of the apparent construct state. Prof. Halpern notes further that the word 'ašrė functions as though it had at least implicit predication in it and the expression is to be translated as ‘blessed/ fortunate/ happy is the man who...” This seems to show that the Septuagint fathers understood Hebrew better than Martin Luther. At first Bretkūnas followed Luther, whereas the corrections with Palaimintas ‘blessed’ (Pafchlowintas) or Rehsa’s Jschganitingas... were based on the Vul- gate or Septuagint. In any case it will be interesting to learn what Scholz says about this and the many other problems connected with the Psalter in his forthcoming critical commentary mentio- ned above. The introduction also presents an interesting analysis of the phonemic system (pp. XLIV- LXIV). According to the introduction (p. XLIV) the consonant phonemes can be represented by one to five letters, e.g., >c< can represent /c/, >c3< can represent /¢/, >[ch< can repre- sent /š/ > fchc3< can represent /3¢/. On the first reading this would seem to mean that /3¢/ is considered a single phoneme, an interpretation which smacks of a Slavic orientation (cf. Rus- sian 14) and one which would be hard to justify for Lithuanian (see Klimas 1970: passim.). If one is to interpret the statement as merely denoting the upper limit of consonant letters in sequence then the statement is incorrect, cf., e.g., newaikfchcjoia ‘does not walk’ in which we encounter the sequence of six consonant letters, viz., >kfchc3< which would seem to render the three phonemes /kšė/. More interesting possibly is the representation of the vocalic system where the letter sequence >ie< is very ambiguous. In the original version (GS) it could denote /ie/, /ė/ or even /e/ after a velar consonant where the letter >i< was used merely to denote palatalization. According to Scholz (p. LII) later in the corrected version (KS) Bretkiinas tried to eliminate the >i< before the >e< following a velar and where the sequence denoted etymolo- gical /ė/. Thus kieliu ‘on the path’ in the original version is changed to (ant) kelio in the corrected version (p. 6) and Kodiel ‘why’ in the original version is corrected to Kodel (p. 10), cf. contempo- rary standard kodėl. The diphthongal pronunciation is correctly and consistently rendered, e.g., in prieg ‘near’ (p. 6). To sum up, Scholz and his colleagues are to be complimented on the idea of publishing this series, and particularly this volume, which shows the outstanding results of many hours of careful and painstaking labor. The book is beautifully bound, on high quality paper and there- fore a credit to the publisher as well as the editors. According to my bathroom scale the book weighs more than three pounds, making it a weighty tome both in the literal and figurative sense. 190 | RECENZIJOS REFERENCES PALIONIS, J., ŽUKAUSKAITĖ, J. eds. 1983: Bretkūnas, Johannes. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Mokslas. KLiMAs, A. 1970: Some attempts to inventory Lithuanian phonemes. Th. F. Magner and W. R. Schmalstieg, eds., Baltic linguistics, University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 93—102. William R. Schmalstieg Gauta 2003 06 09 814 Cornwall Road State College, Pa. 16803 [email protected]