Jonas Palionis, par. „Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 187–205 REVIEWS Reviews Mikalojus Daukša’s 1599 Postilė and its sources.Edited by Prof. Habil. Dr. Jonas Palionis. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2000, 1331 p. After the restoration of Lithuania’s independence, research into and publication of old writings intensified, and some old authors received particular attention—their works, or works accompanied by their originals, were republished. The latter group includes the new edition of Mikalojus Daukša’s Postilė, weighing almost a pood, which reached bookshops in mid-2001. Even someone who has not seen this edition but remembers a little about Daukša from school will probably infer from the title of the edition under review that, in addition to Daukša’s own Postilė, it should also contain the Polish original by Jokūbas Wujek. Indeed, it does. Naturally, this doubled the volume of the edition. And that is without counting the various supplements! The edition opens with a “Preface,” apparently written by the editor himself (but unsigned), which states: “This edition presents a facsimile of Mikalojus Daukša’s 1599 Postilė (DP)—the largest printed monument of sixteenth-century Lithuanian writing—together with its Polish original, Jokūbas Wujek’s Postilla Catholicka Mnieyza... w KRAKOWIE... 1590 (W3). This is the third edition of the distinguished Polish theologian’s Lesser Catholic Postil, which Daukša is thought to have used (see the introductory article) when preparing the final revision of his translation” (p. 7). We learn further from the preface that the DP photocopy in this edition was made from copies belonging to Simonas Stanevičius and Otonas Praniauskas, with an explanation of which parts were taken from each copy; that “the text of Wujek’s third edition was reprinted by scanning a microfilm sent to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language by Prof. Wojciech Smoczyński” (p. 7); and that the principal originator of this edition was Prof. Habil. Dr. Vytautas Ambrazas, who is thanked, along with the Baltos lankos publishing house, at the end of the “Preface” (p. 8). Thus, the fairly brief “Preface” is quite informative, helping Lithuanian readers recall forgotten information and introducing foreign readers well to this monument of our written heritage, especially since it has also been translated into German (pp. 9–10). However, the concluding expressions of thanks in Lithuanian and German to the Baltos lankos publishing house seem less than entirely convincing when one looks at the “Abbreviations” printed on p. 11. This list gives the impression that Baltos lankos1 took a rather casual approach to the final layout, and that the editor probably did not see it either. In the “Abbreviations” list, with the abbreviation adv. having “dropped out,” it has somehow, in the course of “comparison,” turned into 1Since neither an editor’s nor a proofreader’s name is given in the publication details of the edition under review (one would rather not believe there was no such person), and only the designer, Eugenijus Karpavičius, is named, all the criticism must be addressed to the collective entity—the publishing house. 188 | RECENZIJOS do adj. = adverbium, adverb (it should be adjectivum, adjective). Unfortunately, this is not the only such case. Something similar happened with the abbreviation for the dative (probably d.?). So, once again, when “comparing” the list, conj. = dativus, dative appeared (it should be conjunctio, conjunction). And it is hard to say what the locative of modern Lithuanian has “done wrong,” but it has no place in the “Abbreviations,” even though its abbreviation, in. (= inessivus), is used quite often in the errata printed at the end of the edition (cf. pp. 1306, 1307, 1308, 1311, 1312, etc.). Such inaccuracies in the “Abbreviations” should not occur in a substantial edition, especially one conceived as a prestigious publication. After the “Preface” and “Abbreviations,” the edition under review prints Prof. Jonas Palionis’s introductory article, “The 1599 Postilė and Its Editions” (pp. 13–22). The overview begins with the 25-page booklet Wyjątek z kazań żmudzkich, thought to have been prepared by Stanevičius and published in Vilnius in 1823, which reprinted DP’s Latin and Polish prefaces and one sermon. In presenting it, however, perhaps one should not—even indirectly—try to link this little publication with the emergence of comparative historical linguistics (p. 13), since the Lithuanian context alone is entirely sufficient to explain the reasons for its appearance. Undoubtedly, the appearance of this booklet and of the second, defective 16-page booklet attributed to Stanevičius is directly connected with the so-called Lithuanian cultural movement among Samogitian nobles (cf. Mačiūnas 1997: 141–142). In 1955, Prof. Jurgis Lebedys most accurately described the emergence of both publications: “S. Stanevičius wanted to reprint M. Daukša because of the beauty of his language and the richness of his vocabulary, and thereby encourage others to cultivate a literary language. That this was the principal aim is shown by the fact that he included M. Daukša’s preface ‘To the Benevolent Reader’ in both booklets (and, in the larger one, also the preface to M. Giedraitis). Through that preface, he wanted to address young people pursuing education and the intelligentsia in M. Daukša’s words, urging them to love their native language and to concern themselves with creating their own literature. SEEKING PRACTICAL AIMS THROUGH THESE PUBLICATIONS, WISHING NOT ONLY TO POPULARIZE M. DAUKŠA BUT ALSO TO DRAW OTHERS INTO PATRIOTIC CULTURAL WORK (emphasis mine—J. K.), S. Stanevičius sought to make the old texts more accessible and therefore, when reprinting them, changed the spelling and omitted diacritical marks” (Lebedys 1955: 167). It is true that the second publication raises various problems, and all opinions expressed about it are hypothetical. However, given that nobody else was interested in DP at the time, there is hardly any basis for doubting Stanevičius’s authorship (cf. Subačius 1998: 350). After presenting Stanevičius’s publications, Palionis discusses in considerable detail Eduardo Volteris’s unfinished edition of DP and its editorial principles, and indicates the reasons that led to its discontinuation (pp. 13–16), as well as Mykolas Biržiška’s 1926 facsimile edition, which remains the most widely used to date and which, in Palionis’s words, “although it was a major step forward [...], was nevertheless also not adequate to the original” (p. 17). Moreover, “its use in scholarly studies is made more difficult by the fact that the Polish original is not presented alongside the translation [...]”; therefore, the gap that had existed “is what the new edition now aims to fill” (p. 17). After this explanation, the article’s author turns to the question of why the third edition of Wujek’s postil was chosen for publication in this edition (pp. 17–18). Having considered all the arguments presented in the article, one nevertheless cannot help wondering whether it might have been more authentic to choose the second Polish edition and include from the third only those passages absent from the second edition of Wujek’s Lesser Postil, since the second edition was the basis for the translation, and after the third appeared Daukša not only brought his translation technically closer to the new Wujek edition, but also translated from it additional passages that were absent from the second Polish edition. That the basis for the translation was the second edi- RECENZIJOS | 189 This is also evidenced by DP p. 504 (= 505)43–44, where the following sentence appears: The Pope of Rome / who ny is Gregory the third remaining [he] is a true successor of Peter S. (p. 1052 of this edition). In the third Polish edition of Wujek’s postil, published in 1590, this passage reads Vrban siodmy 3W 50541. Thus, if Daukša had carefully edited his edition on the basis of this one, he would hardly have left in it the name of a pope who died in 15852. Wujek therefore changed the name in this edition, but Daukša was not so zealous and even in 1599 retained the information from his translation source, although, logically speaking, he should have replaced Gregory XIII with Clement VII, who was St. Peter’s successor from 1592 to 1605. After this article and the “Textological Commentaries” (pp. 23–25), which likewise do not categorically prove that the third edition of Wujek’s Mažosios postilės necessarily had to be chosen, photographic reproductions of the texts by Daukša and Wujek are printed. Since Wujek’s text is being printed for the first time, we could compare it only with the original, which is not in Lithuania; the photographic reproduction of DP, meanwhile, can already be compared with the 1926 edition. A comparison of the two texts immediately shows that the photographic reproduction in the edition under review is considerably poorer than the 1926 photographic reproduction. In the 2000 edition, many diacritical marks are almost invisible. Anyone studying DP will have to keep the 1926 photographic edition alongside this one. This immediately raises the question: surely, with considerably more advanced technology now available, it is possible to produce a better-quality photographic edition? If so, in these times of widespread scarcity, was it necessary to reproduce the Lithuanian text less well, and would it not have been better to use the money to publish another source that is difficult for researchers to access or has not been studied at all (say, Jonas Rėza’s Psalteras Dowido or the so-called 1600 Postilė by Jokūbas Morkūnas), especially since the 1926 edition of DP is readily available? Perhaps we should, after all, be more economical and agree collectively which old writings most urgently need to be published photographically. Then similar cases would not arise, in which the same text is reproduced several times without compelling need. And one more thing: we should determine who could do this work to the highest standard, since it is hard to believe that modern technology cannot achieve the level of the 1926 edition. After the photographic reproductions of the DP and 3W texts, this edition prints the corrections of errors, “Errata” (pp. 1304–1331), prepared by Prof. Palionis. The explanatory note preceding the list of corrections states: “The list of corrections includes clearer errors by the translator or the press, but does not include cases listed in the DP corrections (‘Pāklidimus Teip patailik’)” (p. 1304). The “Preface” introducing the edition says much the same: “[...] this edition contains [...] ‘Errata’—a list of errors noticed but not included in the ‘Pāklidimus Teip patailik’ at the end of DP” (p. 7; in German, p. 9). But how is a poor reader to know what was included in Daukša’s “Pākļidimai...” when they are absent from the edition under review? Apparently, the Baltos lankos publishing house decided that Daukša’s “Pākļidimai...” were unnecessary, and that readers could work out for themselves what they contained on the basis of the list printed here, or take the 1926 edition, in which “Pākļidimai...” are printed, and check. But “Pākļidimai...” contains not only corrections of typographical errors, but also insertions into the text that researchers comparing the DP text with the original need. This probably happened because the person who prepared the layout produced by the Baltos lankos publishing house did not see the manuscript. It is hard to believe that Prof. Palionis, having reminded readers in two places that the new 2 On the same occasion, it may be added that the mention of Urban VII shows that the third edition of Wujek’s Mažosios postilės was printed (or at least began to be printed?) in September 1590, since Urban VII was pope for only 13 days, namely September 15–27 (Christiani 1934: 520). 190 | RECENZIJOS list does not include the corrections supplied by Daukša, would have agreed to omit them. It therefore follows naturally that the publisher itself deliberately or inadvertently chose to dispense with “Páklydimu...”. In any case, this is a fly in the ointment, because in a certain sense this edition does not publish the complete DP text. Furthermore, the aforementioned explanatory notes on “Errata” give a rather unclear picture of how this section was prepared, because at the outset they say that, “in compiling the list, critical use was made of the corrections given in the footnotes to Eduardo Volter’s transliterated DP text (published in separate installments in St. Petersburg in 1904, 1909, and 1927),” and that “the list was supplemented with examples of errors selected from the remaining part (i.e., the part not published by Volter—J. K.)” (p. 1304). The second (final) paragraph of these notes states: “In compiling the list, an effort was made to follow this principle: to depart as little as possible from the language and orthographic system of the DP translation, and to include as few questionable items as possible. To this end, W₃ and the best-preserved copy of Stanevičius’s original were also consulted frequently” (p. 1304). The cited notes do not make entirely clear whether Prof. Palionis merely “improved” Volter’s list of corrections or also supplemented it while preparing this edition. A closer study suggests that what is printed here is an improved version of Volter’s list of corrections. This conclusion seems to be supported by typographical errors noticed by chance but not included in this list (they are absent from DP’s “Páklydimus Teip pataikik”), for example: 50₂₄,₃₄ DAT. SG. chrifiui, NOM. SG. chriflus, 51₂₇,₃₁,₃₇ INSTR. SG. chriltufu, GEN. SG. chriltauus, DAT. SG. chriltuy is not corrected, whereas 34₂₃ GEN. SG. chriltauus is corrected to Chriltaus (p. 1306); 89₄₄ GEN. SG. chriftaus is likewise corrected to Chriltaus (p. 1309). Or the NOM. SG. M. form igiies of the past active participle at 76₁₆ is not corrected to igiĝes, although elsewhere the ending of this form is corrected to -ę̇s; cf. 324 (=326)₃₂ átggrėjęs is corrected to átggrėjęs (p. 1322). Also absent from Palionis’s list is the PRAES. SG. 1 form fiuncziu at 203 (= 205)₁₄,₁₆, although it ought to be corrected to fiuncziu. Moreover, the point made earlier is reinforced by cases in which, in both photographic editions, one of two incorrectly written words is corrected and the other is not. For example, in the phrase mietaulagii Sūnų ACC. SG. at 244 (=246)₃₇–₃₈, Palionis corrects the first word to mielaulagii (p. 1316), but not the second, although it seems it should be corrected to Sunų, since the same word form, 145₅₁ fânų, is corrected to fânų (p. 1312). The same can be said of the phrase Trėcę įžpiowęs at 319 (=321)₄₀. Its NEUTR. form Trėcę (=Trėcę) is not corrected, while įžpiowęs is corrected to įžpiowęs (p. 1321). Or, at 323 (=325)₄₅, we find O kas jókone parabfita?, but the printed list of corrections changes only parabfita to parabfita (p. 1322), while, for some reason, jókone is not corrected to jókone, even though the same INES. SG. form at 562 (=565)₂₈,₃₀, jókone, is corrected to jókone (p. 1329). Something similar has happened with forms of the word Diewas: the NOM. SG. Dėwas at 357 (=359)₆ is absent from Palionis’s list, and only the INES. SG. form Diewų, occurring after the word élśgs, is corrected to Diewų (p. 1323). There are undoubtedly more such uncorrected errors, since, as noted, the examples given here were noticed quite by chance. A more attentive reader will often also miss more detailed principles for making corrections, since at times it is not very clear why even the same words, or the same forms of those words, are corrected so inconsistently. In the absence of such explanations, it is often difficult to determine whether this was done deliberately or whether these are simple typographical errors, especially since at times the principle declared in the “Errata” introduction also seems not to have been followed, namely: “Forms with the letters į, ū in positions occupied by long vowels have also been omitted from the list, such as nom. pl. [...] Sunys 533 (=535)₈, [...] inf. įbwiļt 357 (=359)₃₀, etc., since there is reason to believe that these letters represented not only the nasal vowels [į], [ų], but also the long vowels [ī], [ū]” (p. 1304). This rule seems to have been followed in the case of the letter į, but not in the case of ū. RECENZIJOS 191 always. For example, 84₄₅ INE. būt in the phrase būt korooti is corrected to būt koróti (p. 1309), while NOM. PL. 119₄₃ fuus is corrected to funus (p. 1311). Ypač daug neaiškumų kelia raidės ę, pavartotos vietoj ė, e, ia (žr. Palionis 1967: 34), taisymai: vienur ji taisoma į ę, kitur į e. Pvz., klaidingai Daukšos parašytas prielinksnis 102₃₄ be ištaisytas į bę, o 89 (= 103)₃₃ taip parašytas bę taisomas į be, bę? (su klaustuku!) (p. 1310). Iš karto norisi paklausti, kodėl pirmuoju atveju jokių abejonių nebuvo, o antruoju ėmė ir iškilo? Panašiai atsitikę ir su priešdėliu ne: 38₄ nę taisomas nę ir pastabose nurodoma, kad šis nę=ne (p. 1306), bet 53₄ ir 63₂₄ nę taisomas į ne (p. 1307, 1308), o 102₄₁ ne (ėft) vėl ištaisytas į nę (p. 1310). Arba žodžio metas INSTR. SG. forma taisoma 4 kartus, bet du kartus vienaip, o du kartus antraip: 13₃₉ metų į metu (p. 1305), 335 (= 337)₈ metų į metų (p. 1322), o 16₃₉ metų į metú (p. 1305) ir 53₁₉ metų į metu (p. 1307). Kodėl čia ę netaisoma į e, t. y. kodėl šios formos sugretintos su palyginti dažnai DP rašomomis metų ir metu, o ne su metu, belieka tik spėlioti. Tokių atvejų pasitaiko ir INES. SG. formų taisyme, pvz.: 44₃₂ metę ištaisyta į metę (p. 1307), 69₃₁–₃₂ žókonę į žókonę (p. 1308), bet 324 (= 326)₃₁ regė́timę ištaisyta į regė́timę (p. 1322). Na, o 62₃₇ mirftanciamę, ištaisytame į mirftanciamę, randame atvirkščią -ę į -e taisymą. Reikia manyti, kad čia vieną korektūros klaidą pakeitė kita, nes kitaip pastarojo taisymo paaiškinti negalima. Or consider IMPER. PL. 1 form 21₈–₉, kélbkime, which is corrected to kélbkime (p. 1305), while 118₃₁ paklausíkime is corrected to paklausíkime (p. 1311), and 280 (= 282)₄₅ fugrįžkime is corrected to fugrįžkime (p. 1318). It is also unclear why -ę was retained in the ending in the first case, since elsewhere the ending -ę, -e of all indicative tenses and of the subjunctive PL. 1 is apparently quite reasonably corrected only to -e, for example: 63₄ turimę to turime (p. 1308), 102₄₅ išgírtime to išgírtime (p. 1310), 156₃₁ atgrę́ftumbime to atgrę́ftumbime (p. 1312), and 172₂₉ parėgėtumbime to parėgėtumbime (p. 1313). The inconsistent correction of the GEN. SG. forms Ablo of the proper name Abelis can be partly assigned to this type of correction: 408 (= 410)₃₀ Ablo is corrected to Abelio, whereas 410 (= 412)₂₃ Ablo is corrected to Abel̇o (p. 1325). When the principles governing the corrections are not explained in greater detail, it is difficult to understand why Prof. Palionis treats the diphthongs an, en, written in DP as ą, ę or ąn, ęn, inconsistently in his list. They are usually left uncorrected, but occasionally ą, ę are corrected to ąn, ęn, and ą, ęn also to an, en, for example: 315 (= 317)₂₄ nulidė́dąnçziu is corrected to nulidė́dąnçziu INSTR. SG. (p. 1321); 228 (= 230)₉pršt. ženklas is corrected to ženklas (p. 1315) (but at 10₃₄ pažėklėtos, for some reason, e is again corrected neither to ę nor to ęn or en, but rather to pažėklėtos (p. 1305), although it should be pažėklėtos); 448 (= 450)₂₃ daggan is corrected to dangun (p. 1326); and 244 (= 246)₂₇ lėndą to lėndą (p. 1316). And when, in the same root, printed i is corrected differently where DP has in, this is entirely unclear; for example: 124₁₀ liktmuži is corrected to linktmuži INSTR. SG. (p. 1311), whereas 214 (= 216)₂₄,₅₂ likfmumo, likfmibes are corrected to likfmumo, likfmibes GEN. SG. (p. 1315). How can we explain such corrections as 309 (= 311)₈ penigų to penigų GEN. PL. (p. 1321) and 331 (= 333)₂₁ penigāmas to penigāmus (p. 1322)? In these cases it is probably not enough to say that in the corrections “an effort was made to adhere to the following principle: to depart as little as possible from the language and orthographic system of the DP translation...” (p. 1304); one would also like to know how an effort was made to observe this principle. Of course, the easiest and simplest explanation would be to attribute all the inconsistencies mentioned to proofreading errors, of which there are indeed quite a few in Palionis’s list of corrections. But since there is no need to discuss them in detail, lists of the errors found in the corrections, classified by type, are presented below. 192 | RECENZIJOS TABLE 1. DP WORDS TRANSCRIBED INCORRECTLY DP page and line | Printed | DP | J. Palionis’s correction | Remarks | Page in the 2000 edition 2725 | šwęntûjų | šwęntûjų | šwęntûjų | INSTR. SG. | 1306 11445 pršt. | Newalooe | Newaloiė | Newaloie | INES. SG. | 1311 169 (= 171)39 | nupinė | nupinė | nupinė | PRAET. 3 | 1313 174 (= 176)35 | gailėimųų | gailėimųų | gailėimu (should be gailėimu) | INSTR. SG. | 1313 188 (= 190)31 | fuḳėlninp | fuḳėlninp | fuḳėlninp | 1314 188 (= 190)35 | kėlės | kėlės | kėtes | PRAET. 3 | 1314 190 (= 192)2 | fuŕikulūus | fuŕikulūus | surŕkulūus (i.e. fuŕikulūus) | 1314 191 (= 193)10 | įbmințigai | įbmințigai | įbmințigai | ADV. | 1314 191 (= 193)14 | prodėjęs | prodėjęs | pradėjęs | 1314 191 (= 193)34 | was given | was given | was given (i.e. was given) | NEUTR. | 1314 200 (= 202)25 | our | our | our (i.e. our) | 1314 213 (= 215)18 | happiness | happiness | happiness | 1315 213 (= 215)38 | happiness | happiness | happiness (i.e. happiness) | 1315 228 (= 230)4 | of the Church | of the Church | of the Church | GEN. SG. | 1315 233 (= 235)50 | not of old dwellings |... dwellings | not of old dwellings | 1316 237 (= 239)32 | which | which | which | ACC. PL. | 1316 255 (= 257)3 | which | which | which (i.e. which) | 1317 255 (= 257)46 | things | things | things | GEN. PL. | 1317 256 (= 258)8 | of the diminished one | of the diminished one | of the diminished one (i.e. of the diminished one) | 1317 265 (= 267)5 | of the wagon | of the wagon | of the wagon | GEN. SG. | 1317 RECENZIJOS | 193 DP page and line Printed DP Corrected by J. Palionis Notes Page in the 2000 edition 271 (= 273)14 in fact in fact tikriiu (i.e. tikriųjų) INSTR. SG. 1318 271 (= 273)45 ataūlitų ataūlitų ataūbičių COND. 3 1318 277 (= 279)11 fawus fawųs fawus (i.e. fawųs) 1318 281 (= 283)5 brągęlnis brągęlnis brągęfnis (i.e. brągęlnis) NOM. SG. 1318 286 (= 288)21 trupųčio trúpųčio trupuczo (i.e. trúpųczo) 1319 290 (= 292)34 nefkālų nefkālų nefkālu (i.e. nefkālu) NEUTR. 1319 295 (= 297)51 priwalų priwalų priwalu (i.e. priwalų) NEUTR. 1320 304 (= 306)53 będru będri będru (i.e. będri) INSTR. SG. 1320 306 (= 308)20 tųri tūri turi (i.e. tūri) PRAES. 1 (probably 3) 1320 310 (= 312)33 pažiltų pažiltų pažiltu (t. b. pažiltų) 1321 311 (= 313)4 ųžmųbę ųžmųbę ųžmųbę (t. b. ųžmųbę) PRAET. 3 1321 315 (= 317)37 Wieβpati Wiéβpati Wieβpati (t. b. Wiéβpati) DAT. SG. 1321 317 (= 319)35 mažgas mážgas mažgas (i. e. mážgas) 1321 319 (= 321)25 būlių jų Dievų ... Diéwų ... Diewu (i. e. ... Diéwų) 1321 322 (= 324)26 Wjenas Wjénas Wienas (i. e. Wiénas) NOM. SG. 1321 325 (= 327)48 galętą... įftraukt’ galéta... įftraukt’ galęty (i. e. galéty)... įftraukt’ COND. 3 + INF. 1322 194 | RECENZIJOS DP page and line Printed DP J. Palionis’s emendation Notes Page in the 2000 edition 327 (= 329)40 prilaktōe prilaktōie prilaktōieu 1322 329 (= 331)9 žōdžio žōdžio žōdžio (t. b. žōdžio) 1322 332 (= 334)46 pūt̄tauj pūt̄tauj pūt̄tauj PRESENT 2 SG. 1322 335 (= 337)33 būwe būwe buwo (i.e. būwo) 1322 336 (= 338)9 sudekite sudekite sudekite (i.e. sudekite) 1322 337 (= 339)19 žmonemns žmonémns žmonemus (i.e. žmonémus) 1322 338 (= 340)27 didžeulių didžéulių didžeulių (t. b. didžéulių) ACC. DU. 1322 342 (= 344)8 klanfe klānfe klaufe (t. b. klāufe) PRAET. 3 1323 351 (= 353)25 piktūlius piktūlius piktūlius (t. b. piktūlius) 1323 360 (=362)19–20 nufidėiūlių žmoių of unfaithful people of unfaithful peo-ple (i.e. people) GEN. PL. 1324 378 (= 380)3 judges judges judges NOM. PL. 1324 379 (= 381)35 exists exists exists (i.e. exists) PRAES. 3 1324 394 (= 396)12 how how how (i.e. kāip) 1325 398 (= 400)14 gatęs gatęs gates (i.e. gatęs) FUT. 3 1325 404 (= 406)55 Apāftātai Apāftātai Apāftatai (i.e. Apāftātai) 1325 434 (= 436)11 piktiėmus piktiėmus piktiemus (i.e. piktiėmus) 1326 450 (= 452)23 tiektai tiektāj tiek tai (t. b. tiektāi) 1326 471 (= 473)17 fwętes fwętes fwętās NOM. SG. 1327 RECENZIJOS 195 DP page and linePrinted in DPJ. Palionis’s correctionNotesPage in the 2000 edition 473 (= 475)₄₅vienų žódžiųvienų žódžiųvienu žódžiųINSTR. SG.1327 474 (= 476)₅₁–₅₂pawaiždopawaiždopawaiždo1327 475 (= 477)₃₅lėkhuisėkhuilėktai (t. b. sėktai)DAT. SG.1327 477 (= 479)₃ApałtatasApáłtatasApaḟtatas (t. b. Apáḟtatas)1327 478 (= 480)₅₀bitołiųbitółiųbitołiu (t. b. bitóliu)1327 510 (= 511)₁₇–₁₈žėminiųžėminiųžėminiu (t. b. žėminiu)1328 518 (= 519)₆belnełibelnełibernełi (t. b. bernėli)ACC. SG.1328 518 (= 519)₁₀žódžiųžódžiųžódžiu (t. b. žódžiu)INSTR. SG.1328 531 (= 533)₂₁łękołękotąko (i.e. łęko)PRAES. 31329 535 (= 537)₃₅vź dūdinėjevź dūdinėjevźdūdinėje (i.e. vźdūdinėje)PRAES. 31329 553 (= 556)₃₉βwętųβwętųβwętu (i.e. βwętų)INSTR. SG.1329 568 (= 571)₄₁vź f wirovź f wirovźf wiro (i.e. vźf wiro)1330 594 (= 597)₂₁βwie umoβwie úmoβwielumo (i.e. βwielúmo)1330 601 (= 604)₃₁tarnytarnųtarnu (i.e. tarnú)INSTR. SG.1330 610 (= 613)₅₃gaiwagaiwágałwa (i.e. gałwá)NOM. SG.1330 614 (= 617)₂₅–₂₆gáłiųgáłygáłiu (i.e. gálu)PRAES. 1 SG.1330 618 (= 621)₁₂melłtusmėłłtusmelłtųs (i.e. mėłłtųs)SUP.1331 619 (= 624)₁₀išłųyte ełtišłųnte ełt’išłųte ełt (i.e. išłųnte ełt’)1331 196 | RECENZIJOS TABLE 2. OMITTED IN JONAS PALIONIS’S CORRECTIONS DP DIACRITICAL MARKS DP page and line Printed Corrected by J. Palionis Should be Notes Page of this edition 9₃₃ vžtūrėtą vžtūretą vžtūrėtą ACC. SG. 1305 24₂₁ wertų wertu wertų INSTR. SG. 1306 25₂₉ Tetráacha Tetrarcha Tetrárcha INSTR. SG. 1306 26₁₃ Wirβpatáwimo Wieβpatavimo Wieβpatáwimo 1306 28₁₃ Swetóp Szwetop Szwetóp 1306 35₅₁ źmoįų źmonių źmonių GEN. PL. 1306 47₁₁ bêdrą bedra bêdrą ACC. SG. 1307 54₅₃ Bernrádus Bernardus Bernárdus NOM. SG. 1307 68₂₉ lawų lawu lawų INSTR. SG. 1308 75₄₀ auré aure auré 1309 90₂₉ iβwadžió io iβwadžioio iβwadžióio 1309 95₁₃ tęięus tūięus tūięus orig.: tudžicž 1310 107₁₀ Wiéβpati Wieβpati Wiéβpati ACC. SG. 1310 111₄₃ djęną dieną diéną 1311 138₂₄ táužomę taužome táužome 1311 141₆ tūdie ludie lūdie PRESENT. 3 1311 150₁₁ didęlnių didelniu didelnịų INSTRUMENTAL SINGULAR. 1312 158₁₉ falβiwų falβiwu falβiwų NOMINATIVE DUAL. 1312 164₂₂ ęio eio éio PRETERITE 3 1312 201 (= 203)₇ muſúmp muſump of ours 1314 213 (= 215)₅₁ eternal eternal eternal NOM. SG. 1315 232 (= 234)₈ send away I will send away send away 1316 233 (= 235)₅₀ .../ neither by learning .../ neither by learning .../ neither by learning INSTR. SG. 1316 RECENZIJOS | 197 DP page and line Printed Corrected by J. Palionis Should be Notes Page of this edition 247 (= 249)13 grumždįmų grumždimu grumždįmų INSTR. SG. 1316 251 (= 253)35 wardį wardu wardį INSTR. SG. 1316 252 (= 254)12 funùs funus funùs 1317 268 (= 270)25 years year years INSTR. SG. 1317 281 (= 283)48 Wieβpñutės Wieβpñatės Wieβpñatės 1318 302 (= 304)29–30 willą Pópiejiſtą willą Popiejįſta willą Pópiejiſtą NOM. SG. 1320 304 (= 306)25 which which which 1320 321 (= 323)13 noble noble noble ACC. SG. 1321 341 (= 343)34 lesson lesson lesson PRAET. 3 1323 374 (= 376)39 karíe who karíe 1324 388 (= 390)9 favor favor favor NOM. SG. 1325 388 (= 390)12 that that that 1325 391 (= 393)31 nopɼlnái noproſnai nopɼlnái ADV. 1325 392 (= 394)8 njéko nieko njéko 1325 402 (= 404)51 taczęų taczeu taczęų 1325 409 (= 411)12 diėnų dieną diėną ACC. SG. 1325 423 (= 425)43 ſartús ſaitus ſaitús orig.: shackles 1325 457 (= 459)20 praſtólių praſtóliu praſtóliu 1326 458 (= 460)5 ráka rąka ráka NOM. SG. 1326 472 (= 474)17 ӡótag ӡotag ӡótag 1327 530 (= 532)28 vǯ prietelus vǯ neprietelus vǯ neprietelus orig.: nieprzyjacióły 1329 545 (= 548)35 atęko atąko atąko PRAES. 3, orig.: visits 1329 560 (= 563)9 gerų geru gerų INSTR. SG. 1329 609 (= 612)14 mókıtinių mokıtiniu mókıtiniu INSTR. SG. 1330 198 | RECENZIJOS TABLE 3. INCORRECTLY INDICATED WORD LINE AND LOCATION DP page and line indicated by J. Palionis Should be Printed J. Palionis’s correction Notes Page in this edition 89 (= 103)₄₄–₅₀ 89 (= 103)₄₉–₅₀ gardumimus garduminus 1310 116₁₆ 116₁₅ miełafir dürmo miełafir dürmo 1311 116₁₈ 116₁₇ Czę (tekste Czę) jau Czę tau 1311 159₂₀ 159₂₆ Szęłta Szębta NEUTR. 1312 162₁₇ 162₂₇ kartų kartų INSTR. SG. 1312 168₈ 168₆ metų metu INSTR. SG. 1312 227 (= 229)₄₉ 227 (= 229)₄₈–₄₉ Augugulinas Auguf tinas 1315 229 (= 231)₄₆ 229 (= 231)₄₅–₄₆ tōbis tōbis NOM. SG. 1315 231 (= 233)₂₂ 231 (= 233)₂₃ palik(mintoie palik(mintoie NOM. SG. 1316 231 (= 233)₂₃ 231 (= 233)₂₄ atfiusių atfiusių 1316 231 (= 233)₄₁ 231 (= 233)₄₂ tos tas NOM. SG. M. 1316 247 (= 249)₁₃ 247 (= 249)₁₂–₁₃ grumžd imų grumždimu (i.e., grumžd imų) INSTR. SG. 1316 276 (= 278)₈ 276 (= 278)₇–₈ apewejždėtus apewejždėtus COND. 3 1318 314 (= 316)₄ 314 (= 316)₄–₅ gerėlnis gerėlnis 1321 328 (= 330)₁₆ 328 (= 330)₁₅–₁₆ fuderimo fuderino 1322 338 (= 340)₂₉ 338 (= 340)₂₉–₃₀ ąntamę ąntr ame 1322 342 (= 344)₂₈ 342 (= 344)₂₉ palsipūtės palsipūtus NOM. SG. F. 1323 349 (= 351)₁₈ 349 (= 351)₁₇–₁₈ litpnėlnjis litpnėlnis 1323 349 (= 351)₂₆ 349 (= 351)₂₆–₂₇ fwetitimas fwetimas 1323 359 (= 361)₄–₅ 359 (= 361)₄ vžmokėlsių vžmokėsiu (?) 1324 369 (= 371)₄₀ 369 (= 371)₄₁–₄₂ paβwéntina paβwéntina PRAES. 3 1324 369 (= 371)₄₆ 369 (= 371)₄₇ gėdeimo gėdeimu INSTR. SG. 1324 471 (= 473)₂₉ 471 (= 473)₃₀ mótę móte NOM. SG. 1327 RECENZIJOS 199 DP page and line indicated by J. Palionis Should be Printed Corrected by J. Palionis Notes Page of this edition 543 (= 546)22 543 (= 546)21 protecting... the innocent protecting... the innocent ACC. SG. “innocence” 1329 543(=546)36 543(=546)35 there there 1329 544(=547)3, 11 544(=547)3 išnumiruliu from the dead 1329 544(=547)14, 15 of the dead J. Palionis does not correct 10112 10112 pršt. godincziuin godincziuiu (perhaps godincziū́?) GEN. PL. 1310 11245 pršt. 11245 kjtas (in the text: kjtás) kitas (it should be kitás) ACC. PL. 1311 14642 14642 pršt. Chriftans Chriftauus 1312 167(=169)38 167(=169)38 pršt. idaut idant 1313 177 (= 179)49 177 (= 179)49 pršt. waišiu waišių (kodėl ne waišių?) GEN. PL. 1313 202 (= 204)32 202 (= 204)32 pršt. Lutae Lucae = Luke 1314 204 (= 206)17 204 (= 206)17 pršt. pāšiutfus pāšiuftas (kodėl ne pāšiuf tas?) NOM. SG. 1314 206 (= 208)40 206 (= 208)40 pršt. knnu kunų GEN. PL. 1314 211 (= 213)22 211 (= 213)22 pršt. Aprikings (dž̄eugfmo) Aprikimas (?) original: Omyl-ne (wefele) 1314 216 (= 218)21 216 (= 218)21 pršt. teit ateit 1315 233 (= 235)18 233 (= 235)18 pršt. hudie ludie PRAES. 3 1316 243 (= 245)38 243 (= 245)38 pršt. fwielumu βwielumu INSTR. SG. 1316 254 (= 256)37 254 (= 256)37 pršt. mokfio mokfło 1317 In addition to the errors noted in the tables, the list of corrections compiled by Prof. Palionis also contains isolated slips, e.g.: 220 (= 222)16 instead of paſauli should be paſauli a. sg. (p. 1315); 425 (= 427)17 instead of kukidėli should be kukaidėli a. sg. (p. 1325); 298 (= 300)41 instead of ſbwedęs should be 200 | RECENZIJOS fβwedęs (p. 1320), while 513 (= 514)₁₈ prigavau is not praet. 2 sg., but praet. 1 sg. (p. 1328). Likewise, 327 (= 329)₈ pawijdeię (p. 1322) and 536 (= 538)₄₂ parpūłt should be parpūlē (p. 1329), are not praet. 3, but nominative masculine plural forms of the active participle of the past frequentative tense, and should therefore be nom. pl. (cf. Kudzinowski 1977: 89, 105). Prof. Palionis’s corrections marked with an asterisk, which “indicates an error observed in the 1926 facsimile edition” (p. 1304), cannot be silently passed over. This means that they should not appear in this facsimile edition. In fact, however, this is not entirely so, since apparently 5 of the 19 such corrections—that is, 81₄₇ (p. 1309), 162₂₁ pršt. (p. 1312; incidentally, in both editions one sees not Dukáuni i, but Dukáuni ii), 286 (= 288)₂₀ (p. 1319), 304 (= 306)₂₀, ₂₂–₂₃ (p. 1320)—coincide in practice. Only in two cases, 81₄₇ and 286 (= 288)₂₀, could the spelling be disputed, namely, whether the reviewed edition prints palibts (as in the 1926 edition) or palibls, and whether in the word tůkßtąntis the diphthong q has a “branch” or not (as in the 1926 edition). But these are matters of spelling, and once the difference has been identified, it would be best to present corrections to them separately. However, the list of corrections also includes corrections that ought to have an asterisk but do not (see Table 4). TABLE 4. CORRECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK DP page and line | Printed in this edition | Printed in the 1926 edition | J. Palionis’s correction | Notes | Page in this edition *356 (= 358)₉ | pritraukė | prietaukė | prietraukė | PRAET. 3 | 1323 *462 (= 464)₃₇ | kitūs | kitu | kitus | | 1326 *466 (= 468)₈ | furifßtūmbei | furifßtūmbe: | furifßtumbei | COND. 2 SG. | 1327 *470 (= 472)₃₄ | nei | mi | nei | | 1327 *471 (= 473)₄₀–₄₁ | Angelas | Angetae | Angelas | | 1327 *513 (= 514)₂₃ | wilfiemus | wifu i emus | wif i emus | | 1328 *564 (= 567)₅ | tū | ti | tū | INSTR. SG. | 1329 *594 (= 597)₂₅ | Chriſtuie | Chriſtnie | Chriſtuie | | 1330 *595 (= 598)₁₈ | fβwetų | fβwetų | fβwetų | GEN. SG. | 1330 *619 (= 622)₂₆ | źémes | źemes | źémes | GEN. SG. | 1331 In summary, it can probably be said that the edition of DP under review is not very reliable. Of course, many of the errors and oversights mentioned here could easily have been avoided if the Baltos lankos publishing house, so generously supported by state institutions, had not rested on its laurels but had worked more closely with the editor. As things stand, the impression is that the editor worked one way and the publishing house another, since one would nevertheless be reluctant to believe that such an expert on old writings as Prof. Jonas Palionis would have failed to notice at least most of the shortcomings mentioned. RECENZIJOS 201 LITERATŪRA CHRISTIANI, L. 1934: La chronologie des papes, des origines à Pie XI. Tu es Petrus. Encyclopédie populaire sur la papauté, Paris: Librairie Bloud et Gay, 491–529. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1977: Indeks–słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“ 2, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza. LEBEDYS, J. 1955: Simonas Stanevičius, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. MACIŪNAS, V. 1997: Lituanistinis sąjūdis XIX amžiaus pradžioje, Vilnius (leidykla nenurodyta). PALIONIS, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis. SUBAČIUS, G. 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Juozas Karaciejus Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva Gauta 2001 12 06 VYTAUTAS SIRTAUTAS, REGINA PETKEVICIENĖ, ČESYS GRENDA, RINKTINIAI KALBOTYROS STRAIPSNIAI [Šiauliai:] Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 2001, 288 p. 2001 metais Šiaulių universiteto Lietuvių kalbos katedros profesoriui Vytautui Sirtautui suėjo 80 metų, o docentams Reginai Petkevičienei ir Česiui Grendai – po 70. Visi trys jie apie 40 ar daugiau metų dirba toje pat Šiaurės Lietuvos aukštojoje mokykloje (anksčiau tai buvo Šiaulių pedagoginis institutas) ir kartu su kolegomis parengė šimtus lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros, tūkstančius pradinių klasių pedagogikos ir metodikos bei kitų specialybių mokytojų, parašė ar sudarė ne po vieną mokomąją knygą studentams, vadovėlių aukštosioms mokykloms (V. Sirtautas ir vidurinėms mokykloms), paskelbė po šūsnį mokslo, metodikos ir kalbos populiarinamųjų straipsnių, aktyviai dalyvauja mokslinėse konferencijose. Sukaktuvių proga sumanytai sumestinei knygai iš savo rašinių aruodo po žiupsnelį straipsnių parinko patys autoriai ir, kaip pasakyta redaktorių kolegijos pasirašytoje pratarmėje, kai kuriuose straipsniuose ką ne ką dar pataisė ar patikslino. Knygą sudarė universiteto Lietuvių kalbos katedros vedėjas prof. K. Župerka, į redaktorių kolegiją, be jo, įėjo Humanitarinio fakulteto dekanė doc. G. Kačiuškienė (pirmininkė) ir universiteto prorektorius doc. J. Pabrėža. Kiekvieno kalbininko dalis knygoje pradedama gražia brandaus amžiaus nuotrauka ir šiltai perteiktu gyvenimo aprašymu. Prof. V. Sirtautą skaitytojams pristato prof. K. Župerka, doc. R. Petkevičienę – doc. G. Kačiuškienė, o doc. Č. Grendą, daug metų buvusį Šiaulių pedagoginio instituto Lietuvių kalbos katedros vedėju, – doc. J. Švambarytė. Po to dedama kiekvieno autoriaus daugiausia kalbos mokslo darbų rinkiniuose įvairiu metu skelbtų straipsnių. Dalys baigiamos kalbininkų darbų bibliografijomis (prof. V. Sirtauto įdėti 1999 m. atskira knygele išleistos bibliografijos rodyklės papildymai ir 1998–2000 m. darbai). Bibliografijas sudarė Mokslinės Šiaulių universiteto bibliotekos Bibliografijos skyriaus vedėja R. Jakutienė. Tokia yra kalbamos knygos sandara.