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

Juozas Karaciejus

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

1 short passage of this localized version is shown in the original language because it could not be localized reliably.

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

188 (= 190)₃₁ | fuḳėlninp | fuḳėlninp | fuḳėlninp | 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

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

233 (= 235)₅₀ | not of old dwellings |... dwellings | not of old dwellings | 1316

255 (= 257)₃ | which | which | which (i.e. which) | 1317

256 (= 258)₈ | of the diminished one | of the diminished one | of the diminished one (i.e. of the diminished one) | 1317

RECENZIJOS

| 193

DP page and line

Printed

Corrected by J. Palionis

Notes

Page in the 2000 edition

271 (= 273)₁₄

in fact

tikriiu (i.e. tikriųjų)

INSTR. SG.

1318

271 (= 273)₄₅

ataūlitų

ataūbičių

COND. 3

1318

277 (= 279)₁₁

fawus

fawųs

fawus (i.e. fawųs)

1318

281 (= 283)₅

brągęlnis

brągęfnis (i.e. brągęlnis)

NOM. SG.

1318

286 (= 288)₂₁

trupųčio

trúpųčio

trupuczo (i.e. trúpųczo)

1319

290 (= 292)₃₄

nefkālų

nefkālu (i.e. nefkālu)

NEUTR.

1319

295 (= 297)₅₁

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

pažiltu (t. b. pažiltų)

1321

311 (= 313)₄

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

J. Palionis’s emendation

Notes

Page in the 2000 edition

327 (= 329)₄₀

prilaktōe

prilaktōie

prilaktōieu

1322

329 (= 331)₉

žōdžio

žōdžio (t. b. žōdžio)

1322

332 (= 334)₄₆

pūt̄tauj

PRESENT 2 SG.

1322

335 (= 337)₃₃

būwe

buwo (i.e. būwo)

1322

336 (= 338)₉

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 (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

NOM. PL.

1324

379 (= 381)₃₅

exists

exists (i.e. exists)

PRAES. 3

1324

394 (= 396)₁₂

how

how (i.e. kāip)

1325

398 (= 400)₁₄

gatęs

gates (i.e. gatęs)

FUT. 3

1325

404 (= 406)₅₅

Apāftātai

Apāftatai (i.e. Apāftātai)

1325

434 (= 436)₁₁

piktiėmus

piktiemus (i.e. piktiėmus)

1326

450 (= 452)₂₃

tiektai

tiektāj

tiek tai (t. b. tiektāi)

1326

471 (= 473)₁₇

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

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

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

NOM. SG.

1315

232 (= 234)₈

send away

I will send away

send away

1316

233 (= 235)₅₀

.../ 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

1318

302 (= 304)_29–30

willą Pópiejiſtą

willą Popiejįſta

willą Pópiejiſtą

NOM. SG.

1320

304 (= 306)₂₅

which

1320

321 (= 323)₁₃

noble

ACC. SG.

1321

341 (= 343)₃₄

lesson

PRAET. 3

1323

374 (= 376)₃₉

karíe

who

karíe

1324

388 (= 390)₉

favor

NOM. SG.

1325

388 (= 390)₁₂

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

1326

458 (= 460)₅

ráka

rąka

ráka

NOM. SG.

1326

472 (= 474)₁₇

ӡótag

ӡotag

ӡótag

1327

530 (= 532)₂₈

vǯ prietelus

vǯ neprietelus

orig.: nieprzyjacióły

1329

545 (= 548)₃₅

atęko

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

ACC. SG. “innocence”

1329

543(=546)₃₆

543(=546)₃₅

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

101_{12 pršt.}

godincziuin

godincziuiu (perhaps godincziū́?)

GEN. PL.

1310

112_{45 pršt.}

112₄₅

kjtas (in the text: kjtás)

kitas (it should be kitás)

ACC. PL.

1311

146₄₂

146_{42 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

*470 (= 472)₃₄ | nei | mi | nei | | 1327

*564 (= 567)₅ | tū | ti | tū | INSTR. SG. | 1329

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.

REVIEWS

Reviews

TABLE 2. OMITTED IN JONAS PALIONIS’S CORRECTIONS

DP DIACRITICAL MARKS

TABLE 4. CORRECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK

LITERATŪRA

VYTAUTAS SIRTAUTAS, REGINA PETKEVICIENĖ, ČESYS GRENDA,

RINKTINIAI KALBOTYROS STRAIPSNIAI

Document details