Jono Bretkūno „Postilės“ perikopių autorystė: „Kosanies“ šaltiniai

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXIX (1998) Ona Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania JONO AUTHORSHIP OF BRETKŪNO POSTILE PERICOPS: Sources of Kosanie 1. The question of the authorship of Bretkūnas Postilas' perikopiy' 1.1. Luudvikas Gediminas Rėza mentioned for the first time in the historiography of Lithuanian literature that Jonas Bretkūnas formed Postilas (1591, further — BP) based on a translated book by Baltramejus Vilentas Euangelias bei The (1579, Epistle continues — EE). In the book History of litehauische Bible (1816: 9), Reviewing In the history ir of the translation of the Bible and other religious į writings into Lithuanian, in one footnote he indicated that because of the lack of educated men, priests could be appointed to all parishes because it became ne extremely necessary to have a collection of sermons that could be read ir in churches. to iš This was taken care of by Jonas Bretkūnas ir by "The Gospel According to Matthew". This was later į noted by later researchers of our ancient ir writings: Adalbert Bezzenberger (1893: 128), Eduardas Hermannas (1923: 119-20), Jurgis Gerulis (1927: 110) and others. They also tried to explain why Bretkūnas had written his sermons based on another author’s obscure Gospels and Epistles, even though he himself had translated the entire New Testament 11 years earlier (finished in 1580, hereinafter BNT). "Mr. f supplied with ‘iStrauka’; mepuxémrery "circumcise, circumcise, trim". The concept of perikope is not documented in the Bible. It was not until the 16th century that they were added to the passages of the Bible read during Christian services. Justin was the first to use this term to refer to a passage of the Bible (NBL 1997: 113). The pericopes are included in specially published liturgical reading books (RZ 1991: 292). The first Lithuanian book of such readings is Bartholomew Wilens's Euangelija ir Epistolas, published in 1579 in Karaliaučius. > Rhesa 1816: 9: "Since not all the parishes, because of a lack of willingly educated men, priests and preachers could be appointed, [o was it probably very necessary, a homily or a sermon [...] 3to be conducted in the churches, ju veran(talten. Janus Bretke [also took care of this by publishing a pocket book [...] in 1591®. 39 1.1.1. Eduardas Hermannas (1923: 119-120), Considering what could have prompted the Postilas compiler to give up his texts, he raised the idea that perhaps he considered Vilentas’ Lithuanian translation better than his own, and therefore he was inclined to consider this fact as one of the arguments showing that šį iš Bretkūnas was a former 0 ne German, Lithuanian. Jo in my ir opinion, the language of these texts should be more reliable than the sermons, because it is not clear what is translated in these, what is written, while the basis of the passages is iš Originated in Lithuania Translation by Will. The latter du statements may be būti the diskusijų ir subject of long investigation, but Hermann's thought of Bretkūn- ’s doubts about our translation cannot be completely ruled out. Bretkūnas was constantly looking for a more appropriate word or phrase variant and often failed to decide, as all the manuscripts of his extensive Bible, especially the New Testament, marked with lenktiniuose skliaustuose, ar kitais žodžiais dar paaiškinamų žodžių ir frazių, various corrections, bear witness to. Even in Postilae we find variants presented by the commonly used conjunction alba and the word combination tatai efti. Perhaps doubting the suitability of his work, or perhaps influenced by the example of Martin Luther, Bretkūnas himself requested that his Postilla be evaluated by experienced theologians who knew German and Lithuanian well. In a letter dated 14 October 1589, the Council of State transmitted this request to George Frederick, and the duke appointed several priests for this purpose. The participants of the conference convened in Ragaine on 13 May 1590 had already expressed their opinion on this collection of sermons in a letter to the duke on 1 June 1590. They wrote to the author, openly expressing their doubts about the content and style of Postila, and Bretkūnas had kindly agreed not only to correct the manuscript himself, but also gladly allowed the proofreaders to do so." The entire Bible was not yet translated at that time — the last books were completed on November 29, 1590. A conference on the issue of the Bible was not convened until September 20, 1592: Its participants, of course, wished that this book of great importance to the Protestants be printed as soon as possible, but now the consistory wished that Bretkūnas checked the translation. In his letter of 18 May 1593 he wrote that he had already reviewed it and hoped that the prince, using “the services of many others who knew the Lithuanian language better and with my participation, would order it to be fully prepared for printing and [...] printed” (rare of mine —O.A). This testifies that Bretkūnas himself even in 1593m. his translation of the Bible considered not yet final and unsuitable for printing. In later letters to the duke (11 July 1595, 10 December 1598, 19 September 1599) he repeatedly asked that the manuscript be “transmitted to others who are better at this non-German language or who are more abundantly [...] gifted by God, to be corrected” (Bretkūnas 1983: 324), and if the translation proves inappropriate, to be returned to him. 3 Falkenhahn 1941: 98 gives an excerpt from this letter. * This can be seen from the letter of the correctors to the Duke of Prussia of 01.06.1590 (Falkenhahn 1941: 103— 104). 40 back. In later letters, these doubts could of course have been expressed because he was still waiting for the Duke's ir decision, the printing affairs were not moving. o iš Tik 1602 03 01 in the message Bretkūnas reports that he has revised his work once again, corrected as much as possible, and adds: “I hope that the Lithuanian ir reader will now be more satisfied with this translation.” Therefore, the surviving jo letters show a certain distrust of his own work and a desire to rely on the advice of other theologians. ir ir 1.1.2. Paulius Salopiata (1929: 45-56), 100 mg/ day Mikalojaus Daukšos Postillion (1599) ir Konstantino Sirvydo Points the relationship of the su proverbs with the Polish, Latin, Greek originals, compared them ir su Vilento The Gospels and Epistolomis. He is not at all surprised that these Although the translator was a jų Protestant, Wilens' texts were occasionally used by ir editors of Catholic publications. This is a sign that Wilens's book had great authority after all — ir Bretkūnas puts his own, translatne ed texts o of Wilentas before the sermons. However, XVI-XVII in the a. historiography of Lithuanian writing Wilento is vertimą not such palankūs. Antai In the “General (1639), kalbant Statute” on the preparation of Lithuanian writings, the necessity of printing Bretkūn’s New Testament is emphasized, jį “and also prepared Sunday Gospels and ir Epistles, which are otherwise printed in the Gospels and Epistles books* in very inappropriate translations” (LLICh: 15). Theodor Lepner in Prussian Lithuania (1744), written about 1690, also believes that for the same reason at least the New Testament translated by Bretkūnas should be made available to the public: it should include the Gospels and Epistles, because “the old books of the Gospels and Epistles are translated in a very erroneous and disorderly way” (LLICh: 22). On the other hand, both sources indicate that the copies of the Gospels and Epistles are worn out and sold out, that they are no longer available in bookstores (LLICh: 15, 22). Thus, this could testify to the fact that this book of Wilens was very needed and popular among priests. With it, they no longer had to translate Bible texts and phrases into Lithuanian themselves- .” Moreover, it was known to all that before printing the translation was reviewed by priests who speak Lithuanian (the author writes about this in the preface to EE). This book was later used by the translator of the Reformed Postilla of 1600 (called the Postilla of Morkūnas) and by editors of some Catholic publications. 1.1.3. Vaclovas Biržiška (1953: 160; 1960: 110) explains Bretkūnas' reliance on Vilentus by the fact that the first Gospels and Epistles published in Lithuanian * We are referring to the reprints of Vilentus EE and Lazaros Sengstakas in 1612, with some corrections. * This practice is also mentioned by Ch. Hartknochas, "Preussische Kirchen-Historia" (1686), pg. LLICh: 20. "EE: III "[...] this translation has been approved by the most experienced teachers of that language and specialists in that science, and a careful comparison of the texts will show it." (Brown 1990: 86). 41 were iš immediately published as official texts read in the churches of the Prussian Principality. The Priests’ Conference gathered in Ragainė sought to accelerate Bretkūno He was also known for his efforts to prevent the spread of Catholicism in Lithuania. For was to urgently found funds already ir 1591 m. ji printed in a much larger circulation than the other book. In the opinion (1953: 142) of Biržai, "printing [...] Bretkūno text was changed so much that instead of the Bretkūno translated Gospel texts were inserted corresponding 1579 m. "Evangelical Texts". This statement is not supported by any documents ir does not seem very reliable since between BP ir EE pericopy there are quite a lot of discrepancies. Some EE ir BP perikope differ in the number of verses: for example EE Lk 1,26-38 omitted portion The 36th verse, BP ji recorded; EE one Sunday scheduled Lk 1,39-55, o BP — Lk 1,39-56, so one BP verse more. On the other hand, found places BP where there is half a verse less than EE: Jn 16,26, Mt 9,4, Mt 7,18, though ir BNT this part of the verse is. The meaning of the sentence differs in several places: Apd 2,3, Lk 5,9, Lk 8,13, Jn 6,11, Jn 10,14. Given the fact į that Bible passages are read to the believers before the sermon, Bretkūn adds somewhere an explanatory phrase before the first verse (e.g., Iefus biloia mokintiniump fawa before Mt 5,20), although neither EE nor BNT does not have it, or it specifies the actor (instead of ghis, anas writes Iefus). Furthermore, these EE and BP texts contain considerable differences in spelling, morphology, lexicon and syntax.” By merely replacing one text with another, and this already during printing, so many and consistent inconsistencies in spelling, morphology, lexicon, syntax and especially in the text itself could not arise. Some differences may also have arisen because the conference participants corrected the manuscript themselves and also indicated what the author needed to correct (they write about this in a letter to the Duke of Prussia on 01 June 1990 (Falkenhahn 1941: 103-104). Thus, the texts from the EE could have been taken rather already when compiling Postila and at the same time comparing Wilento translation with other sources. All the more so because there are passages in the text of the sermons that coincide with the text of the EE, although in the BP passage itself the corresponding passages differ from the EE. The reason for Biržiška’s decision to make Wilen’s texts compulsory is therefore sufficiently justified.” After all, they are printed and therefore easily accessible * How Bretkūnas replaced Wilen's secondary sentences with absolute nouns in some places and what influence the originals had on this, i.e. Luther's Bible and Vulgate, has been studied by Vytautas Ambrazas 1962: 34. ) The necessity of harmonizing the Bible texts and sayings in the postilla with the texts recognized by the Church is also evidenced by J. Ouant’s introduction to Christian Langhanzen- ’s postilla “Short and poor bed for all the time and the holy day evangelium..- .”, published in 1750 in Karaliaučius. In order to provide a new Lithuanian postilla (because even at the beginning of the 18th century on Sundays and public holidays it was still read from Bretkūnas’s sermons, “although narrowly and simply for the parapriests, that, before printing them, approved 42 be “the greatest turintys experience of the teachers of that language and the specialists of this science”. These Gospels and Epistles have been read in 12 churches for years, while for The suitability of Bretkūnas’ Bible for printing was still being discussed at the time, and the proofreaders’ assessments were ir awaited. 1.2. Salopiata (1929: 45) claims that Postillary pericopes almost exactly coincide su In Vilento's o texts, Guido Michelini (1995: 250) considers them reprinted iš EE ir for to irrelevant (in his opinion, the investigation Postillary language į can be them, as well ir į sermons inserted jų sentences not to be taken into account), but a detailed comparison of these texts shows that The question of the authorship of the Postilla passages is not so simple. First of all, it is not a direct reprint — BP the passages are not exactly su identical to EE the corresponding texts. Secondly, in Postilae there are two pericopae of which There's EE no Will. The book of Valens consists iš 94 of evangeliniy ir 87 Epistolar Peripluses"" (total 181), BP are respective67 ly ir 2 evangelical epistles (total 69). Iš jų 65 Evangelical ir 2 Epistolar peripaths (total 67) Postile is the same as EE. So Bretkūnas iš of this book may have taken 67 iš 181, mainly the gospel", 0 2 self-increased. 1.3. Both non-EE excerpts are printed in the first part of the Postilla. One of them consists of the synoptic Gospels of the three evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and is entitled "KOSANIS APE VV/ECZ/E-|- re Panu mulfu Ieflaus Chriltaus, Dienoie || kaledu sur la veyto" ("Kosanian APE VV/ECZ/E-|- re Mr. Mulfu Ieflaus Chriltaus, Dienoie || Christmas on the Veil"). The main obstacle to his ambition was the lack of a Bible in Lithuanian. Only after the New Testament was published in 1727, he commissioned a priest to review the translation and compare the existing biblical passages with the Bible, because this translation was not only not perfect and did not correspond to the "pure Lithuanian dialect", but it was also not in harmony "with the Bible prepared and introduced in all parishes" (LLICh: 40-41) " Archbishop Juozapas Skvireckas (1991: 448), the translator of the Old Testament into the Lithuanian language, refers to the portions of the Gospels and the Apostles' writings read in Christian churches on holy days since the first centuries with the following Latin terms: pericopae evangeliorum et lectiones. Here they will be called evangelical and epistle passages. "! It is not entirely accurate to say that there are no epistolary passages in BP (see Range 1992: 33). He was probably encouraged to choose more evangelical passages by the provision of the Kirchenordnung of 1570 that it was unsuitable to read the Epistles in non-German churches. Pastors are instead advised to read and explain passages from the Catechism so that people learn the basics of the faith (Zieger 1967: 66). The purpose of this instruction was to make the faithful better acquainted with Martin Luther’s Little Catechism, or at least with the main parts of it, and therefore the teaching on the two sacraments recognized by Luther – Baptism and the Eucharist – is particularly emphasized here (Zieger 1967: 48). His views on the sacraments are set forth in the programmatic work for theologians “De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium” (“Introduction to the Exile of the Church in Babylon”, WA 6, 497-573), written in 1520 (KBI II 1997: 12-13; Heussi 1991: 284). It is these sacraments that are explained in Bretkūno- 's additionally added perikope and in the sermons commenting on them. 43 Mifchparo fakama’ (BP I 62)". This text is also considered to be a pericope, since it is intended to be read in the church before the sermon, printed in the same font as the other ir Bible passages o jį explained 6,5 in a page-long sermon. Kita ne iš EE taken pericope is Mt 3,13-17, ji scheduled to be read on the first Sunday po New Year. The question iš arises where these passages could have been taken — iš some already published publication, perhaps o stos inserted ir by the Brett. In the Principality of Prussia, since the first Lithuanian manuscripts appeared, there was a tendency to rely on already existing Lithuanian books in manuscripts, to take over ir unpublished works of other authors, to arrange them and publish them. ir 1591 m. translations prepared in ir previous publications. Mt 3,13-17 until Postilai's appearance in published books could not be found. In the first manuscript of the 16th-century evangelical Lutheran sermons, the Wolfenbüttel Postil (WP, completed in 1573), only the beginning of its first sentence is written.” Although the title of the sermon indicates that it can be given on the basis of the Gospel of John, chapter 3, it actually contains the beginning of Mt 3:13 (WP 285a). The entire transliteration is only in Bretkūno's New Testament manuscript, but a detailed comparison of these texts suggests that the BP transliteration is probably a re-translation, not taken from the BNT." Meanwhile, we find texts similar to Kosani in at least 4 books and at least 5 times. They are arranged as follows by year of issue: 1. Martynas Mažvydas’ Catechismvsa prasty szadei (1547, hereinafter referred to as the CMS). 2. Martynas Mažvydas’ Gesmes Chriksczoniskas, II d. (1570, published by Baltramiejus Vilentas, hereinafter referred to as MžG). 3. Enchiridion of Bartholomew Wilen (1579, hereinafter referred to as E); it contains 2 texts: a) in the chapter “The Sacrament of the Altar /as || t6 Hukinikas [cheimina [awa || pralchc3iaulei tur || teach” (E 33,3-17); 12 The word kozonis sf (or kozonius sm) BP and in other ancient writings, as well as in some present-day dialects of the Lithuanian language, is used in the meaning of ‘preaching’ (LKZ VI 1962: 392), but for convenience in this article the above-mentioned pericope will be called “Kosanimi” and not the sermon that follows it. Similarly, elsewhere in the BP, the paraphrase and the sermon have one common title (even when the paraphrase is not present, only the gospel chapter is mentioned, followed by the sermon, e.g. BP I 69-78 or BP I 78-86). 3 In this post, all the perikope are not added; The heading of each sermon indicates the Gospel and its chapter, and the sermon is preceded by only the first sentence or the beginning of the sentence, followed by an abbreviation mark. '* The differences between this Postila and the BNT peripapha and their reasons are described in more detail in the article „The authorship of John Bretkūnas Postila peripaphas: Mt 3,13-17 sources“ (Aleknavičienė 1998). 44 b) in the section “Short claws=||mas ir habit who tu want to || adopt [chventaghi Sacra=||menta Out of the altar. M.M." (E 68,10-21). 4. Martyno Mažvydo Paraphrasis (1589, Jono Bretkūno įdėtas į Giesmes Duchamp ir released together su Kancionalu ir Collectomis; continue — MzP). Since the ši perikopé is special in that it consists of iš 4 passages of the New Testament, this similar fragments we find still in the respective ir Bretkūno versto New Testament places. 1.4. In this article we will try to compare only this one passage, i.e. “Kosanį”, su the mentioned monuments of Lithuanian ar language, prepared Prussia Kunigaikštystėje to Postilei, pasirodant identify the differences and similarities, as far as possible explain the reasons jų for ir pabandyti answering į the question, iš which of the publications listed here could be its main source. The linguistic analysis of differences will be based on 1996-1998 m. Computerized concordances of the word forms of the Postilla, Enchiridion, and in some places of the Gospels and Epistles, prepared at the Lithuanian Language Institute. They were prepared by the staff of the Department of Language History and Dialectology, with the funding of the State Lithuanian Language Commission to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in accordance with the “Program of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania for Use and Education 1996-2005”. Saulius Ambrazas (work manager), Ona Aleknavičienė, Ričardas Petkevičius and Vytautas Zinkevičius (programmer)". The comparative analysis of the texts shows that the Kosanis is closest to one of the texts of Wilens Enchiridion, which is in the form of questions and answers in the chapter “The Sacrament of the Altar...” (E 33), so the relation of the Kosanis to the text of this chapter will be reviewed in detail here. But first it is worth looking at whether Bretkūnas did not rely on the first Lithuanian book —Martinas Mažvydas’s Catechism. 2. Relationship of the Kosanie with the text of Mažvydo Catechism 2.1. A text similar to Bretkūnas Postilas’s “Kosani” was first published in Mažvydas’s Catechism. In the chapter of the fourth part, "Ape Swetalti alba Sacramenta altar...," explaining the meaning of the Eucharist, it is presented as "the true testimony and te/ta=||mentas nogi kieturiu Enangelij[tu paral||/chitas- ". (MŽžK 25,23-25). When comparing these two fragments, the first thing that comes to mind is the inconsistency of the text itself. They usually occur in translated texts when translators use different originals. The fourth part of the Catechism, as proved by “ On the principles of their preparation see footnote 18, as well as Ambrazas, Aleknavičienė, Zinkevičius 1998, where examples of these concordances are given. 45 Christianas Stangas (1929: 6, 179), Mažvydas value iš 1545 m. issued Jano Seklucjano katekizmo Katechismv simple text for simple lvdv wkrolewczv. 1.5.4.5. (hereinafter referred to as — SK), in some places relying on ir Jano Malecki's Catechism Catechismvs to iest. Science Krzescianska... Wkrolewczu 1546 (toliau — MK). Seclusion The catechism is also not the original Polish language it is translated — į from the bilingual Latin German (Niederdeutsch) iš of Martin Luther's Little — Catechism, ir 1531 m. issued Magdeburg, — Latin part (it was translated by Georg Major), taking into account the į very first Latin German 1529 m. ir 1531 m. Wittenberg permits (Neumann 1941: 84). The chapter "Altar Sacrament..." of Wilens Enchiridion is a translation of iš Luther's German Little Catechism. According to Reinhold Trautman (1909: 478-479), the main source of Wilen's Enchiridion is the Leipzig edition of 1543 of ENCHIRIDION Der Kleine Catechilmus. For the common pastor vnd preacher. D. Mart. Luther. Leipzig. (hereinafter —LK), but he may also have used all or some of the Wittenberg editions. 2.2 The comparative texts of the BP, E and MzK generally coincide where the Polish and German originals coincide and are clearly different where the German and Polish originals differ. These differences are evident first of all between MzK and E, and because Bretkūnas followed Wilentus (this will be shown in the following examples and discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of this article), they are also visible between BP and MzK. Here are some fragments of BP and E that do not match the MzK and the corresponding German and Polish originaly'® syntagms that reveal the reason for the mismatch: E 33,4-5 [chito naktie kurio buwa if/chdū=||tas /Eme || dina MzK 26,3-5 [chitage nakteie | kuria || tureia buti ifchdotas \ e=||me dona SK 13,2-3 tei noc3i | ktorei mia? bijc || widan | w3iat chiep BP I 62,12-13 dawe ghiemus /bilodams /|| Take and drink /willi i[ch to E 33,11-13 dawe ghiemus bi=|lodams /Imkite ir gerkite /willi ilch || to MzK 26,13-15 dewe gims \ biladams \ || Gierkiet ich ta wilfij BP I 62,4—6 [chito || naktije kurioie buwa ifchdotas / Eme || dona LK 389 Inn der nacht, da er Verraten ward, Nam er das brod LK 389-90 gab jn den und [prach: Nemet hin und trincket alle dar aus SK 13,12-13 dal ijm \ mowigc ||| pijcie [tego wfsilc3i] * Luther's 1543 Little Catechism (LC) quoted from: Martin Luther. Works. Critical overall edition. Bd. 30(I). Weimar, 1910 (the numbers indicate the pages of this volume), and the Catechism of Seklucijan (1545) from a copy found in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences in 1997 (Baniulienė 1997). 46 BP I 62,16-17 Tadai dariket / || as dafne gerfit on mana memory E 33,16-17 So do it like / dafnes gorge on || my memory MzK so 27,5-7 do as much as kallrtu gier[[it on atminima mana LK 390 Such hut, offt [0 drinks my jr memory 3u tho ciinczie ile kroc3 SK 14,34 bad3igcie pijc \ || na || pamigtke moig BP I 62,15-16 ufz ius will be poured out on / || the forgiveness of the greek E 33,14-16 vich gus || spent will on release / ghrieku || I'm going to 27,3-5 be the one to dismiss the greek iuffu || LK 390 for you will be rewarded 3ur forgiveness of [and SK 14,1-3 3awas ielt wilana od=||pvicenie na grzechow wa=||[chich BP162,11-12 Schitoiu budu eme Kilika po Wecze=|res E 33,10-11 Schitagi budu eme Kilika po We=||c3eres MŽžK 26,12-13 I'll be back soon. pa \ LK 389 Likewise he took the cup after the supper SK 13,10-11 I'm going to give them a cup of wine. | BP 162,12-14 Tas Ki=||likas eltinauias Teltamentas mana || Krauieje E 33,13-14 Tas Kilikas elti nauias Telta=|[- mentas mana Krauieje MzK 26,15-27,1- -2 Tas || kilikas nauies te[tamen=|tas e[ti mana Kraugeie LK 390 Dieler kelch ift das wene teltament jnn meinem blut SK 13,13-15 Ten || Kelich nowij Testament || ieft wmoiei krwij As can be seen from the examples given here, the BP and E fragments usually coincide, but clearly differ from Mažvydas' Catechism, and differ precisely because Mažvydas and Vilentas did not translate from the same originals, and they do not coincide in these places. Because the first sentence in the Secular Catechism has mia? bijc || widan, so Mažvydas translates this place as having to be ilchdoted, while Wilens, having found Verraten ward in Luther's catechism, translates buwa ifchdū = ||tas. Bretkūnas here follows Wilentus and writes buwa ifchdotas. Mažvydas's phrase Gierkiet ilch ta wilTij corresponds to Seklucja- 's pijcie /tego wfilczij, and Wilens's Imkite ir gerkite /willi ilch to corresponds to Luther's Nemet hin und trincket alle noch aus. Bretkūnas here repeats Wilentą exactly. In the MzK fragment on atleidima greku || iullu the pronoun yours has arisen because it is also SK: na 0od=||pvfGcjenie grsechow wa=||(chich, and E (and BP) this pronoun is not present: on atleidima | ghrieku, because it is not present and LK: jur vergebung der funden. The different word order in MzK and E (and BP) is also related to the word order in the respective originals. These obvious text "7 There are more, especially word order, but not all examples are given here. 47 2.7. Be already mentioned acc. s.g. female IFC 26,5, ifchdotas MzK 26,4 ir ifi|ldotas MZžK are 26,9-10, some more examples where the text BP coincides su MZK, but different from the text: E BP I 62,8 Tatai elt Kunas mana E 33,7-8 Tas eft Kunas || mana MzK 26,8-9 tatai efti Kunas mil|na LK 389 That ilt my body SK 14,6-7 toc3 ielt cziato || moie BP I 62,15 where[ai uf ius will be preliated E 33,14-15 kurlai vlch gus || pralietas bus MzK kuriai 27,34 vf5 ius bus ifchle=||tas das fur euch wird LK 390 vergolfen SK 13,15-14,1 which || 3awas ielt villana The tatai in the first fragment of BP and MzK corresponds not only to the Polish roc3, but also to the hoc“ found in all Latin Lutheran catechisms. In the second fragment, BP differs from E, but coincides with the word order of the MZK compound verb form. It should be noted only that in this phrase Mažvydas, although maintaining the word order as Seklucjano, but using the future tense compound passive form of the verb with the past tense passive participant will i/chle=||tas and thereby is farther away from his catechism —in the latter there is the present tense form ielt wilana. Mažvydas here is closer to Jan Malecki's Catechism, published in 1546 in Karaliaučius: ktora za was wylana bę=||dzie MK 10,4-5". In the 1997 copy of the Seklucjan Catechism found in the library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences- ”* this fragment is corrected: the word ie/t is deleted by hand in brown ink, and above it is written będ3ie. Neumann (1941: 17) indicates that the word ieft is also deleted in Karaliaučius's copy of the SK, which he has corrected in red ink * Here and elsewhere there is a comparison with Luther's Latin Little Catechisms, presented in the critical edition of his writings: Martin Luther. Works. Critical overall edition. Bd. 30(I). Weimar, 1910. *" Quoted from Malecki's Catechism reprinted in Neumann's book "Studien zum polnischen frūhreformatorischen Schrifttum" (1941). 32 Daiva Baniulienė tells about its discovery in the article “Upaprastas Mažvydo metų atradimas” in the newspaper “Lietuvos Aidas” No. 162, 1997 08 20. 33 Judging by the descriptions of Stangas (1929: 13) and Neumannas (1941: 7 and 9), the one found in Vilnius is not the one they mentioned, but another: the only surviving copy kept in the library of the Karaliaučius State Archives before the Second World War was bound together with four other publications of different content and format, volume No. 784. II. 1998-1999 Furthermore, in the text of this copy and 54 Janas Maleckis. In his other hand (no Jano MaleckioTM) and other ink on the top is also written będzie. The two records from which period ir ar in both copies made by hand, still ta to be determined. When ie/t corrected bgdsie, į Mažvydo 0 versta will be deviating from Secular, but approaching the Malecki, shows that Mažvydas here may be taken into account į Malecki's remarks on the Seclusion "About the Cato Institute and Other Sources". In Luther's Latin Minor Catechisms we usually find the presens indicativi passivi form effunditur, in German vergolfen wird. The word order of Kosanie differs from the word order of Wilens Enchiridion, which corresponds exactly to the German version ir su Mažvydas. 2.8. Given the į abundant differences between ‘Kosanies’ ir Mažvydo Catechimo sm of the text 4 contained in the section ‘Monkeys Swetalti alba Sacramenta altariaus...“, it is concluded that it cannot be considered the main source of the Kosanie, but this text of the first Lithuanian book may have been used by Bretkūnas as an additional source. 3. The relationship of “Kosanies” with the section “S30dz7ei ape S. Weczere...” of Mažvydo Gesmių Chriksczoniskų Part II 3.1 The second book in which a text similar to Kosanis is printed is part 11 of Mažvydo Gesmių Chriksczoniskų, published in Vilnius in 1570. In the section at the end of it, "Catechilma praltas Textas", there is a section entitled "S30d3ei ape S. Wec3e=||re Pona Ielaus Chriltaus /taip || rafcha S. Ewangeliftai S. Matth. 26 || S. Mar. 14. S. Luc. 22. s. || Pawilas. 1. Cor. II. || Paguldimulu- ." (MzG 633-634). Who put this section — Mažvydas himself or Vilentas — is not yet determined. Gerulis (1922: XXV) was inclined to believe that the prose part of the hymnbook was added by the composer himself: "So much liturgical prose is written in the margins in red ink with many corrections and critical remarks, and on the first pages there are entries of different handwriting. The Vilnius Catechism, although it has the same signature No. 784. II. 4° (written in pencil on the inside of the cover and again on white paper and glued on the back, only with the last number “4” peeling off), is bound with 5 editions of different formats from the 18th and 19th centuries (2 of them — the first and second — the same 1808 editions). It contains only one correction, which has already been mentioned, i.e. ie/t has been deleted with two strokes of brown ink and bgdzie SK 14,1 is written at the top. One more word —laffka SK 11,13 is also with 2 strokes and, apparently, with the same ink, only a little brighter, erased, but nothing is written. Stanisław Rospodas (Seklucjan 1979: 29) also mentions that the copy with Malecki’s corrections was in the State Archives of Karaliaučius before the war, but does not describe its further fate. It is possible that the Catechism of Seclucianus, kept in the library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, is the only known original. ** According to Stango (1929: 15), Janas Maleckis corrected ie/t to bgdjie in the above-mentioned copy. * Stangas (1929: 12-16) gives more examples where Mažvydas differs from Seklucijan, but coincides with Malecki. 55 the hymnal books stuffing Mažvydas wanted to fill the missing place in the Lithuanian agenda." Vaclovo Biržiškos (1960: 86) opinion, the 1566 m. second part of the hymn was composed by himself He has also published a collection of ir his older writings. However, he does not rule out the possibility that by šį releasing the collection ir Vilentas "a certain part of itself added, though his own, ne but other work, possible object, found also "Little Letters- ". There are 56 differences between the Bretkūn's passage and the text of this hymn. “S30d3ei ape S. Weczere..- .” differs significantly from the text of “Kosanies” and from the text of Mažvydo Catechism. Several differences between the text of the Kosanie and the text of this hymn may indicate that the latter has some connection with the text of the MzK and its main source, the Catechism of Seclucianus. A clear trace of translation from the Polish original remains in the first sentence: BP I 62,4—6 [chito || naktije kurioie buwa ifchdotas / Eme || dona E 33,4-5 [chito naktie kurio buwa ifchdū=||- tas /Eme || dina LK 389 Inn der nacht, da er Verraten ward, Nam er das brod 589,13-14 [chitoie nakteie kurio tureia bu=||ti /chdūtas /Eme dūna 26,3-5 [chitage nakteie | kuria || tureia buti ifchdotas \ e=||me dona SK 13,2-3 the night3i | ktorei miat beats || widan \ w3iat chtep M2zG tureia bu=||ti ifchdūtas corresponds to MzK tureia buti ifchdūtas and Seklucjano mial bij¢ || widan, and the "Kosanies" buwa ilchdūtas corresponds to E buwa ifchdū = that and Luther was betrayed. Since the sources of this section of the MJG are not identified, it is difficult to say exactly why the "S30d3ei ape S. Wecsere- ..." and "Kosanis" differ in some places. Another MzZG phrase, which does not coincide with “Kosanim”, could also be the equivalent of the Polish Secular Catechism: BP I 62,12-13 dawe ghiemus /bilodams /|| Take and drink /willi ilch to E 33,11-13 dawe ghiemus /bi=||lodams /Take and drink /willi ifch || to LK 389-90 gab jn den und [prach: Nemet hin und trincket alle dar aus MzG 590,2-3 dawe iemus bi=|lodamas: Drink it as you will. MzK 26,13-15 dewe gims | biladams ||| Gierkiet ifch ta wil[ij SC 13,12-13 dat ijm \ mowigc ||| drink [this wfilczij However, this MzG phrase corresponds to the phrase dedit illis dicens, bibite ex hoc omnes in both Luther's Latin Minor Catechisms published in Wittenberg in 1529, and later in his catechisms translated into Latin by George Major (1531) and Justus John (1539). In all of them there are no corresponding words of BP and E in the chapter "Sacrament of the Altar... " Take and, 0 LK Nemet hin und. 56 So it is unclear in ar this case MsG could have been relied on Secular, ar some Latin Lutheran catechism. It is difficult to identify another ir difference between The reason ir for the text of the “Kosanies” BP I 62,8-9 hymn: kurl[ai vich || ius ira iflchdodams E 33,8 kurfai vfch nus būs ifchdūtas who is LK 389 given for you MžG 589,17-18 kurlai v[ch ius bus i/chdūtas || MJžK 26,9-10 kur(fai vf3 jus bus if||dotas SK 13,7-8 which 3awas || bed3ę wijdano MzG bus ifchdiit | matches su MzK will be ifilldotas and będ3ę SK wijdano, tuo tarpu "Kosanies" ira ifchdodams differs from the will E ilchdiitas approaches ir the Latin Luther's Little Catechisms ir The Lk 22,19 Vulture. In this respect, Postilés’s pericope differs from all five Lithuanian comparative texts. (see section 4.4). but 2.6 ir 7.1). 3.2. Nevertheless, most of the sentences of the section included in the hymnbook have already distanced ir themselves from the Polish version, approaching the German Lutheran Catechism and, of course, the Postilles and Texts by Vilentas Enchiridion: BP I 62,16-17 Then do like the / || laurels drink on my memory E 33,16-17 So do it like dafna / does [it's my || memory] ant LK 390 Solches thut, oft [0 trinckt jr meinem 3u gedechtnis MzG 590,6-8 Tatai || darikite /kaip dafsnai gerfite /ant || mana /atminima MzK 27,5-7 tatai darikiet kiek kallrtu gier[[it ant atminima mana SK 14,34 tho cžinczie \ ile || kroc3 bad3zigcie pijC na || pamigtke moig BP162,11-12 Schitoiu budu eme Kilika po We=]|lres E 33,10-11 Schitūgi budu eme Kilika po We=||c3eres LK 389 Del[elbigen gleichen nam er auch den kelch nach dem abendmal MzG 590,1-2 Schitū budu ęme knlika po=|wiec3er3i wal | kelich BP I 62,15-16 bus prelietas /|| ant atleidima ghrieku E 33,15-16 pralietas būs /ant atleidima || ghrieku LK 390 vergollen wird 3ur vergebung der (unden MzG 590,5-6 praletas || buls ing atleidima ghreku MzK 27,3-5 bus ifchle=|tas ant atleidima greku || iullu SK 14,1-3 ielt wilana na od=||pvfcienie grzechow wa=||[chich rtu, išversto pagal 57 As can be seen from iš the examples presented here, instead of the ka || Seklucjano ile kroc3, in || the text of the hymn is like dafni, corresponding to the German. fo often. Places MžK existing will be ifchle=||that (SK ieft 14,1—3 wilana; MK 10,4-5 wylana bę=||dzie) here is a missed buls || (LK is gilded). No longer here In the MžG syntax of ir the personal pronoun fu plural noun your, though It was the ir main source jo of MZK. SK Su the German version usually coincides ir The word order of the MzG text. Of course, in order to identify the true sources of the text printed in Mažvydo giesmynas, a detailed analysis is necessary, but this is not the purpose of this article. 3.3. In some places this text is even more similar to the į corresponding text of Luther's German Minor Catechisms (these places in them iš basically do not differ) ir due to a to slight mismatch su The chapter "Sacrament of the Altar..." of Wilens Enchiridion ir corresponds to the text of Kosanie: BP 162,6-7 dawe paliunti=||nems [awa /bilodams E336 dawe paliuntiniems [awa /bilodams LK 389 piece [a young man and [dust MzG dawe 589,15-16 paliuntinems [awa / || ir hard BP I 62.8 Tatai eft Kunas mana E 33,7-8 Tas elt Kunas || mana 589,16-17 This elt || my kunas LK 389 That ift my body The influence of some Latin source on the text of the hymn is also not to be ruled out here. For example, the first example corresponds to the deditgue discipulis suis et dixit of Justus John's Catechism published in Wittenberg in 1539 (the participium praesentis activi dicens used in other Latin catechisms). 3.4 It is worth noting another MZG fragment, which differs not only from the “Kosanies” and the closest E text to it, but also from the MZK and the German and Polish catechisms: BP I 62,13—-15 Tas Ki=||likas eltinauias Teltamentas mana || Krauieje E 33,13-14 Tas Kilikas e/ti nauias Telta=||mentas mana Krauieje LK 390 Dieler kelch ift das wenen te[tament jnn meinem blut MzG 590,3-5 Tas || eft krauijes mana /Nauia Telta=|jmenta MZK 26,15-27,1-2 Tas || kilikas nauies te[tamen- =|[tas e[ti mana Kraugeie SK 13,13-15 Ten || Kelich nowij Testament || ielt wmoiei krwij MK 10,2-3 Tento kielich jest nowy || testament we krwi moie This sentence corresponds to 58 Since, based on Mazvydas, the German Luther, the Polish Seklucian, as well as ir Malecki's catechisms cannot explain this difference, the gaze is turned again to the Latin ones. į Justo Jono 1539 m. the Latin version of the Catechism: hic est saguis meus novi testamenti. In the meantime BP ir E the existing version iš essentially coincides su with the ir 1529 m. Germanic Latin and 1531 m. Major's translated catechism: Hic calix Novum Teltamentum elt meo in languine (B)TM. 3.5. As can be seen from i$ the examples given here, Vilento 1570 m. issued Mažvydo Gesmių The section 11 “S30d3ei ape” at the end of the Chriksczonisky section inserted in the section “Catechiflma Prafltas Tekstas” S. Wecsere...“ is a sort of compilation, i.e. it consists of sentences based on translations from Polish (or Latin) and German originals. Which is the main source of this text and who added it—Mažvydas himself or Vilentas—is not clear yet (more detailed analysis is needed to determine this), but the surviving traces of translation from the Seklucijan Catechism would indicate that this text has a connection with Mažvydas’ Catechism, so Gerulis and Biržiška’s guesses that Mažvydas himself translated the prose texts and added them to the second part of the hymnal may be justified. However, some aspects of spelling and morphology already coincide with the texts of the two chapters of Wilens Enchiridion. 3.6 Since there are quite a lot of differences between Bretkūnas’s “Kosanies” and the text inserted in part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksczoniskų (about 56, thus also much more than between the “Kosanies” su and the text of chapter E “Sacramentas Altorius...”), in addition, some of them are related to the support of different originals, he cannot be considered the main source of the “Kosanies”. 4. Relationship of the “Kosanies” with the text of the chapter “Sacrament of the Altar...” by Wilens Enchiridion 4.1. In the introductory part of the article (1.4) it was mentioned, and in regard to the relation of the “Kosanies” to the text of Mažvydas’ Catechism, the examples presented (2.2) and some facts (2.3-2.4) have already shown that the “Kosanies” is the closest to the text of Wilens Enchiridion * Since the text under consideration is special in that it consists of the Gospels of the three evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke and the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, the basis of this fragment could not be the same passages of the Bible that tell about the institution of the Eucharist. For example, the identical equivalent in Mk 14:24 is G tolté éotiv vė atpa wou tig Stadnxng; This is my blood of the new covenant. LB This is my blood, the blood of the new tabernacle. Very close and Mt 26,28: G roūro yap ėotiv to aipa thc Stadnxne; This is my blood of the new covenant. LB This is my blood of the new tabernacle. A variant that coincides with BP, E, MzK, LK and SK is found in Luke 22:20: G tolto td motnptov 7 xo Stadnxy év TO alpati wou; This cup is the new covenant in my blood. LB This is the cup, the new tabernacle, in my blood. 59 Chapter 1 ‘Sacramentas The altar..." (E 33,3-17) to the text. Ši BP overlap from jo differs relatively little found — difference23 s; only one iš jų punctuation in word order, no clear text ir discrepancies, one difference in capitalization of nė words, no added words not omitted, so it is very likely that this text ir may have been the main source of the Kosanie. But what is the difference between these relatively small texts? Ar consistent jų discrepancies? What is the jų relationship su between the same language facts in the remaining part of one ir publication and another? In order to answer these questions, it į is necessary to identify the overall usage trends of each distinct language unit in both sources. Therefore, all differences observed between these texts (except for punctuation) are presented here first: Table 3 E BP I naktie naktije 33,4 kurio kurioie 62,5 ifchdū=||tas 33,4 ilchdotas dūna 62,5 dona 33,4—5 paliuntiniem 62,5 paliunti=||nems 33,5 62,6 33,6 62,6—7 Tas 33,7 Tatai nu 62,9 (2x) 33,8; 33,15 ius (2x) 62,9; 62,15 will be ifchdūtas 33,8 ira ifchdodams 62,9 i[chdatas 33,8 ilchdodams 62,9 atminima (2x) 33,9; 33,17 atminimo (2x) 62.10; 62.17 Schitfigi 33.10 Schitoiu 62,11 elti naujas 33,13 eltinauias 62,14 vich ufs 33,14 bus 33,15 62,15 bus pralietas 33,15 62,15 prelietas 62,15 pralietas bus 33,15 bus prelietas 62,15 Tatai 33.16 Tadai 62,16 4.2. The table shows that there are mainly spelling differences. Their number is increased by 3 clear errors in Postila's proofreading: e/tinauias BP I 62,14, prelietas BP I 62,15 and Tadai BP I 62,16. The form prelietas BP is recorded only once, all the forms of the verb pralieti and the verb noun praliejimas are written only with the prefix pra-(there are 17 and 4 of them respectively), the prefix is not noticed as a formant of other verbs and nouns. Anonymous pronoun 60 Tadai (=tatai) was also used only once next to tatai (999x) removed (2x)". 4.3. In this passage, the noun dat. pl. paliuntinems end Bretkūnas, unlike Willent, don't write the soft sign. Forms of the mentioned word su -iems In Postilé, it is not used at all, whereas in pa/(f)iuntinems it is used several times. 8 We do not find su the softness ženklu of the other ir iio root noun moki(n)tinys plural noun, here is moki(n)tinems tik (6x), also for waikeles (2x), pawargulems (2x), nebagelems (2x), fearless (1x), footems (2x), lautems (1x) kt. ir The MinkStumo BP sign is written only before the morphologically spelled plural ending of nouns of the iio root -ams: for brothers (2x), for brothers (1x), for watchers (2x), Giniams (1x), ffodziams (2x) pan. ir Vilento Enchiridione is the one noun messenger plural form of the noun su -iems E 33,6 ir one su -ems E 68,12. In other nouns of this vernacular iio stem, the softness sign is also rare. E There are also the following forms: Wirifchkems E 42,3; Hertikems E 41,18, Igtiewainems E 42,6, fodsems (5x), but warniklcziems E 38,7. No nouns of this root with the morphologically written plural noun ending were found in Enchiridion. So In Wilens’ text, the softness mark is written before the letter in the e word in the case of the subjunctives, although it is rare, but it is not to be considered as a random thing, while in Postilas, the softness mark is not used consistently in the nouns of the ijo-stamp, in which the vowel [a*] is written phonetically after the soft consonant, i.e. by the letter e. nys:17 /i; @ /u; v/u; I | f; and/or. These differences between E and BP are usually regular. For example, in the 4.4. Kai kur lyginamuose Bretkūno ir Vilento tekstuose skiriasi tik rašmetext of Enchiridion we find 2 times the graphic variant of the personal pronoun fu plural suffix rus, and in "Kosan" —ius. In the Wilten script, the letter n> denotes the vowels [i], [i"] and the consonant [j] and is common at the beginning, middle and end of words. Bretkūnas does not use it at all at the beginning of the word, in the middle relatively rarely (37x) —usually only in non-Lithuanian place names, asmenvar77 These 2 tatati, apparently, are also considered BP proofreading errors. ** Occasionally, this form of the latter noun is found only in Bretkūno translated New Testament: To the Disciples Mt 16,20, Mt 17,24, but in Mt 14,19 it is already corrected to the Disciples. Here it should be noted that Bretkūnas, correcting his NT, quite often removes the softness mark before the vowels e and ė, especially after the consonants K, g, d, and less often after s and I: ifchkieltas—ilchkeltas Mt 11,25; uGfmokies—-ufmokes Mt 6,4; gieras—geras Mt 1,19, Mt 7,17; pagiend—pagend Mt 5,13; Todiel->Todel Mt 5,23; 6,25; 7,24; 1227; 14,7, Aplieltuolius—Apleltuolius Mt 4,24; [ietu—fetu Mt 13,14; Dwalies—Dwales Mt 1,19; pallieptos—palleptos Mt 6,18. ¥ 1p =y; In Wilens' Enchiridion, both the characters 77 and y are used. 61 in foreign words ir (e.g., gen. s.g. Egrnpto BP I 102,22; Gen. s.g. Tyra BP II 364,15; name. s.g. Snrachas BP I 190,24; acc. pl. Egnpciakus BP I 225,19; Symbolum BP I 71,20; Kryrieleifon BP I 61,18). At the end of the word this letter In the iš postilėje total we 4 find ir times only in the switch bey (BP I 30,13; BP I 46,18; BP II 332,4 ir BP II 466,10). Įvardžio tu in Postila there are no graphical jokių variants, only the form ius (84x). Enchiridion uses the 3 following graphical variants: pus (15x), ius (3x) yus ir (3x)*’, but the most common is the character su 75. Vilento is EE also available in 3 variants: nus (52x), ius (3x) juice ir (1x), but this is the ir most common gus. So Bretquina , Kosanyje" consistently adheres to all The postile is characterized by the 1 absence of a letter at the beginning of ir the word acc. pl. ius raSyme's traditions. 4.5. Rasmens ū'' Bretkiinas didn't take long [vu] mark as Willant in the word will. Dash Over u In the postilla there is an abbreviation mark, which occurs only once in the word cond. 3 pl. paiūk=||tu 'jprasty' BP I 244,9-10. Fordas (1969: 112) form will be time's humility. Postposition of the verb biti in the future tense 3a. form graphic options does not — have it terandama will (309x), o here Enchiridione they are will 3: (9x), will (6x) bulls ir (1x), Euangelijose bei Epistolose — 2: will (74x) bus ir (35x). Thus the BP form found in the pericopy will correspond to the general form of writing throughout Postiléje principle. 4.6. In comparative texts, the 2 preposition for is sometimes used. The first time its spelling BP and E coincide (v/ch E 33,8 and vich BP I 62,8), the second — already differ (v/ch E 33,14 and uff BP I 62,15). This difference is twofold: 1) v /u and 2) [ch writing, but in both cases it is lawful. 1) The letter v at the beginning of a word in Wilens Enchiridion usually denotes the vowel [u]: with v in this position 76 / f examples were found and only one with u (uf5 E 75,10). In the postilla, the v at the beginning of a word is used much less frequently: there are 869 words with u and only 7 with v (5 of 7 are in perikope, 2 in sermon).” The prefix za is also written with u here: in both pericopae and sermons, in the Passions and in prayers we usually find uf; (77x). BP is the only example —and it is in this passage— where the preposition za is written with a lowercase v. *02 of them are on the first E pages (E 2,7 and E 2,15). They were compiled from the 1882 reprint of Vilen Enchiridion by Fritz Bechtel, since the first 4 pages are missing in the copy stored in the Vilnius University Library. Bechtel uses the letter y instead of iy everywhere. “' The diacritic mark above the letters u BP, EE and E is considered a hyphen and not a circumflex (see Bechtel 1882: XVIII, Gerullis 1927: 68-75, Palionis 1967: 25-26 and others), as well as above the letters a, o, i, €, m, n, over which the hyphen BP (as well as over u) is an abbreviation mark. “> Prefixes with a capital V are not included in these figures, because the letter U is neither BP nor E used, and V corresponds to both the vowel [wu] and the consonant [v]. 62 2) The same is true of the ir characters /ch ir 5 relationship in this prefix: all Enchiridion su [ch we find examples, 24 respectiveo su ff — 19, EE ly, are 126 ir 47 examples. In the meantime Postilae ir su [ch is the only example he again in this — passage, o su ff — net 81. So Bretkūnas here su maintains the morphological principle of this prepositional writing with one exception. In this case, the neutralization ir of the word skardusis is consistently gale written skardusis in Postila. Prefix graphic variants frequency in those perikope už that are ir jų BP ir EE (V), in sermons (2), In the Passions (#), ‘Kosanyje’ (k), maldose (m), E ir EE shown in the following table: Table 4 BP E EE V D # k m BP iš total uf 19 44 12 1 2 77 1 0 vich 1(!) 1(1) 22 126 vf 0 16 47 VG 1 3 4 2 0 VS3 2 2 0 0 Thus, the only occurrence of the letters v and /ch in the preposition za in the whole Postilae is one of the facts that indicates that iš Bretkūn may have used this text of Wilentus Enchiridion. In the second paragraph of „Kosanies“ the Vilento v/ch E 33,14 has been replaced with the Bretkūnas usual uff BP I 62,15. Could other texts similar to the Kosani have had an influence here? How is this prefix spelled in them? In the section “S30d3ei ape S. Weczere..- .” of part 11 of Mažvydo Gesmių Chriksczoniskų published by Vilentas and in the section “Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprowimas...” of Enchiridion, we find only the variant v/ch (2x each). Meanwhile, in the Mažvydas Paraphrasis published by Bretkūnas, as in his Catechism, there is vfę in both paragraphs. Thus, the v/ch printed in the first paragraph of the Kosanies is related to the spelling of Wilens and, of course, most of all to the text of Chapter E, “Sacrament of the Altar...”, which differs only slightly from this passage. 4.7. The complex issue of the difference between the characters # and o in the words duona, išduotas, išduodamas already discussed in Chapter 2 2.2 The statement that the letter o in Postilae denotes both the vowel [0] and the diphthong [uo] would not be contradicted by another example of „Kosanie“, > BP uses also the longer variant of this prefix ufju (110x), but its spelling does not vary (and this number also excludes the V. S3u (5x) and Vfu (3x) beginning with the capital V, EE terrace vGunieka 215,4,0 E ufju was not observed at all. 63 Accepted [chventaghi Sacra=|menta Out of the altar. M. M." (E 68,10-21). It explains the meaning of the Eucharist through questions and answers. This passage goes as an answer to the third question, į although it only asks to say »3od3us teltamenta about (chwen=||tarję (wietalti altarus". Jau Fritzui Bechteliui (1882: iv) the idea arose that M.M. may be Martynas Mažvydas's pseudonym, because it was known that He also translatį ed liturgical ir texts into Lithuanian. Bechtel guessed that Willant just re-wrote šį the chapter in his dialect. Jurgis Gerulis (1927: 68) ir Vaclovas Biržiška (1957: 159; 1960: 108) the whole section held by himself Mažvydas extended 1547 m. A section of the Catechism ‘Monkeys Swetalti alba Sacramenta altar...", which Willens printed the iš remaining handwritten manuscript of Mažvydas. 5.2. However, in this The comparative text in the chapter of Enchiridion differs ne significantly only from the ‘Kosanies’ ir E Chapter 2 ‘Sacramentas Altar...", but from ir Mažvydo Catechism corresponding text. It is almost identical su to the one 3 already mentioned in the section of this article 1570 m. issued Mažvydo Gesmių Text of the 11 Chrysczonian part ‘S3od3ei ape S. Wec3ere... " (The text of 589-590), the psalms in the section "Catechisma praltas Textas" at the end of the hymn. They differ only in a few minor spelling points: Ponas E 68,10 — POnas MzG II 633,12; Krnlika E 68,16 — kynlika MzG II 634,1; po wecjeres E 68,16 — powe=||c3eres MzG II 634,1-2; ghiemus E 68,17 —iemus MzG II 634,1; td E 68,18 — to MzG II 634,3; kraurjes E 68,18 — krauijes MzG II 634,4; ius E 68,19 — jus MzG II 634,5; pralietas E 68,19 — praletas MzG II 634,5; ghrieku E 68,20 — ghreku MzG II 634,6 (all the differences mentioned here). Since the 11th part of Chriksczonisky’s Gesmių was published 9 years before Enchiridion, it is possible that Vilentas transferred this text into his catechism from the aforementioned Mažvydas’ hymnal, and not directly from Mažvydas’ manuscript, as Gerulis (1927: 68) and Biržiška (1957: 159; 1960: 108) point out. There are no less than 55 differences between the text of Kosanie and the text of Chapter E, “Short clapping and precociation...”. Since other discrepancies are similar to those between “Kosanies” and the section “S30d3ei ape S. Weczere.- ..” in part II of Mažvydo giesmynas. (see 3.1—3.6), they will not be reviewed here in detail. 6. The Relationship of Kosanie with the Text of Mažvydas Paraphrasis 6.1.The fifth text similar to Postila’s Kosanis, found in publications published before 1591, is in Mažvydo Paraphrasis. Bretkūnas already included this translation, attributed to Mažvydas, in his Giesmes Duchaunas and published it in 1589 together with the Cancioneiro and the Collectos. It is assumed that it was published by Wilens in 1572 or 1574 (Gerullis 1927: 2; 89), but the publication has not survived. Gerulis found that Paraphrasing from the 1558 Prussian agenda "PreuBische Kirchenordnung" 70 (hereinafter referred to as — KO). But, strangely enough, this į A text similar to Kosani is not translated iš by the aforementioned agenda. The same examples cited above here would show that (2.2), ir it is translated ne iš German source. The paraphrasing text is very close to the text of Mažvydo Catechism main source ir jo — Secularized catechism. Here are some phrases showing MžP ir MzK texts similarity ir difference from Prussian agendas and "Kosanies". Since these same fragments of German iš 1543 m. Luther's Little Catechism ir Polish 1545 m. The Secular Catechism has been presented by comparing BP, E ir MZK texts they are not (2.2), repeated here, examples are o added iš The agenda of the session: BP I 62,4-5 [chito || night in which buwa ifchdotas MzP 7,4-5 (the other night it was || supposed to be gone) MzK 26,34 [chitage night \ which || should have been ifchdotas KO 141 in der Night da er betrayed || BP162,11-12 Schitoiu budu eme Kilika po Wecze=|res MzP 8,4-5 Schitūgi budu po Week 10 || Kilika 26:12-13) "Therefore, I say to you, do not be afraid of them. KO 143 DEf([eleven same name || Er also den Chalice / after || the Abendmal BP I 62,12-13 dawe ghiemus /bilodams /|| Take and drink /wil[i ich to MzP 8,5-9,1dawe iems || bilodam / Gierket / i/ch wil[i] to 26,13-15 dewe gims | biladams ||| Gierkiet \ ilch ta wi[[i] KO 143-144 gab jhn den vnd || [prach /Nemet hin vnd | trincket alle daraus BP 162,15-16 ufs ius bus prelietas /|| ant atleididima ghrieku MzP 9,3-5 vf3 ius || bus pralietas ant atleididima Grie=|ku iulu MzK 27,3-5 vf5 ius bus ifchle=|[tas ant atleididima greku iuffu KO 144 far euch vergol=||len wird /sur vergebung || der Sinden BP 162,16-17 Tadai dariket /|| as dafsnai ger[it ant mano atminimo MzP 9,5-10,1-2 Tatai dariket /kiek kar|| tu gier[it ant atmini]jma mana MŽžK 27,5-7 tatai darikiet kiek kal|rtu gier[[it ant atminima || mana KO 144-145 Solches thut || fo offt jhrs trinckt /3u || meinem gedechtnis 6.2. In the text of the paraphrasis the Mazvydas-specific imperative plural 2a of the verb is retained. forms with the formant -ke-: Imket walgiket MzP 7,7, dariket MZP 8,2; 9,5, Gerket MZP 9,1, as well as in his Catechism the preposition uz is written: vf MZzP 8,1; 9,3. But where in Mažvydo Catechism was the Žemaičių verb duoti of the past tense 71 3a. dewe shape (MZK 26,4; 26,14), ten MzP is already a highland dawe (MzP 7,6; 8,5) Instead of the Žemaičių pronoun plural form of the noun gims (MzK 26,14) Paraphrasing the text is high-language iems MzP 8,5. Apart from the paminėtų differencir es in spelling, the text of the MzP differs more clearly from the ICC with prefix vienu only (i/chle=||fas MzK 27,3-4, wilana SK 14,1 — skipped Wave MzP 9,4, LK ir KO) word ir order of a sentence. Word order of this passage MZzP can be changed according to any į Lutetium Catechism or į 1558 m. The Prussian agenda (gal ir į subsequent ones”), but capitalization assumes that the Yi . looked at the agenda: į MzK 26,15-27,1-2 That kilik will || be mine. Kraugeie MzP bag 9,2-3 Kilikas efti novaias Tel[tamen=||tas mana krauieie die=||[er KO 144 Goblet ift the new || Te[tament in meinem || Blood LK 390 Dieler chalice the it te/tament newen jnn my blood 6.3. In a paraphrase, as ir The text is presented in gaidy, but it differs from the su gaidy in the Prussian agendo. ir Apparently, because the text had already been translated once, in addition to being linked to gaidas and sung in churches, Mažvydas did not translate it from German again, but put in the usual, perhaps already memorized version.” 6.4. The number of differences between Postila’s “Kosanies” and the corresponding text ir of Mažvydas Paraphrasis is even greater than between the “Kosanies” and both Wilens Enchiridion- ’s 31558, 1568, 1583 and 1598 editions. In the Prussian agendoes of 1558, 1568, 1583 and 1598, the words and melodies of the liturgical texts are the same, as far as the spelling differs (Hubatsch 1968: 135) * It is a pity that this text of the MzP, as a hymn, has gone unnoticed in Dainora Pociūte’s book XVI-XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės. In the list of 16th-17th-century church hymns of Prussian Lithuania at the end of the book, the first source of the hymn “Ponas mufu Jelus Kriltus” is considered to be the hymnbook of Lazaros Sengstaka, published in 1612 (Pociūtė 1995: 169). It is followed by the abbreviation vert. says that the song is translated, although the original is not indicated, and the abbreviation Vert.? means that the translator is unknown. The author included this hymn in the index of anonymous hymns and assigned it to the 16th-17th century hymns of anonymous origin and unidentified authors (: 178). However, as mentioned (6.3), it was already printed with the psalms in Bretkūno Giesmės Duchaunose in 1589, i.e. 23 years before it was repeated in Sengstako Giesmynas together with the whole Paraphrasis. And there should be no doubt about the authorship of the translation, since the Paraphrasis is signed by the author: “by Martina Mo[wida ilchguldita®. All the more so that it is not doubted that the chapter “Ape Swetalti alba Sa=||cramenta altariaus...” of the 4th part of the first Lithuanian book was written in 1200. (in which this text was first printed) the translator is not Mažvydas. A similar text, only without chord and somewhat closer to the German version, is also found in Mažvydo Gesmių Chriksczoniskų part II (see 3.1), published in Wilno in 1570, and in Wilno’s Enchiridion. Relatively the first source of this hymn (only printed without chord) we could perhaps consider Mažvydo Catechism. Then the year of its printing would be 1547, 0 not 1612 and the 16th century not the 17th. 72 texts and Mažvydo Gesmių The number of II chrysanthemums is — jų estimated to be about 100. 62, about 2,5 times more than this tarp Postile perikopės ir to her nearest text. Enchiridiono These differences are similar to those between ‘Kosanies’ ir MzK: be tų the text itself, Paraphrasis differs from the preserved Žemaitijos BP imperative plurals of verbs 2a. forms (all verbs here 5 have a format "F-104G: The Final už Fight" (PDF). su f-104g.com. v ir -o s.g. dismissal. However, in it, unlike MzK ir BP, we find acc. s.g. down, ifchduut ne su in o, character but su i, also ir Schitū gi, o ne Schitoiu as BP. Due to the large number of differences, especially the text itself inconsistencies, which testify to the existence of different originals of these texts, Paraphrasis, as ir Mažvydo The Catechism could not be the main source of the Kosanie. 7. Kosanie ratio su BNT Lk 22,19 7.1 To verse 19 of the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 22, leads one sentence of the “Kosanies”, which differs both from the closest to it text of the Enchiridion chapter “Sacramentas Altorius.- ..”, and from the MzK, and from all the other Lithuanian Psalms mentioned here: BP I 62,8-9 kur[lai vlch ius ira || ifchdodams BNT Lk 22,19 kurfai ufs ius ira || dodamas E 33,8 kurfai v[ch nus būs ifchdūtas MzK 26,9-10 kur([ai vfž jus bus ifg||dotas MzG 589,17-18 kur(ai v[ch ius bus || ifchdutas MŽžP 8,1-2 kur([ai vfs || ius bus ifchditas BP and BNT Lk 22,19 used the same compound present tense form of the passive kind of verb with the present tense passive participant, only the BP participant is with the prefix ifch-(maybe due to E influence, because here the participant is also with the suffix ifch-E 33,8. The Gospel according to Luke Bretkin translated from the Latin Vulgate. The compound forms BP and BNT correspond to the presens indicativi passivi forma quod pro vobis datur in the Vulgate Luke 22:19. The same version as in the Vulgate is found in the first Latin translation of Luther's Catechism in 1529 and later in the Latin translations of Georg Major and Justus John: quod pro vobis datur. This place is not fundamentally different in Luther's German Little Catechisms: der fur euch gegeben wird, but it can be translated in two ways: the passive present of the process in the passive future of the state (result). 73 ir What source does the author of the Postilla rely on in his — translation? It is difficult to say ar exactly whether the BNT, the Vulgate or any of Luther's Latin catechisms, because they coincide in this respect. From BP ir Only the Polish variant differs clearly from the BNT Maleckium ir Secular catechismSK 13,7-8: s: which jawas will || be taught; MK 9,8-9: who =||re you za have been released. 7.2. Į BNT The Gospel according to In the same verse of ir this Gospel, Luke is guided by the use of the vowel acc instead of uo the diphthong. 0: s.g. Donna, dodamas. As mentioned 2 in the section of this article (2.2), In Kosani, instead of writinguo ma o: acc. s.g. Woman BP I 62,6, ifchdote BP I 62,5, ilchdodam BP 1 62,9, although in the whole Postilae these words are written much more often (3.8 times) with ii. It is also similar to the Mazda MX-5. In the latter we find respectively acc. s.g. female MzK 26,5, ifchdotas MzK 26,4 ir if;|dotas MZK 26,9-10. Whereas: ir BP, BNT in ir this sentence used the compound present tense form of the passive kind of verb with the passive participant of the present time, only the BP participant is with the prefix i/ch-, and MzK is the compound future tense form of the passive kind of verb with the passive participant of the past time, we can assume šį that Bretkūnsu as compared the sentence with his versto BNT Lk 22,19. 7.3.1 Bretkūn may have looked at and changed the word order in another fragment of this verse. Although the word order of BP coincides with MzK, but because of the different prefix used in MzK (:/chle=||- that MzK 27,3-3, corresponds to wilana SK 14,1), this example also more orients to Luke 22:19 BP I 62,15 kurfai ufy ius will be preshed E 33,14-15 kurfai vfch || rus pralietas būs MzK 27,3-3 kuriai vf3 ius will ifchle=||tas BNT Lk 22,19 kurs || ufs ius will be preshed 8. Conclusions Of the 67 evangeliniy and 2 epistoliniy perikopiy in John Bretkūn’s Postilé (BP), 65 evangeliny and 2 epistolinés are the same as in Bartholomew Wilens’ book Euangelias bei Epistolas (EE), but 2 are added by Bretkūn. A similar text to one of them, entitled,,- KOSANIS APE VVACZA-|- re Pono mulu Iefaus Chriftaus, Dienoie | kaledu on Milchparo [akama“ (BP I 62), has been found in four publications published before 1591: 1) Mažvydas’ Catechism (1547; MzK); 2) in part 11 of the Chriksczoniskų Gesmių of Mažvydas (1570; MzG); 3) Wilens' Enchiridion (1579; E), in which it is contained in two chapters: 74 a) ‘Sacramentas Altar as / || t6 Hukinikas [cheimina [awa || pralchcziaulei tur mokyti“ | (E 33,3-17); b) "A short clown's ir habit who wants to tu accept || [chventaghi Sacra=|menta Out of the altar. M.M. * (E 68,10-21) ir 4) Mažvydo Paraphrasing (1589; MzP). 2. The main source of this perikopes is considered to be the chapter of Wilens Enchiridionje The text in "Sacrament of the Altar...". From jo Kosanis differs relatively little: differences are found 23 (mostly in spelling morphology), ir there are no marked text discrepancies, neither added nor omitted words, no difference in capitalization. Kad Bretkūnas used precisely the text in the chapter “Sacrament of the Altar...” of Enchiridion, as the following facts show: a) The short form of the feminine singular pronoun preserved in the Postila perikop [chito; b) exactly the same ratio between the verbs imti, daryti, gerti, valgyti in the 2nd person plural forms of the imperative pronoun with the Upper Lithuanian and Lower Lithuanian formants (both texts contain 5 of the same forms with -ki and 1 with -ke-), although in all of Postila the Lower Lithuanian formant -ke is more common in these words (table 1 shows this); c) those fragments of this passage which essentially coincide with the corresponding fragments of this chapter, although Wilens, in translating them, is somewhat distant from Luther's Little Catechism (1543). There are spelling and lexical facts characteristic not only of the Enchiridion chapter „Sacramentas Altorius.- ..“, but also of the text of another Enchiridion chapter „Strumpas klaulimas ir prieprowimas...“ and of the chapter „S3od3ei ape S. Wec3ere.- ..“ of the 11th part of Mažvydo Gesmių Chriksczoniskų published by Wilento: (a) writing v and [ch in the prefix after: vich BP I 62,8, although ufj is usually used throughout Postila and vfch is used only in “Kosani” (this is reflected in Table 4); b) time adverb often, also found only in “Kosani”, although throughout Postila the frequency and repetition of action is described by time adverb densely. The differences between the text of the Kosanies and the text of the Enchiridion chapter “Sacramentas Altorius.- ..” show that Bretkūnas consistently brought the spelling and morphology closer to that typical of Postilas: wrote acc. s.g. ius BP I 62,9; 62,15, not us as E 33,8; 33,15; bus BP I 62,15, not būs as E 33,15; uff BP I 62,15, not vich as E 33,14; notije BP I 62,5, not naktie as E 33,4; kurioie BP I 62,5, not kurio as E 33,4. 4. The other Lithuanian texts mentioned above cannot be considered the main source of the Kosanie for the following reasons: a) there are numerous differences in spelling, punctuation, phonetics and morphology (about 80 in total) between this passage and the corresponding text of the Mažvydas Catechism, as well as marked text discrepancies related to different translation originals. However, he may have had some influence on Bretkūnas. This would indicate writing the letter o instead of uo (<ide *06) in words acc. s.g. dona, ilchdotas, ifchdodams, also perhaps and tatai var15 toying in place Vilento "Sacramentum altaris..." in the Enchiridion. b) between ‘Kosanies’ ir Willen's Releases Mažvydo Gesmių The section in 11 the Chriksczonian part ‘S30d3ei water S. Wecz3ere..." are less ne than differences. 56 These texts differ mainly in that the latter is composed of sentences iš based on translations of Polish iš Secular and German Luther's Catechisms ir from another unknown source. c) between ‘Kosanies’ ir Vilento In the Enchiridion, in the chapter "Short prayer ir premonition...", there are noticeable differences in 55 the printed text. Since the latter is very close to the aforementioned section of Mažvydo hymn, the text discrepancies between "Kosanies" ir of the second The text of Enchiridion is the same as between The "Kosanieir s" section of the hymn mentioned. d) Mažvydo Paraphrasing (MžP) text is close to the text of Mažvydas Catechism, but is significantly different from "Kosanies" — between jų found 62 differences, some jų (Zealandic imperative plural of verbs 2a. formant -ke-, prefix vf, gen. s.g. memory) similar as between this Postillary pericopes ir Mažvydo Text of the Catechism. 5. Bretkūnas, when writing Kosanis, might have looked at his own ir į Luke 22:19, because both in „Kosanij“ and in the BNT the same compound form of the present tense passive form of the verb (iz)datni with the present tense passive participant ira ifchdodam is used, and in Enchiridion and Mažvydo Katekizme —the compound form of the future tense passive form with the past tense passive participant būs ilchdiitas, will idotas, corresponding to the German and Polish original. Bretkūnas’ New Testament, like Mažvydas’ Catechism, may have been influenced by the use of the letter o instead of uoTM, as well as by changing the word order of one fragment. Sources BPI -Bretkūnas J. 1591: POSTILLA Tatai elti Trumpas ir Prafltas Ifchguldimas Euangeliu /[akamuiu Bafnicjoie Krik[chczionifchkoie /nig Aduento ik 55 Note. After the article was prepared for publication, attention was drawn to the fact that the diphthong [uo] is written with the letter o, not with the character šį, in other Postila perikopes as well. All BP pericopes are printed in a larger font (-18 points) than the sermons and may not have had this font mark in the printing press a. “ I sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Zigmantas Zinkevičius and habil. dr. Sauliui Ambrazui for valuable editorial comments, Vilijai Gerulaitienei for translation of the abstract into German, Audronei Stanislovaitienei and Vytautui Zinkevičiui for constant assistance in working with philological works on the computer. 76 BPII - BNT - EE +- LK - MK - My lawyer. For wool Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebona Kingfishers Try it. Iffpaude Karaliaucsiuie Turgis Ofterberger. Mata Pono 1591. Bretquina J. 1591: Postilla tatai elti Trump ir Prafltas Ifchguldim Euangeliu / [akamuiu Bafynichoye Krik[chcsionilchkoie / nig Weliku ik I'll be there. Per [ana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebona Karaliaucziuie Proof-up. If[paulta Karaliaucsiuie / Iurgio Ofterberger. Mata Pono 1591. Bretkin J. 1580: NAVIAS Wills and Testaments. Ing Lietuvilchka Lielsuwi perrafchitas. by Ilana Bretkuna Labguwos Plebon. 1580. Quoted from: NAVIAS WESTAMENTAS Ing Lietuvilchka Great house perralchitas. per wool Bretkuna Labguwos Plebon. 1580. DAS NEW TESTAMENT in the Lithuanian Language translated by Johann Bretke, Pastor zu More 1580: Facsimile of the Handwriting, band and 7 8, More i. Ms. 1580. Hrsg. of J. D. Range and Fr. Scholz. 1991. Paderborn-Miinchen-Vienna—Ziirich. Vilentas B. 1579: ENCHIRIDION Catechifmas mafjas /del palpalitu Plebonu ir Ko3znadiju / Wokilchku liefjuwiu paralchits per Doctor. Martina Luther. O ilch Wokilchka liefuwia on Lietuwilchka fully and faithfully pergulditas /per Baltramieju Willentha Plebona Karaliaucjuie on Schteindama. Ifch[pauftas Karalauc3ui per Iurgi Ofterbergera /Metu Diewa M. D. LXXIX. Vilentas B. 1579: Euangelias bei Epiltolas /Evangelies and Epistles [kaitomolfias /Bafsniczofu Chrik[c3onilchkofu /fully and faithfully transferred on Lietuwilchka S3od3ia /through Baltramicju Willenta /Plebona Karalauczui on Schteindam. At the end of the enclosure is Hiltoria about the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ by Iefas Chriftaus according to Euangelilt. Ifchlpaultas Karalauc3ui per Iurgi Ofterbergera /Metu M. D. LXXIX. Luther M. The New Testament Deut3fch. Vuittemberg. 1546. "Luther M. Werke". Critical overall edition. The New Testament Bible. Bd. Weimar, 1929. The numbers indicate the pages of this volume. Luther M. 1543: ENCHIRIDION The Little Catechism. "Luther M. Werke". Critical overall edition. Bd. 30". Weimar, 1910. The numbers indicate the pages of this volume. Malecki J. 1546: Catechismvs to iest. The Christian Doctrine from the Apostles to the Common People in three volumes closed, and with other parts belonging to the thesis of Christian Science, from the Latin game diligently translated. Byz Jan Malecki S. [...] VV Krolevvezv. M. D. XLVI. Quoted from: Neumann F.W. 1941: Studies on the Polish Frithreformer literature. T. 1: Die Katechismen von 1545 und 1546 und die Polemik zwischen Seklucyan und Maletius. Leipzig. Mažvydas M. 1547: CATECHISMVSA PRAI[ty Szadei, Mak(las [kaitima ralalhta yr gielmes del krik[c3ianiftes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey [ugulditas KARALIAVCZVI VIII. dena Menefes Saulia, Metu vfsgimima Diewa. M. D. XLVII. This and all other works of Mažvydas are quoted from: Martynas Mažvydas 1993: The Catechism and Other Writings. Vilnius. 1570 Mažvydas M.: GESMES Chrik[c3zonilkas gedomas bafsniczolu per Welikas ir Sekminias ik Aduenta. Ifch(paultas Karalauc3ui /nig Iona Daubmana. Meto Gods / M. D. LXX. 1589: Paraphrasis. Permanitina poteraus malda /by Martina Molwida ifchguldita. [Kings of Lithuania, 1589]. 77 KO - PreuBische Church law 1558: Quoted from: Hubatsch W. History of the Protestant Church East Prussia. Bd. 3: Documents. 1968, Göttingen. The numbers indicate the pages of this volume. SK - Seculian J. 1545: Katechilmv text profti for proftego lvdv wkrolewc3v. 1.5.4.5. V — Vulgata. Quoted from: Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latin. Stuttgart. G - Greek New A will. Quoted from: Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latin. Stuttgart. LITERACY Aleknavičienė O. 1998: Jono Bretkūno Postilés perikopiy authorship: Mt 3,13-17 sources. In: Baltistica, V appendix. Ambrazas S,Aleknavičienė O,ZinkeviciusV.1998: Historical dictionary of Lithuanian language computerization of ir ancient writings. In: LKK XXXIX. Ambrazas V. 1962: Absolute beneficiary XVI-XVII in a. Lithuanian language monuments. In: LKK V, 3-106. Baniulienė D. Extraordinary Mažvydo discovery of the year. In: The Echo of Lithuania No. 162, 1997 08 20. Bechtel FE 1882: Bartholomew Willent's Lithuanian Translation of the Luther'schen Enchiridions and the Epistles and Gospels, nebst den Variants of the of Lazarus Sengstock besorgten Issue of this Writings. Göttingen. Bezzenberger A. 1893: To the Lithuanian History of literature. In: Notices of the Lithuanian Literary Society. Bd. 3. Hf. 13-18. Heidelberg. Biržiška V. 1953: The History of Old Lithuanian Books. D. 1. Chicago. Biržiška V. 1957: The History of Old Lithuanian Books. D. 2. Chicago. Biržiška V. 1960: Alexandria: Biographies, bibliographies, biobibliographies of ancient Lithuanian 1865 writers who wrote before 1900. ir T. 1: XVI-XVII centuries. Chicago. Bretkūnas J. 1983: Selected Writings. Prepared by J. Palionis ir J. Žukauskaitė. Vilnius. Dini P 1994: The Hymn of St. Ambrose by Martynas Mažvydas: A philological-linguistic study of the ancient Lithuanian text (1549) and its Latin and Polish sources. Rome. Dini P 1996: About J. Gerulis —Mažvydo (GA, MPr) publisher. LKK XXXVI. Vilnius. Falkenhahn V. 1941: The Lithuanian Bible Translator Johannes Bretke and His Helpers: Contributions to the Cultural and Church History of Old Prussia. Konigsberg (Pr) and Berlin. Fo r d G. 1969: The Old Lithuanian Catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579): A Pfonological Morphological and Syntactical Investigation. The Hague—Paris. Gerullis J. 1922: Mažvydas The oldest monuments of Lithuanian language up to 1570. Kaunas. Gerullis J. 1927: Old Lithuanian Readings. Part I: Texts with introductions. Kaunas. 1973. pp. 37. "The History of the Land". Vilnius. Hermann E. 1923: Remarks on the Old Lithuanian Writings in Prussia. In: Journal of the American Society of Physics. Philology historical class. Göttingen. Hermann E. 1926: Lithuanian Studies: A Historical Study of Weakly Emphasized Words in Lithuanian. Berlin. Heussi K. 1991: Compendium of Church History. 18 up. Tübingen. Hubatsch W. 1968: History of the Protestant Church in East Prussia. Bd. 3: Documents. Göttingen. KBI 1997: Lenzenweger J. et al. History of the Catholic Church. T. 2. Vilnius. Kleinas D. 1653: Grammatica Litvanica... by Regiomonti. Cited from: First Lithuanian Grammar 1957. Prepared by T. Buchiené and J. Palionis. Vilnius. Koženiauskienė R. 1990: 17th-18th century talks and dedications. Vilnius. 78 JJuxaues HIM. 1983: Texcmonozua: Ha mamepuane pycckoti numepamypti X-XVII hero. LKA II 1982: Atlas of the Lithuanian language. T. 2: Phonetics. Vilnius. LKA III 1991: Atlas of the Lithuanian language. T. 3: Morphology. Vilnius. LKŽ VI 1962: Dictionary of the English Language. T. 6. Vilnius. LLICh: Chrestomacy of Lithuanian Literature Historiography (up to m.) 1940 Prepared by L. Gynecomastia. Vilnius, 1988. Luther M. 1910: Works. Critical Complete edition. Bd. 30'. Weimar. Luther M. 1929: Works. Critical Complete edition. Die German Bible. Bd. 6. Weimar. Michelini G. 1995: Over die Position of the Object in of the To the mail by Bretcoon. In: Analecta Indoevropaensia Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dicata. Krakow. S. 249-256. NBL 1997: New Bible Lexicon. Delivery II. Obadja — Oudschu. Edited by Manfred Gorg, Bernhard Lang. Zürich and Düsseldorf. Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. 3. neubearb. Aufl. Stuttgart. Neumann E W 1941: Studies on the Polish Free Reformation literature. T. 1: Die Katechismen von 1545 und 1546 und die Polemik zwischen Seklucyan und Maletius. Leipzig. Palionis J. 1967: Lithuanian literary language in the 16th-17th centuries. Vilnius. PLKG: The First Lithuanian Grammar. Prepared by T. Buchienė and J. Palionis. Vilnius, 1957. Pociūtė D. 1995: Protestant Church Hymns of the 16th-17th Centuries: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania ir Prussians Lithuania. Vilnius. Range J. 1992: The Bretke-Edition: A Commentary on the Bretke-Edition (NT). Paderborn-Miinchen-Vienna-Zurich. Rhesa L. 1816: History of the Littau Bible. Königsberg. 1995. "The Morphology of the Baltic Languages". Vilnius. 1992. Dictionary of Religion. Vilnius. Salopiata P 1929: The Relationship of the Gospel Texts in the Oldest Catholic-Lithuanian Print. Göttingen. Seklucjan J. 1979: Selected Writings. He completed, developed and scientifically preceded S.Rospond. Pojezierze—Olsztyn. Skvireckas J. 1991: General Introduction to the Holy Rasta. Holy Scripture. Old A will. T. 3. P. 439-505. Stang Chr. 1929: The Language of the Lithuanian Catechism by Mažvydas. Oslo. Trautmann R. 1909: The Ouellen of the three Old Prussian Catechisms and the Enchiridion of Bartholomaeus Willent. Altpreussiche Monatsschrift. Bd. 46. Konigsberg. 1996: The Making of a Short Story. Vilnius. WP: Wolfenbüttel's crib. Published by J. Karaciejus. Vilnius, 1995. Zieger A. 1967: Researches and Sources on the Church and Cultural History of East Germany. Bd. 5: Religious and Church Life in Prussia and Courland in the Mirror of the Protestant Church Orders of the 16th Century Jahrhunderts. Edited by Bernhard Stasiewski. Cologne Graz. Zinkevičius Z. 1987: The History of Lithuanian Language. Volume 2: Until the First Writings. Vilnius. Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology: Comparative phonetics and morphology of dialects. Vilnius. 79