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

Ona Aleknavičienė

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXIX (1998)

Ona ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas

**THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PERICOPES IN JONAS BRETŪNAS’S POSTILĖ:**

Sources of the “Kosanies”

1. The question of authorship of the pericopes in Bretkūnas’s Postilė¹

1.1. Liudvikas Gediminas Rėza was perhaps the first to mention in Lithuanian literary historiography that Jonas Bretkūnas compiled the Postilė (1591, hereafter BP) on the basis of Baltramiejus Vilentas’s translation of the book Euangelias bei Epistolas (1579, hereafter EE). In Geschichte der litthauischen Bibel (1816: 9), surveying the history of the translation of the Bible and other religious writings into Lithuanian, he noted in a footnote that, owing to a shortage of educated men, priests could not be assigned to every parish, and it therefore became particularly necessary to have a collection of sermons that could be read in churches. Jonas Bretkūnas took care of this and published a postil based on Vilentas’s translations of the Gospels². Later scholars of our early writings also drew attention to this: Adalbert Bezzenberger (1893: 128), Eduard Hermann (1923: 119–20), Jurgis Gerulis (1927: 110), and others. They also tried to explain why Bretkūnas wrote sermons based on Gospels and Epistles translated by another author, although he himself had translated the entire New Testament 11 years earlier (translation completed in 1580, hereafter BNT).

¹Greek ἡ περικοπή ‘extract’; περικόπτειν ‘to trim, cut, or clip around’. The concept of the pericope is not attested in the Bible. Pericopes began to be marked as extracts from the Bible read during Christian services only in the sixteenth century. Justin was the first to use the term to refer to a biblical extract (NBI 1997: 113). Specially published liturgical lectionaries consist of pericopes (RŽ 1991: 292). The first Lithuanian lectionary of this kind was Baltramiejus Vilentas’s Euangelijos bei Epistolos, published in Königsberg in 1579.

² Rhesa 1816: 9: „Da nicht bey allen Gemeinden, wegen Mangel an wissenschaftlich gebildeten Männern, Pfarrer und Prediger angestellt werden konnten, so war es wohl höchst nothwendig, ein Homiliarium oder eine Predigtsammlung […] zum Ablesen in den Kirchen, zu veranstalten. Janus Bretke sorgte auch dafür, indem er zu den Evangelien von Willentus eine Postille […] im Jahr 1591 herausgab“.

1.1.1. Considering what might have prompted the compiler of the Postilė to set aside his own texts, Eduardas Hermannas (1923: 119–120) suggested that perhaps he considered Vilentas’s Lithuanian translation better than his own, and was therefore inclined to regard this fact as even one of the arguments indicating that Bretkūnas was German rather than Lithuanian. In his view, the language of these texts should also be more reliable than that of the sermons, since it is unclear what was translated and what was written by the author himself, whereas the pericopes are based on the translation by Vilentas, who was from Lithuania. These latter two claims may be subjects of lengthy discussion and research, but we cannot entirely dismiss Hermann’s suggestion that Bretkūnas doubted his own translation. The entire manuscript of his Bible translation, especially the New Testament, covered with corrections of various kinds, attests that Bretkūnas continually sought a more suitable word or phrase and often could not decide between alternatives. Even in the Postilė we find variants given in parentheses, or words and phrases further explained in other words, usually introduced by the conjunction alba and the phrase tatai elti. Perhaps doubting the adequacy of his work, or perhaps influenced by Martin Luther’s example, Bretkūnas himself asked experienced theologians well versed in German and Lithuanian to assess the Postilė he had prepared. The State Council conveyed this request to Georg Friedrich in a letter dated 1589 10 14³, and the duke appointed several priests for this purpose. The participants at the conference convened in Ragainė on 1590 05 13 had already expressed their opinion of this collection of sermons in a letter to the duke dated 1590 06 01. They wrote that they had openly shared with the author their concerns about the content and style of the Postilė, and that Bretkūnas had willingly agreed not only to revise the manuscript himself but also to allow the proofreaders to do so⁴.

The entire Bible had not yet been translated at that time—the last books were completed on 1590 November 29. A conference on the publication of the Bible was convened only on 1592 09 20. Its participants, naturally, wanted this book, so important to Protestants, to be printed as soon as possible, but by then the consistory wanted Bretkūnas to have the translation checked. In a letter dated 1593 05 18, he writes that he has already reviewed it and hopes that the duke, taking advantage of “the services of others, more numerous and more proficient in Lithuanian, with me participating, will order it to be fully prepared for printing and […] printed” (emphasis mine – O.A.). This shows that even in 1593 Bretkūnas himself still regarded his Bible translation as not yet finally prepared or suitable for printing. In later letters to the duke (1595 07 11, 1598 12 10, 1599 09 19), he repeatedly asks that the manuscript be “handed over to others who know this non-German language better, or who are otherwise more abundantly […] endowed by God with talent, to correct it” (Bretkūnas 1983: 324), and, if the translation should prove unsuitable, returned to him

³ Ištrauką iš šio laiško pateikia Falkenhahn 1941: 98.

⁴ This is evident from the proofreaders’ letter to the Duke of Prussia dated 1590 06 01 (Falkenhahn 1941: 103–104).

back. In later letters, these doubts may, of course, also have been expressed because he was still waiting for the duke’s decision, while the printing arrangements remained at a standstill. It was only in his letter of 1602 03 01 that Bretkūnas reported having reviewed his work once again and corrected it as far as possible, adding: “I hope that the Lithuanian reader will now be more satisfied with this translation.” Thus, his surviving letters show that he had some lack of confidence in his work and wished to rely on the assistance and advice of other theologians.

1.1.2. When determining the relationship of the pericopes in Mikalojus Daukša’s Postilė (1599) and Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Punktai Sakimų to their Polish, Latin, and Greek originals, Paulius Salopiata (1929: 45–56) also compared them with Vilentas’s Euangelijos bei Epistolos. He is not at all surprised that these texts by Vilentas, though translated by a Protestant, were occasionally also used by the editors of Catholic publications. This, he argues, shows that Vilentas’s book enjoyed considerable authority—for Bretkūnas, too, places texts translated by Vilentas, rather than his own, before the sermons. However, accounts of Vilentas’s translation in the historiography of Lithuanian writing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are not so favorable. For example, the “General Decree” (1639), in discussing the preparation of Lithuanian writings, emphasizes the necessity of printing Bretkūnas’s New Testament, since its publication “would also provide and make available the Sunday Gospels and Epistles, which are otherwise printed in the books of Gospels and Epistles⁵ in a very poor translation” (LLICh: 15). Theodor Lepner, in Prūsų lietuvis (1744), written around 1690, likewise believes that, for the same reason, at least the New Testament translated by Bretkūnas should be made available to the public: it would include the Gospels and Epistles, since “the old books of Gospels and Epistles are translated very inaccurately and awkwardly” (LLICh: 22). On the other hand, both sources state that copies of the Euangelijų bei Epistolų were worn out and sold out, that none remained in bookshops and they could no longer be obtained (LLICh: 15, 22). This could therefore indicate that Vilentas’s book was much needed by priests and popular. Having it meant they no longer needed to translate biblical texts and expressions into Lithuanian themselves⁶. Moreover, it was widely known that, before printing, the translation had been reviewed by priests proficient in Lithuanian (the author writes about this in the preface to EE⁷). The translator of the Reformed postil of 1600 (known as Morkūnas’s postil) and the editors of some Catholic publications later made use of this book.

1.1.3. Vaclovas Biržiška (1953: 160; 1960: 110) explains Bretkūnas’s reliance on Vilentas by the fact that the first Gospels and Epistles published in Lithuanian

⁵This refers to Vilentas’s EE and Lazarus Sengstock’s slightly revised reprint of them from 1612.

⁶ Tokią praktiką dar mini Ch. Hartknochas „Preussische Kirchen-Historia“ (1686), žr. LLICh: 20.

⁷ EE: III “[...] this translation was approved by the most experienced experts in that language and specialists in this field, and a careful collation of the texts will demonstrate this.” (Koženiauskienė 1990: 86).

were immediately declared official texts to be read in the churches of the Duchy of Prussia. A conference of priests held in Ragainė sought to expedite the publication of Bretkūnas’s Postilė, wishing to prevent Lithuanian Catholic books from spreading. Funds were therefore found quickly, and it was printed as early as 1591 in a much larger print run than other books. In Biržiška’s view (1953: 142), “in printing […] Bretkūnas’s text was altered only to the extent that the corresponding Gospel texts from Vilentas’s 1579 Gospels were inserted in place of the Gospel texts translated by Bretkūnas himself.” This claim is not supported by any documents and does not seem very credible, since there are quite a number of discrepancies between the pericopes in BP and EE. Some pericopes in EE and BP differ in the number of verses: for example, EE omits part of verse 36 in Lk 1:26–38, whereas BP includes it; EE assigns Lk 1:39–55 to one Sunday, while BP has Lk 1:39–56, and thus one additional verse. On the other hand, places have been found where BP has half a verse less than EE: Jn 16:26, Mt 9:4, Mt 7:18, although these parts of the verses are also present in BNT. In several places the meaning of the sentence differs: Acts 2:3, Lk 5:9, Lk 8:13, Jn 6:11, Jn 10:14. Given that biblical passages are read to the congregation before the sermon, Bretkūnas sometimes adds an explanatory phrase before the first verse (e.g., Jefus biloia mokintinium fawa before Mt 5:20), although it is absent from both EE and BNT, or clarifies the agent (writing Jefus instead of ghis, anas). In addition, these EE and BP texts differ considerably in spelling, morphology, lexicon, and syntax⁸. If one text were simply substituted for another, even during printing, so many consistent discrepancies in spelling, morphology, lexicon, syntax, and especially the text itself could not have arisen. Some differences may also have resulted from the conference participants correcting the manuscript themselves and indicating further corrections for the author (as they write in their letter of 1990 06 01 to the Duke of Prussia (Falkenhahn 1941: 103–104)).

Thus, texts from EE may instead have been used when compiling the Postilė, while Vilentas’s translation was also compared with other sources. This is all the more likely because the sermons contain passages that agree with the text of EE, even though the corresponding passages in the BP pericope itself differ from EE. Vilentas’s book was therefore probably lying on the desk and consulted while the sermons were being written. However, Biržiška’s principal argument—that Vilentas’s texts were recognized as mandatory—can be considered sufficiently well-founded⁹. After all, they had been printed and were therefore readily available

⁸ Vytautas Ambrazas (1962: 34) has examined how Bretkūnas sometimes replaced Vilentas’s subordinate clauses with the dative absolute and what influence the originals—that is, Luther’s Bible and the Vulgate—had on this.

⁹ The need to harmonize the biblical texts and expressions included in a postil with texts recognized by the Church is also attested by J. Quandt’s introduction to Christiano Langhanzen’s postil, “Trumpas ir prastas išguldymas vissų nedelės ir šventu dienu evangeliu...,” published in Königsberg in 1750. Wishing to provide a new Lithuanian postil (since even at the beginning of the eighteenth century the Sunday and feast-day readings were still taken from Bretkūnas’s collection of sermons, “although narrowly and plainly para-

priests; moreover, before printing, they were approved by “the most experienced experts in that language and specialists in this field.” These Gospel and Epistle readings had already been read in churches for 12 years, whereas the suitability of Bretkūnas’s Bible for printing was still under consideration at the time, with proofreaders’ assessments and suggestions awaited.

1.2. Salopiata (1929: 45) maintains that the Postilė pericopes correspond almost exactly to Vilentas’s texts, while Guido Michelini (1995: 250) considers them reprints from EE and therefore insignificant (in his view, when studying the language of the Postilė, they, as well as the sentences inserted into the sermons from them, can be disregarded). However, a more detailed comparison of these texts shows that the question of authorship of the Postilė pericopes is not so straightforward. First, this is not a direct reprint: the BP pericopes are not entirely identical to the corresponding EE texts. Second, the Postilė contains two pericopes that are absent from Vilentas’s EE. Vilentas’s book consists of 94 Gospel and 87 Epistle pericopes¹⁰ (181 in total), whereas BP has 67 Gospel and 2 Epistle pericopes (69 in total). Of these, 65 Gospel and 2 Epistle pericopes (67 in total) Postilė are the same as in EE. Thus, Bretkūnas may have taken 67 of the 181 from this book, mostly Gospel readings¹¹, and added 2 himself.

1.3. Both pericopes not taken from EE were printed in the first part of the Postilė. One of them is composed of the Gospels of the three Synoptic Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and is entitled “KOSANIS APE VVÆCŽÆ-||re Pono muſu Ieſaus Chriſtaus, Dienoie || kaledu ant

—writer”), he was prepared to translate Langhanzen’s postil, but encountered numerous difficulties. The greatest obstacle to his undertaking was the absence of a Lithuanian Bible. Only after publishing the New Testament in 1727 did he commission a priest to review the translation and compare its biblical expressions with the Bible, because the translation was not only imperfect and did not conform to “pure Lithuanian dialect,” but had also not been harmonized “with the Bible prepared and introduced in all the parishes” (LLICh: 40–41).

¹⁰ Senojo Testamento vertėjas į lietuvių kalbą arkivyskupas Juozapas Skvireckas (1991: 448) krikščionių bažnyčiose jau nuo pirmųjų amžių šventadieniais skaitomas Evangelijų bei Apaštalų raštų dalis vadina tokiais lotyniškais terminais: pericopae evangeliorum et lectiones. Čia jos bus vadinamos evangelinėmis ir epistolinėmis perikopėmis.

¹¹ The claim that BP contains no Epistle pericopes should be considered not entirely accurate (cf. Range 1992: 33). The choice to include more Gospel pericopes was probably prompted by the 1570 “Kirchenordnung” provision that reading Epistles in non-German churches was inexpedient. Instead, pastors were advised to read and explain passages from the catechism so that people could learn the fundamentals of faith (Zieger 1967: 66). This directive was intended to help the faithful become better acquainted with Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, or at least its main sections; it therefore places particular emphasis on teaching about the two sacraments recognized by Luther—baptism and the Eucharist (Zieger 1967: 48). He set out his views on the sacraments in the programmatic work for theologians “De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium” (“A Prelude to the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” WA 6, 497–573), written in 1520 (KBI II 1997: 12–13; Heussi 1991: 284). These are precisely the sacraments explained in the pericopes added by Bretkūnas and in the sermons commenting on them.

Milchparo fakama“ (BP I 62)¹². This text should also be regarded as a pericope, since it was intended to be read in church before the sermon, is printed in the same typeface as the other biblical excerpts, and is explained in a sermon 6.5 pages long. The other pericope not taken from EE is Mt 3:13–17, intended to be read on the first Sunday after New Year.

The question arises where these pericopes might have been taken from—some previously published work, or perhaps translated and inserted by Bretkūnas himself. From the appearance of the first Lithuanian writings onward, a tendency can be observed in the Duchy of Prussia to rely on Lithuanian books and manuscripts already available, to take over unpublished works by other authors, edit them, and publish them. It therefore seemed appropriate to search for the relevant texts in translations prepared before 1591 and in works already published by then.

Mt 3:13–17 could not be found in books published before the Postilė appeared. In the first sixteenth-century manuscript collection of Evangelical Lutheran sermons, the Wolfenbüttel Postil (WP, whose transcription was completed in 1573), only the beginning of its first sentence is written¹³. Although the sermon’s title indicates that it may be preached on the basis of the third chapter of the Gospel according to John, in fact it gives the beginning of Mt 3:13 (WP 285a). The full pericope appears only in Bretkūnas’s manuscript translation of the New Testament, but a more detailed comparison of these texts shows that the BP pericope was probably translated anew rather than taken from the BNT¹⁴. By contrast, we find texts resembling the “Kosanis” in at least 4 books and on at least 5 occasions. In order of publication year, they are as follows:

1. Martynas Mažvydas’s Catechismvsa prasty szadei (1547, hereafter MžK).

2. Martynas Mažvydas’s Gesmes Chriks czoniskas, part II (1570, published by Baltramiejus Vilentas, hereafter MžG).

3. Baltramiejus Vilentas’s Enchiridionas (1579, hereafter E); it contains 2 texts:

a) in the section “Sacramentas Altoriaus / kaip ‖ tȏ Hukinikas ʃcheimina fawa ‖ praſchcziaufei tur ‖ mokinti” (E 33,3–17);

¹² The word kozonis sf (or kozonius sm) is used in BP and other old writings, as well as in some present-day Lithuanian dialects, in the sense of ‘sermon’ (LKŽ VI 1962: 392). For convenience, however, this article uses “Kosanis” to refer to the pericope in question, not the sermon that follows it. Similarly, elsewhere in BP the pericope and sermon share a single title (even when the pericope itself is absent and only the Gospel chapter is indicated, followed by a sermon; for example, BP I 69–78 or BP I 78–86).

¹³ This postil does not include all the pericopes; the heading of each sermon specifies the Gospel and its chapter, while only the first sentence or its beginning is written before the sermon, followed by an abbreviation mark.

¹⁴ The differences between the pericope in this Postilė and the BNT, and their causes, are discussed in greater detail in the article “The Authorship of the Pericopes in Jono Bretkūno’s Postilė: Sources for Mt 3:13–17” (Aleknavičienė 1998).

b) in the chapter “A brief question and answer for those who wish to partake of the holy Sacrament of the Altar. M.M.” (E 68,10–21).

4. Martynas Mažvydas’s Paraphrasis (1589, inserted by Jonas Bretkūnas into the Giesmes Duchaūnas and published together with the Kancionalas and Kollectomis; hereafter MžP). Since this pericope is distinctive in that it consists of four New Testament excerpts, similar passages are also found in the corresponding sections of the New Testament translated by Bretkūnas.

1.4. This article will attempt to compare this one pericope, namely “Kosani,” with the aforementioned Lithuanian-language monuments published or prepared in the Duchy of Prussia before the appearance of the Postilei, identify differences and similarities, explain their causes where possible, and try to answer the question of which of the publications listed here may have been its principal source.

The linguistic analysis of the differences will draw on computer concordances of word forms from the Postilės, Enchiridiono, and, in some cases, Evangelijų bei Epistolų, prepared at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in 1996–1998. They were compiled with funding from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, as part of the “1996–2005 Program for the Use and Development of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania,” by staff of the Department of Language History and Dialectology: Habil. Dr. Saulius Ambrazas (project leader), Ona Aleknavičienė, Ričardas Petkevičius, and Vytautas Zinkevičius (programmer)¹⁵.

Comparative analysis of the texts shows that “Kosanis” is closest to one of Vilentas’s texts in the Enchiridiono, in the section written in question-and-answer form, “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” (E 33); accordingly, the relationship between “Kosanies” and the text of this section will be examined in greatest detail here. First, however, it is worth considering whether Bretkūnas drew on the first Lithuanian book, Martynas Mažvydas’s Katekizmu.

2. The relationship of “Kosanies” to the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo

2.1. A text similar to Bretkūnas’s Postilės “Kosani” is first found in print in Mažvydas’s Katekizme. In the section in Part Four entitled “Ape Swetaltį alba Sacramenta altariaus...,” which explains the meaning of the Eucharist, it is presented as “tefiaūfelis liudimas ir tefta=mentas nogi kieturiu Evangelijųtų parapchitas” (MžK 25,23–25).

When these two passages are compared, the discrepancies in the text itself are immediately apparent. In translated texts, such discrepancies usually arise when translators use different originals. The fourth part of the Katekizmo, as was demonstrated by

¹⁵ For the principles underlying their preparation, see footnote 18; see also Ambrazas, Aleknavičienė, Zinkevičius 1998, which also provides examples from these concordances.

Christianas Stangas (1929: 6, 179), Mažvydas vertė iš 1545 m. išleisto Jano Seklucjano katekizmo Katechismv text prosti dla prostego lvdu wkrolewczv. 1.5.4.5. (toliau – SK), kai kur pasiremdamas ir Jano Maleckio katekizmu Catechismvs to iest. Nauka Krzescijanska... Wkrolewczv 1546 (toliau – MK). Seklucjano Katekizmas taip pat nėra originalus – į lenkų kalbą jis verstas iš dvikalbio – lotyniško ir vokiško (niederdeutsch) Martyno Liuterio Mažojo katekizmo, 1531 m. išleisto Magdeburge, – lotyniškosios dalies (ją išvertė Georgas Majoras), atsižvelgiant dar į pirmąjį lotynišką 1529 m. ir vokišką 1531 m. Wittenbergo leidimus (Neumann 1941: 84). Vilento Enchiridiono skyrius „Sacramentas Altoriaus...“ verčtas iš vokiško Liuterio Mažojo katekizmo. Reinholdo Trautmanno (1909: 478–479) nuomone, pagrindinis Vilento Enchiridiono šaltinis yra 1543 m. Leipzigo leidimas ENCHIRIDION Der Kleine Catechifmus. Fur die gemeine Pfarherr vnd Prediger. D. Mart. Luther. Leipzig. (toliau – LK), bet jis gali būti naudojęsis ir visais ar keliais Wittenbergo leidimais.

2.2. The comparative texts of BP, E, and MžK generally coincide when the Polish and German originals coincide, and clearly differ when the German and Polish originals differ. These differences are most apparent between MžK and E, and, because Bretkūnas followed Vilentas (as will become clear from the examples presented below and will be discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this article), they are also evident between BP and MžK. Here are several BP and E fragments that do not correspond to MžK, together with the corresponding phrases from the German and Polish originals¹⁶, which reveal the reason for this discrepancy:

BP I 62,4–6 that night ‖ in which he was betrayed / Eme ‖ bread

E 33,4–5 that night in which he was be=trayed / Eme ‖ bread

MžK 26,3–5 that night \ when ‖ he was to be betrayed \ e=‖me bread

LK 389 In the night when he was betrayed, he took the bread

SK 13,2–3 that night \ when he was to be ‖ betrayed \ he took bread

BP I 62,12–13 gave them / saying / ‖ Take and drink / all of this

E 33,11–13 gave them sa=‖ying / Take and drink / all ‖ of this

MžK 26,13–15 gave them \ saying \ ‖ Drink of it, all of you

LK 389–90 gave it to them and said: Take and drink from it, all of you

SK 13,12–13 gave them \ saying \ ‖ drink from it, all of you

¹⁶ Luther’s 1543 Small Catechism (LK) is cited from: Martin Luther. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 30(I). Weimar, 1910 (the numbers indicate the pages of this volume), while Seklucjan’s catechism (1545) is cited from a copy discovered in 1997 in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (Baniulienė 1997).

BP I 62,16–17 Do this / || as often as you drink, in remembrance of me

E 33,16–17 Do this / as often || as you drink, in remembrance of me

MžK 27,5–7 do this, whenever you drink, in remembrance of me

LK 390 Do this whenever you drink, in remembrance of me

SK 14,3–4 then drink / how often you drink || in my memory

BP I 62,15–16 will be poured out for you / || for the forgiveness of sins

E 33,14–16 for you || will be poured out / for the forgiveness || of sins

MžK 27,3–5 will be poured out for you=||for the forgiveness of your sins

LK 390 will be poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins

SK 14,1–3 the just man is a witness to the =||accusation of sins =||against them

BP I 62,11–12 In like manner, after supper, he took the cup=||

E 33,10–11 In like manner, after supper, he took the cup=||

MžK 26,12–13 In like manner, after supper || he took the cup

LK 389 Likewise, after supper, he also took the cup

SK 13,10–11 Then after supper he took=||the cup

BP I 62,12–14 This cup=||is the new testament in my blood

E 33,13–14 This chalice is the new Testa=||ment in my blood

MžK 26,15–27,1–2 This || chalice is the new testa=||ment in my blood

LK 390 Dieſer kelch iſt das newen teſtament jnn meinem blut

SK 13,13–15 Ten || Kelich nowij Testament || ieſt wmoiei krwji

As can be seen from the examples presented here¹⁷, the BP and E fragments generally agree, but clearly differ from Mažvydas’s Katekizmo, and differ precisely because Mažvydas and Vilentas translated from different originals, which do not agree at these points. Since the first sentence in Seklucjano’s catechism reads miat bijč || widan, Mažvydas translates this passage as tureia buti iſchdotas, whereas Vilentas, finding Verraten ward in Luther’s catechism, translates it as buwa iſchdū=||tas. Bretkūnas follows Vilentas here and writes buwa iſchdotas. Mažvydas’s phrase Gierkiet iſch ta wilſij corresponds to Seklucjano’s pijcie ſtego wſilcžij, while Vilentas’s Imkite ir gerkite / wilſi iſch to agrees with Luther’s Nemet hin und trincket alle dar aus. Bretkūnas reproduces Vilentas exactly here. In the MžK fragment ant atleidima greku || juſſu, the pronoun jūsų ‘your’ appears because it is also found in SK: na od=||pvybžcženie grzechow wa=||ſchich, whereas E (and BP) lacks this pronoun: ant atleidima || grieku, since it is also absent from LK: zur vergebung der funden. The differing word order in MžK and E (and BP) is likewise related to the word order in their respective originals. Such obvious textual

¹⁷ There are further examples, particularly of word order, but not all are presented here.

discrepancies also prompt the conclusion that the text in Mažvydas’s Katekizmo chapter “Ape Swetafti arba Sacramenta altariaus…” could not have been the principal source of the “Kosanies.”

2.3. Quite a large number (about 80) of varied differences have been found between the text of the “Kosanies” and that of MžK. There are nearly 3.5 times as many, and they are considerably greater, than those between this pericope and the text of the “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” chapter in the Enchiridiono (cf. 4.1). Particularly striking are the differing 2nd-person plural imperative forms of the verbs: where Mažvydas’s verb has the typical Samogitian imperative formant -ke-, the verbs in Bretkūnas and Vilentas have the formant -ki-, with only one exception: the same form with -ke- in both editions: dariket in BP I 62,13 and E 33,16, although the first paragraph of these texts had darikite in BP I 62,9 and E 33,9:

MžK

BP I

imkiet 26,7 wal=||gikiet 26,7–8 darikiet 26,10 — Gierkiet 26,15 darikiet 27,5

Imkite 62,7 walgi=||kite 62,7–8 darikite 62,9 Imkite 62,13 ger kite 62,13 dariket 62,16

Imkite 33,7 walgikite 33,7 darikite 33,9 Imkite 33,12 gerkite 33,12 dariket 33,16

A review of the 2nd-person plural imperative forms of these four verbs in both volumes of Bretkūnas’s Postilės showed that these words nevertheless occur more often in it with the Samogitian formant -ke-, and in their shorter rather than longer forms. For example, imket Postilėje occurs 10 times in total, while imkite occurs 6 times; dariket 13 times, while darikite 7 times; walgiket 6 times, while walgikite just once, and only in this pericope. The form gerkite is likewise found only in this pericope (once), whereas gerket Postilėje is recorded three times¹⁸. The frequency of these forms

¹⁸ The data presented here and throughout this article were calculated on the basis of computer-generated concordances of word forms in the Postilės, Enchiridiono and, in some cases, the Evangelijų bei Epistolų. In compiling the concordance of word forms in the Postilės, account was taken of the fact that this book comprises verse and partly original text fragments, as well as of the fact that their authorship is associated with different names. When the text of the Postilės was entered into the computer, the pericopes and their excerpts printed in the same typeface in the sermons were marked with special signs. Thus, the concordance shows which word forms come from BP pericopes also found in Vilentas’s EE (in their metrics, the sign ∇ follows the line number), which are from the “Kosanies” (the letter k in the metrics), Mt 3,13–17 (the sign ◊), prayers (the letter m), and the “Passijų” (the sign #). Words from the sermons have no sign; in the tables, sermons are marked Ø. This makes it possible to carry out a fairly reliable statistical analysis of the distribution of words and their forms in the BP text, which has such a complex structure. A small margin of error is possible because of proofreading errors, especially at the beginning of a word, which may consequently be assigned in the concordance under a different letter of the alphabet

The figures presented in this table show the distribution across various BP fragments, i.e., those pericopes that also occur in Vilentas’s EE (▽), the „Kosanyje“ (k), sermons (∅), the „Passijose“ (#), and E and MžK¹⁹:

Table 1

BP | E | MžK | ∇ | ∅ | # | k | BP total | | imket | 3 | 5 | 2 | | 10 | 0 | 0 imkite | | 2 | 2²⁰ | 2 | 6 | 7 | 0 imkiet | | | | | 0 | 0 | 3 walgiket | | 4²¹ | 2 | | 6 | 0 | 0 walgikite | | | | 1(!) | 1(!) | 4²² | 0 walgikiet | | | | | 0 | 0 | 1 dar iket | 2 | 8²³ | 2 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 0 darikite | 2 | 4²⁴ | | 1 | 7 | 7 | 0 dar ikiet | | | | | 0 | 0 | 3 gerket | | 2 | 1 | | 3 | 0 | 0 gerkite | | | | 1(!) | 1(!) | 4²⁵ | 0 gerkiet | | | | | 0 | 0 | 1

As can be seen from the figures in the table, Mažvydas’s Catechism uses only forms with the formative -ke- (written -kie-). In the Postil, too, in almost all text fragments, the Samogitian 2nd-person plural imperative form of these verbs is more frequent: it contains 32 examples with the formative -ke- and 15 with -ki-, i.e., Samogitian forms outnumber Aukštaitian forms by about 2.1 to 1.

letters, or when it has become, through error, the second component of a word written together in BP. This error can be corrected with the help of a reverse concordance of word forms (prepared in 1998). It is very useful for investigating morphological features. This article will also draw on computer-generated concordances of word forms in Vilentas’s Gospels and Epistles and Enchiridion, compiled according to a similar principle, and on their reverse versions. For more on these, see Ambrazas, Aleknavičienė, Zinkevičius 1998.

¹⁹ Skaičiuota pagal Dominyko Urbo Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodyną, Vilnius, 1996, sudarytą iš J. Gerulio 1922 m. išleisto fotografuotinio Mažvydo raštų leidimo.

²⁰ One of these forms includes the particle -gi: Imkitegi BP I 376,12.

²¹ This figure also includes newalgiket BP II 467,19.

²² One of these is shortened: walgikit E 39,15.

²³ This figure also includes ne dariket BP II 241,14 and nedariket BP II 250,3.

²⁴ This figure also includes nedarikite BP II 357,7–8.

²⁵ One of these is shortened: gierkit E 39,15.

The imperative mood with the formant -ke- is also characteristic of other BP verbs: for example, eiket Postilėje occurs 40 times in total (11 times in pericopes, 25 times in sermons, and 4 times in the “Passijose”), whereas eikit(e) occurs only 6 times (3 times in pericopes, twice in the “Passijose,” including in the total another form with the particle -gi: Eikiteghi BP II 470,9, which appears in a sermon); fakiket occurs 7 times in total (3 times in pericopes, 3 times in sermons, and once in the “Passijose”), whereas fakikite occurs only 3 times (twice in pericopes and once in the “Passijose”). In all, 242 second-person plural imperative forms ending in -ket, 112 ending in -kite, and 10 ending in -kit were found in the Postilėje. Thus, forms with the Samogitian formant -ke- are nearly twice as frequent there.

In “Kosanyje,” by contrast, we find 5 Aukštaitian second-person plural imperative forms of these verbs with -ki- and only 1 with -ke-; thus, the Aukštaitian forms are five times more frequent here. Consequently, the more frequent use of Aukštaitian forms in “Kosanyje” does not accord with the general pattern of usage of these forms prevailing throughout the Postilėje. In this pericope, the ratio of the aforementioned verb forms with -ki- to those with -ke- is the same (5:1) as in the text of the chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus…” in Vilentas’s Enchiridiono.

In Vilentas’s Enchiridione, second-person plural imperative forms of the verbs imti, valgyti, daryti, gerti with the formant -ki- are found 24 times, and with -ke- only once. Thus, the Aukštaitian forms of these four verbs are 24 times more frequent than the Samogitian forms throughout the Enchiridione. The fact that six such forms, exactly as in the text of chapter E, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…,” also recur in “Kosanyje” (five Aukštaitian and one Samogitian, while two of them—walgykite ir gerkite—are found only in this fragment of the Postilės) cannot be a coincidence. Although BP also has the more usual second-person plural imperative forms with the formant -ke-, they are far fewer than those with -ki-; it is precisely in this respect that “Kosanis” differs from the MžK text, while matching Vilentas’s E text completely. This fact should be regarded as one argument that this pericope of the Postilės was influenced substantially not by the forms in Mažvydas’s Katekizme, but by those in the chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus…” of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono (see also 4.6, 4.9–10).²⁶

²⁶ However, when comparing the second-person plural imperative forms of all the verbs in the Enchiridiono as a whole, we see that the disparity between forms with -ki- and -ke- is not so great: there are only slightly more forms with the formant -ki. A total of 33 examples with the formant -ki- were found (26 with -kite and 7 with -kit). With the Samogitian formant -ke-, 31 examples were found (28 with -ket, 2 with -keteli, and 1 with -kiet). Gordon Ford (1969: 31–32) gives somewhat different figures: for Vilentas’s E he reports 19 second-person plural imperative forms ending in -kite and 7 ending in -kit (26 in total with the formant -ki-), and 21 forms with -ket and 2 with -ketefi (23 in total with the formant -ke-). His registered examples show that some words went unnoticed, for example: darikite E 8,9 and E 8,13; Imkite E 75,9 and E 75,10; DEkawoket E 38,4; Pallifeminuket E 44,4; nejnarinket E 42,16; auginket E 42,17; and so on.

In the next chapter of E, “Trumpas klausimas ir priepravimas...,” the Aukštaitian second-person plural imperative forms of these verbs are also used (5 times): Imkite E 68,13; valgikite E 68,13; darikite E 68,14 and E 68,20; Gerkite E 68,17; but there is not a single Samogitian form here. We find these same forms in the section “Sźodźei ape S. Wecźere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksčzoniškų, published by Vilentas in 1570, whose text is nearly identical to that of E’s chapter “Trumpas klausimas ir priepravimas...”. It is difficult to say precisely and with certainty which of the three texts mentioned here influenced the use of such forms in the BP pericope, but their ratio (5:1), the same as in E’s chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus...,” points most strongly to this text. Moreover, “Kosanies” has more differences from MžG and the corresponding text in the other E chapter than from the first E text (on this, see sections 3 and 5). Consistently, apart from MžK, the formant -ke- in these verbs (5 times) is retained only in Bretkūnas’s 1589 edition of Mažvydas’s Paraphrasyje.

2.4. “Kosanis” also differs from the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo in the third-person singular preterite form of the verb duoti: where Mažvydas wrote the Samogitian form dewe (MžK 26,4 and MžK 26,14), Bretkūnas uses the Aukštaitian dawe (BP I 62,6 and BP I 62,12). Throughout the Postilėje, we likewise find only dawe (81 times). In place of the Samogitian pronominal plural dative form gims in MžK 26,14, this pericope has the Aukštaitian ghiemus BP I 62,12 (elsewhere in the Postilėje, too, only ghiemus, 62 times, and ghiems, once). In Vilentas’s catechism, we likewise find dawe in these places, E 33,6 and E 33,11, and ghiemus, E 33,11.

2.5. There are many differences in punctuation (13) between “Kosanies” and the MžK text, as well as some related differences in the capitalization of words (6), and differences in capitalization of other kinds (5). By contrast, between “Kosanies” and the text of the chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” in the Enchiridiono, there is only one punctuation difference and not a single difference in capitalization (see 4.1).

2.6. However, despite the many discrepancies, there are nevertheless several examples that encourage the supposition that Bretkūnas may also have used Mažvydas’s Katekizmu. Already in the first paragraph of “Kosanies,” it is striking that in the words duona, išduotas ir išduodamas, the vowel o is written instead of the diphthong uo: acc. sg. dona BP I 62,5; ifchdotas BP I 62,5; and ifchdodams BP I 62,9. In Mažvydas’s Katekizme, we likewise find acc. sg. dona MžK 26,5; ifchdotas MžK 26,4; and ißldotas MžK 26,9–10, whereas in Vilentas’s Enchiridione we have dūna E 33,5; ifchdū=||tas E 33,4–5; and ifchdūtas E 33,8.

The distinction between the letters ū and o is a rather complicated question. In general, the more usual letter in these words throughout the Postilėje is ū. The graphic variants of these words and their frequency throughout BP and MžK are presented in Table 2:

Table 2

BP MžK ∇ Ø # k BP total dõna 17 1 1 19 5 dūna 60 7 67 0 ifchdotas 2 1 3 2 ifchdūtas 15 4 19 0 ifchdodams 1 1 0 ifchdūdams 1 1 2 0

As can be seen from the table, the noun duona occurs in the Postilė a total of 86 times: 67 times with ū (60 times in sermons and 7 times in the “Passijose”) and 19 times with o (18 times in pericopes and only once in sermons). The passive past participle išduotas with ū is recorded 19 times (15 times in sermons and 4 times in the “Passijose”), and with o 3 times, only in pericopes. The passive present participle išduodamas with ū is found twice (once each in sermons and the “Passijose”), while with o it is found once (i.e., only in this text). Such use of the grapheme o instead of ū, which denotes the diphthong [uo] (<ide *ō), in the words acc. sg. dona, ifchdotas and ifchdodams points to Mažvydas’s Katekizmas, where these words likewise have the grapheme o. MžK dona occurs five times in all, only with the grapheme o; in his later writings it is written only as dūna (16 times) and duna (3 times)²⁷; išdotas with o is likewise found only in MžK: ifchdotas 26,4 and iſſǁdotas 26,9–10; in later writings it too is written only with ū (6 times). The grapheme ū is also absent from Mažvydas’s second booklet, Giesmę S. Ambrazejiaus (Dini 1994: 58), published in 1549 (while the author was still alive). Mažvydas introduced it only in Formoje Chrikshtima, published in 1559 (Palionis 1967: 22).

Apart from Mažvydas’s Katekizmo, none of the other Lithuanian texts similar to “Kosanis” writes o instead of the diphthong uo in the above-mentioned word forms: MžG, both E texts, and MžP all have acc. sg. dūna and ifchdūtas (twice). Only in the Gospel of Luke in BNT, which also recounts the institution of the Eucharist, do these words have o instead of uo in Luke 22:19: acc. sg. dona, dodamas. Since this fragment of “Kosanies” also resembles BNT Luke 22:19 in that it uses the same compound passive-voice present-tense form of the verb with a present passive participle:

²⁷ Formos duna skaičių reikėtų patikslinti atsižvelgiant į Pietro U. Dini (1996: 21) pastabas dėl neaiškiai atspaustos ū raidės Gerulio parengtame Mažvydo raštų leidime. Dominykas Urbas kaip tik iš jo sudarinėjo Mažvydo raštų žodyną. Palyginęs Upsalos universitete saugomą Paraphrasia originala su Gerulio išleistu tekstu, Dini nustatė, kad MžP 137,9 ir 140,8 šiame žodyje yra rašmuo ū. Vadinasi, formos duna Mažvydo raštuose telieka vienas atvejis – Gesmėse Chriksconiskose, II d. (1570) (Gerullis 1922: 380,19).

BP I 62,9 ira ilchdodams, BNT Luke 22:19 ira dodamas, and clearly differs from MžK and all the other comparative texts—which have a compound passive-voice future-tense form with a past passive participle, bus ilchdūtas²⁸—we may suppose that, before writing this sentence, Bretkūnas may also have consulted the corresponding passage in BNT (see also section 7 on this).

Jochenas D. Range (1992: 49) yra atkreipęs dėmesį, kad iš lotynų kalbos Bretkūno verstai Evangelijai pagal Luką būdingas rašmens o rašymas žymint iš indoeuropietiškojo *ō kilusį dvibalsį [uo]. Zigmo Zinkevičiaus (1987: 32) nuomone, dalies Prūsijos lietuvių, gyvenusių buv. Nadruvos ir Skalvos srityse, kalboje, fiksuotoje nuo XVI a. antrosios pusės, pasitaikantį [o·] ir [uo] (iš baltų *ā ir *ō) sumišimą reikėtų laikyti prūsų kalbos įtaka. Ar BP tai yra tik rašybos dalykas, ar ir fonetikos, nustatyti be specialių tyrinėjimų sunku. Danielius Kleinas savo gramatikoje, išėjusioje 1653 m., t.y. po 64 m. nuo Postilės pasirodymo, raidės o tarimo išsamiau neaprašo, tik skyriuje „Apie raides, jų rašybą, tarimą ir skirstymą“ nurodo, kad raidės „m, n, o, p, r, w su lotynų ir vokiečių raidėmis reiškia tuos pačius garsus“, o dvibalsės „uo, arba ū“ tarimą jis palygina su hebrajų j tarimu ir greta hebrajiškų pateikia du lietuviškus pavyzdžius: akmū ir dūna (PLKG: 425). Be to, autorius pamini, kad kitose kalbose ši dvibalsė visai nevartojama, išskyrus čekų. Kadangi ši gramatika skirta pirmiausia svetimšaliams, kad galėtų įvairuojančią lietuvių kalbą „lengviau ir teisingiau tvirtai įsisavinti“, tarimą stengiamasi aprašyti kuo išsamiau ir aiškiau. Kai kur jis nurodo ir tarmėse pasitaikančius skirtumus, kaip, sakykim, kitokį a tarimą Klaipėdos krašto tarmėje, lietuvių kalbos faktus lygina su lotynų, graikų, vokiečių bei kitomis kalbomis. Tačiau o ir uo kitoniško tarimo Prūsų Kunigaikštystėje, sekančioje „kauniečių tarme, kaip visų geriausia ir tinkamiausia“ (PLKG: 406), nei Grammaticoje nei Compendiume Kleinas nemini. Be to, ir kitame skyriuje „Apie įvairias raidžių padetis, arba akc idencijas“ kalbėdamas apie raidžių (=garsų) kitimus, jis tvirtina, kad „Dvibalsių atžvilgiu lietuviams jokių pasikeitimų nepasitaiko...“ (PLKG: 428)²⁹. Vadinasi, darytina prielaida, kad Bretkūnas rašmeniu o žymėjo ir balsį [o·] (<ide *ā), ir dvibalsį [uo] (<ide *ō), t.y., kad tai yra rašybos dalykas – laikymasis ankstesnės, nuo Mažvydo pirmųjų knygų prasidėjusios tradicijos.

²⁸ The spelling is the only difference: MžK 26,9–10 has iß||dotas; E 33,8 has būs ilchdūtas.

²⁹ It is interesting here that Kleinas did not include the double-storey grapheme ū in his lists of letters, although he himself used it both in Grammaticoje and in Compendiume. In Jonas Palionis’s view (1996: 34), he most likely did so because ū denoted not a separate vowel but a combination of two vowels, which would have contradicted the general understanding of an alphabet as a system of graphic signs representing individual sounds.

2.7. Besides the already mentioned acc. sg. dona MžK 26,5, ifchdotas MžK 26,4, and iſ||ldotas MžK 26,9–10, there are several more examples where the BP text agrees with MžK but differs from the E text:

BP I 62,8 This is my Body

E 33,7–8 This is the Body || mine

MžK 26,8–9 this is the Body my||

LK 389 That iſt mein leib

SK 14,6–7 will be poured out || for you

BP I 62,15 which will be poured out for you

E 33,14–15 which || for you poured out will be

MžK 27,3–4 which for you will be poured=||out

LK 390 which is poured out for you

SK 13,15–14,1 which || for you is poured out

In the first fragment, tatai found in BP and MžK corresponds not only to the Polish tocƶ, but also to hoc³⁰, found in all the Latin catechisms of Luther. In the second fragment, BP differs from E but agrees with MžK in the word order of the compound verb form. It is worth noting only that in this syntagm Mažvydas, although retaining the word order found in Seklucjan, uses a compound future passive form of the verb with a past passive participle, bus ifchle=||tas, and thus diverges from Seklucjan’s catechism—in the latter, the present-tense form ielt wilana occurs. Here Mažvydas is closer to the catechism of Jan Malecki, also published in Königsberg in 1546: ktora za waß wylana be=||dzie MK 10,4–5³¹.

In a copy of Seklucjan’s catechism discovered in 1997 in the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences³², this fragment has been corrected: the word ielt has been crossed out by hand in brown ink, and beƶdzie has been written above it. Neumann (1941: 17) notes that the word ielt was also crossed out in the copy of SK in Königsberg³³, which was corrected in red ink by

³⁰ Here and elsewhere, comparison is made with Luther’s Latin Small Catechisms, as presented in the critical edition of his writings: Martin Luther. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 30(I). Weimar, 1910.

³¹ Quoted from the catechism of Malecki reprinted in Neumann’s book „Studien zum polnischen frühreformatorischen Schrifttum“ (1941).

³² Daiva Baniulienė recounts its discovery in the article „Nepaprastas Mažvydo metų atradimas“ in the newspaper „Lietuvos aidas“ No. 162, 1997 08 20.

³³ Sprendžiant iš Stango (1929: 13) ir Neumanno (1941: 7 ir 9) aprašymų, Vilniuje rastasis yra ne šitas jų minimas, o kitas egzempliorius: Karaliaučiaus valstybinio archyvo bibliotekoje iki Antrojo pasaulinio karo saugotas vienintelis išlikęs egzempliorius buvo įrištas kartu su keturiais kitais įvairaus turinio ir formato leidiniais, tomo Nr. 784. II. Be to, šio egzemplioriaus tekste ir

Janas Maleckis. In it, another hand (not Janas Maleckis’s³⁴) and in different ink also wrote at the top little. It remains to be determined to what period these two entries belong and whether they were made in both copies by the same hand. That ieft was corrected to little, while Mažvydas translated will be, departing from Seklucjan but coming closer to Maleckis, suggests that Mažvydas may here have taken account of Maleckis’s comments on Seklucjan’s Catechism, or used some other source³⁵. In Luther’s Latin Small Catechisms we usually find the present indicative passive form effunditur, and in the German ones, vergolten wird. The word order in “Kosanies” differs from the word order in Vilentas’s Enchiridion, which exactly matches the German version, and coincides with Mažvydas’s.

2.8. In view of the numerous differences between „Kosanies“ and the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo in the chapter of Part 4 entitled „Ape Swetafti alba Sacramenta altariaus...“, it may be concluded that it cannot be considered the principal source of „Kosanies“; however, Bretkūnas may have used this text from the first Lithuanian book as a supplementary source.

3. The relationship of “Kosanies” to the section “Sźodzei ape S. Weczere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesm̃ių Chriksčioniškų

3.1. The second book in which a text resembling “Kosanis” was printed is Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesm̃ių Chriksčioniškų, published by Vilentas in 1570. At the end of the book, the section “Catechifma pral̄tas Textas” contains a subsection entitled “Sźodzei ape S. Wecze=||re Pona Ieſaus Chriſtaus / taip || ralcha S. Ewange-||liſtai S. Matth. 26 || S. Mar. 14. S. Luc. 22. S. || Pawilas. 1. Cor. II. || Paguldi-||muſu.” (MžG 633–634). It has not yet been determined who included this section—Mažvydas himself or Vilentas. Gerulis (1922: XXV) tended to think that the prose section was added to the hymnal by its compiler himself: “So much liturgical prose, inserting it into the hymn

The margins contain many corrections and critical remarks written in red ink, and the first pages contain entries in different handwriting. The Vilnius catechism, although it bears the same shelfmark, No. 784. II. 4° (written in pencil on the inside of the cover and again on white paper affixed to the spine, though with the final digit “4” partly peeled off), is bound together with five publications of various formats from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (two of them—the first and second—are the same 1808 publications). It contains only the correction already mentioned, namely, ieft is crossed out with two strokes in brown ink and little is written above at SK 14,1. Another word—lafka at SK 11,13—is likewise crossed out with two strokes, apparently in the same ink, though slightly brighter, but nothing is written in its place. Stanisław Rospond also notes that the copy with Maleckis’s corrections was in the Königsberg State Archives before the war (Seklucjan 1979: 29), but does not describe what happened to it afterward. The Seklucjan catechism held at the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences may currently be the only known original.

³⁴ Stango (1929: 15) nuomone, minėtame egzemplioriuje ieft į bėdžie taisęs Janas Maleckis.

³⁵ Stangas (1929: 12–16) nurodo ir daugiau pavyzdžių, kur Mažvydas skiriasi nuo Seklucijano, bet sutampa su Maleckiu.

By filling the hymnbooks, Mažvydas wanted to make up for the lack of a Lithuanian agenda.” In Vaclovas Biržiška’s (1960: 86) view, the second part of the 1566 hymnbook was compiled by Mažvydas himself, who also included all his earlier writings. However, he does not rule out the possibility that, in publishing this collection, Vilentas “also added a certain portion of his own, though it may have been the work not of himself but of others, perhaps likewise found among the legacy of Mažvydas’s writings.”

Fifty-six differences were found between Bretkūnas’s pericope and the text of this hymnbook. “Szọdžei ape S. Wecžere…” differs considerably both from “Kosanies” and from the text of Mažvydas’s Catechism. Several differences between “Kosanies” and the text of this hymnbook may indicate that the latter has some connection with the text of MžK and its principal source, Seklucjan’s catechism. A clear trace of translation from the Polish original remains in the first sentence:

BP I 62,4–6 ſchito ‖ naktije kurioie buwa iſchdotas / Eme ‖ dona

E 33,4–5 on that night when he was betrayed=‖ / He took ‖ bread

LK 389 On the night when he was betrayed, he took the bread

MžG 589,13–14 on that night when he was=‖ betrayed / He took bread

MžK 26,3–5 ſchitage nakteie \ kuria ‖ tureia buti iſchdotas \ e=‖me dona

SK 13,2–3 on that night \ when was to be seen \ he took the bread

MžG tureia bu=‖ti iſchdūtas atitinka MžK tureia buti iſchdotas ir Sėklucjano miał bić ‖ widan, o „Kosanies“ buwa iſchdotas atitinka E buwa iſchdū=‖tas ir Liuterio Verraten ward.

Since the sources of this MžG chapter have not been identified, in some places it is difficult to say precisely why “Szọdžei ape S. Wecžere…” and “Kosanis” differ. The equivalent of another MžG phrase that does not match “Kosanimi” could also be found in Seklucjan’s Polish catechism:

BP I 62,12–13 dawe ghiemus / bilodams / ‖ Imkite ir gerkite / wiſſi iſch to

E 33,11–13 dawe ghiemus / bi=‖lodams / Imkite ir gerkite / wiſſi iſch ‖ to

LK 389–90 gave it to them and said: Take it and drink from it, all of you

MžG 590,2–3 gave them, =‖speaking: Drink from it all

MžK 26,13–15 gave them, saying: Drink from this, all

SK 13,12–13 gave them, saying: drink from this, all

However, this MžG phrase also corresponds to the phrase dedit illis dicens, Bibite ex hoc omnes. found both in the two Latin Small Catechisms of Luther published in Wittenberg in 1529 and in his later catechisms translated into Latin by Georg Major (1531) and Justus Jonas (1539). None of them contains the words Imkite and, found in BP and in section E, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…”, or LK’s Nemet hin.

und equivalents. Thus, it is unclear whether, in this instance, MžG may have relied on Seklucjan or on one of Luther’s Latin catechisms.

It is also difficult to determine the reason for another difference between the “Kosanies” and the hymnal text:

BP I 62,8–9 which for you || is given

E 33,8 which for you will be given

LK 389 which for you is given

MžG 589,17–18 which for you will be || given

MžK 26,9–10 which for you will be given

SK 13,7–8 which will be || given

MžG will be || given corresponds to MžK will be given and SK will be given, whereas the “Kosanies” is given differs from E’s will be given and comes closer to datur. found in Luther’s Latin Small Catechisms and in the Vulgate’s Luke 22:19. In this respect, the Postilė pericope differs from all five Lithuanian comparison texts (see also 2.6 and 7.1).

3.2. Nevertheless, most sentences in the section included in the hymnal have already moved away from the Polish version and closer to the German version of Luther’s catechism and, of course, to the texts of the Postilė and Vilentas’s Enchiridion:

BP I 62,16–17 Then do this / || as often as you drink, in remembrance of me

E 33,16–17 Do this / as often as you || drink, in remembrance of me

LK 390 Do this whenever you drink, in remembrance of me

MžG 590,6–8 Do this || as often as you drink, in || remembrance of me

MžK 27,5–7 do this as often as you drink, in remembrance of me

SK 14,3–4 do this || whenever you drink, || in my remembrance

BP I 62,11–12 Thus I will take the cup after the evening meal=||

E 33,10–11 Thus I will take the cup after the eve=||ning meal

LK 389 Likewise, he also took the cup after supper

MžG 590,1–2 Thus I took the cup after the eve=||ning meal

MžK 26,12–13 Thus, after the evening meal, || I took the cup

SK 13,10–11 Likewise, after the eve=||ning meal, he took the cup

BP I 62,15–16 will be shed / || for the forgiveness of sins

E 33,15–16 will be shed / for the forgiveness || of sins

LK 390 will be poured out for the forgiveness of sins

MžG 590,5–6 shed || for the forgiveness of sins

MžK 27,3–5 will be shed=|| for the forgiveness of your sins ||

SK 14,1–3 is poured out for the forgi=||veness of sins=||

As can be seen from the examples given here, in place of the Catechism wording in Mažvydas, each time, translated on the basis of Seklucjan’s ile ‖ krocž, the hymnbook text has often, corresponding to German Jo oft. In place of bus ifchle=‖tas in MžK (SK 14,1–3 ieft wilana; MK 10,4–5 wylana be=‖dzie), the text here has praletas ‖ bufs (LK vergollen wird). The personal pronoun you and the genitive plural your are also absent from this MžG phrase, although they occur in MžK and its principal source, SK. MžG’s word order generally also agrees with the German variant. Of course, establishing the actual sources of the text printed in Mažvydas’s hymnbook would require a thorough analysis, but that is not the aim of this article.

3.3. In some places this text is even more similar to the corresponding text in Luther’s German Small Catechisms (these passages are essentially identical in them), and consequently differs somewhat from the text in the chapter “Sacrament of the Altar...” of Vilentas’s Enchiridion and, correspondingly, from the text of “Kosanies”:

BP I 62,6–7 gave the sent=‖ones the word / speaking

E 33,6 gave to the sent ones a command / to say

LK 389 gave his disciples and spoke

MžG 589,15–16 gave to the sent ones a command / ‖ and said

BP I 62,8 This is my body

E 33,7–8 This is my body ‖

MžG 589,16–17 This is ‖ my body

LK 389 This is my body

The influence of some Latin source on the hymnbook text cannot be ruled out here either. For instance, the first MžG example also corresponds to deditaue discipulis suis et dixit in Justus Jonas’s catechism, published in Wittenberg in 1539 (other Latin catechisms use participium praesentis activi dicens).

3.4. Attention should be drawn to another MžG fragment, which differs not only from “Kosanies” and the E text closest to it, but also from MžK and the German and Polish catechisms:

BP I 62,13–15 This =cup is the new testament in my blood

E 33,13–14 This cup is the new testa=ment in my blood

LK 390 This cup is the new testament in my blood

MžG 590,3–5 This ‖ is my blood / the new testa=ment

MžK 26,15–27,1–2 This ‖ cup of the new tes=‖tament is in my blood

SK 13,13–15 There ‖ the cup of the New Testament ‖ is in my blood

MK 10,2–3 This cup is the new ‖ testament in my blood

Since we cannot explain this difference by reference to Mažvydas’s, German Lutheran, Polish Seklucjan, or Malecki catechisms, our attention turns once again to the Latin ones. This sentence corresponds to the variant in Justas Jonas’s 1539 Latin catechism: hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti. Meanwhile, the variant found in BP and E essentially coincides with the German and 1529 Latin versions, as well as with the catechism translated by Major in 1531: Hic calix Novum Testamentum eft in meo fanguine (B)³⁶.

3.5. As the examples given here show, the section “Szodzei ape S. Wecżere...” in “Catechifma praftas Textas,” placed at the end of Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksčoniškų, published by Vilentas in 1570, is something of a compilation—that is, it consists of sentences based on translations from Polish (or Latin) and German originals. It is not yet clear what the principal source of this text is, or who inserted it—Mažvydas himself or Vilentas (a more detailed analysis is needed to determine this)—but the surviving traces of translation from Seklucjan’s catechism suggest that this text is connected with Mažvydas’s Katekizmu. Gerulis’s and Biržiška’s conjectures that Mažvydas himself translated the prose texts and inserted them into the second part of the hymnbook may therefore be well founded. However, some orthographic and morphological features already coincide with the texts of both sections of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono.

3.6. Since there are quite many differences between Bretkūnas’s “Kosanies” and the text inserted in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksčoniškų (about 56, thus also far more than between “Kosanies” and the text of the E section “Sacrementas Altoriaus…”), and since some of them are related to reliance on different originals, it cannot be regarded as the principal source of “Kosanies.”

4. The relationship of “Kosanies” to the text of the “Sacramentas Altoriaus…” section of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono

4.1. It was mentioned in the introductory part of the article (1.4), and has already been demonstrated by the examples (2.2) and certain facts (2.3–2.4) presented when discussing the relationship of “Kosanies” to the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo, that “Kosanis” is closest to Vilentas’s Enchiridiono

³⁶ Since the text under examination is distinctive in that it is composed of passages from the Gospels of three evangelists—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—and the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, the basis for this fragment may have been different biblical passages recounting the institution of the Eucharist. For instance, the identical parallel in MŽG is Mark 14:24: G τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης; V Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti; LB Das ift mein Blut, des newen Teftaments. Matthew 26:28 is also very close: G τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά τῆς διαθήκης; V hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti; LB das ift mein Blut des newen Teftaments. The variant matching BP, E, MŽK, LK, and SK is found in Luke 22:20: G τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου; V Hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine meo; LB Das ift der Kelch, das newe Teftament in meinem Blut.

the text in the chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” (E 33,3–17). This BP pericope differs from it relatively little—23 differences have been identified; of these, only one concerns word order and one punctuation; there are no substantial textual discrepancies, no differences in capitalization, and no words have been added or omitted. It is therefore highly likely that this text may have been the principal source of “Kosanies”.

How, then, do these comparatively small texts differ? Are their discrepancies consistent? What is their relationship to the same linguistic facts in the remainder of each edition? To answer these questions, it is necessary to establish the general usage tendencies of each differing linguistic unit in both sources. Therefore, all the observed differences between these texts (excluding punctuation) are presented here first:

Table 3

E BP I night 33,4 nightjie 62,5 whose 33,4 whoseie 62,5 ifchdū=||tas 33,4–5 ifchdotas 62,5 dough 33,5 dona 62,6 paliuntiniems 33,6 paliunti=||nems 62,6–7 Tas 33,7 Tatai 62,9 you (2x) 33,8; 33,15 ius (2x) 62,9; 62,15 will be ifchdūtas 33,8 ira ifchdodams 62,9 ifchdūtas 33,8 ifchdodams 62,9 remembrance (2x) 33,9; 33,17 atminimo (2x) 62,10; 62,17 Schitūgi 33,10 Schitoiu 62,11 eſti naujas 33,13 eſtinaujas 62,14 vſch 33,14 uſ 62,15 will be 33,15 bus 62,15 poured 33,15 prelietas 62,15 poured will be 33,15 bus prelÍetas 62,15 Tatai 33,16 Tadai 62,16

4.2. The table shows that most of the differences are orthographic. Their number is increased by three clear Postilė proofreading errors: eftinauias BP I 62,14, prelietas BP I 62,15, and Tadai BP I 62,16. The form prelietas is attested in BP only once; all forms of the verb pralieti and the verbal noun praliejimas are written only with the prefix pra- (17 and 4 occurrences, respectively), while the prefix pre- is unattested, including as a derivational formant of other verbs and nouns. The indeclinable...

demonstrative pronoun Tadai (=tatai) is likewise used only once, alongside tatai (999x) and tatai (2x)³⁷.

4.3. In this pericope, in the ending of the dative plural of the noun paliuntinėms, Bretkūnas, unlike Vilentas, does not write the palatalization mark. Forms of the said word with -iems Postilėje are entirely absent, whereas pal(f)juntinėms occurs 8 times. Nor do we find a plural dative of another ijo-stem noun, moki(n)tinys, written with the palatalization mark; only moki(n)tinėms (6x)³⁸ occurs here, as well as waikelėms (2x), pawargulems (2x), nebagelems (2x), nebagielems (1x), ßodžems (2x), lautems (1x), and so on. In BP the palatalization mark is written only before the dative plural ending i̇jo-stem nouns, morphologically written as -ams: broliams (2x), braliams (1x), pawarguliams (2x), ßiniams (1x), ßodjiams (2x), and so forth.

In Vilento’s Enchiridione there is one plural dative form of the noun pasiuntinys with -iems at E 33,6, and one with -ems at E 68,12. In E, the palatalization mark is also rare in the endings of other ijo-stem nouns in this case. The following forms were also noted: Wirifchkems E 42,3; Hertikems E 41,18, ßatiewainems E 42,6, ßodžems (5x), but warnikfcżiems E 38,7. No nouns of this stem with a morphologically written plural dative ending were found in Enchiridione. Thus, in Vilentas’s text, the palatalization mark before the letter paliuntiniems is written before e; although rare, it should not be regarded as entirely accidental. In Postilėje i̇jo-stem nouns, by contrast, in which the vowel [aː] after a palatalized consonant is written phonetically, i.e. with the letter e, the palatalization mark is not used consistently.

4.4. In some places, the Bretkūnas and Vilentas texts being compared differ only in graphemes: ŋ / i; ū / u; v / u; fch / ß; ü / o. These differences between E and BP are generally regular. For example, in the Enchiridiono text, we find the graphic variant jus of the accusative plural of the personal pronoun tu twice, whereas in “Kosanyje” we find ius. In Vilentas’s writings, the letter ŋ39 denotes the vowels [i], [iː] 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 a word and uses it relatively rarely in the middle (37x)—usually only in non-Lithuanian place names and personal nam...

³⁷ These two tatati are apparently also to be regarded as BP proofreading errors.

³⁸ This form of the latter noun is encountered occasionally only in the New Testament translated by Bretkūnas: Mokintiniems Mt 16,20, Mt 17,24, although at Mt 14,19 it is already corrected to Mokintinems. It should also be noted here that, when revising his NT, Bretkūnas quite often strikes out the palatalization mark before the vowels e and ė, especially after the consonants k, g, d, and somewhat less often after s and l: u̇chieltas→u̇chkel tas Mt 11,25; u̇ßmokes→u̇ßmokes Mt 6,4; gieras→geras Mt 1,19, Mt 7,17; pagiend→pagenda Mt 5,13; Todiel→Todel Mt 5,23; 6,25; 7,24; 12,27; 14,7; Apfieftuofius→Apfelftuofius Mt 4,24; lietu→ietu Mt 13,14; Dwalies→Dwales Mt 1,19; palileptos→palileptos Mt 6,18.

³⁹ ŋ = y; both graphemes, ŋ and y, are used in Vilento’s Enchiridione.

in words, ethnonyms, and loanwords (e.g., gen. sg. Egipto BP I 102,22; gen. sg. Tjra BP II 364,15; nom. sg. Sjyrachas BP I 190,24; acc. pl. Egypciakus BP I 225,19; Sjmbolum BP I 71,20; Kjrieleifon BP I 61,18). At the end of a word, this letter is found in the Postilė only 4 times, and only in the conjunction beŋ (BP I 30,13; BP I 46,18; BP II 332,4 and BP II 466,10). The accusative plural of the pronoun tu has no graphic variants in the Postilė; it has only the form jus (84x). The Enchiridion uses 3 graphic variants: jus (15x), ius (3x), and yus (3x)⁴⁰, but the most frequent is the form with the character ŋ. Vilento’s EE likewise has 3 variants: jus (52x), ius (3x), and jus (1x), but here, too, jus is the most frequent. Thus, in “Kosanies,” Bretkūnas consistently follows the Postilė-wide practice of not using the character ŋ at the beginning of a word and the tradition of writing the acc. pl. ius.

4.5. Bretkūnas does not use the character ū⁴¹ to mark long [uː], as Vilentas does in the word būs. In the Postilė, the stroke above u is an abbreviation mark, occurring, moreover, only once, in the word cond. 3 pl. paiūk=||tu ‘customary’ BP I 244,9–10. Ford (1969: 112) regards the form būs as Samogitian. In the Postilė, the 3rd-person singular form of the future tense of the verb būti has no graphic variants—only bus is found (309x)—whereas in the Enchiridion there are 3: bus (9x), būs (6x), and bufs (1x); in the Gospels and Epistles there are 2: būs (74x) and bus (35x). Thus, the form bus found in the BP pericope conforms to the general principle for writing this form throughout the Postilė.

4.6. In the comparison texts, the preposition už is used twice. The first time, its spelling is the same in BP and E (vłch E 33,8 and vłch BP I 62,8); the second time, it differs (vłch E 33,14 and uβ BP I 62,15). The difference is twofold: 1) v / u and 2) the spellings /ch / β, but in both cases the form is regular.

1) In Vilento’s Enchiridion, the letter v at the beginning of a word usually denotes the vowel [uː]: 76 examples with v in this position were found, and only one with u (uβ E 75,10). In the Postilė, v is used much less often at the beginning of a word to denote the vowels [u, uː]: 869 words with u and only 7 with v were found (5 of the 7 are in pericopes, 2 in sermons)⁴². Here, too, the preposition už is written with u: both in pericopes and in sermons, the “Passijos,” and prayers, uβ is most often found (77x). There is only one example in BP—and it is in this pericope—in which the preposition už is written with lowercase v.

⁴⁰ Two of these occur on the first pages of E (E 2,7 and E 2,15). They were collected while compiling the computerized concordance of word forms from Fritz Bechtel’s 1882 reprint of Vilento’s Enchiridion, since the copy held at Vilnius University Library is missing its first 4 pages. Bechtel uses the character instead of ŋ throughout.

⁴¹ In BP, EE, and E, the diacritic above the letter u is considered a stroke, not a circumflex (cf. Bechtel 1882: XVIII, Gerullis 1927: 68–75, Palionis 1967: 25–26, etc.); the same applies to the marks above the letters a, o, i, e, m, and n, above which the stroke in BP (as over u) is an abbreviation mark.

⁴² Prepositions beginning with a capital V are not included in these figures, because neither BP nor E uses the character U, while V represents both the vowels [u, uː] and the consonant [v].

2) The same applies to the relationship between the spellings ſch and β in this preposition: throughout the Enchiridione, 24 examples with ſch are found, and 19 with β; in EE, the corresponding figures are 126 and 47. In the Postilėje, by contrast, there is only a single example with ſch—again in this pericope—whereas there are as many as 81 with β. Thus, with one exception, Bretkūnas retains here the morphological principle for spelling this preposition. In this case of neutralization of voiced and voiceless consonants at the end of a word, the Postilėje consistently writes the voiced consonant.

The graphic variants of the preposition už and their frequency in those BP pericopes that also occur in EE (∇), sermons (∅), the “Passijos” (#), “Kosanies” (k), prayers (m), E, and EE are presented in the following table:

Table 4

∇

∅

BP total

uβ

vſch

1(!)

126

vβ

Vβ

VS₃

Thus, the spelling with v and ſch, found only once in the entire Postilėje in the preposition už⁴³, is one of the facts indicating that Bretkūnas may have used this text from Vilento’s Enchiridiono. The second paragraph of “Kosanies” has already been examined, and there Vilento’s vſch E 33,14 has been replaced by Bretkūnas’s usual uβ BP I 62,15.

Could other texts similar to “Kosani” have had an influence here? How is this preposition written in them? In the section “Sźodžei ape S. Wecžere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Christian Hymns, published by Vilentas, and in the text found in the chapter “Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprowimas…” of the Enchiridion, we find only the variant vſch (2x each). Meanwhile, in Mažvydas’s Paraphrase, published by Bretkūnas, as in his Catechism, both paragraphs have vβ. Thus, the vſch printed in the first paragraph of “Kosanies” is associated with Vilentas’s spelling and, naturally, most closely with the text in section E, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…,” which differs little from this pericope.

4.7. The complex question of the distinction between the characters ū and o in the words duona, išduotas, išduodamas has already been discussed in section 2.2. The claim that the character o Postilėje denotes both the vowel [oˑ] and the diphthong [uo] would not be contradicted by another example from “Kosanies,”

⁴³ BP also uses a longer variant of this preposition uβu (110x), but its spelling does not vary (this figure also excludes VS₃u (5x) and Vβu (3x), which begin with a capital V; EE contains vβunieke 215,4, whereas uβu is not attested at all in E.

which differs in its spelling with o instead of ū from Enchiridiono and, moreover, from all the other texts compared here. This is the inflected singular instrumental form of the demonstrative pronoun šitas, Schitoui BP I 62,11; E has Schitūgi E 33,10 (in other sources Schitugi MžK 26,12, Schitū MžG 590,1 and E 68,16, SChitū gi MžP 8(142),4). BP has only two examples of this form: besides the one already mentioned, one more occurs in the “Passijose” BP I 358,23. In BP the ending of the non-inflected form is written in two ways: -ū (8x, only in sermons) and -u (6x, likewise only in sermons).

This pronoun in “Kosanies” also differs from the one in Enchiridione in that it lacks the postpositional particle -gi. There is not a single instance in the entire Postilėje of the singular instrumental form Schitūgi of the pronoun šitas, as found in E 33,10. The pronouns with the particle -gi catalogued by Hermann (1926: 116) show that there are very few of them in BP overall: demonstrative pronouns are attested only 3 times: tiegi BP I 188,9 and BP II 360,16, and Tamgi BP II 396,20⁴⁴. They are also very rare in Vilentas’s writings: in Enchiridione there is just that one example with the particle -gi, while EE has only tailgi 190,9 (Hermann 1926: 111)⁴⁵.

4.8. The spelling of the letter o in the ending of BP gen. sg. atminimo instead of Vilentas’s -a should likewise be regarded as a systematic difference: throughout BP we find 7 genitive singular forms of this word with the ending -o and only 2 with -a, whereas E and EE use only forms with the ending -a throughout: 4x (E 33,9; E 33,17; E 68,15; E 68,21) and 1x (EE 171,4), respectively. However, “Kosanės” has another genitive singular of an o-stem noun, whose ending, as in E, is also -a: atleidima BP I 62,13 and E 33,15. Which form of this noun is more frequent in BP? BP gen. sg. atleidima is attested 4 times, whereas atleidimo occurs 18 times. Thus both words are written with the ending -o much more often in BP.

Of all the texts compared here, forgiveness is found only in Mažvydas’s Paraphrase. In the other sources, a different prepositional construction is used: ing with the accusative. However, in all sources except, of course, „Kosanį“, there is the gen. sg. atminima. It should be noted that in BP, in the pronoun preceding the word atminimo, the gen. sg. mana retains the ending -a. The ratio in BP between forms of this pronoun with the ending -a and -o is quite different from that of the noun mentioned above: here we find 319x mana and only 8x mano. Drawing on Klein’s grammar, we can try to determine the reason why the genitive singular ending o-stem noun ending -a is changed to -o in BP. Klein indicates that not all Lithuanians

⁴⁴ Here the neuter forms of the demonstrative pronouns should also be added: Tataigi (3x) and Įchitaigi (2x).

⁴⁵ Meanwhile, in MžK the singular instrumental of this pronoun is used as many as 3 times: Schitugi 26,12, schitogi 37,16 and Schytogi 34,12, and another 2 times in other writings, Schytogi 103,12 and 142,4 (Urbas 1996: 365). Could Mažvydas’s Katekizmas have influenced Vilentas here when he translated Enchiridioną? All the more so since there are other examples in which Vilentas departs from Luther and comes closer to Mažvydas’s Katekizmo (or its sources).

pronounce the genitive ending as o; some people from the Įsrūtis region living near the border of Greater Lithuania have “borrowed” the genitive singular ending of the first declension and the third-person ending of the past tense of the first conjugation, -o, but in the districts of Tilžė, Ragainė and, in part, Įsrūtis, the ending -a is more usual. In his grammar, however, -o is retained in order to distinguish the genitive singular from the accusative singular and the third-person past tense from the third-person present tense (PLKG: 406, 439). Apparently Bretkūnas, too, wanted these cases to be distinguished in the printed text (in many places the context required clarity⁴⁶), and for the same reason, like Klein, he began to write -o more often than -a.

4.9. The first sentence of the BP and E texts shows 2 morphological differences related to the authors’ differing dialects: Vilentas’s characteristic shortened feminine singular inessives naktie ir kurio⁴⁷ are replaced by Bretkūnas with full forms naktije ir kurioje, although, apparently through oversight, the short form of the pronoun fchito is retained. In both parts of BP only this single short form of the latter pronoun is attested, alongside 6 full forms, all of them, moreover, in sermons: fchitoie BP I 92,15; BP I 154,12; BP II 121,12; BP II 488,4 and Schitoie BP I 90,8; BP II 149,15. According to Ford’s (1969: 41) calculations, Enchiridione contains 45 short and 23 long inessive singular forms of ā-stem nouns. He notes one long and one short form of this pronoun: fchito E 33,4; fchitoie E 68,10. However, Ford did not record iā-stem forms, and the form occurring twice, f. iness. sg. kurio E 33,4 and E 68,11, is not included in his study. There are no short inessive singular forms of the feminine pronoun kuri anywhere in the Postilėje, although a tendency to shorten is already apparent: 2 of 5 have been shortened, while the others remain full forms: Kurioje BP I 54,4, kurioje BP I 62,5 and BP I 131,1; kurioi BP II 205,12, and kuroi BP I 415,3⁴⁸. Considering that

⁴⁶ That Bretkūnas felt the need to distinguish the genitive singular from the accusative and understood the difference between these cases can be illustrated, for example, by the following passage: Tikiu […] įg wiena Wieſchpati IEſu Kriſtu / Sunu || Diewo vienatighi / ir iſch Tiewo gimuſi / pirm willfu || ambſiu / Diewa iſch Diewo / ſchwieluma iſch ſchwielu= || mo / Diewa tikra iſch Diewo tikro / gimdita / nedarita […] BP II 184,4–10.

⁴⁷ It should be noted that the E inessive singular kurio found here diverges not only from LK but also from MžK and one of its sources—the Seklucjan catechism—and comes closer to the Malecki catechism and its sources:

E 33,4–5 on the night when he was betrayed=||

LK 389 In der Nacht, da er verraten ward

MžK 26,3–4 on the sixth night / when it was to be given out

SK 13,2–3 on that night \ ktorei mial bijč || widan

MK 9,4–5 that night on which he was betrayed || was

⁴⁸The singular locative of ā-stem nouns, with the shortened ending variants -oj or -o, is now used throughout the Lithuanian dialect area, except among the Western Samogitians and

the shortened form fchito occurs in BP only once and may have survived through copying this text from the Enchiridiono; it should not be regarded as a morphological feature of Bretkūnas’s language. Today this form is sometimes listed alongside examples from other sixteenth-century authors illustrating shortened singular locative endings (cf. Rosinas 1995: 60, where fchito BP I 62 is presented together with Mažvydas’s Scho Mž 408, Kurio Mž 296, Vilentas’s kobno E 22, to EE 143, and others, as Samogitian singular inessive forms of feminine pronouns).

The form naktie used by Vilentas, like kurio, is not attested even once in Bretkūnas’s Postilėje. In fact, only two locative forms of this word are found there: naktije BP I 62,5 and nakteie BP I 394,19. Time is generally expressed here with the accusative nakti (37x) and the adverb nakcze (2x). Since both locatives occur in translated text, they may be explained as resulting from the influence of other languages (e.g., German in der Nacht; Latin in nocte). The Enchiridione also contains, besides naktie, another singular locative of an i-stem noun, macie E 8,21⁴⁹.

The survival in “Kosanyje” of the shortened feminine singular inessive form fchito suggests that Bretkūnas did not himself translate this “composite” text from German, but used the already-translated text of Vilentas’s catechism. Moreover, the use of this text has left further traces in the BP pericope. Its considerable influence is shown by the five instances in the BP text of the same Aukštaitian second-person plural imperative forms with the formative -ki- and one with -ke-, although the Samogitian forms with the formative -ke- are more usual throughout the Postilėje (for further discussion, see 2.3 on the relationship between “Kosanies” and the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo). Two of the five forms found in “Kosanyje” that also correspond to forms in the Enchiridiono are found nowhere else but in this Postilės fragment—walgikite and gerkite. Such agreement across all the second-person plural imperative forms, and their clear departure from the general pattern of usage in the Postilėje, cannot be accidental. Bretkūnas’s effort to preserve the same forms may be explained by the fact that this text was recited regularly during services, had already been memorized by many priests, and therefore variation in forms was undesirable.

Moreover, comparing the text of the “Sacramentas Altoriaus…” chapter of the Enchiridiono with its principal source—the Small Catechism of Luther, published in Leipzig in 1543—

part of the Klaipėda region Aukštaitians, while the full ending is recorded in a fairly small area of present-day Lithuanian dialects and only alongside its shortened variant (LKA III 1991: 49. Map No. 44).

⁴⁹ These endings correspond to the shortened variant -ė (pronounced -ie) of the old feminine locative ending -ėje of i-stem nouns in present-day Samogitian. Only at the southernmost edge of the area are neighboring forms with -y also used; and the dialects of the northwestern Aukštaitians—Aukščuičiai, Kruopiai, and Šakyna—located near the Samogitian border, use forms with the Samogitian ending -ie (phonetically transposed into standard language as -ė) alongside Aukštaitian singular locative forms of this stem (LKA III 1991: 52. Map No. 46). Mažvydas used this locative of the word in the Katekizme (1x) and in other writings (4x).

catechism, it can be seen that Vilentas sometimes translated without strictly following Luther’s text. Bretkūnas generally does not correct these discrepancies, but follows Vilentas:

E 33,4–5 ſchito naktiė kurio buwa ifchdũ=||that

BP I 62,4–5 that night which had been sent out

LK 389 On the night when he was betrayed

E 33,6 gave to his disciples, saying bilodams

BP I 62,6–7 gave to his disciples, saying =||nems ſawa / bilodams

LK 389 gave his disciples and said und sprach

E 33, 11–12 he thanks and gives them =||while lying

BP I 62,12 gave thanks and gave them, saying bilodams

LK 389 gives thanks and gave them the and said

E 33, 5–6 gives thanks / and || gives it to his disciples

BP I 62,6–7 gives thanks / and gives it to his disciples=||

LK 389 gives thanks and broke it and gave it to his disciples

E 33,10–11 took the cup after the evening meal=||

BP I 62,11–12 took the cup after the evening meal=||

LK 389 then took also the cup after the evening meal

Had Bretkūnas translated this text himself from some German edition of Luther’s Small Catechism, or at least compared it with one (these passages generally do not differ across the various German editions), he would probably have noticed such deviations, even minor ones, and corrected at least a few. It is unlikely that he would have translated these fragments in exactly the same way as Vilentas.

The writing of the letters v and ſch in the preposition už, already mentioned (4.6), should also be regarded as a trace of Vilentas’s spelling: vſch BP I 62,8 and vſch E 33,8. As shown in Table 4, vſch occurs only once in the entire BP. In the second paragraph of “Kosanies,” Vilentas’s vſch in E 33,14 is changed to Bretkūnas’s usual uſ̌ in BP I 62,15. In the section “Sʒodʒei ape S. Wecʒere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksčoniškų, published by Vilentas, and in the text in the chapter “Trumpas klaulimas ir prieprowi-mas…” of the Enchiridiono, we also find the variant vſch (twice in each).

It is also worth noting another interesting lexical fact in the Postilės, which could likewise be considered evidence that Bretkūnas did not translate “Kosanies” himself, but used texts prepared by Vilentas. In both volumes of the Postilės, the adverb of time dažnai ‘often’ occurs only once, and specifically in “Kosanyje.” BP uses a different adverb of time throughout, one that expresses frequency of action and also indicates

repetition of the action. This is the adverb tankiai: koſnam pareitiſi tankei and without ceasing || meltfiſi BP II 99,16–17; another ilchwili || tankei didi keli keliauenti / nu ſeme nu wandeimi BP II 377,1–2; Tacżiau tankei ſchitokie || ſchturmai nuramdamni BP I 199,19–20, and so on. Its positive degree is written in two ways: tankei (35x) and tankiei (11x); the two forms occur 46 times in total. The comparative degree of this adverb, formed with the suffix -iaus, also occurs here: tankiaus (3x). In those parts of the New Testament translated by Bretkūnas from which the pericopes in the Postilė are drawn, the adverb tank(i)ei and tankiaus is likewise generally found, corresponding to Luther’s Bible (1546) offt and ofter: Mt 17,15 (2x), Acts 26,11, 2 Cor 8,22, 2 Cor 11,23 (2x), 2 Cor 11,26 (2x).

The sentence containing the only temporal adverb daſnai in the Postilė differs very little from the sentence in Vilentas’s chapter E, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…”:

BP I 62,16–17 Do this / || as often as you drink, in remembrance of me

E 33,16–17 Do this / as often as || you drink, in remembrance of me

The adverb dažnai also occurs in Vilentas’s chapter E, “Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprovimas…” E 68,20. It occurs twice in E altogether, whereas tankiai is not found there at all. However, alongside daſnai, used twice in EE (125,10 and 189,7), we also find tankei seven times; hence, Vilentas used both temporal adverbs. The adverb daſnai also occurs in the section “Sżodżei ape S. Wecżere…” placed at the end of Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chrikščonišku, published by Vilentas; this section is almost identical to the second text of the Enchiridion (see Chapter 5 on this). In Mažvydas’s Katekizmas, however, and in the Paraphrasyje of his work published by Bretkūnas, there is lo. quotiescunque and le. ile krocz, corresponding to kiek kartu⁵⁰.

In the Postilė, the temporal adverb tankiai is used only in sermons, with the exception of one example in the “Passijose.” Had it also occurred in the pericopes, we could compare it with the corresponding passages in Vilentas’s EE and determine whether Bretkūnas consistently replaces Vilentas’s dažnai with tankiai. However, there are no such passages in these books. Yet, where Vilentas uses dažnai in the EE chapter “Hiftoria apie Muka || ir Smerti Pona muſu Ieſaus || Chriſtaus / pagal ketu=||riu Euangeliftu,” the corresponding sentence in the “Passijose” of the Postilė nevertheless has tankiai:

EE 189,6–8 Ne=||ſa Ieſus daſnai fuſſieidawa ſu paliuntines ſa=||wa.

BP I 365,12–14 nes || IEſus the tankiei fuſſieidawa ſu ſawa Apaſchta=||lais.

The fact that BP contains only one instance of dažnai alongside 49 instances of the temporal adverb tankiai, and only in a sentence also found in Vilentas’s E texts

⁵⁰ Luther’s Bible (1546) wie offt is also sometimes translated by Bretkūnas in his NT as kiek || kartu at Mt 23,37 and kiekas || kartu at Lk 13,34.

and in the section of the hymnbook published by him and Mažvydas, strengthens the assumption that the compiler of BP used one of these texts.

As a subsidiary argument that Bretkūnas did not translate this text himself, alongside others we could also point to the spelling of the personal name Kristus. Both in translated and semi-original BP text, there is a clear tendency to spell the personal name Kristus (as well as the words krikštas, krikštyti, krikščionis, krikščioniškas, krikščionystė) with K: Kristus occurs 1,793 times in the two volumes of the Postilė, while Christus occurs only 34 times. The following table reflects how Bretkūnas spells this personal name in pericopes, sermons, the “Passijose,” and prayers, and in Vilentas’s Enchiridione, as well as in the Euangeliose and Epistolose, and how Mažvydas uses it in his writings (Mž):

Table 5

BP | E | EE | Mž ∇ | ∅ | # | k | m | BP total Kriſtus | 16 | 1765 | 6 | | 5 | 1792 | 0 | 0 | 0 Krjſtus | | 3 | | | | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 Chriſtus | 6 | 17 | 10 | 1 | | 34 | 61 | 110 | 332

Thus, despite the strong influence of the spelling in his source texts, Bretkūnas tried to spell this personal name with K (1,792x), whereas Vilentas in E and EE, as well as Mažvydas in his writings, uses only the form Chriſtus (61x, 110x, and 332x, respectively). If Bretkūnas had translated this text himself, it is likely that he would have written the letter K in this personal name, rather than Ch. Incidentally, Klein later recommended spelling it this way in his grammar, since ch is used only in foreign words and Lithuanians “can scarcely pronounce this letter correctly” ⁵¹ (PLKG: 421). Even in present-day Lithuanian dialects, the consonant [ch] (like [h] and [ʃ]) is considered new and rarely used⁵².

5. The relationship of “Kosanies” to the text of the chapter “Trumpas klaufimas ir priepro wimas…” in Vilentas’s Enchiridiono

5.1. A second text resembling the pericope under comparison from the Postilė is printed in the Enchiridiono chapter “Trumpas klaufi=||mas ir priepro wimas tu kurie || nor

51 The examples show that both h and ch are meant.

52 In almost all of Lithuania, [k] is usually pronounced instead of the consonant [ch], except in the Klaipėda region, where speech was influenced by German for a long time, and in the southeastern and eastern outskirts of the dialect area, where the influence of Slavic languages is strong (LKA II 1982: 108–109). The Samogitian dūnininkai and dounininkai pronounce [ch] in only a few words, and then only speakers of the younger generation do so (Grinaveckis 1973: 284–285).

to receive the holy Sacra=||ment of the Altar. M. M.“ (E 68,10–21). In it, the significance of the Eucharist is explained through questions and answers. This fragment appears as the answer to the third question, although the question merely asks one to state the “words of the testament concerning [the holy =||supper of the altar.” Fritz Bechtel (1882: IV) had already entertained the idea that M.M. might be a cryptonym for Martynas Mažvydas, since it was known that Mažvydas had also translated liturgical texts into Lithuanian. Bechtel conjectured that Vilentas had merely transcribed this section in his own dialect. Jurgis Gerulis (1927: 68) and Vaclovas Biržiška (1957: 159; 1960: 108) regarded the entire section as an expanded version by Mažvydas himself of the passage in the 1547 Katekizmo entitled “Ape Swetaf̄ti alba Sacramenta altariaus…”, which Vilentas had printed from a surviving Mažvydas manuscript.

5.2. However, the comparative text in this section of the Enchiridiono differs considerably not only from “Kosanies” and section E, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…”, but also from the corresponding text in Mažvydas’s Katekizmo. It is almost identical to the text “Szodzei ape S. Weczere…” (MžG 589–590) in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksconiskų, published by Vilentas in 1570 and mentioned earlier in section 3 of this article; this text appears in the section “Catechifma praftas Textas” at the end of the hymnal. The two differ only in a few insignificant orthographic details: Ponas E 68,10 – POnas MžG II 633,12; Kjlika E 68,16 – kjlika MžG II 634,1; po wecžeres E 68,16 – powe=||cžeres MžG II 634,1–2; ghiemus E 68,17 – iemus MžG II 634,1; to E 68,18 – to MžG II 634,3; kraujes E 68,18 – kraujes MžG II 634,4; ius E 68,19 – ijus MžG II 634,5; pralietas E 68,19 – praletas MžG II 634,5; ghriekų E 68,20 – ghreku MžG II 634,6 (all observed differences are listed here).

Since Part II of Gesmių Chriksconiskų was published 9 years before the Enchiridioną, Vilentas could have transferred this text into his catechism from the aforementioned Mažvydas hymnal rather than directly from Mažvydas’s manuscript, as Gerulis (1927: 68) and Biržiška (1957: 159; 1960: 108) suggest.

There are at least 55 differences between “Kosanies” and the text of section E, “Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprowimas…”. Since the other discrepancies are similar to those between “Kosanies” and the section “Szodzei ape S. Weczere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s hymnal (discussed in 3.1–3.6), they will not be reviewed in greater detail here.

6. The relationship of “Kosanies” to the text of Mažvydas’s Paraphrasio

6.1. The fifth text resembling the “Kosani” in the Postilės, found in editions published before 1591, is Mažvydas’s Paraphrasyje. Bretkūnas had already included this translation, attributed to Mažvydas, in his Giesmes Duchau nas and published it in 1589 together with the Kancionalu and Kollectomis. It is conjectured that Vilentas had published it as early as 1572 or 1574 (Gerullis 1927: 2; 89), but the edition has not survived. Gerulis established that Paraphrasis was translated from the 1558 Prussian agenda “Preußische Kirchenordnung”

(hereafter KO). However, curiously, this text resembling “Kosani” was not translated from the aforementioned agenda. The same examples used above (2.2) would also show here that it was not translated from a German source. The text of Paraphrasio is very close to the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo and its principal source—the catechism of Seklucjan. Here are several phrases that demonstrate the similarity between the texts of MžP and MžK and their difference from the Prussian agenda and “Kosanies.” Since these same fragments from Luther’s 1543 German Small Catechism and Seklucjan’s 1545 Polish catechism were presented in the comparison of the BP, E, and MžK texts (2.2), they are not repeated here; instead, examples from the Prussian agenda are added:

BP I 62,4–5 ſchito ‖ on the night when he was given up

MžP 7,4–5 ſchitoie nakteia kuroi he was to ‖ be given up

MžK 26,3–4 ſchitage nakteie \ when ‖ he was to be given up

KO 141 in the night when he was betrayed ‖

BP I 62,11–12 ſchitoiu budu he took the Cup after Sup=‖per

MžP 8,4–5 SChitūgi budu after Supper ‖ he took the Cup

MžK 26,12–13 Schitugi budu after Supper‖per \ he took the Cup

KO 143 Likewise, he also took the Cup after the ‖ evening meal

BP I 62,12–13 gave it to them, saying / ‖ Take and drink, all of you, of this

MžP 8,5–9,1– gave them ‖ saying / Drink / of this all

MžK 26,13–15 gave them \ saying \ ‖ Drink \ of this all

KO 143–144 gave them and ‖ said / Take and ‖ drink all from it

BP I 62,15–16 for you will be poured / ‖ for the forgiveness of sins

MžP 9,3–5 for you ‖ will be poured out for the forgiveness of sin=‖s of yours

MžK 27,3–5 for you will be pou=‖red out for the forgiveness of your sins

KO 144 will be shed for you=‖ / for the forgiveness ‖ of sins

BP I 62,16–17 Then do this / ‖ as often as you drink in remembrance of me

MžP 9,5–10,1–2 Do this / as often=‖ as you drink in remem‖brance of me

MžK 27,5–7 do this as often‖as you drink in remembrance ‖ of me

KO 144–145 Do this ‖ as often as you drink / in ‖ remembrance of me

6.2. In the Paraphrasis text, forms of the 2nd person plural imperative of the verb characteristic of Mažvydas, with the formant -ke-, have been retained: Imket walgiket MžP 7,7, dariket MžP 8,2; 9,5, Gerket MžP 9,1, and, as in his Catechism, the preposition for: vſ MžP 8,1; 9,3 is also written this way. However, where in Mažvydas’s Catechism there was a Samogitian

of the verb duoti (‘to give’), the 3rd-person singular form of the past tense is dewe (MžK 26,4; 26,14); there, MžP already has the Aukštaitian dawe (MžP 7,6; 8,5). In place of the Žemaitian pronominal plural dative form gims (MžK 26,14), the Paraphrasio text has the Aukštaitian iems (MžP 8,5). Apart from the differences mentioned here and some other orthographic details, the MžP text differs more substantially from MžK in only one prefix (ifchle=||tas MžK 27,3–4, wilana SK 14,1 – pralietas MžP 9,4, vergolten LK and KO) and in the word order of one sentence. The word order of this fragment in MžP may have been altered under the influence of one of Luther’s Catechisms or the 1558 Prussian Agenda (perhaps also later ones⁵³), but the capitalization suggests that the Agenda was nevertheless consulted:

MžK 26,15–27,1–2 That || chalice new Testament=||is my blood

MžP 9,2–3 that Chal ice is new T estament=||my blood

KO 144 This cup is the new || Testament in my || blood=

LK 390 This chalice is the new testament in my blood

6.3. In the Paraphrasyje, as in the Prussian Agendas, this text is presented with musical notation, but the melodies also differ from those in the Agendas. Apparently, because the text had already been translated once and, moreover, was associated with a melody and sung in churches, Mažvydas did not translate it again from German, but included the version familiar to everyone, perhaps already memorized⁵⁴.

6.4. The number of differences between the Postilės “Kosan ies” and the corresponding text in Mažvydas’s Paraphrasio is even greater than that between “Kosanies” and the corresponding texts in both of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono.

⁵³ In the Prussian Agendas of 1558, 1568, 1583, and 1598, the words and melodies of the liturgical texts are the same; only the spelling differs (Hubatsch 1968: 135).

⁵⁴ It is a pity that this MžP text, as a hymn, went unnoticed in Dainora Pociūtė’s book XVI–XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės. In the list of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century church hymns from Prussian Lithuania included at the end of the book, the first source cited for the hymn “Ponas musu Jefus Kriftus” is the hymnal of Lazarus Sengstock, published in 1612 (Pociūtė 1995: 169). The abbreviation vert. following it indicates that the hymn is translated, although no original is identified, while the abbreviation Vert.? means that the translator is unknown. The author included this hymn in the index of anonymous hymns and classified it among hymns of anonymous origin and by unidentified authors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (: 178). However, as mentioned (6.3), it had already been printed with musical notation in Bretkūnas’s 1589 Gesmės Duchaunose, that is, 23 years earlier than its reprinting in Sengstock’s hymnal, together with the entire Paraphrasiu. Nor should there be any doubt about the authorship of the translation, since the Paraphrasis is a work signed by its author: “per Martina Moſwida ifchgulditta”. This is all the more so because, to date, no one has questioned that the translator of the chapter in Part 4 of the first Lithuanian book, “Ape Swetaſti alba Sa=||cramenta altariaus…” (in which this text was first printed), was not Mažvydas. A similar text, but without musical notation and somewhat closer to the German version, is also found in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chrikščoniškų (see 3.1), published in 1570, and in Vilentas’s Enchiridione. We might provisionally regard Mažvydas’s Katekizmą as the earliest source for this hymn (though it was printed without musical notation). Its year of publication would then be 1547, not 1612, and it would belong to the sixteenth, not the seventeenth, century.

texts and Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chrikščoniskų Part II section—about 62 have been counted, i.e. approximately 2.5 times more than between the pericope in this Postilė and the text of the Enchiridion closest to it. These differences resemble those between “Kosanies” and MžK: in addition to the same textual divergences, Paraphrasis differs from the BP pericope in retaining Samogitian 2nd-person plural imperative forms of verbs (all five verbs here have the formant -ke-), in spelling the preposition už with the characters v and β, and in the gen. sg. ending -o in atleidimo. However, unlike MžK and BP, it has acc. sg. dūna, ilchdūtas with ū rather than the character o, as well as SChitū gi, rather than Schitoiu, as in BP.

Given the large number of differences, especially textual divergences that attest to the existence of distinct originals for these texts, Paraphrasis, like Mažvydas’s Katekizmas, could not have been the principal source of “Kosanies.”

7. The relationship of “Kosanies” to BNT Luke 22:19

7.1. One sentence in “Kosanies” leads to the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 22, verse 19; its compound passive form and tense of the verb ‘to betray’ differ from the text both in the closest section of the Enchiridion, “Sacramentas Altoriaus…,” and in MžK, as well as in all the other Lithuanian sources mentioned here:

BP I 62,8–9 kurſai vſch || ius ira ifchdodams BNT Lk 22,19 kurſai uſ ius ira || dodamas E 33,8 kurſai vſch nus būs ifchdūtas MžK 26,9–10 kurſſai vſ jus bus iſſldotas MžG 589,17–18 kurſai vſch ius bus || ifchdūtas MžP 8,1–2 kurſſai vſ || ius bus ifchdūtas

BP and BNT Luke 22:19 use the same compound passive present-tense verb form with a present passive participle; only in BP does the participle have the prefix ifch- (perhaps under the influence of E, since the participle here also has the prefix ifch- in E 33,8).

Bretkūnas translated the Gospel according to Luke from the Latin Vulgate. The compound form of the verb išduoti in BP and BNT corresponds to the praesens indicativi passivi form quod pro vobis datur found in Luke 22:19 of the Vulgate. The same variant as in the Vulgate is also found in the first Latin catechisms of 1529 and in later Latin translations of Luther’s Small Catechisms by Georg Major and Justus Jonas: quod pro vobis datur. This passage is essentially no different in Luther’s Small Catechisms in German: der für euch gegeben wird, but it can be

translated in two ways: as the present tense of the process passive and as the future tense of the stative (resultative) passive.

It is difficult to say precisely which source the compiler of the Postilė relied on—his own translation of BNT, the Vulgate, or one of Luther’s Latin catechisms—because in this respect they agree. Only the Polish catechisms of Malecki and Seklucjan differ clearly from the BP and BNT variant: SK 13,7–8: ktore żawas || będzę wydano; MK 9,8–9: kto =||re za was wydano bodzie.

7.2. Orientation toward the BNT Gospel according to Luke is also indicated by the use of the vowel o instead of the diphthong uo in the same sentence of this Gospel: acc. sg. dona, dodamas. As noted in section 2 of this article (2.2), “Kosanyje” likewise has o instead of uo: acc. sg. Dona BP I 62,6, ifchdotas BP I 62,5, ifchdodams BP I 62,9, although throughout the Postilė these words are written with ū much more often (3.8 times as often). In this respect it also agrees with Mažvydas’s Katekizmu. In the latter we find the corresponding acc. sg. dona MžK 26,5, ifchdotas MžK 26,4, and ifƀ||dotas MžK 26,9–10. Since both BP and BNT use in this sentence a compound passive present-tense form with a present passive participle, with only the BP participle bearing the prefix ifch-, whereas MžK has a compound passive future-tense form with a past passive participle, we may assume that Bretkūnas compared this sentence with his translation of BNT Luke 22:19.

7.3. Bretkūnas may also have consulted BNT when changing the word order in another fragment of this verse. Although the word order in BP also agrees with MžK, the different prefix used there (ifchle=||tas in MžK 27,3–3 corresponds to wilana in SK 14,1) means this example, too, points more strongly to BNT Luke 22:19:

BP I 62,15 which for you will be poured

E 33,14–15 which for you will be poured

MžK 27,3–3 which for you will be =poured

BNT Luke 22:19 course || for you will be poured out

8. Conclusions

1. Of the 67 Gospel and 2 Epistle pericopes in Jono Bretkūno Postilėje (BP), 65 Gospel and 2 Epistle pericopes are the same as those in Baltramiejus Vilentas’s book Ewangelias bei Epistolas (EE), while Bretkūnas added 2. A text resembling one of these, entitled “KOSANIS APE VVAECZAE-||re Pono mufu Iefaus Chriſtaus, Dienoje || kaledu ant Miſchparo ſakama” (BP I 62), has been found in four publications issued before 1591: 1) Mažvydas’s Katekizme (1547; MžK); 2) Part II of Mažvydas’s Giesmių Chrikščoniškų, published by Vilentas (1570; MžG); 3) Vilentas’s Enchiridione (1579; E), where it occurs in two

sections: a) “Sacramentas Altoriaus / kaip || tô Hukinikas ſcheimina ſawa || praſcheȝiaufei tur || mokinti” (E 33,3–17); b) “Trumpas klauſi=||mas ir prie= prowimas tu kurie || nor prijmti ſchventaȝghi Sacra=||menta Altoraus. M.M.” (E 68,10–21); and 4) Mažvydas’s Paraphrasyje (1589; MžP).

2. The text in the section “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono should be regarded as the principal source of this pericope. “Kosanies” differs from it relatively little: 23 differences have been found (mostly orthographic and morphological); there are no major textual discrepancies, no words have been added or omitted, and capitalization does not differ. The following facts show that Bretkūnas used specifically the text in the section “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” of the Enchiridiono: a) in the pericope of the Postilės, the short feminine singular locative form ſchito has been preserved; b) the forms of the second-person plural imperative of the verbs imti, daryti, gerti, valgyti show precisely the same distribution between the Aukštaitian and Samogitian formants (both texts have 5 identical forms with -ki- and 1 with -ke-), although throughout the Postilėje the Samogitian formant -ke- is more usual in these words (as shown in Table 1); c) those passages in this pericope that essentially correspond to the relevant passages in this section, although in translating them Vilentas departs somewhat from Luther’s Small Catechism (1543).

“Kosanyje” preserves features of spelling and vocabulary characteristic not only of the section “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” of the Enchiridiono, but also of another section of the Enchiridiono, “Trumpas klauſimas ir prieprowimas...”, and of the subsection “Sʒodʒei ape S. Wecʒere...” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksčoniškų, published by Vilentas: a) the spelling v and ſch in the preposition meaning ‘on’: vſch BP I 62,8, although throughout the Postilėje it is generally written uſ̌, and vſch is used only in “Kosanyje” (this is reflected in Table 4); b) the temporal adverb dažnai, likewise found only in “Kosanyje”, although throughout the Postilėje the frequency and repetition of an action are expressed with the temporal adverb tankiai.

3. The differences between “Kosanė” and the text in the section “Sacramentas Altoriaus...” of the Enchiridiono show that Bretkūnas consistently brought the spelling and morphology closer to those characteristic of the Postilei: he wrote acc. sg. ius BP I 62,9; 62,15, rather than jus as in E 33,8; 33,15; bus BP I 62,15, rather than būs as in E 33,15; uſ̌ BP I 62,15, rather than vſch as in E 33,14; naktije BP I 62,5, rather than naktie as in E 33,4; kurioje BP I 62,5, rather than kurio as in E 33,4.

4. The other Lithuanian texts mentioned cannot be regarded as the principal source of “Kosanė” for the following reasons:

a) there are many differences in spelling, punctuation, phonetics, and morphology (about 80 in all) between this pericope and the corresponding text in Mažvydas’s Katekizmo, as well as significant textual discrepancies resulting from different translation originals. However, it may have had some influence on Bretkūnas. This is suggested by the use of the letter o instead of uo (<ide *ō) in the words acc. sg. dona, ichdotas, ichdodams, and perhaps also tatai pavar-

tion instead of the pronoun tas in the chapter “Sacramentas Altoriaus…” of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono.

b) There are at least 56 differences between “Kosanies” and the chapter “Szodžei ape S. Weczere…” in Part II of Mažvydas’s Gesmių Chriksczoniszkų, published by Vilentas. The texts differ most because the latter consists of sentences based primarily on translations from Seklucjan’s Polish catechism, Luther’s German catechisms, and one other unidentified source.

c) Fifty-five differences have been observed between “Kosanies” and the text printed in the chapter “Trumpas klausimas ir prieprowimas…” of Vilentas’s Enchiridiono. Since the latter is very close to the aforementioned section of Mažvydas’s hymnal, the textual discrepancies between “Kosanies” and the second text in the Enchiridiono are the same as those between “Kosanies” and the aforementioned hymnal section.

d) Mažvydas’s Paraphrasio (MžP) text is close to the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo, but differs considerably from “Kosanies”—62 differences were found between them. Some of these (the Samogitian second-person plural imperative formant -ke- of verbs, the preposition vβ, gen. sg. atminima) are similar to those between this Postilės pericope and the text of Mažvydas’s Katekizmo.

5. When writing “Kosanyje,” Bretkūnas may also have consulted Luke 22:19 in his translation of the New Testament (BNT), since both “Kosanyje” and the BNT use the same compound present-tense passive form of the verb (iš)duoti, with a present passive participle ira ilchdodams, whereas the Enchiridione and Mažvydas’s Katekizme have a compound future-tense passive form with a past passive participle, corresponding to the German and Polish originals: būs ilchdūtas, bus ifždotas. Bretkūnas’s New Testament, like Mažvydas’s Catechism, may also have influenced the use of the grapheme o instead of uo, as well as the change in word order in one fragment.⁵⁵

Received 1998 06 16

ŠALTINIAI

BP I – Bretkūnas J. 1591: POSTILLA Tatai eſti Trumpas ir Praſtas Iſchguldimas Euangeliu / ſakamuiu Bažniczoje Krikſchczioniſchkoie / nūg Aduento ik

⁵⁵ Pastaba. Straipsnį jau parengus spaudai, buvo atkreiptas dėmesys į tai, kad ir kitose Postilės perikopėse dvigarsis [uo] rašomas raide o, o ne rašmeniu ū. Visos BP perikopės išspausdintos aukštesniu šriftu (~18 punktų) nei pamokslai ir gali būti, kad spaustuvė neturėjo šio šrifto ženklo ū.

Nuoširdžiai dėkoju prof. habil. dr. Zigm[u]i Zinkevičiui ir habil. dr. Sauliui Ambrazui už vertingas redakcines pastabas, Vilijai Gerulaitienei už santraukos vertimą į vokiečių kalbą, Audronei Stanislovaitienei ir Vytautui Zinkevičiui už nuolatinę pagalbą, man teikiamą dirbant kompiuteriu filologinius darbus.

Wæliku. Per Iana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebona Karaliaucȥiuie Pruſſu. Iſſpaude Karaliaucȥiuie Iurgis Oſterbergeras. Mæta Pono 1591.

BP II – Bretkūnas J. 1591: POSTILLA tatai eſti Trumpas ir Praſtas Iſchguldimas Euangeliu / ſakamuiu Baſnicȥoie Krikſcȥioniſchkoie / nūg Wæliku ik Aduento. Per Iana Bretkuna Lietuvos Plebona Karaliaucȥiuie Pruſſu. Iſſpauſta Karaliaucȥiuie / Iurgio Oſterbergero. Mæta Pono 1591.

BNT – Bretkūnas J. 1580: NAVIAS TESTAMENTAS. Ing Lietuwiſchką Lieſʒuwį perraſchitas. per Ianą Bretkūną Labguwos Plebona. 1580. Cituojama iš: NAVIAS TESTAMENTAS Ing Lietuwiſchką Lieſʒuwį perraſchitas. per Ianą Bretkūną Labguwos Plebona. 1580. DAS NEUE TESTAMENT in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johann Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau 1580: Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 7 und 8, Labiau, i. Pr. 1580. Hrsg. von J. D. Range und Fr. Scholz. 1991. Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich.

E – Vilentas B. 1579: ENCHIRIDION Catechiſmas maſʒas / dæł paſpalitu Plebону ir Koʒnadiju / Wokiſchku lieſʒuwiu paraſchits per Daktara Martina Luthera. O iſch Wokiſchka lieſʒuwia ant Lietuwiſchka pilnai ir wiernai pergulditas / per Baltramieju Willentha Plebona Karalauȥiuie ant Schteindama. Iſchſpaultas Karalauȥiu per Iurgi Oſterbergera / Metu Diewa M. D. LXXIX.

EE – Vilentas B. 1579: Euangelias bei Epiſtolas / Nedeliu ir ſchwentuju dienoſu ſkaitomoſias / Baſnicȥoſu Chrikſcȥoniſchkoſu / pilnai ir wiernai pergulditas ant Lietuwiſchka Sʒodʒia / per Baltramieju Willenta / Plebona Karalauȥiui ant Schteindama. Priegtam / ant gala priedeta ira Hiſtoria apie muka ir ſmerti Wieſchpaties muſu Ieſaus Chriſtaus pagal kieturiu Euangeliſtu. Iſchſpaultas Karalauȥiui per Iurgi Oſterbergera / Metu M. D. LXXIX.

LB – Luther M. Das Newe Teſtament Deutʒſch. Vuittemberg. 1546. Cituojama iš: Luther M. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Die Deutsche Bibel. Bd. 6. Weimar, 1929. Skaitmenys rodo šio tomo puslapius.

LK – Luther M. 1543: ENCHIRIDION Der Kleine Catechiſmus. Cituojama iš: Luther M. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 30¹. Weimar, 1910. Skaitmenys rodo šio tomo puslapius.

MK – Malecki J. 1546: Catechiſmvs to ieſt. Nauka Krzesczianska od Apostolow dla prostich ludzi we trezech cząstkach zamkniona, y z drugiemi cząstkami ku teyże nauce krzesczianskie przileżącemi, z Lacinskiego jęzika pilnie przełożona. Przez Jana Maleckiego S. […] VV Krolevcv. M. D. XLVI. Cituojama iš: Neumann F.W. 1941: Studien zum polnischen frühreformatorischen Schrifttum. T. 1: Die Katechismen von 1545 und 1546 und die Polemik zwischen Seklucyan und Maletius. Leipzig.

MžK – Mažvydas M. 1547: CATECHISMVS PRAſty Sʒadei, Makſlas ſkaitima raſchta yr gieſmes del krikſcȥianiſtes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey ſugulditas KARALIAVCʒVI VIII. dena Meneſes Sauſia, Metu vſgimima Diewa. M. D. XLVII. Šis ir visi kiti Mažvydo darbai cituojami iš: Martynas Mažvydas 1993: Katekizmas ir kiti raštai. Vilnius.

MžG – Mažvydas M. 1570: GESMES Chrikſcȥoniſkas gedomas baſnicȥoſu per Welikas ir Sekminias ik Aduenta. Iſchſpaultas Karalauȥiui / nūg Iona Daubmana. Metu Diewa / M. D. LXX.

MžP – Mažvydas M. 1589: PARAPHRASIS. Permanitina poter aus malda / per Martina Moſwida iſchguldita. [Karaliaučius, 1589].

KO – Preußische Kirchenordnung 1558: Cituojama iš: Hubatsch W. Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche Ostpreussens. Bd. 3: Dokumente. 1968, Göttingen. Skaitmenys rodo šio tomo puslapius.

SK – Seklucjan J. 1545: Katechizmv text profiti dla proftego lvdv wkrolewczy. 1.5.4.5.

V – Vulgata. Cituojama iš: Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart.

G – Graikiškas Naujasis Testamentas. Cituojama iš: Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart.

LITERATŪRA

Aleknavičienė O. 1998: Jono Bretkūno Postilės perikopių autorystė: Mt 3,13–17 šaltiniai. In: Baltistica, V priedas.

Ambrazas S., Aleknavičienė O., Zinkevičius V. 1998: Istorinis lietuvių kalbos žodynas ir senųjų raštų kompiuterizavimas. In: LKK XXXIX.

Ambrazas V. 1962: Absoliutinis naudininkas XVI–XVII a. lietuvių kalbos paminkluose. In: LKK V, 3–106.

Baniulienė D. Nepaprastas Mažvydo metų atradimas. In: „Lietuvos aidas“ Nr. 162, 1997 08 20.

Bechtel F. 1882: Bartholomäus Willent’s litauische Uebersetzung des Luther’schen Enchiridions und der Episteln und Evangelien, nebst den Varianten der von Lazarus Sengstock besorgten Ausgabe dieser Schriften. Göttingen.

Bezzenberger A. 1893: Zur litauischen Litteraturgeschichte. In: Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft. Bd. 3. Hf. 13–18. Heidelberg.

Biržiška V. 1953: Senųjų lietuviškų knygų istorija. D. 1. Chicago.

Biržiška V. 1957: Senųjų lietuviškų knygų istorija. D. 2. Chicago.

Biržiška V. 1960: Aleksandrynas: Senųjų lietuvių rašytojų, rašiusių prieš 1865 m., biografijos, bibliografijos ir biobibliografijos. T. 1: XVI–XVII amžiai. Čikaga.

Bretkūnas J. 1983: Rinktiniai raštai. Parengė J. Palionis ir J. Žukauskaitė. Vilnius.

Dini P. 1994: L’Inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mažvydas: Studio filologico-linguistico del testo antico lituano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche. Roma.

Dini P. 1996: Apie J.Gerullį – Mažvydo (GA, MPr) leidėją. In: LKK XXXVI. Vilnius.

Falkenhahn V. 1941: Der Übersetzer der litauischen Bibel Johannes Bretke und seine Helfer: Beiträge zur Kultur- und Kirchengeschichte Altpreussens. Königsberg (Pr) und Berlin.

Ford G. 1969: The Old Lithuanian Catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579): A Phonological Morphological and Syntactical Investigation. The Hague–Paris.

Gerullis J. 1922: Mažvydas Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams. Kaunas.

Gerullis J. 1927: Senieji lietuvių skaitymai. I dalis: Tekstai su įvadais. Kaunas.

Grinaveckis V. 1973: Žemaičių tarmių istorija. Vilnius.

Hermann E. 1923: Bemerkungen zum altlitauischen Schrifttum in Preussen. In: Die Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Göttingen.

Hermann E. 1926: Litauische Studien: Eine historische Untersuchung schwachbetonter Wörter im Litauischen. Berlin.

Heussi K. 1991: Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte. 18 Aufl. Tübingen.

Hubatsch W. 1968: Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche Ostpreussens. Bd. 3: Dokumente. Göttingen.

KBI 1997: Lenzenweger J. ir kt. Katalikų bažnyčios istorija. T. 2. Vilnius.

Kleinas D. 1653: Grammatica Litvanica … Regiomonti. Cituojama iš: Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1957. Parengė T. Buchienė ir J. Palionis. Vilnius.

Koženiauskienė R. 1990: XVII–XVIII amžiaus prakalbos ir dedikacijos. Vilnius.

Лихачев Д. 1983: Текстология: На материале русской литературы X–XVII веков.

LKA II 1982: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. T. 2: Fonetika. Vilnius.

LKA III 1991: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. T. 3: Morfologija. Vilnius.

LKŽ VI 1962: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. T. 6. Vilnius.

LLICh: Lietuvių literatūros istoriografijos chrestomatija (iki 1940 m.). Parengė L. Gineitis. Vilnius, 1988.

Luther M. 1910: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 30^I. Weimar.

Luther M. 1929: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Die Deutsche Bibel. Bd. 6. Weimar.

Michelini G. 1995: Über die Stellung des Objektes in der Postille von Bretkūnas. In: Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dicata. Krakow. S. 249–256.

NBL 1997: Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Lieferung II. Obadja – Qudschu. Hrsg. von Manfred Görg, Bernhard Lang. Zürich und Düsseldorf.

Nestle-Aland 1994: Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. 3. neubearb. Aufl. Stuttgart.

Neumann F. W. 1941: Studien zum polnischen frühreformatorischen Schrifttum. T. 1: Die Katechismen von 1545 und 1546 und die Polemik zwischen Seklucyan und Maletius. Leipzig.

Palionis J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a. Vilnius.

PLKG: Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Parengė T. Buchienė ir J. Palionis. Vilnius, 1957.

Pociūtė D. 1995: XVI–XVII a. protestantų bažnytinės giesmės: Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė ir Prūsų Lietuva. Vilnius.

Range J. 1992: Bausteine zur Bretke-Forschung: Kommentarband zur Bretke-Edition (NT). Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich.

Rhesa L. 1816: Geschichte der litthauischen Bibel. Königsberg.

Rosinas A. 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida. Vilnius.

RŽ 1992: Religijotyros žodynas. Vilnius.

Salopiata P. 1929: Das Verhältnis der Evangelien-Texte in den ältesten katholisch-litauischen Drucken. Göttingen.

Seklucjan J. 1979: Wybór pism. Dokonał, opracował i wstępem poprzedził S.Rospond. Pojezierze–Olsztyn.

Skvireckas J. 1991: Bendrasis įvadas į Šventąjį Raštą. In: Šventasis Raštas. Senasis Testamentas. T. 3. P. 439–505.

Stang Chr. 1929: Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo.

Trautmann R. 1909: Die Quellen der drei altpreussischen Katechismen und des Enchiridions von Bartholomaeus Willent. In: Altpreussische Monatsschrift. Bd. 46. Königsberg.

Urbas D. 1996: Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas. Vilnius.

WP: Wolfenbüttelio postilė. Parengė J. Karaciejus. Vilnius, 1995.

Zieger A. 1967: Forschungen und Quellen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands. Bd. 5: Das religiöse und kirchliche Leben in Preussen und Kurland im Spiegel der evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts. Hrsg. von Bernhard Stasiewski. Köln Graz.

Zinkevičius Z. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos istorija. T. 2: Iki pirmųjų raštų. Vilnius.

Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija: Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius.

**DIE FRAGE NACH DEM ÜBERSETZER DER PERIKOPEN IN DER POSTILLE VON JONAS BRETĶUNAS: QUELLEN VON „KOSANIS“**

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel wird der Frage nach dem Übersetzer der Perikopen in der Postille (BP) von Jonas Bretkūnas nachgegangen und ein Versuch gemacht, festzustellen, was die Hauptquelle der Perikope „Kosanis“ gewesen sein könnte. Eine vergleichende Textanalyse ermöglicht folgende Schlußfolgerungen:

1. Von den 67 evangelischen und 2 epistolischen Perikopen in der Postille von Jonas Bretkūnas (BP) sind 65 evangelische sowie 2 epistolische Perikopen dieselben wie die im Buch von Baltramiejus Vilentas Evangelias bei Epistolas gedruckten, zwei Perikopen sind aber von Bretkūnas hinzugefügt worden. Den Text, der einer Perikope („KOSANIS APE VVÆCZE-||re Pono mufu Iefaus Chriſtaus, Dienoie || kaledu ant Miſchparo ſakama“; BP I 62) nahe kommt, finden wir in vier bis zum Jahre 1591 erschienenen Ausgaben: 1) im Katechismus von Mažvydas (1547; MžK); 2) im 2. Teil der durch Vilentas veröffentlichten Gesmes Chriksczoniskas von Mažvydas (1570; MžG); 3) im Enchiridionas von Vilentas (1579; E), wo er in zwei Kapiteln zu finden ist: a) im „Sacramentas Altoriaus / kaip || tō Hukinikas ſcheimina fawa || praſchczi aufei tur || mokinti“ (E 33, 3–17), b) im „Trumpas klaufi=||mas ir prieprowimas tu kurie || nor priimti ſchwentaghi Sacra=||menta Altoraus. M. M.“ (E 68, 10–21) und 4) im Paraphrasis von Mažvydas (1589; MžP).

2. Die Hauptquelle für diese Perikope sollte der im Kapitel „Sacramentas Altoriaus…“ des Enchiridionas von Vilentas enthaltene Text sein. „Kosanis“ weist ganz unwesentliche Unterschiede dazu auf: es wurden 23 Unterschiede festgestellt, vor allem in der Rechtschreibung und Morphologie, es gibt keine bedeutsamen Abweichungen im Text, weder fehlen Wörter noch wurden welche hinzugefügt, der Gebrauch von großen Buchstaben unterscheidet sich nicht. Folgende Tatsachen lassen schlußfolgern, daß Bretkūnas gerade den im Kapitel „Sacramentas Altoriaus…“ von Enchiridionas gedruckten Text herangezogen hat: a) die in der Perikope der Postille erhalten gebliebene Kurzform ſchito im Lokativ Singular Femininum; b) das gleiche Verhältnis zwischen den Imperativformen der Verben imti, daryti, valgyti, gerti in der 2. Person Plural mit dem aukštaitischen und žemaitischen Formans (in beiden Texten gibt es fünf gleiche Formen mit -ki- und eine mit -ke-), obwohl in der ganzen Postille das žemaitische Formans -ke- kennzeichnender ist (Tabelle 1); c) die Fragmente von dieser Perikope, die im Prinzip mit entsprechenden Fragmenten dieses Kapitels übereinstimmen, obwohl Vilentas sich bei ihrer Übersetzung in einigem vom kleinen lutherischen Katechismus (1543) entfernt hatte.

In „Kosanis“ sind die nicht nur dem Kapitel „Sacramentas Altoriaus…“ von Enchiridionas, sondern auch dem Text eines anderen Kapitels davon („Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprowimas…“) sowie dem Kapitel „Ṡodžei ape S. Wecžere…“ des 2. Teiles der durch Vilentas veröffentlichten Gesmes Chriksczoniskas charakteristischen Tatsachen der Rechtschreibung und Lexik erhalten geblieben: a) der Gebrauch von Buchstaben v und ſch in der Präposition už: vſch in BP I 62, 8, obwohl in der ganzen Postille üblicherweise uſch geschrieben wird, und vſch nur in „Kosanis“ gebraucht wurde (dazu Tabelle 4); b) darüber hinaus das Temporaladverb dažnai, das nur in „Kosanis“ verwendet wurde, obwohl die Häufigkeit und Wiederholung einer Tätigkeit in der ganzen Postille durch ein anderes Temporaladverb – tankiai – wiedergegeben wird.

3. Die Unterschiede zwischen „Kosanis“ und dem Text des Kapitels „Sacramentas Altoriaus…“ von Enchiridionas zeigen, daß Bretkūnas die Rechtschreibung und Morphologie der für die Postille typischen konsequent angeglichen hatte: Acc. Sg. hat er als ius in BP I 62, 9 sowie in BP I 62, 15 und nicht nus wie in E 33, 8 sowie in E 33, 15 geschrieben; uſch in BP I und nicht vſch wie in E 33, 14; naktije in BP I 62, 5 und nicht naktie wie in E 33, 4; kurioie in BP I 62, 5 und nicht kurio wie in E 33, 4.

4. Die anderen zum Vergleich herangezogenen Texte können nicht für die Hauptquelle für „Kosanis“ gehalten werden aus folgenden Gründen:

a) diese Perikope und der entsprechende Text des Katechismus von Mažvydas unterscheiden sich in Vielem in der Punktuation, Phonetik und Morphologie (es gibt etwa 80 Unterschiede), es gibt auch deutliche inhaltliche Unterschiede, was an unterschiedlichen Vorlagen für die Übersetzung liegt. Andererseits kann er auf bestimmte Weise Bretkūnas beeinflußt haben. Davon zeugt die Schreibung von o anstelle von uo (<ide *ö) in den Wörtern Acc. Sg. dona, ichdotas, ilchdodams sowie vielleicht auch der Gebrauch von tatai anstelle des Pronomens tas, das im Kapitel „Sacramentas Altoriaus...“ des Enchiridionas von Vilentas verwendet wurde.

b) „Kosanis“ und das im 2. Teil der durch Vilentas veröffentlichten Gesmes Chriksczoniskas von Mažvydas gedruckte Kapitel „Sʒodʒei ape S. Wecʒere...“ weisen nicht weniger als 56 Unterschiede auf. Diese Texte unterscheiden sich vor allem dadurch, daß der letztere aus Sätzen besteht, deren Grundlage Übersetzungen aus dem polnischen Seclucjanus und der deutschen Katechismen von Luther sowie noch einer weiteren nicht festgestellten Quelle bilden.

c) Beim Vergleich von „Kosanis“ und dem Text im Kapitel „Trumpas klaufimas ir prieprowimas...“ wurden 55 Unterschiede festgestellt. Der Text von diesem Kapitel ist dem Kapitel im Gesangbuch von Mažvydas besonders ähnlich.

d) Der Text von Paraphrasis von Mažvydas kommt dem Text des Katechismus von Mažvydas nahe, doch unterscheidet sich ziemlich von „Kosanis“, – dabei können 62 Unterschiede verzeichnet werden. Einige von diesen Unterschieden (daszematische verbale Formans -ke- im Imperativ der 2. Person Pl., die Präposition vʒ, Gen. Sg. atminima) sind denen zwischen dieser Perikope der Postille und dem Text des Katechismus von Mažvydas ähnlich.

5. Bei der Arbeit am „Kosanis“ kann Bretkūnas im von ihm selbst übersetzten Neuen Testament (BNT), im 19 Vers des 22 Kapitels des Evangeliums nach Lukas, nachgeschaut haben, denn sowohl im „Kosanis“ als auch im Lk 22,19 des BNT wurde dieselbe zusammengesetzte Passivform vom Verb (iš)duoti mit dem passiven Partizip von Mažvydas die deutsche und polnische Vorlage entsprechende im Präsens ira ichchodams gebraucht, indem in Enchiridionas und im Katechismus zusammengesetzte Passivform im Futur mit dem passiven Partizip im Präteritum būs iʒdūtas, bus iʒdotas zu finden ist. Das Neue Testament von Bretkūnas wie auch der Katechismus von Mažvydas kann den Gebrauch von o anstelle von uo sowie die Änderung der Wortfolge in einem der Fragmente beeinflußt haben.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PERICOPES IN JONAS BRETŪNAS’S POSTILĖ: