LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXIX (1998)

Jonas PALIONIS

Vilniaus universitetas

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LITHUANIAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND DIALECTS IN THE 18TH-CENTURY GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA

§ 1. The beginnings of the formation of a church written koine in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

It was already mentioned, in discussing the relationship between the Lithuanian written language and dialects in 18th-century East Prussia, that until this century two branches were distinguished in the development of the Lithuanian written language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the central and eastern branches—the Dzūkian one¹. But from the beginning of the 18th century, the latter evidently began to decline, and a central variety, or, more precisely, a certain church written koine began to take hold, based on the Central Aukštaitian dialect². The formation of such a koine can be associated as early as with the Kėdainiai Calvinist publications of the second half of the 17th century, in which the phonetics and morphology of the Central Aukštaitian vernaculars were interspersed with occasional forms from Samogitian and western Aukštaitian vernaculars near Samogitia³.

However, the formation of such a koine is reflected particularly clearly in the 1705 edition of the Gospels (“Ewaniele Polskie y Litewskie”), in which most of the eastern and Dzūkian forms found in earlier editions were replaced by central forms. For example, in it forms with the eastern puntininkai diphthongs [um], [un], [im], [in] were centralized; cf. the 1690 edition, n. sg. m. łumdnikas 78,7, g. pl. duntu 31,19, Vnt untros 14,5, Vnt pinktos 33,4... and the 1705 edition łamdinikas 71,8, dantu 27,18, Ant antros 11,24, Ant penktos 29,2... It also centralized (respectively, westernized) the eastern and Dzūkian accusative singular endings; cf. the 1690 edition gieru 28,8, runku 29,9, galiby 17,9, źwayzdy 21,8... and the 1705 edition gierą 24,2, ranką 25,12, galibę 14,12, źwayzdę 18,2–3... Cf. also the 1690 edition, i. sg. duonu 46,7, fu giedu 126,7, fu galiby didžu 4,4–5... and the 1705 edition duona 41,6, fu gieda 119,24, fu galibe didžia 2,3–4..., the 1690 edition in. sg. kami 215,5, mielty 135,2, źiwati 174,5... and the 1705 edition kame 201,5, mielte 127,14, źiwate 163,16... In addition, in the 1705 edition the conjunction adunt is regularly changed to idant, and the preposition and prefix ažu to

¹ P a l i o n i s J. The relationship between the Lithuanian written language and dialects in 17th-century East Prussia. – LKK XXXVIII, 38–62.

² Z. Z i n k e v i č i u s calls it an indeterminate and imprecise term, “traditional written language”; see his “History of the Lithuanian Language” 4, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990, 24 and elsewhere.

³ For a more detailed discussion, see P a l i o n i s J. The Lithuanian Literary Language in the 16th–17th Centuries, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967, 75–77. Since the language in the 1781 edition of “K n i g o s N o b a z n i s t e s K r i k š č i o n i s z k o s,” apparently somewhat edited by Mykolas Cerauskas (mainly with regard to spelling and punctuation), was essentially not revised, the relationship between the language of this edition and the dialects is not discussed here.

101

už, preposition terp into between. However, the fairly regular change of unstressed ending -o in the 1690 edition to -a in the 1705 edition, e.g., g. sg. m. giero noro 14,4 > giera nora 11,13, giwo 187,14 > giwa 175,23..., praet. 3 átaio 17,6 > ateia 14,4, buvo 12,4 > buwa 9,17... did not fit very well with the tendency toward centralization (or, respectively, westernization). This change probably indicates that the editor of the 1705 edition came from the northern Lithuanian dialect area or wanted to accommodate its speakers.

§ 2. The problem of centralizing the eastern Gospels

It is not easy to answer the question of why the 1705 edition of the Gospels marked a sharp turn away from the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect toward the Central Aukštaitian dialect. This is usually explained by the Polonization of the Lithuanian nobility in the Vilnius region and the lack of anyone concerned with publishing Eastern texts⁴. Although this explanation has some basis, it is nevertheless a priori in nature and too general. The fact that in 1713 the fifth edition of K. Sirvydas’s Eastern dictionary was published in Vilnius, that Eastern baptismal and other liturgical formulas (“Rituale sacramentorvm”) were printed there until the end of the third quarter of the eighteenth century, and that Eastern manuscript sermon texts have survived, written not only in the early eighteenth century (“Contiones Litvanicae”)⁵ but also at its end (the 1797 collection of sermons by Kiprijonas Lukauskas)⁶, shows that the demand for Eastern religious texts, especially Gospel texts, in the Diocese of Vilnius could not have disappeared entirely. On the other hand, a clergyman did not necessarily have to come from the Vilnius region to attend to the publication of Eastern Gospels. Preparing a new Eastern edition, unchanged or only slightly changed in linguistic terms and based on earlier editions, was easy for any Lithuanian-speaking clergyman from any region. There must have been quite a few such clergymen, who had graduated from the Vilnius diocesan seminary for priests established as early as 1582 and worked among Eastern Aukštaitians; Eastern Gospel texts would undoubtedly have been useful to them, since they would have been more comprehensible to local people. Thus, apparently, there were other reasons that led to the centralization of the language in the 1705 edition of the Gospels.

One of them may have been the desire, especially among the leadership of the Diocese of Samogitia, to return to the earlier tradition (that of M. Daukša and Calvinist writings). This desire may have been encouraged by the leadership’s aim to expand and strengthen Catholicism in the southeastern part of the diocese⁷, where (especially in Kėdainiai and its surroundings) in the second half of the seventeenth century

⁴ Zinkevičius Z. The Eastern Lithuanian written language of the seventeenth century, its origin and disappearance. – Baltistica 8(2), 1972, 98; On the origin of the Lithuanian written language. – ibid. 13 (1), 1977, 243; History of the Lithuanian language 4,24; Jonikas P. The Lithuanian language and nation through the ages, Chicago, 1987, 128.

⁵ See Palionis J. On the language of “Contiones Litvanicae”. – “Kalbotyra” 23 (1), Vilnius, 1971, 37–42.

⁶ See Karaciejus J. A few remarks on the language of K. Lukauskas’s “Sermons”. – Lukauskas K. Sermons, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1996,19.

⁷ In the seventeenth century, the Diocese of Samogitia included not only the areas inhabited by actual Samogitians, but also a considerable number of Aukštaitian parishes: Joniškis, Šeduva, Smilgiai, Radviliškis, Pakruojis, Klovainiai, Lygumai, Smilgiai, Rozalimas, Krakės, Baisogala, Krekenava, Surviliškis, Dotnuva, Kėdainiai, Josvainiai, Pašusvys, Veliuona, Jurbarkas, Betygala, Ariogala, Vilkija, Joniškėlis, Kriukai, Pašvitinys, Linkuva, Saločiai, Šiaulėnai, etc. (see Czersky St. Opis Żmudzkiéy dyecezyi; Wilno 1830).

102

The Reformed had firm positions here as well and published a considerable number of their writings based on the Western Aukštaitian dialect.

Another possible reason is that the Central Aukštaitian dialect, being transitional between the Eastern, Western, and Southern Aukštaitian dialects, may have been better suited than any other to the needs of church practice: it had not only an older tradition of printed religious writings, but also a considerable number of structural features in common with the non-Eastern Aukštaitian dialects and subdialects. Finally, the possibility that the editor of the 1705 edition originated from the Central Aukštaitian dialect area should not be overlooked, although this is hardly likely to have been decisive: the texts of the Gospels, like those of other religious writings, had to be approved by the church authorities. It is true that no approval is indicated on the title page of the 1705 edition, but this does not mean that it appeared without the church authorities’ knowledge. On the title page of the 1647 (perhaps the second?) edition of the Gospels, the approval is expressed in the words „Wydane za dozwoleniem ſtárƒzych“ (cf. also the analogous entry in M. Daukša’s postil, „Su walá ir daláidimu wireuſių“, or the entries in K. Sirvydas’s „Punktų sakymų“: “z dozwoleniem starszych wydáne“ Id., „Zá pozwoleniem Stárſzych“ II d.).

By approving the 1705 edition of the Gospels, the church authorities undoubtedly sanctioned the linguistic changes made in that edition as well. One may even surmise that, seeking to bring its language closer to that of the Reformed publications familiar to the people of Kėdainiai and thereby to disseminate Catholic writings more widely in the southeastern part of the Samogitian bishopric, they deliberately encouraged the Central Aukštaitianization of the language in the 1705 edition of the Gospels.

Whatever the reasons for the 1705 edition of the Gospels’ turn toward the Central Aukštaitian dialect, that turn was highly significant for the development of the Lithuanian written language in the eighteenth century. It was also reflected in the anonymous grammar of 1737, which stated that the title of the grammar indicated the universality of the dialect used in it [„Praefixus exili huic operae titulus, monſtrat Univerſalem huius (qua conſtat) Dialecti per totam Litvaniam acceptatio-nem“]. It largely determined the subsequent development of this language, especially its ecclesiastical style, in the nineteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many non-Eastern writings of the eighteenth century were likewise based on the Central Aukštaitian dialect, mixed to a greater or lesser degree with Samogitian or Eastern features.

First of all, the 1705 edition served as the basis for later editions of the „Evangelijų...“, of which more than twenty appeared in the eighteenth century. For a long time, probably in order to preserve uniformity in the Gospel texts, their language was not altered. Only in the 1779 edition do a few Samogitian forms appear sporadically, for example: praet. 3 kalbeje 63,25, cond. 1 sg. padarico 49,7, regecio 49,9–10, imper. 2 pl. palirodikiet 137,8, n. pl. žodey 81,13 (the latter form is already found in the 1774 edition). Even more Samogitian forms occur in the 1794 edition, although they too can be found only here and there. For example, in addition to the Samogitian forms just mentioned from the 1779 edition, which were carried over into the latter, the following should also be included: a. sg. m. prižodi 39,5 (// priežodi 100,24), praes. 3 gale 98,4, praes. 2 pl. tikieie 59,12, regiete 74,13, part. act. praes.

103

n. sg. m. palžanteys “those who tear” 111,21–22, fu munim 104, 9, adv. tujaus 55,4. Samogitian forms of this and other kinds are also found in the 1797 and 1799 editions, which were based on the editions published before them.

§ 3. The ecclesiastical koine in the „Pamoksle krikščianiškame“

One of the earliest eighteenth-century booklets published in the ecclesiastical koine is „Pamokslas Krikščioniſzkas“, which appeared in 1725 and was intended for the faithful of the Samogitian bishopric. The preface included in it might lead one to conclude that it was written by Bishop A. Horainas: „Jo Mylista kunigas Aleksandras Horainas byskupas Žemaičiu norėdamas dusziu sawo aweliu iszganimo kaip perla arba žemcziuga brangiausia but regedamas sawo byskupistes žmonemus palecawojā“. However, it is believed that Horainas merely recommended that the booklet be printed, while its author was the Jesuit preacher Pranas Šrubauskas (1620–1680)⁸. If this was indeed the case, then the 1725 edition cannot have been the first; moreover, it must have been prepared by a speaker of the Samogitian dialect⁹.

The predominance of Central Aukštaitian forms in the phonology and morphology of the 1725 „Pamokslo...“ is indicated, on the one hand, by the retention of hard [ł] before vowels of the [e] type and, on the other, by the fact that the first elements of the diphthongs [a, e + m, n] are in most cases not narrowed; cf.: a) inf. attaylt 31,6, adv. ikšiotay 2,2..., inf. gaytetis 37,24–25, n. sg. f. meyte 22,13, imper. 2 sg. Milek 22,10..., b) adv. amžinay 48,11, g. sg. f. amžinos 27,11..., in. sg. f. Antro 20,14, i. sg. m. Brangiauiu 16,19, in. sg. m. danguy 7,14..., n. sg. f. śwenčiaulia 4,10, n. sg. m. žianktas... However, it cannot be said that these features, especially the latter, are consistently maintained. Apparently owing to the influence of earlier Eastern texts, occasional relic forms with puntininkas [um], [un] also occur here, for example: praet. 3 nužingie 12,20, fut. 3 palumdis 46,16, g. sg. f. pinktos 45,16, a. pl. m. žinkkus 40, 3. In the later editions of „Pamoksto...“ (1743, 1762), almost all these forms were replaced by Central Aukštaitian (or Western Aukštaitian) forms: nužengie 11,13–14, nužengie Pkr³, žienklus Pkr³..., 29,8. On the other hand, the later editions, especially that of 1762, also contain a few forms that may be regarded as Samogitian: g. pl. draud enčių 19,28; 22,13–14, mitaširdingu t. p. 24,19, g. sg. f. mileftas t. p. 17,23, g. pl. nupehnu 29,23 (// praet. 2 sg. nuopeln iey 29,6), prviž muni 18,19, n. sg. m. prilztarawimas 23,2–3 (alongside prież 20,24, inf. prieżtráut 43,1), inf. saugotyis 32,21, praet. 3 ludėie 15,25, imper. 2 sg. [zwękies 41,12–13... This suggests that the 1762 edition was probably prepared by a speaker of the Samogitian dialect (a dounininkas), drawing on the earlier editions. There are more Samogitian features in the expanded 1781 edition as well; cf.: praes. 3 doud 38,12, a. sg. muni 71,9, praep. nug 35,19, d. pl. wyfums 39,4, adv. Tonkie 17,24 cond. 3 izgielbietum 10,19.

⁸ Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 1, Chicago: JAV LB Kultūros fondas, 1960, 322; cf. Lietuvos TSR bibliografija [hereafter LTB], Vilnius: Mintis, 1969, 409.

⁹ M. Valančius called him a Samogitian (see Valančius M. Raštai 2, Vilnius: Vaga,1972, 271), whereas LTB 403 traces his origins to Kaunas.

104

§ 4. The churchly [language] in rural Catholic hymnals

A Catholic hymnal, “Balsas širdies” [The Voice of the Heart], was also printed in Bažnytinė kaimas in 1726; it is attributed (not without some reservations) to the aforementioned Pr. Šrubauskas and saw about ten editions in the eighteenth century¹⁰. Since most of the hymns in this hymnal were taken from S. Slavočinskis’s 1646 “Giesmės” [Hymns], while some psalm translations were taken from “Knyga nobažnystės” [Book of Piety], prepared by S. Jaugelis-Telega (with individual lines of the hymns and psalms edited to a greater or lesser extent)¹¹, it may therefore also have inherited many linguistic features from those prototypes. For example, some Samogitian forms may have entered the 1726 hymnal from the latter (a. pl. f. Gieydenčias BŠ 235,11, imper. 2 pl. giedokiam ibid. 41,2, adv. Ikayl̇tey, in. sg. f. winibey ibid. 150,8, etc.). In many cases, however, the Samogitian forms of Slavočinskis’s hymnal were replaced by Aukštaitian forms in the 1726 hymnal (cf. imper. 2 pl. dziaukiateś SIG 85,13> džiaukites BŠ 20,24; g. sg. f. Iwas 68,16> Jewos 7,5; n. sg. f. mitaširdinga 69,12> miehaširdinga 7,16; praep pri 7,5> prieg 13,5; d. pl. m. wil̇ims 67,15> wiliems 6,18). The unstressed ending -a was especially often changed to -o, for example: praet. 3 atwadawá SIG 70,4>atwadawo BŠ 7,25–26; buwa 76,12>buwo 13,12; ławá 75,14>ławo 12,16; tawa 69,7> tawo 7,13...

Apart from Samogitian forms occurring here and there, “Balsas širdies” also contains certain forms with -u, -i (<-ą, -ę): characteristic of eastern Aukštaitians and Dzūkians: a. sg. giełmi linkłmu 107,15, kožnu žmogų 142,11, kunu ir krauju 108,11, stalu 108,10...; n. sg. dawis 72,15, pajautis 40,5 adv. draugi 73,11... However, there are few such forms in the 1726 hymnal, and they occur more frequently only in some hymns. It may therefore be assumed that these reflect the language of earlier eastern religious writings.

The language of “Balsas širdies” is associated with the Central (or Western) Aukštaitian dialect essentially by the same phonological and morphological features as the writings mentioned above, namely: a) hard [ł] before vowels of the [e] type, on the one hand, and b) diphthongs [a, e + m, n] with unraised first elements, on the other. Overall, however, this hymnal’s phonology and morphology display a greater mosaic of forms from different dialects than do other writings from the first half of the eighteenth century, with more variant forms; cf. praes. 2 sg. affi 194,19 // Ellfi 200,12; a. sg. ká III,24 // ku 5,22; n. sg. f. knigiata V,12 // knigiate V,25, praet. 3 ataja 32,14 // n. sg. atejás 71,25; ifeja 26,16; d. pl. mum(s) 876 // mumís 92,4; praes. 3 łarktis 118,8 // fergt 118,12; imper. 1 pl. giedokem 96,10 // nia partokim 96,11–12; g. sg. wand(enio) 54,9 // wandenia 54,19...

Perhaps most of these variants arose because the compiler of “Balsas širdies” used the earlier hymnals mentioned above. This is shown, for example, by the following facts. In the psalms included in this hymnal and taken from “Knyga nobažnystės,” verbal forms with the enclitic pronoun mi were generally replaced by non-enclitic forms; cf.: praet. 2 sg. notmittoiey KN 31,6→ nia atłtoiey BŠ 136,12, praes. 3 įpmišekiná etc.

¹⁰ Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 1, 321; LTB 1, 403,406.

¹¹ Lebedys J. S. M. Slavočinskis. Giesmės, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1958, 52.

105

p. 35,15 → man izgaysina ibid. 138,20. But unchanged forms also occur here and there: imper. 2 sg. atmitayfk KN 55,21: atmitayfk BŠ 153,23. Or again: the conjunction bat in “Knyga nobažnystės” and its older variant batayg are most often replaced by bet in “Balsas širdies”; cf.: Bat KN 29,23 → Bet BŠ 134,11, Batayg ibid. 41,7 → Bet ibid. 141,9. Here and there, however, presumably under the influence of the prototype, instead of KN Batayg 41, 30, BŠ has Betayg 142, 21 (here only a was changed to e).

Interestingly, the word-initial [e-] in the earlier hymnals is changed to [a-] in “Balsas širdies”; cf.: n. sg. m. elnis SIG 235,19; KN 47,21 and alnis BŠ 143,10, i. pl. m. Erškieteys SIG 159,17 and Arfzkiečiays BŠ 61,22, praes. 3 erf SIG 73,16 and arf BŠ 13,46. Some forms with [a-] may have been taken from Slavočinskis’s hymnal, where this vowel occurs particularly often in forms of the verb būti (a. pl. m. Afancius SIG 129,13, d. pl. m. afantiemus ibid. 164,7, d. sg. m. afanciamuy ibid. 254,23...), while others were probably introduced by the hymnal’s own compiler, especially if the compiler came from the northern part of central Lithuania¹². Anonymous editors of its presumed earlier editions (1679 and 1701)¹³ may also have left certain traces in the language of the 1726 “Balsas širdies”.

Later editions of this hymnal also contain numerous variant forms and dialectal mixtures. Moreover, editions appearing at the end of the eighteenth century (e.g. those of 1790 and 1793) are already replete with Samogitian phonological and morphological features¹⁴; compare the forms in the 1726 edition: n. pl. uotas 81,26 praep. Prielf 68,3 i. pl. Arfzkiečiays 61,22, žodžiais 9, 9, a. sg. f. Saulā 19, 3, cond. 1 sg. gaučiau 17,17, faugóčiau 143,9, imper. 1 pl. dekawokime 233,4, in. pl. wyłokiuofe reykatuose pr. II,19–20... and in the 1793 edition: Utas 79,2, prilz 134,2, Erfzkieteys 60,13, žodeys 9,15, Sauli 16,2..., gaučio 14, 3, faugócio 133,25, garbinkiema 213,24, žodziusi 144,2... The same Samogitian forms are also found in the editions of 1793 and 1798, which differ little from that of 1790.

Based on “Balsas širdies,” smaller hymnals were also compiled during the eighteenth century. One such work is the 73-page hymnal “Giesmes ape szwęčiausy panna Marya” [Hymns about the Most Holy Virgin Mary], prepared by a monk of the Žemaičių Kalvarija monastery who signed with the cryptonym N. W.; bibliographers date what is probably its first edition to 1765¹⁵. In addition to this one, editions from 1773, 1779, 1781, 1784, 1790, 1796, and 1799 are also known. As a comparison of late-eighteenth-century editions of this hymnal shows, later editions contain more Samogitian forms (for example, the 1796 edition uses: i. pl. Erfzkieteys 10,15, praes. 1 pl. ifzkom 16,23, praep. Pri 12,1,9 pl. Waku 23,1... instead of the forms in the 1784 edition, Erfzkieciays 3,7, jefkom 13,13–14,5, 6, Wayku 24,1...). Some hymns in the 1781 edition, however, also contain eastern forms: unt krafzto 46, adv. umžinay 47, a. sg. Dienu 46, giefmi 49, Par tu giefmiu 51, ifz runkos tawa 54.

¹² Plg. Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 2. Fonetika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982, žem. Nr. 9.

¹³ B i r ž i š k a V. Aleksandrynas 1, 322.

¹⁴ However, to claim that “the 1790 edition is already excessively Samogitian” (Z i n k e v i č i u s Z. Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4, 36–37) is too categorical.

¹⁵ See B i r ž i š k a V. Lietuvių bibliografija I d., Kaunas, 1924, 69–70.

106

Among other small hymnals, distinguished by its pronounced eastern layer, is “Spasabas giedojma nabaznay...,” printed in 1797 at the Vilnius Academy printing house and preserved in the Rare Books Department of Vilnius University. It is a 15-page booklet that, it is conjectured, may have been prepared by Antanas Strazdas¹⁶. In it, diphthongs [ie], [uo] are retained in many instances; cf.: acc. sg. for Iniegu 3,5, vienas Ponas 6,6, Priefz 6,11..., duok 6,13, acc. sg. duonu 8,10, nom. pl. puoty ‘half’ 13,9. But forms also occur such as: nom. sg. undo ‘water’ 4,1, dok 11,17; 14,8. Puntininkas-type forms are also used irregularly in it: alongside gen. pl. dungu 7,6, fu mokiesniu brungu 7,7, instr. sg. f. [zwintibey 12,17...; gen. sg. Dangaus 7,16 and instr. pl. dangole 7,18 are also found. Thus, the dialect mixture is evident.

§ 5. Church koine in Catholic prayer books

a) “R o ż a n c i u j e Š v e n č i a u s i o s M a r i j o s P a n o s...”

Various prayer books were also frequently published in eighteenth-century Lithuania in the church koine. Of these, especially popular was “Rożancius Szwęčiausios Maryos Panos yr saldziausy warda Jezusa...,” which saw as many as 19 editions during that century¹⁷. This prayer book was prepared by the Dominican monk Jurgis Kasakauskas; its first two editions (1681 and 1691) appeared as early as the end of the seventeenth century.

The first edition contained very few Samogitian forms (such as cond. 1 pl. karalautumim 25,7, gen. sg. f. mitaširdiltes 6,6–7, priź 3,18, nom. sg. f. fuopulinga 34,34). But in the 1726 edition they had already been replaced in many places by Highland forms (karalautumem 31,9, mietaširdiltes 2,17–18, sopulinga 48,8...). Here too, in place of forms frequently used in the first edition with final -a (gen. sg. mana 18,2, tawa 49,11, ftutpa 22,3, duonas 70,4...), forms with -o are found (mano 18,20, tawo 59,9, ftutpo 22,3, duonos 104,13...). However, later editions, especially those published toward the end of the eighteenth century, once again introduced more Samogitian forms. For example, in the 1779 edition some affricate forms of the 1726 edition were replaced with forms without affricates, e.g.: gen. pl. meldźiančiu 107,16 > meldęnčiu 159,22, instr. pl. erźkiečias 26,3; 27,22 > Erfzkiete-ys 90,3, petėeys 133,11 > peteys 177,15. That edition also contains Samogitianized diphthongs [uo], [ie], e.g.: part. nom. sg. m. apnuogintas 24,5–6 > appnuģintas 88,5, voc. sg. Juozapay 149,14 Juzapay 191,12, nuog 2,1 > nug 61,15..., gen. sg. Jewos 2,20 > Eywos 62,11, prep. prie 23,16 > pri 87,18, Priefz 21,2 > Prifz 85,7... Yet by no means all were changed—the more frequent forms are Highland or hybrid (inf. duoti 71,13, praes. 1 pl. puotam 81,14, part. nom. sg. m. pardūotas 84,2, nom. sg. Piemuo 125,17, nom. pl. dienas 74,5, loc. pl. dienomis 116,6, gen. sg. širdies 93,16, instr. sg. wienibiey 104,19, nom. sg. WIENIOLEKTA 174,10...).

In many places, the 1779 edition also Samogitianizes the plural dative (e.g.: pakarniems 11,14 > pakarnims 77,9, warkftantiems 73,12 > warkftantims 128,25// prałzantiems 138,27...), plural inessives tuole dauktuole 11,8 > tuli dayk-

¹⁶ See LB 66.

¹⁷ For more on these, see LTB, 182–185.

107

tuli 77,5, gieruole darbuole 23,1 > gieruli darbui 87,16–17...), certain forms of reflexive verbs (e.g., imper. 2 sg. teikis 5,14 > teykias 71,13, 1 pl. Melkimes 18,7 > Melkemos 81,24, cond. 1 pl. flottumemes 18,5 > flottume-mos 81,23...) and so on.

From forms such as part. cont. dejuwdami 62,12, d. sg. Atpirktojow 85,16, Sutwertojuw 85,15, it can be inferred that the editor of the 1779 edition was a North Samogitian (dounininkas), probably a monk at the Kretinga monastery.

Fewer Samogitian features are found in the 1791 edition than in the 1779 edition. In the former, some forms have been Aukštaitianized or adopted from earlier editions; cf.: g. sg. Jewos 4,4, praep. nuog 3,18, prie 11,15, Prielz 2,4... However, it is impossible to say from which earlier edition they may have been copied, since the originals of many are known only from bibliographic sources and are therefore inaccessible to researchers.

In 1797, that is, in the last 18th-century edition of “Rožanc iaus...,” the opposite phenomenon is again observable: some Aukštaitian forms in the 1791 edition have been replaced with Samogitian forms, e.g.: g. sg. Jewos 4,4 > Eiwos 4,4, meiles 6,17 > meilis 6,17, in. pl. kaliniuole 7,31 > kaliniule “in prisons” 7,31, fawuole 12,8 > fawule 12,8... On the other hand, the 1797 edition also contains hypercorrections (n. sg. žodzis 11,7, Zodzis 15,2), indicating a tendency to Aukštaitianize certain forms.

Thus, in the “Rožanc iaus...” texts, frequently published in the 18th century and widely used in religious practice, the ecclesiastical koine was realized in varying ways. In some of them Samogitian features formed a larger layer, in others a smaller one. A larger layer of Samogitian features is characteristic of some editions from the end of the century.

b) “Attoriuje duchauname...”

In the 18th century, not only prayer books of the “Rožanc iaus...” type were published in the GDL, but also the even more popular “Altorius duchaunas alba afierawone kwepencio altoriaus...,” whose first edition was apparently printed at the Vilnius Franciscan printing house in the fourth decade of the century¹⁸. From the title page of the surviving third edition (1759), we learn that its second edition appeared in 1752.

In the third edition, the Central Lithuanian koine is already considerably diluted with Samogitian features. Among the more characteristic Samogitian features of this prayer book (more precisely, a fairly large collection—almost 600 pages—of prayers, hymns, psalms, and litanies) are: a) fairly frequent dative plural forms of adjectives, pronouns, and participles with -ims, used alongside -iems: kitims 37,13 // kitiems 37,8, numirulims 50,13, Swētims 40,7, wilims giwems 32,17 // wiliems 181,20, tiem s 23,10...; b) likewise fairly common, parallel genitive plural nominal forms with -use instead of Aukštaitian -uose: artimule 111,13, rupelniule 142,18 // križkeluose, fkerfkeluole 166, 22, funkiuole priepulule 393,7, wiule pripuolimule 22,15–16 // wifokiuole nuliminim uole 393,6..., c) regularly used forms of the first-person plural conditional mood

¹⁸ See LTB 1, 14.

108

with -čio: daričio 23,11, palitaysičio 7,3, turečio 11,16, weščio 18,9..., d) fairly frequent forms with diphthongization of [ė], [o]: conj. juog 18,13, g. sg. kuo 32,11, in. pl. rankuofe 127,6..., g. sg. f. Gielmies 174,13, praet. 2 sg. norėjej 18,18–19, praet. 1 sg. nulidiejau 6,10–11, part. cont. turiedamas 18,18...

Otherwise, few other Samogitian forms (apart from forms with affrication, forms with monophthongs [ū], [ī] in place of the Aukštaitian diphthongs [uo], [ie], and instances of Samogitian ending shortening) occur in the 1759 edition of “Ałtoriaus duchauno...”. Apart from rare cases (such as a. pl. m. kurius 50,17, fut. 1 sg. melfius 10,9, n. sg. f. nupululi 33,17, praep. pri “near”, g. sg. f. prizalties 39,11), forms with the diphthongs [ie], [uo] are used quite consistently in this edition, e.g.: g. sg. f. dienos 40,11, inf. jeßkoti 81,17, a. pl. f. liepnas, n. sg. m. piemo 61,12..., n. sg. m. apnuogintas 102,22, g. sg. f. duonos 46,7, inf. duoti 28,3, iłzjuoktis 91,7...

The same may be said of the edition of “Ałtoriaus duchauno...” printed at the Vilnius Basilian press in 1793, which departs no further from the 1759 edition than from the phonological and morphological system of the earlier ecclesiastical written language. Apparently, the editor of the 1793 edition relied on his predecessor’s work and made no effort either to make the language of the new edition more Samogitian or to make it more Aukštaitian.

In terms of their dialectal basis, the 1778 and 1746 reprints differ little from the 1759 and 1793 editions. They have a somewhat different title—“Ałtorius duchaunas kwepiancia smilkima...” —and were printed at the Vilnius Academy press. They contain many of the same Samogitian forms as the 1759 edition, and some of these have even been replaced by Aukštaitian forms; cf.: d. pl. m. wilims ^Ad⁵⁹ 7,4 and wiliems ^Ad⁷⁸ 8,12, praes. 1 sg. gayluws ^Ad⁷⁸ 5,12–13 and gayluofe ^Ad⁹⁶ 5,16, praes. 3 katb ^Ad⁷⁸ 18,5 and katba ^Ad⁹⁶ 20,10, in. pl. f. łɑłpudofy ^Ad⁷⁸ 11,6 and fulpaudofy ^Ad⁹⁶ 10,13, in. pl. m. namui ^Ad⁷⁸ 24,15 and namuoli ^Ad⁹⁶ 24,9.

c) “Aukso altoriuje...”

Another prayer book, “Aukso altorius...”, was compiled on the basis of “Altoriumi duchaunu...”; its first edition probably appeared in Vilnius in 1787.¹⁹ The surviving copy of the 1793 edition shows that this prayer book contains a considerable number of changes, both textual and linguistic, compared with the 1778 “Altoriumi duchaunu...”. It is therefore more appropriate to regard it as a separate publication rather than a new edition of “Altoriaus duchauno...”, as is done in LTB.

Among the linguistic differences, the replacement of certain Samogitian forms in the 1778 “Altoriaus duchauno...” with Aukštaitian forms is particularly striking; cf.: d. sg. m. artojaw ^Ad⁷⁸ 407,17 and artoju AA 442,10, imper. 2 pl. Eykiet ^Ad⁷⁸ 214,13 and Eykite AA 125,13, Garbinkiet ^Ad⁷⁸ 216,10 and Garbinkit AA 127,15, Nebukiet ^Ad⁷⁸ 66,6 and Nebukit AA 89,26, a. pl. f. Utas ^Ad⁷⁸ 368,4 and Uolas AA 396,12, paes. 1 sg. Wyluws ^Ad⁷⁸ 16,11 and Wyluole AA 21,6. However, this replacement is irregular: Samogitian forms are retained in many cases, and occasionally the reverse occurs as well—Aukštaitian forms in Ad⁷⁸.

¹⁹ See LTB 1, 16.

109

with Samogitian changes AA: praet. 3 ifzejo Ad⁷⁸ 364,14 > ifzejy AA 394,17, Kientiejo Ad⁷⁸ 353,14 > Kientiey AA 386,13.

Another rather striking linguistic feature of “Auksa altoriaus...” is the frequent replacement of foreign words in the 1778 “Altoriaus duchauno” with Lithuanian equivalents. For example, Ad⁷⁸ madlitwa is consistently replaced in AA by maldą (n. pl. f. Madlitwas wakarnas Ad⁷⁸ 16,1–2 > Matdas wakarnies AA 20,23); moreover, instead of Ad⁷⁸ in. sg. f. adino 363,14, ale 438,13, n. sg. m. Błagaflowitas 65,2, g. sg. m. honora 401,2, a. pl. m. macnius 219,10, a. sg. f. nadieji 233,14, nezbažnalti 56,16, g. sg. m. razuma 66,7, praet. 1 sg. Sunędznau 67,11, n. pl. m. fprawedliwi 66,15, n. sg. m. užimutitas 67,12, a. sg. f. wiecznalti 408,12, i. pl. f. zafhugomis 397,17... In AA we find: walando 394,17, bet 457,26, Pataymintas 88,26, garbies 436,21, galingus 129, 23, wyłiti 138,19, neteyfiby 89,13–14, ifzminties 90,2, Sugayfżau 90,25, teyfingi 90,8, nulułays 91,2, amziu 442,24, nupethomis 432,22–23... Thus, the editor of the 1793 “Auksa altoriaus...” apparently sought to purify the language of his publication, which is, of course, an interesting phenomenon against the background of the degradation of written language in the eighteenth-century GDL.

d) “Maldose Tamošiaus a Kempis”

This prayer book, entitled “Maldos Tamošiaus a Kempis kanaunika regularna Zokana Szwęta Augustina...,” was printed in 1772 in Vilnius. Its title page notes that it was “izgulditta par K. I. R. Soc:Jesu,” that is, by a Jesuit. The identity of the translator designated by this cryptonym has not yet been established. However, the language of the prayer book shows that the translator was a Samogitian dūnininkas; compare: a. pl. m. altzunies “eight” 5,13, kurius 1,14, praes. 1 sg. rupenus “I am concerned” 12,13..., praes. 2 sg. apfzwiti “you enlighten” 29,2, n. sg. f. prižaltis 52, 4... The translator’s Samogitian origin is also indicated by forms such as: adv. dranley 5,19, cond. 1 sg. drifzcziau 3,13, praes. 3 giwen 54,1, see 54,16, d. pl. kurims 10,11, wyłims 5,19, a. sg. nepabenktą 16,14, inf. regeti 13,5, fu žirde 27,6, praes. 1 pl. turem 6,2, imper. 2 pl. walgikiet 1,9, in. pl. m. wyłuse 5,13, n. pl. m. žodey 1,19...

Although a Samogitian, the translator of the 1772 prayer book, like many other translators or authors of texts from that period, sought to make his language acceptable to the Aukštaitians as well and to adhere to the traditional written koiné. Therefore, he used even relatively more Aukštaitian features than some others: the Samogitian forms mentioned above are rarer than the Aukštaitian ones (especially those with monophthongs [ū], [i] in place of the Aukštaitian [uo], [ie]). Moreover, the translator’s efforts to make the language more Aukštaitian are evident in occasional hypercorrections: n. sg. m. mielamas “loved” 56,16 (and mielemas 70,1), n. pl. m. mielami “loved” 75,11, il. sg. f. szirdien “into the heart” 85,20.

§ 6. The dialectal basis of “Pėdelis miros”

The booklet “Pedelis miros...” printed in 1750 should also be classified as a publication written in the ecclesiastical koiné. Its title page states that it was “Iz Lankizka Ziemaytifzkay izgulditta.” Indeed, it frequently uses Samogitian features, especially in the prefaces (the first, devoted to extolling the merits of Bishop Antanas Dominykas Tiškevičius and entitled “Advavimas,” and the second, addressed to readers—“Trumpas Apreyszkimas”), such as inf. dowan uoti III,13, par pamuokhla IX,3–4,

110

adv. Tumet III,14 (// tuomet VIII,16), a. pl. tus kahnus IV,3, n. sg. winas “one” VII,3 (// kiekwienuofe III,20), d. pl. norintims II,10, praes. 1 pl. drenfam I,15, n. pl. Zodiey XIV,23, i. pl. Zodeys V,22–23, etc. This shows that the author of the booklet was a Samogitian²⁰. However, influenced by the written tradition that had taken shape, he did not remain within the bounds of his native dialect, and in the texts of prayers and hymns he used many Aukštaitian (central and western) forms; compare: a) n. sg. akmuo 61,23, inf. duoti 13,25, a. pl. geruolius 79,26, in. pl. wilwolia darbuolia 30,9..., g. sg. miega 1,8, a. sg. Mielaułi 22,2, in. sg. wienibey 22,6, d. pl. tems 59,24..., b) n. pl. erfzkiećiey 69,27, saldzios 40,2, g. sg. medžio 4,2, i. sg. łzirdžia 21,16..., c) g. sg. ligos dulzios izgidi­mo 11,12–13, prifirinkimo ir tikros pakutos 11,15–16, mano galwos 69,25, watandoy givenimo mano 7,13..., d) inf. attlayfti 18,15, a. sg. gaitalti 16,12, g. sg. miaytes 17,16 (//meites 2,25), i. pl. tanciugays 2,16–17... Some forms found in this booklet, e.g. a. sg. wietu 80,22, n. sg. pałzwiltas 81,5, zinktas 67,26, all. sg. Tawip 47,27; 60,8, adv. niekadu 17,27, may also be associated with the eastern and southern Aukštaitian dialects. Thus, “Pedelis miros” contains a considerable amount of dialect mixture characteristic of the ecclesiastical koiné of the time.

§ 7. Dialectal features of M. Ališauskas (Olševskis)’s “Bromos”

The same may be said, to some extent, of the “famous” “Bromą atwertą ing wiecznastį” by Mykolas Ališauskas (Olševskis), printed in 1753 and receiving as many as 11 editions in the eighteenth century. The language of its first three editions (1753, 1759, and 1764) is likewise a church koine based on the central Aukštaitian dialect. This is indicated, on the one hand, by forms with hard [ł] before vowels of the [e] type and, on the other, by forms with unchanged [a, e + m, n] diphthongs; cf.: prt. n. sg. aptayłtas 24,6, a. sg. f. gaitalti 140,20, g. sg. tantos 237,26, a. sg. meitą 32,10, in. pl. petanuofe 242,10, praes. 3 ftapie “sleeps” 43,5, a. pl. warłas 167,13..., ant 5,8, g. sg. Dangaus 112,15, 1 n. pl. rankas 5,24, praes. 3 kenčia 26,24, n. sg. penktas 200,2, a. sg. amžiną 41,22, praes. 3 uztemta 27,15...

However, compared with “Pedelio miros...”, “Bromos” contains somewhat more Samogitian features. These probably arose because its author is thought to have been a preaching monk of Samogitian origin who worked in various parts of Lithuania²¹. Among the Samogitian phonetic features, forms without affricates that occur here and there are conspicuous (e.g. d. pl. kienienčiomis 137,14–15, i. pl. žodeys 8,14 // žodžeys 47,14...), as well as forms with monophthongs [u], [i] in place of the Aukštaitian diphthongs [ie], [uo] (e.g. mitalirdingas 221,5, a. sg. prapulima 25,16...). Among the morphological features, the most common are probably present-tense forms of ja-stem verbs in place of Aukštaitian i-stem forms (e.g.: gale 111,7, gule 242,11, mile 217,11, nore 11,1..., galem 216,9, Milem 24,5, tureme 44,22; 76,14...). Samogitian genitive singular forms of ja-stem nouns are also fairly common-

²⁰ N. Feigelmanas conjectured that the translator and adapter of “Pedelio miros” was M. Ališauskas (Olševskis); see F e i g e l m a n a s N. Senoji lietuviška knyga Vilniaus universitete 1, Vilnius, 1959. 71.

²¹ LTB, 1, 293.

111

tives (kiale “road” 34,13, mole 37,16, paukžtele 114,21...). However, generally speaking, there are not many Samogitian forms in the first editions of “Bromos”, and they usually alternate with Aukštaitian forms. Apparently, M. Ališauskas endeavored not to depart too far from the established tradition.

A different picture emerges from the shorter, revised edition published in 1777. Its language has already been considerably Samogitianized (this was probably done by another editor of “Bromos”, since M. Ališauskas died around 1779). In this edition, affricate forms from the 1753 edition were often replaced by forms without affricates, e.g.: praes. 3 atfilaẏdzie 131,6 > atfileyd 170,9, kienčie 65,14> kient 90,8, d. sg. mirßtančiem 27,2 > mirßtantem 39,7, i. pl. žodžeys 47,14 > žodeys 66,5... In addition, some forms in earlier editions with the Aukštaitian diphthongs [uo], [ie] are monophthongized, e.g.: praep. nuog 115,25 > nug 154,5, a. pl. tuos 8,29 > tus 11,4, adv. tuojaus 42,11 > tuj aus 59,21, in. pl. sopul uole 10,5 > łopululi 13,19, Wiłuole darbuole 18,15 > Wiłuly darbuly 27,4–5..., praep. prie 20,22 > pri 30,8, priełz 10,13 > priłz 14,3, n. sg. mietas 106,29 > mitas 43,22, d. pl. giwenantiems 24,17 > giwenantims 35,15, kuniłžkiems 29,11 > kuniłžkims 33,24, łergantiems 25,1 > łergantims 36,7...), some word endings shortened in the Samogitian manner (e.g.: praes. 3 eyna 21,14 > eyn 31,10, kalba 19,20 > kalb 28,9, taukie 47,26 > tauk 66,18, n. sg. griełznikas 17,20 > griełzniks 25,22, giwas 35,10 > giws 50,17, part. cont. mirdamas 9,22 > mirdams 13,3, adv. greytay 98,11 > greyta 133,5, tęnay 4,5 > tęna 58,7...), unstressed final [-ē], [-ę] narrowed (e.g.: praet. 3 dawe 37,16 > dawy 53,14, parode 9,8 > parodi 12,10, pałzaukie 115,10 > pałzauki 153,17..., g. sg. rułtibes 20,7 > rułtibys 37,24..., a. sg. f. gieribę 19,22 > gieriby 29,7, Karaliłte 11,6 > Karaliłty 15,7, Kie pure 92,25 > kie pury 128,14...) and so on.

The later editions of “Bromos” (1779, 1785, 1789, 1793, 1795, and 1799) were also based on the 1777 edition. Therefore, no particularly notable linguistic differences are apparent in them.

§ 8. A marked turn toward the Samogitian dialect in „Žyvate“

Even further removed from the Central Lithuanian ecclesiastical koine was „Ziwate Pona yr Diewa musu Jezus Christusa...“, published by the Piarists in Vilnius in 1759. This 336-page translation from Polish, made, it is thought, by a monk from Kretinga²², clearly reflects features of the coastal Samogitian („dounininkai“) dialect. This is shown above all by the fairly regular spelling, especially in pronoun endings, of the digraphs uw, qw and yi: i. sg. anuw 14, 20, anaw 52,9, kuw 19,14, tuw čiefu VI,8..., n. pl. anyi „anie“ 40,11, kuryi 63,14–15, prep. Apey 8,14, a. pl. dynas 40,11, pyitus 69,15, n. sg. Įnyigas 88,27… According to A. Girdenis’s calculations, anyi occurs 90 times, while tyi „tie“ occurs 17 times; tuw occurs 56 times, while taw occurs 5 times²³. However, variants with the Highland Lithuanian diphthongs uo and ie often occur in word roots, e.g.: i. sg. duonu 55,25; 56,2, g. sg. duonas 27,7; 43,19; 43,21, pres. 3 łzhuołta 33,4, fut. 3 duos 38,23 (alongside more frequent forms with u: pres. 1 sg.

²² Girdenis A. Baltiškųjų *tj, *dj refleksai 1759m. „Žyvate“. – Baltistica 8(2), 1972, 178.

²³Ibid., p. 175.

112

dudu 14,10, pres. 2 sg. dudi 2,10…), n. sg. diena 49,21, a. pl. giedančius 25,22, g. sg. Diewa 13,2, n. sg. wielźpac 236,5 (various forms of Diewo occur as many as 728 times, while Dyiwa occurs only once)²⁴

As A. Girdenis’s research shows, the relationship between affricated and non-affricated forms in „Žyvate“ is quite complex. It contains affricated forms that are not characteristic of present-day coastal Samogitian dialects, cf.: d. sg. pačiem 11,13 (// patem 61,20), g. sg. žodze 15,26 (// žode 16,19), g. pl. žodžiu 16,9, a. pl. kwyčiús 152,19, ftowėnčius 311,29, miegtančius 160,13–14, žodžius 320,18… Therefore, the hypothesis seems quite reliable that coastal Samogitians still had affricates in the eighteenth century, which they later lost; in other words, the process of the loss of the affricates [č], [dž] in this dialect had not yet been completed²⁵.

Among other features characteristic of coastal Samogitian found in „Žyvate“, the following may be mentioned: a) dative forms of the dual dum dayktum 209,8, dum Mokitynium 266,11, dwym gatwym 311,20; b) present-tense forms of the verb „to go“ with the -t- formant: eytu „I go“ 106,11; 151,21, eiti „you go“ 113,3, eita „he/she goes“ 18,23; 35,23; 41,21, eytama „we go“ 86,25, eytat „you (plural) go“ 152,11 (derived forms also have this formant: yszeyta „goes out“ 44,25, paeita „passes by, rises“ 56,3, pareyta „returns“ 123,16, eytante „going“ 158,9, eytáciem „to the one going“ 141,4, eytantyms „to those going“ 266,11); c) third-person present and future forms of verbs with -ai: mulzay „strikes“ 173,3–4, fawlkay „calls“ 190,24, weday „leads“ 186,19…, gulieley „will lie down“ 309,22, imley „will take“ 295,16, werkley „will cry“ 243,23… and so on²⁶

On the other hand, however, „Žyvate“ shows a tendency toward Highland Lithuanian. Alongside affricated forms and forms with the diphthongs [uo], [ie], the diphthongs [-ai], [-ei] are also often used at the ends of words (written -ay, -ey) instead of the Samogitian monophthongs [-ā], [-ē], e.g.: n. pl. darbynikay 52,20, ubagay 93,11, i. pl. Daktarays 327,12, wylays griekays 314,23, gierays 50,26, kunyzkays 317,4, milemais 1436–7, adv. linkśmai 286,5, trumpay 124,27 (// ligreyta 272,5)… n. pl. Gałpadorey 318,8, Mokityney 232,5; i. pl. afztreys medeys 181,2, numeteys 35,18, adv. tąnkiey 317,2, wyinokiey 9,9… The frequency of these forms was undoubtedly determined by the earlier written tradition, which reaches back to the time of M. Mažvydas (cf. his catechism’s Bralet 8,4, Szadei title page, wijrai 33,5…).

The so-called „mobile“ [a] is also quite often retained in „Žyvate“; in the Samogitian dialect of that time, as in our own, it may already have disappeared, cf.: n. sg. Abrahomas 101,26, Choras 286,13 (// Chors 287,4), darbininkas 116,18, galemas dayktas 249,10, Juzupas 248,5, pagarbintas 148,27, pawoktas 262,25, pyktas 37,8, lenas 7,22 (// ghups 312,12), daridamas 52,2 (// naz'dams 8,3), mokidamas 59,5, regiedamas 92,2… Such forms probably also arose under the influence of earlier writings composed in the ecclesiastical written language.

Ibid.

Ibid. 187: cf. Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 45.

For more detail, Girdenis A. Ibid, 175–178.

113

The 1787 edition differs in no respect, either in content or language, from the 1759 edition. However, in the edition published in 1808, that is, already after the period under consideration, some Samogitian forms of the earlier editions were replaced with Aukštaitian forms, e.g.: n. sg. pradie 17,23 was changed to pradzie 15,28, fudydy 17,5 > fudydziu (nobažen/fwu) 15,9, n. sg. f. aduta 12,6 > aduota 10,31, fu anu 14,20 > fu anu 13,4, and so on.

§ 9. The koiné of “Pavinasčių krikščioniškų...”

A typical ecclesiastical koiné, with predominantly western forms interspersed with occasional Samogitian forms, is represented by the small collection of ecclesiastical texts “Pawinasties krikscioniszkas...” published in Vilnius in 1756. Vaclovas Biržiška conjectured that the collection may have been compiled by the Jesuit missionary Jonas Lukoševičius, who lived more or less permanently in Daugavpils²⁷. This conjecture, however, still requires special investigation, since the arguments offered by the bibliographer are insufficient²⁸.

The collection’s Middle-Western linguistic basis, comprising catechetical texts (presented in question-and-answer form), several hymns, and litanies, is indicated by: a) regularly used forms with [uo], [ie]: o praes. 3 duoda 2,9, g. sg. Duonas 3,21, praep. nuog 5,7..., a. sg. diena 6,9; 25,1, kiekwiena 34,1, g. sg fir dies “heart” 7,11...; b) affricate forms: praes. 3 girdžia “hears” 19,8, ne draudžia 11,3, i. pl. adj. dydžieys 14,20, a. sg. f. efančia 12,14, g. sg. žodžia...); c) forms a. sg. m. attaydima 3,18, imper. 2 sg. attaysk 5,19, g. sg. meytes 21,9...; d) praep. ant 2,12, conj. idant 28,11, adv. Tynay “there” 35,24, i. sg. f. amžinu 29,2...; e) n. sg. Ponas Die was 2,11, kunas 3,2, Reykatas 8,6, Wardas 5,16..., duklaudamas 21,17–18, muzdamas 11,19–20, neslepdamas 9,7... and so on. The author’s tendency to use certain Aukštaitian forms is reflected in hypercorrections such as inf. nuokientiety 13,19, nuotey/ty 13,18, praet. 3 nuožen ge 6,9..., adv. priederančiey 7,18, imper. 2 sg. prie ryžk 22,24, i. sg. prielakimu 4,16..., which arose when “Samogitian” monophthongs [u], [i] were rendered as diphthongs [uo], [ie].

The latter tendency might suggest that the author of “Powinasties krikscioniszkas” was a Samogitian, especially since Samogitian forms also occur here and there in his booklet; cf.: n. pl. Paukz tey 39,3, in. pl. m. Namufe 11,28, reykalufy 14,20, fopulului 37,14, praes. kientame 37,6, fut. 1 pl. riegielfmofy 35,23, flofemofy 35,22, imper. 1 pl. diekawokiem 23,9–10, gaylekemos 27,9, imper. 2 pl. bukiet 36,14, eykiet 36,13... Particularly regularly used in it are first-person forms of the conditional mood with -čiow²⁹, characteristic of certain present-day northwestern Samogitian dialects (around Ylakiai and Seda): galėciow 25,9, gerčiow 18,3, girdėciow 25,18, giwenčiow 18,4, miegóciow 18,3, walgiciow 18,3, bijóciows 18,21. These forms provide grounds for deriving the booklet’s author (more precisely, its compiler) from the northwestern Samogitian area.

²⁷ Cf. LTB,1, 315.

²⁸ B i r ž i š k a V. Aleksandrynas 2, 57.

²⁹ See R o k a i t ė B. Some New Phonetic Features of the Pronunciation of the Samogitian Dounininkai. – LKK 4, Vilnius, 1964, 152.

114

The bibliographic sources also mention a 1774 edition (perhaps the second?) of “Pawi- nasties krikscioniszkas”³⁰. However, without the text of this edition and without knowing its fate, nothing can be said about its language either.

§ 10. The dialectalization of the new reworking of “Pavinasčių krikščioniškų...”

In terms of its text, the 1781 publication “Pawinastis krykscionyszkas arba Pamokslas trumpas...” issued in Warsaw is close to the 1765 booklet “Pawinasties krikscioniszkas”. Vaclovas Biržiška regarded this publication as a new edition of the 1765 booklet³¹. However, it would be more appropriate to call it a new, expanded reworking, since the material found in the earlier booklet is presented in a different order, and new prayers and hymns have also been added (for example, the 1765 booklet contained only 4 hymns, whereas the 1781 edition contained 7).

Although the 1781 reworking contains a number of texts also found in the 1765 booklet, linguistically the publication nevertheless differs considerably from the latter. The Aukštaitian forms in the 1765 booklet have been substantially Samogitianized in the 1781 publication; compare: i. sg. f. Wyflu širdziu Pav¹ 79,13> Wyflu sirdy Pav² 71,4, praes. 3 duod Pav¹ 35,27> doud Pav² 38,12, praep. nuog Pav¹ 34,16> nug Pav² 35,19, g. sg. mana Pav¹ 24,4> muna Pav² 5,17, a. sg. mani Pav¹ 39,18> muni Pav² 71,9, v. sg. Diewe Pav¹ 39,12 > Diewy Pav² 71,2, d. pl. wysiems Pav¹ 36,10> Wyfymś Pav² 39,4, part. cont. Duodami Pav¹ 40,6> Dudamis Pav² 71,24, adv. tankiey Pav¹ 13,22> Tonkie Pav² 17,24...

Interestingly, in the 1781 publication some Samogitian forms in the 1765 booklet have been replaced with other Samogitian forms. For example, first-person forms of the subjunctive with -čiow are quite regularly replaced there by forms with -čio: gierčiow Pav¹ 18,3> gierčio Pav² 13,18, miegčioiw Pav¹ 18,3> miegčio Pav² 13,18, turėčiow Pav¹ 39,27> turiėčio Pav² 71,18... This shows (along with the marked tendency to Samogitianize Aukštaitian forms) that the compiler of the 1781 publication was not the same person who prepared the 1765 booklets, and also that he had moved further away from the ecclesiastical written norms recorded in the 1737 grammar.

§ 11. K. Klimavičius’s ecclesiastical written language in “Pavinasčių...”

A fairly typical ecclesiastical written language was also used by Kazimieras Klimavičius in the substantial (190 p.) booklet “Pawinastes krikscioniszkas, Arba Katechismas...”, published in 1767 under a similar title. In it, as in the aforementioned anonymous booklet of 1765 (attributed by V. Biržiška to Jonas Lukoševičius), Aukštaitian forms with affricates [č], [dž] are used fairly often in positions uncharacteristic of Samogitian, along with the Aukštaitian diphthongs [uo], [ie] in place of their Samogitian counterparts, the “mobile” [a], and the retained diphthong [ai] in word endings; compare: a) praes. 3 pripildžia III.20, d. sg. m. Serganciam 74,1, i. pl. žodzieys 12,2..., b) praes. 3 duoda 8,25, duonos 133,26, n. sg. mienuo 5,16..., in. pl. dienole 94,18, kieno 86,2, adv. wienok

³⁰ LTB, 1, 315.

³¹ Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 2,57.

115

2,2…, c) in. pl. kituolė dayktuolė 88,12–13, reykauolė 34,12…, d. pl. m. elantiems 155,17, wifiems žmoniems 50,17–18…, d) n. sg. giwas 84,7, wiras 155,21, part. cont. duodamas 75,16, taridamas 43,22–23…, e) n. pl. dayktay 12,12, i. pl. giėruys darbays 7,22, adv. kantrey 55,10…

However, on the other hand, various Samogitian forms also occur frequently in the booklet. Among them, forms with an unstressed vowel [ẹ] instead of [i] in word endings are used quite regularly, especially in the infinitive ending -ti, e.g.: atminte ‘memory’ (accusative), darite 44,2, duote 75,25, turiete 44,3…³², masculine nominative plural jaune ‘young’ 55,13, mokite ‘to teach’, likewise, wyfe fzwėtėje ‘all the saints’ 191,20, adverb tuole ‘far’ 177,3… Also frequent are the inessive forms of nominal plurals with a monophthong [u] at the end of the stem, sometimes used alongside diphthongal forms; cf.: Didziulė reykatuolė 30,25, kituolė reykaluolė 74,21–22, wifule dayktuole 18,5, metuolė 94,13 // metufė 95,3.

Sporadically, other Samogitian features also occur in “Pawinastese…”: a few forms without affrication (part. a. sg. f. priederante 73,19, priegulinte 73,21, i. sg. firde ‘with the heart’ 9,24; 29,3, n. sg. žodey 33,13; 86,8, i. pl. Zodeys 9,23…), forms with shortened endings (part. cont. mirdams 19,25, present 3 tur 1,15, in. sg. f. burno 31,7, dieno 96,26, neapkanto ‘in hatred’ 169,3, toi pacio ligo 142,24…), first-person plural conditional forms in -čio (bucio 51,18 milecio 186,19, žinocio 113,23…), conditional forms of ja-stem verbs (2 pl. fudikiet 89,12), and so on.³³.

Among the Samogitian features, particular mention should be made of the frequently used third-person present-tense verb forms in the booklet, with the marker -ai (-ei): galey ‘can’ 48,14; 80,1, norey ‘wants’ 55,15, ftowey ‘stands’ 96,12; 101,6, turey 37,3 // turi 37,8 // tur 40,2, weyzay ‘sees’ 29,8… These forms most clearly indicate that the booklet’s author was a coastal Samogitian, since they are particularly characteristic of the dialect of the Kretinga–Skuodas region³⁴. However, the author apparently made a conscious and strenuous effort to make the language of his booklet more Aukštaitian, since he used many hypercorrect prefixed forms (with nuo-, prie- instead of nu-, pri-): n. sg. nuomufztas 75,17, nuowargintas 24,26, i. sg. with nuozia-mintu firde 126,3, inf. nuowilti 10,21, present 3 nuonelza 40,20…, present 3 prie-duoda 35,19, priefako 78,1, i. sg. priekłodu ‘by way of an example’ 76,26… In this respect the booklet’s author K. Klimavičius differed from his contemporary, the translator of “Ziwatas,” who preserved the system of the coastal Samogitian dialect incomparably better.

§ 12. The mixed dialect of S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabas nobaženstwu…”

A rather different variant of the church koine, not as strongly Samogitianized as in “Ziwate,” is found in “Spasabe Nabaženstwu…,” printed in 1771 by Simonas Jakštavičius (Jakštas). Samogitian features are relatively few in this collection of prayers, hymns, sermons, and excerpts from the lives of saints. In it, somewhat more frequently var-

³² The infinitive ending in the 1765 “Pawinastiese…” (as in “Žyvatas”) was written -ty: Duoty 15, 3, mokiety 9,3, turiety 15, 14…

³³ See also Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 39–40.

³⁴ Zinkevičius Z. Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966, 431.

116

There are only a) forms of the 1st-person singular subjunctive with -čio(s): could 14,8, would 17,9, would have left 77,8, would teach 15,6, would drive away 15,5… (cf. dėkčiau 165,9), b) forms of the ja-stem subjunctive: ja-stem forms of the subjunctive: I would give back 92,20, I would praise 160,23, I would make 85,8, I would anoint 130,17, I would approach 160,21… (alongside i-stem forms: rejoice 35,15, rejoice yourselves 45,19, console yourselves 45,19–20…), c) forms with the diphthongs [uo], [ie] instead of Western Highland [o], [ė]: gen. sg. f. those 52,3, those 25,25, gen. sg. m. him 82,16, that 3,2, conj. and. 3,2, inf. to give 131,26…, inf. to drink 66,10, pret. 3 he opened 47,23, kintėjo 42,9… and d) forms with broadened [e] instead of unstressed short [i]: acc. sg. a soul 80,6, to lie 44,24, to sit 42,4, gen. sg. meat 10,28, pres. 1 pl. we cannot 89,11… Otherwise, other Samogitian features in “Spasabe…” are rare, sporadic phenomena (for example, a non-affricated Samogitian form can be found only here and there: nom. pl. young girls 149,1–2, birds 86,10, acc. sg. f. banishing 112,4, voc. sg. form beloved 13,29, pret. 3 he was driving away 3,1–2, instr. pl. f. with gifts 3,8, gen. sg. meat “meat” 95,28, prep. about 103,16, nom. pl. houses 112,8).

There are incomparably more forms characteristic of the Central and Eastern Aukštaitian dialects than Samogitian forms in S. Jakštavičius’s booklet; cf.: a) acc. sg. attaydima 11,15–16, nom. sg. Saujęta 51,24, acc. pl. Awetas 113,9, instr. pl. tadays 140,4, tancugays 69,1, nom. sg. Panieta 64,28, Sauta 151,21, praet. 3 tafe “read” 46,2…, b) prep. unt 6,12, praet. 3 pafkundino 37,26–27, acc. pl. pazūndes “shoulders,” pinkius 6,12, praes. 3 kinčia 64,4, acc. sg. žinklu 23,5…, c) acc. sg. brangu atpirkimu 20,28, duonu fauju 143,21, gieru algu 37,17, fzwiefiu zwaki 63,3, žuweli wienu 57,22, aklibi ir garbi 95,13…, d) instr. sg. tazdu 129,8, fu fmahu 69,8, wifu liepnu 109,8, fu ruflibi 40,1, fu… fwiebi 72,27…, e) adv. kadu 7,5, tadu 23,8, niekadu 26,18, wiladu 7,16…, f) acc. sg. dieno 93,4, giwo 68,5, ing Mieſto 47,12, karuno 68,18, newalo “did not want” 37,6, wifo 55,30… and so on. However, Eastern Aukštaitian forms in “Spasabe…” are likewise used inconsistently, often alongside forms from other dialects, e.g.: unt 3,9; 18,1; 37,30… // ant 7,16,44,22…, kadu 7,5; 49,26 // kada 63,9, tadu 6,29; 23,8… // tada 50,1, wiladu 7,16 // wilados 19,15, pafitaidis 103,2 // pafitaydes 102,30, and so on.

In general, S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabo…” exhibits considerable dialect mixture in its phonetics and morphology, making it difficult to determine the relationship of this written monument to particular dialects. The mixture is further increased by fairly numerous hypercorrections, which show the author’s desire to make the language of his booklet more Aukštaitian–Central Aukštaitian and Western Aukštaitian. Hypercorrect forms with [-o] instead of [-a] in verb endings are especially frequent, e.g.: praes. 3 atimo “takes away” 158,20, iro “is” 76,27, ižeyno 55,4, (// eyna 8,29), katbo 96,4, kinčio 86,9 (// kinčia 64,14), fejo 21,11 (// fije 157,14)…, praes. 1 pl. elfmo 47,8, turemo 58,29 (// turema 9,28, turima 153,22), duklaujemo 157,19…, fut. 1 pl. neturelmo 59,1, prapuldimo 59,3…, imper. 1 pl. duokėmo likewise (// ataduokiem 92,20), part. cont. matidamo 51,28… Hypercorrect forms such as inf. ikuolti “to bite,” acc. sg. kuo “what” 15,16; 116,10…, tuo “that” 13,15, and the like, are also frequent. The emergence of such dialect mixture may be explained by biographical information about S. Jakštavičius. Vac. Biržiška surmises that

117

he came from Birštonas and served for quite a long time as parish priest in Papilys³⁵. If this supposition is correct, the dialect mixture may have been shaped, on the one hand, by the influence of his native Central Aukštaitian dialect and, on the other, by the desire to adapt to the speech of the people where he worked (Eastern Aukštaitians). In addition, he may also have drawn on Samogitian from the language of contemporary written works with a marked Samogitian layer (especially “Ziwatas”).

§ 13. A new version of S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabo”

Almost all of S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabas…” was reissued in 1779 as a booklet entitled “Ziwatas Pona musu Jezusa Christusa ir szwęcziausias Marios Pannos…”³⁶. This differs from the 1771 “Spasabo…” only textologically: a different preface was added at its beginning, along with the sections “Ziwatas Pona musu Jezusa Christusa” and “Ziwatas szwęcziausias Marios Panos,” and “Giesme Pannos szwęcziases”; the short Polish and Latin texts are absent (all this is presented with separate pagination and amounts to 30 pages; this part is joined on p. 32 by the catchword PA – PAWINASTES to the main text, which corresponds to S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabu…” and comprises 135 pages).

From the linguistic point of view, the reprinted text also differs very little from S. Jakštavičius’s original “Spasabo…” Only occasionally can one find a distinct phonetic, morphological, or syntactic form; cf. “Spasabo…”: inf. atgrįžti 23,11, part. cont. liuzdamas 77,5–6, nom. pl. m. išžkauli 77,9, praes. 3 iro 77,3, instr. sg. f. iwiefibi amžinu 27,23, gen. sg. fawo 13,29, … mes atejom palikonioti jam o ilzgirdis Karalius Herodas įligando 76,27–29… and in the 1779 “Ziwato…”: atgrinlzti 19,11, fiundzamas 73,16, išžkausę 73,19–20, ira 73,13, iwiefibie amžina 23,15–16, fawa 10,2, … mes atejom, palikonioti jam? O ilzgirdis Karalius Herodas įligando 73,9–10… It is therefore impossible to determine, without specialized philological research, whether the editor of this “Ziwato…” was the same S. Jakštavičius.

§ 14. Dialectal spelling in “Novenos švento Antano…”

It should also be noted that the two aforementioned opening texts of the latter “Ziwatas…”—“Ziwatai…”—were reprinted in the booklet “Nowena szwęta Antona…,” published probably after 1779.³⁷ A comparison of the texts in these two booklets shows that in “Nowena” only some typographical errors were corrected (e.g., instead of “Ziwato…” praet. 3 grazina 6,10, it has grazino 73,14; instead of adj. ne mazo 75,26, it has nemažo 87,15…) and the spelling of some words was changed slightly (e.g., instead of praes. 3 je/žkojo 11,17, Jr 3,16 has ie/žkojo printed at 70,20; Ir 69,18; instead of Zidu 4,13, it has zidu 70,15), while otherwise the language is preserved as it appears in the 1779 “Ziwatas…”.

However, the language of the new texts (prayers about St Anthony and hymns) found in S. Jakštavičius’s “Spasabo…” and “Nowenos…,” but not in either “Ziwate” or “Spasabe,” exhibits certain differences. These new texts do not contain S. Jakštavičius’s

³⁵ Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 2,159.

³⁶ For a fuller bibliographic description of it, see LTB 1, 147.

³⁷ Arguments concerning its date of appearance are presented in LTB 1, 290.

118

The hypernormalisms characteristic of “Spasabui…”—forms of the type kuo (= ką) and eino “eina” (goes)—are absent (except, apparently, only nuotilto “nutilsta” [falls silent] 46,4, which may also be a printing error); nor are there forms with the endings kadu, tadu, or underio (there is only wandens 60,6, wandinio 128,22). But, on the other hand, these new texts contain more Samogitian features than “Spasabe” does (Samogitian plural instrumental forms are more frequent: liežuwiule 3,19, tokiule 12,19–20, reykatufe 23,3…, as are plural dative forms: elantims 13,7 // elantiems 26,4, kurims 34,3, prafzantims 60,21).

Taking all this into account, it does not seem likely that “Nowena…” could have been the work of S. Jakštavičius, as suggested in LTB 1,290.

§ 15. Dialectal features of J. Bukota’s “Knigelė aprašanti broctwą…”

Tadas Juozapas Bukota’s “Knigiale aprašzanti broctwa” was also published in 1773 in a church koine with a substantial Samogitian component and a pronounced tendency toward Aukštaitianization. In terms of the abundance of Samogitian features, this 300-page book (although called a “little book”) can be compared with the 1753 “Žyvatas.” Its author and translator was undoubtedly a Samogitian, although his birthplace is not yet known (it is conjectured to have been in the vicinity of Šiluva)³⁸.

T. Bukota’s Samogitian, Dounininkai origin is indicated by forms such as praes. 1 pl. doume “we give” 283,26, a. sg. kou “what” 289,18 (and kuow 147,1), n. sg. Pietmou 81,2 (// pietmuo 50,4), Wanduwow 107,20 (// wando 99,4), n. pl. iuns “you” 236,26, a. pl. Ginlfas 272,3; 274,21, trins “three” 215,5, g. pl. tun 238,27, a. pl. žodius 262,5, etc. However, such forms are relatively few in “Knigialė…”; more common are forms characteristic of all Samogitians or most of them, for example: a) forms with diphthongs [un], [in] – nulunzdamas 278,15, n. sg. izgrintas 237,24, In “she” 141,1, kurin “which” 29,14…; b) forms with the broadened [e]: praes. 3 dziowen “dries” 237,17, v. sg. Moten 263,16, Szalteni 176,6, turemi 298,27 (// turime 32,24), adv. szalen 134,24, …; c) forms with [t’], [d’] instead of the affricates [č], [dž]: in. sg. m. bufentemy 239,18–19, d. sg. patem 59,12, i. pl. pateys 84,8–9, žodeys 22,3; 75,6…, adv. Ikayftey 259,10 (// Ikayfte 176,1)…; d) with shortened present-tense 3rd-person singular endings: duod 11,22, mazgo 79,21, put “blows” 217,14, ried 13,11, tor 22,16 (// turie 20,26)…; e) with stem-final [u] instead of [uo] in the plural instrumental: anufy aktufy 87,20, Dangifzkufy dayktufy 65,11–12, Kožnule tule Poterule 47,12… // darbufule 235,21; f) with monophthong [i] instead of diphthong [ie]: praep. pry 17,39// Prey 21,15; 29,190, fut. 3 iżkas “will seek” 168,14; g. sg. f. mitaiširdiltes 39,21.

A pronounced tendency toward Aukštaitianization in Bukota’s “Knigialė…” is shown not only by such (admittedly rare) forms as a. sg. f. duona 79,9, a. pl. m. Nuogus 232,6, n. sg. m. wienas 3,7, g. sg. f. wietas 235,22, d. pl. m. aniems 53…, but especially by the numerous hypercorrections resulting from replacing non-affricated forms with affricated ones and diphthongizing monophthongs: n. sg. m. didzis 287,14, praet. 3 nuowedzie “led away” 135,19, pražudzie 135,17–18, n. sg. f. Žwayździe 54,21, a. pl. f. Szwęcies “holidays” 217,12,

³⁸ LB, 1, 88.

119

n. pl. m. duomoimai “considerations” 285,21, i. pl. m. kuokaleys “with cakes” 5,18… Therefore, it is not quite accurate to say that Bukota’s “Knigiale…” is “entirely Samogitian.” It would be more precise to describe its language as based on the Samogitian dialect, but diluted with a few Aukštaitian features.

§ 16. Manifestations of church koine in manuscript sermons

a) In the collection “Contiones litvanicae”

From the beginning of the 18th century, church koine began to prevail not only in printed works of that century but also in manuscripts, especially sermons, many of which have survived to the present day in the libraries of Vilnius University, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, and elsewhere, awaiting the attention of researchers.

One such anonymous collection, called “Contiones litvanicae”⁴⁰ by Vac. Biržiška and dated to the early 18th century, is held in the Manuscript Department of Vilnius University (Fond I, D23). Although the collection still contains some eastern features (e.g., forms with “puntininkai” diphthongs [un], [um], [in]: a. sg. elunti 73, praet. 3 kinte 257, a. sg. f. kimpine “sponge” 258, a. pl. žynklus “signs” 57…), they are few. The most prominent layer here is Dzūkian, characterized by: a) irregular use of the affricates [c], [dz] instead of [č], [dž], and of [t] before [i], [ie], e.g.: čia “here” 29, a. pl. eluncias “those that are” 26, i. sg. f. marciu 155, n. sg. medzias “tree” 32, praes. 3 [zyldzia] “warms” 154…, adv. cielgiojay 24, d. pl. afanciemus “to those who are” 102, inf. pakutawocie 23, žiurec “to look” 28; b) fairly frequent narrowing of nasal [ą], [ę] both in word roots and endings: adv. druljay 28;51, cond. 1 sg. multitau “I would think” 118, g. sg. funaria 78, praes. 3 [zula] “jokes” 300…, inf. kiltie “to suffer” 97 (but also: adv. drąljay 47, g. sg. kałnia 268, inf. kiąltie 76)…, a. sg. amžynu 23, auklu 100, garbi 58, giarkly 259 wiru to beat 52 (but also: a. sg. antrą kartą “for the second time” 182, drulibe 321); c) fairly frequent narrowing of the singular instrumental and genitive endings: i. sg. duonu 69, karłzu firdzu 118, ugniu 51, wienu auliu 119…; in. sg. kuriami 43, tokiami daikti 43, wilfami 9; d) pronominal forms with an added [j]: n. pl. iey “they” 19, kuriey 13, tiey “those” 20; e) first- and second-person conditional forms with -tau, -tai: butau 181, pafakitau 139, prałžytau 187…, izgiditay 21, pryfižiuretay 78, tarnauutay 102); f) dative singular forms of i-stem nouns with the ending -i: punti 263, po Imerti 13, wiefzpati 109; g) non-affricated forms: praet. 1 sg. [kaitiau 34, fuediau 145, g. pl. paukłztiu 23, g. pl. tarnaytiu 129; k) singular second-person imperative forms: atmiṅkie 68, darikie 42, mokikie 235, etc.⁴¹

The distribution of some such phonological and morphological forms (with narrowed [ą], [ę], with added [j], with the d. sg. ending -i, etc.), as is known, does not coincide with—

³⁹ Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 47.

⁴⁰ For further information about its historiographical data, see Palionis J. On the language of “Contiones Litvanicae.” – Kalbotyra 23(1), 1971,35–37.

⁴¹ See Ibid., 38–41.

120

is not limited to Dzūkian dialects: it also encompasses larger or smaller areas of the Central and Eastern Aukštaitian dialects. However, the fact that the sermons in question display a whole range of Dzūkian features, and that, as in printed works of the period, they do not strictly adhere to the system of any one dialect but instead exhibit a certain dialectal mixture, allows their language to be classified as belonging to the ecclesiastical written koiné type.

b) In the collection “Contio”

Another fairly substantial (221 leaves, in 4°) anonymous collection of Lithuanian, Polish, and Latin sermons, written by more than one author, is provisionally referred to in bibliographies as “Contio”⁴². It is kept in the Manuscripts Department of Vilnius University (F3-9⁹) and also contains elements of the ecclesiastical koiné, although these are overshadowed by a very pronounced Samogitian layer. The collection contains about 20 Lithuanian sermons and their beginnings, 73 Polish sermons, and one Latin sermon with a fragment of a second; at the end is a bundle of Latin moral theology texts, “Sumula Theologiae Moralis”… The Lithuanian sermons were written by a Samogitian whose language was already strongly influenced by Polish; moreover, their text is extensively corrected in many places, draft-like, and difficult to read. Some Polish sermons are also marked with the years in which they were delivered (1718, 1719, 1720, 1739, 1749), as well as their places of delivery (Postov = Paštovai, w Krokach = Krākese or Krākiuose, w Mulnikach = Mūsninkuose, Grodnae = Gardine). This variety of sermon locations suggests that their authors⁴³ were probably monks—missionaries.

The Samogitian layer of the Lithuanian sermons is characterized by: a) forms with Samogitian equivalents of the diphthongs [ie] and [uo] (e.g.: a. sg. dina “day” 1/1⁴⁴, i. sg. lizowio “with the tongue” 6, Jsz witas “from the place” 10, in. sg. w礼yto “in the place” 23, g. sg. weyna “one” 27…, a. sg. Juzapa 30, praet. 3 pule “fell” 45, a. pl. kurius 67, b) forms with t instead of the affricate [č]: d. sg. efatem 2, patem “oneself” 5, in. sg. treteme likewise, c) forms with broadened [o], [e] instead of [u], [i]: n. sg. kors “which” 5, g. sg. lizowio 6, fut. 1 sg. benksio “I will finish” 10, g. sg. ognies 13, praes. 1 sg. turio 21, n. sg. zmогos “person” 6…, praet. 3 pasiejodena “moved” 10, fut. 3 stoses 12, praet. 3 paleka “left” 15, praes. 3 derb “works” 29, wadena 66, n. sg. Powetas 16, d) forms with a monophthong [a] instead of the diphthong [ai]: tap “yes” 5, tykta “only” 10, kursa “courses” 11, taba “very” 28, n. pl. dakta “things”…, e) forms mas “we” 5, praes. 3 rek “is needed” 6, in. sg. dongo “in heaven” 7, in. pl. darbu likewise, praes. 1 pl. turiema likewise, eyta “goes” 15, n. sg. kraus “blood” 16, apley “about” 67, kun “what” 3, adv. tonkie 11, praes. 3 spend “decides” 15, a. sg. moni “me” 22, etc.

However, through this Samogitian layer, Aukštaitian (Central and Western) forms also often show through in the sermons, as coexisting forms—

⁴² LTB 1, 499; perhaps it would be more accurate to call the collection “Contiones” or “Contio pro Festo” (the title of the collection’s second sermon).

⁴³ Some Polish sermons may, judging by the handwriting, be by different authors, but a specialized graphological analysis of these sermons is needed to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

⁴⁴ The sermons are not numbered by the author or authors; the leaves, of which there are 224 in all, were numbered in pencil by the person who organized the manuscript.

121

alternates with Samogitian forms. Among the Aukštaitian forms, those with the diphthong [ie] are perhaps the most frequent, e.g.: a. sg. diena 4, wiena 5, n. sg. tiesa etc., piens 16, sniegas, g. pl. dienu 15, and forms with the “mobile” [a] of the ending not omitted: n. sg. Jonas 1, nogas ‘naked’ etc., wienas 7, noriedamas 11, wardas 21, giwenemas 30, ponas Diewas 46… Apparently, these forms were modeled on the printed texts of that period.

c) In the Lithuanian sermons of S. Sabulevičius

A smaller Samogitian stratum than in the “Contio” collection and more elements of the ecclesiastical written koine occur in the Lithuanian sermons of Steponas Sabulevičius, preserved in the Manuscripts Department of Vilnius University Library (F1, C48). There are 11 sermons in all (including one whose beginning alone is in Lithuanian, while the continuation is in Polish). After the sermon texts is written a substantial list of the first and last names of people from Grušlaukė (Kretinga district) and other places (over 200), as well as a Polish note from which the authorship of the sermon collection is inferred⁴⁵:

“In the year 1728, on the 26th, 28 talers struck I gave to Francifzkowi Sz kiniowi twenty-four tymfs so that they might search for Piotr Grycewicz, supposedly lost in Liepāja and deprived of his reason. Sztefan Sabułłowiez” (p. 55).

The Samogitian stratum in Steponas Sabulevičius’s sermons can be illustrated by the following examples: apley ‘about’ 5, n. sg. Pons Dyws ‘Lord God’ etc., Trety dyna ‘on the third day’ 6, ne pule ‘did not fall’ etc. Jegu kumet ‘if ever’ 10, a. pl. tris dynas ‘three days’ 21, praes. 3 mil 46, g. sg. Szaltine 44, cond. 3 ktałfitum 17, in. pl. wyłufy darbuly 20, d. pl. tyms ‘to them’ 8.

This stratum arose not only because the sermon’s author worked in Samogitia (Grušlaukė, Salantai)⁴⁶, but also because he was probably a native Samogitian.

However, alongside the Samogitian (dūnininkai) forms, S. Sabulevičius’s sermons also contain Aukštaitian forms, cf.: g. sg. dienos 6, Diewa 22, a. sg. łkarbu or meyty 12, par anu upy 17, skilety 27, n. sg. dayktas 25,27, skarbas ‘property’ 27, prasitas ‘requested’ 3, praes. 3 geydže 44, kałba 23, prt. tyktay 21, n. pl. ubagay 5. Some of the Aukštaitian forms may also have been used under the influence of seventeenth-century eastern and mid-eighteenth-century central Lithuanian Gospel texts.

f) In Javorovskis’s collection of sermons

In terms of its dialectal basis, a collection of Lithuanian and Polish sermons written in 1786–1795 differs considerably from those mentioned so far; it is also held at Vilnius University Library (F3, No. 1487). It contains 6 Lithuanian and 29 Polish sermons (at the end of the first Polish sermon, in darker ink, is written: “Jaworowski Posessor” — the owner’s surname).

The Lithuanian sermons in this collection differ in that they adhere fairly consistently to the norms of the ecclesiastical written koine and contain very few Samogitian forms, cf.:

⁴⁵ See Biržiška V. Unknown Old Lithuanian Texts – Tauta ir žodis 7, Kaunas 1931, 263.

⁴⁶ Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas 2, 41.

122

a) praet. 3 aptayde 31, d. sg. awetay 137, v. sg. duliata “little soul” 45, 139, 158, n. pl. taday 32, a. pl. tangwus 67, n. sg. sauta 29, b) a. sg. duoną 30, praet. 3 duoda 67, in. pl. dayktuofe mazūose 31, wisofe alzarose 44…, iefzka šwiesibes 29, n. sg. sniegas ibid., wienas bajoras 30, a. sg. dieną ibid., d. pl. aniems 32…, c) d. pl. žodziams 30, i. pl. žódzėys 68, praet. 3 geydzia 67, d) imper. 2 pl. atmintkite 29, paklaulikite 68… Only forms occurring sporadically here and there are to be regarded as Samogitian features: praes. 1 pl. galem 31, praes. 3 gale 42, a. pl. tus 137, in. pl. griekufe 139, praep. pry “near” 158 (// prieš 164).

The places where some of the sermons were delivered are also noted: Raguva, Šiluva, Panevėžys, Radviliškis, Šaukėnai, Kelmė. At the end of the collection, after the final sermon, a little more prominently, in darker ink, is written: “1775 Citovianis Fr. Ant. Monkewicz”; in addition, several words have been crossed out, of which the following can just about be read: minister provincialis (?). It is difficult to say whether this entry was made by the author of the sermons or by another hand (Prof. J. Lebedys thought it was the latter). The word Citovianis here means “a resident of Tytuvėnai.” If it indicated the origin of the author of the sermons, we would expect to find more Samogitian features in them; most likely, however, the parish of the person who made the entry is named this way.

d) In the collections of Semaška and other authors

The Samogitian layer is also prominent in some Lithuanian sermons gathered in a single small collection together with two Polish manuscripts associated with the Reformation: “Pokrótki Opis początków Reformacyi” and “Mowa miana przez K. Leopolda Wannowskiego w Kosciele Słuckim Ev. Reforma. w dzień otwarcia nauk” (VUB RS F1 – D1268). The collection contains a total of four Lithuanian sermons. At the beginning of one of them, devoted to St. Casimir’s day, the date 1732 is added, and at the end the preacher’s surname, Siemaszko (= Semaška). The authors of the other sermons are not identified, but their spelling and handwriting show that they were not written by the same hand.

The greatest number of Samogitian features occur in the anonymous fourth sermon, entitled “Pamokslas apej Neczystata” and undated. It contains almost all the characteristic features of the dounininkai subdialect of Samogitian; cf.: part. n. sg. ipoules 21, n. pl. anji “those” 23a, praep. apej “about,” d. sg. norou “desire” 19a, sutwerymou 17, adv. paskou 20, wysumet 19a, greyta 17, g. pl. musa “our” 17, praep. pri 19, prisz 17a, po smertę 17, g. pl. karal istiu 20a, praes. 3 beng “finishes” 20, nor 19, Nekent ibid., užgen [used for the present-day form with ž!] 17a, parjem 19a, d. pl. anims “to them” 18, g. sg. gim enes 19, praes. 1 pl. Turem ibid., regiam 17a, in. sg. szirdieje ibid., fut. 1 pl. atim sma 17, drysma 17a, cond. 1 sg. parodiczio 18, imper. 1 pl. bukiam 21a, Kariaukiam 23a, sergiekiemos… Only occasionally do forms with the Highland Lithuanian diphthongs [uo], [ie] occur in it, e.g.: praes. 3 atsi duoda 19a, parduod 19, a. sg. wieta 18a; forms with the “mobile” [a] retained, e.g.: Jonas Apaszta-las 18a, sakidamas 17a, darbas 21a; and forms with [ai] not monophthongized: i. pl. artimajs 20a. Such Highland Lithuanian features were probably adopted from the written tradition.

⁴⁷ Lebedys J., Min. veik., 52.

123

In the other anonymous, undated sermons, Samogitian features are either scarce or altogether absent. The first sermon, which stands out somewhat for its spelling (the diphthongs are written with j in it, whereas in the remaining sermons they are written with y), contains a considerable number of eastern features; cf.: g. sg. umžinibes, umžinos // eternal 1a, cond. 1 pl. giwintunim 1, a. sg. brungiu sakhu “seeds” 5a, golu “end” 1a, walju “will” 3, unt pasiregeima 5a, n. sg. meila 2a, meilas ibid., kisdamj “while suffering” (but kentejo 4), cond. 1 sg. kalbeciou 2a, praes. 3 soko 2a, i. sg. m. skumboncjo ibid., adv. nekadu ibid. (// tada ibid.), praes. 3 raikja 3… As the examples show, this sermon contains forms characteristic of the so-called rotininkai and dadininkai. In addition, the second element of the diphthong [uo] is quite often represented by the letter a (e.g., imper. 2 sg. aduakit 2, i. pl. Nuadajis 5, in. pl. kapaose 1a // g. sg. Apjuoko 4, i. sg. Uoda “skin”), indicating that [o] in the author’s dialect had become more open here.

In the second sermon, by Semaška, as in the anonymous third sermon, “Pryktodas pry Numirelia,” the convention is to use the koinē forms codified in the 1737 grammar, among which an occasional Samogitian feature or hypercorrection also appears (e.g., in Semaška’s sermon aple “about,” i. pl. Jaunikaytcis 11, imper. 2 sg. Buok “be” ibid., cond. 2 sg. inpuoltumey 12).

e) In the sermons of pupils of the Troškūnai monastery

The ecclesiastical written koine also underlies the manuscript sermons written as rhetoric exercises by pupils (students) of the Troškūnai monastery during 1774–1799; collections of these sermons have survived in the Manuscript Department of Vilnius University. One collection (F1–F74), comprising 296 p. in folio, contains only two Lithuanian sermons (the others are in Polish and Latin), written by Teofilius Liberavičius (=Lyberis?) and Felicijonas Švėgždavičius (=Švėgžda)⁴⁸.

In T. Liberavičius’s sermon for Holy Saturday (na Wielką Subotę), eastern and central Lithuanian forms frequently alternate with Samogitian forms; cf.: n. sg. Sauta 204, g. sg. ataydima 208, meytes 207, a. sg. dideta 205, tironisty t. p., in. sg. grabi t. p., inf. takioti 204 and: praep. apey // ape 205, a. sg. kan t. p., i. pl. žodeys 204, in. sg. ugnieje 207, cond. 1 galecio, werkcio 205. In addition, this sermon, whose author may not have been a native speaker of Lithuanian, is replete with hypercorrect forms featuring the prefixes nuo-, -prie- instead of nu-, prie-: n. sg. nuoludys 204, praes. 3 nuoramda 207, inf. nuomažinti 204, n. pl. nuomiretey t. p.; n. sg. priekattas 205, praes. 1 priepazistu 204, a. v. priekalta 207…

There is no such dialect mixture in F. Švėgždavičius’s sermon for Easter Monday: only an occasional eastern Lithuanian form appears here and there (e.g., a. sg. antru spasabu 209, praet. 3 kalbejo 208, g. pl. tancingu 209) or a Dzūkian form (e.g., žozdis 209). Nor are there any of the hypercorrections characteristic of Liberavičius’s sermon.

In another large collection (F1–F31), comprising 624 p. in folio, there are more Lithuanian sermons—7 (the others are in Polish and one in Latin). Their language is also not uniform

⁴⁸ See excerpts from them in L e b e d y s J. Min.veik., 38–39.

124

form. In some, the ecclesiastical written koine is more heavily intermixed with Samogitian features; in others, with eastern Lithuanian features. For example, a sermon written in 1789 by Fidelis Mažeika (Mazeyko), for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, contains numerous Samogitian forms (such as in. pl. amziuse 116, praep. apley “about” 119, n. pl. žodey 116, praes. 1 pl. Weyzdiek iam 118, 2 pl. pasiklausikiet 121). However, the sermon by Klemensas Vonenberg (Wonenberg), dedicated to the feast of St. John of Nepomuk in 1791, has a greater stratum of eastern Lithuanian features, which sometimes alternate with Samogitian ones; cf.: adv. Doug 125, g. sg. wiržows “from above” 122, a. pl. brungiausus 123, d. pl. klousantems 122, adv. giare t. p., tabey t. p., prielzingey t. p. tey ir tey 124, i. sg. pamačziu “sight, help” 122… (but also: i. pl. Zodeys 122, cond. 1 pl. garbinkiem t. p., praes. 1 pl. niagalem 124). It seems that the sermon’s author (judging by the surname, apparently not of Lithuanian origin) learned Lithuanian chiefly from the eastern Lithuanian dialect of the Troškūnai area, and also made use of contemporary publications featuring Samogitian forms.

g) In the collection of R. Šimkevičius, P. Bukantas, and others

Many more Samogitian features occur in another substantial collection of Lithuanian sermons from the late 18th century (nearly 800p. in 4°), written in 1790–1793 and also held in the Manuscript Department of Vilnius University Library (F1, No. C200). It may be said that the language of the sermons in this collection, written by more than one person (the names of Rudolfas Šimkevičius, Petras Bukantas, and G. Monkevičius are listed with some of them)⁴⁹, is a Samogitian–Aukštaitian mixture, and only a specialized analysis can show which dialect contributes more elements.

Since the sermons were delivered in Samogitian and near-Samogitian Aukštaitian parishes (Telšiai, Tytuvėnai, Viešvėnai, Kiaunoriai, Šiluva, Šiauliai, Pašūšvys, Dotnuva), the abundance of Samogitian features may be explained in part by this. But here, as in other cases, the authors’ origins may also have had a considerable influence, although we know little about them.

Among the more characteristic Samogitian features of the collection, the following may be noted: a) Samogitian shortening of endings (n. sg. gats 21, Jons 89, kials “road” 101, Pons Diews 13, kraws “blood” 89, dodams 241, eydams 46, dodams 241, praes. 3 giwen 102, nor 143…); b) ja-stem verb forms in the 3rd person (praes. gale 15, girdzia 115, penie 125, nore 120…, praet. 3 galeje 44, kientieje 126, nieturieje 46…); c) ja-stem imperative forms (1 pl. timkiem 16, pukkiem 38, eykiem 113, Praszikiem 151, kalbiek iem 299., storokiemos 302…); d) forms apley “about” 13, 34…, a. pl. kurius 16, tus 99, duowanas 136 (// n. sg. dowana 216), i. pl. Zodeys 489, praep. diel 13, inf. kalbėti 16…

It should be noted, however, that the collection in question contains few of the main distinguishing features of the Samogitian dialect. Aukštaitian diphthongs [uo], [ie] are retained fairly consistently in it, e.g.: inf. duoti 123 (and fut. 3 duos 13, imper. 2 sg. duok 25), g.

⁴⁹ Cf. Lebedys J. Min. veik., 52.

125

sg. Duonas 132, 136 (// n. sg. dona 286), pret. 3 puole 199, n. sg. Nuogas 205, in. pl. iaunose metuose 109 (// reikatose 297)…, n. pl. anie 15, cond. 3 ieškotu 32, n. sg. mielas 33, sniegas 241, g. sg. Piemenies 305, prie širdies 46, praep. prielz 14, a. sg. wiena diena 15… Affricate forms are also used quite regularly: 1st pl. erszkietieys 37, Žodz ieys 29 (and n. pl. Zodz iey 13, g. sg. žodžie 29), adv. prigulinciey ‘fittingly’ 15, n. sg. trecias 13 (here c denotes the affricate [č]). Unshortened forms also frequently occur alongside them (in addition to the examples already mentioned, the following may be cited: n. sg. atminimas 44, Ponas Diewas 101, Pirmas 13, iszletas 89, szwętas 31…, pres. 3 ateyna 30 // ateyn 294, duoda 123, giwena 45, katba 275, pret. 2 pl. ejote 32, giwenote etc. Neretos i-stem imperative forms alongside the Žemaitian ja-stem forms (especially 2nd pl.): ateykate 22, bukite 32, Darikite 53, garbinkit 162, prašizikite 357…

Thus, although the collection under discussion contains a considerable number of Žemaitian dialect features, the Aukštaitian (western and central) layer is also prominent. The latter may indeed vary from one sermon to another, but this can be established only by examining their language in greater detail.

h) In K. Lukauskas’s collection of sermons

Finally, mention should be made of the recently published manuscript collection of sermons by Kiprijonas Lukauskas (1752–?), parish priest of Troškūnai⁵⁰, preserved at the Vilnius University Library (F1–D654). Although the life and personality of this preacher, as well as the language of his writings, have already been discussed⁵¹, the dialectal basis of his language and its relationship to the Lithuanian written language of the 17th century have not yet been thoroughly investigated.

In his notes on the language of K. Lukauskas’s sermons, appended to the aforementioned edition, J. Karaciejus rightly observes that the language of those sermons is not homogeneous, that their author, a native of Žemaitija who lived and worked in Troškūnai for a long time, “had become quite proficient in the speech of the local people,” and that, unless the language of the sermons is carefully examined and what is Aukštaitian distinguished from what is Žemaitian, “it is imprudent to speak more broadly about the features of their language”⁵².

In fact, the language of K. Lukauskas’s sermons interweaves to a considerable degree features of the Žemaitian and eastern Aukštaitian dialects; it also contains forms characteristic of western Aukštaitian, as well as hypercorrections.

Among the more characteristic Žemaitian features are the following: 1) the inconsistent use of the monophthongs [u], [i] in place of the diphthongs [uo], [ie], e.g.: n. sg. huszas ‘lame’ 137, a. sg. nupehna 26, a. pl. tus 118, kurius 124, adv. nusirdziey 58, tuiaus…, in. pl. taukusy 35, wisokiu patayminimusy metiniusy 36, senusy… metufy 120, zodzusy 371… (this morphological Žemaitian feature is consistently retained); i. pl. Prizodeys 23, d. pl. gierims 46,

⁵⁰ Kiprijonas Lukauskas. Pamokslai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996 (text prepared by Juozas Karaciejus), 408 pp.

⁵¹ Ibid., 5–20: introductory articles by Artūras Tereškinas, Vytautas Bogušis, and J. Karaciejus.

⁵² Ibid., 19–20.

126

pri ‘to, at’ 31, a. pl. naūinas 363, prituo ‘near that’ 49, prisz ‘before’ 55 (occurs rarely); 2) forms with [t′], [d′] instead of the Aukštaitian affricates [č], [dž] are also used inconsistently, one might say sporadically, e.g.: g. sg. m. katbunte 39, d. sg. patem 67, a. pl. atneszuntes 380, part. ind. Ktaydioiet 47, d. pl. žodems 34 (this, too, is a rare phenomenon); 3) the vowel [ē] is diphthongized somewhat more consistently, e.g.: praes. 3 niera 34, pliesza 374, n. sg. Mienuo 63, cond. 3 galietu 55, inf. tikiety 63, a. pl. miesztus 373, wiejus 314 (diphthongization of the vowel [o] is rare); 4) forms with the diphthong [-un] in a stressed ending are uncommon (only the pronoun form tun ‘those’ has been observed, 30, 32, 55, 68…); 5) ja-stem verb forms are used fairly consistently, e.g.: praes. 3 turia 25, tikia 40, praes. 1 pl. galem 26, turiam 29, praes. 2 pl. noret 23, imper. 1 pl. padarik iem 56, bijok iemos 54, imper. 2 pl. turiekiet 42, pabarstikiet 392; 6) conditional mood forms, e.g.: 1 sg. giwencio 350, tarnaucio ibid., turiecio 40; 52, 1 pl. milietumemos 55, walditumemos 25, saugotumemos 64; 7) half-participle forms, e.g.: plm. mustidamis 39, pažindamis 37, svarstidamis 39, zinodamis; 8) the words pabengti ‘to finish’ (n. sg. nepabinktas 24), ryštis ‘a tie’ (a. pl. riszcius 32, i. sg. riszciu 179), karkles ‘gate’ (a. pl. karktes 63), krušinė ‘fermented drink made from fruit and berries’ (g. sg. krusinios 370).

Among the more characteristic eastern features, the following should be noted: 1) fairly consistent use of puntininkas diphthongs [um], [un], [in], e.g.: n. sg. umzinas 35, i. sg. parumtiu ‘with a prop’ 48, tumbsiu 161, inf. pasumditi ibid. …, praep. unt 23, i. sg. runku ibid., g. sg. untros 26, n. sg. kuntribe 186, conj. idunt 25, a. sg. sundara 58…, g. sg. minka ‘of the insignificant’ 38, praes. 3 izszkrinda 71, zink lina 83, perzingia 163, nukincia 247; 2) fairly frequent, though not very consistent, use of [ū], [ī] instead of the nasal vowels [ą], [ę], e.g.: adv. drusey 35, inf. iszsigusy 49, i. pl. sumustitomis 62, a. sg. waldziu 29, Tu ‘that’ 58…, a. sg. adateli ‘needle’ 46, galiby 37, matony 38; 3) fairly frequent, though likewise inconsistent, use of singular instrumental forms with -(i)u and singular locative forms with -i, e.g.: a) burnu 43, duonu 366, sirdziu 43, ugniu 363…; b) Laww 43, wienamy Miesty 113; c) forms kadu 28, nekadu 59, tadu 31 (alongside kada 30, tada ibid.).

Forms with the diphthongs [uo], [ie], with the affricates [č], [dž] in the aforementioned instances of [t′], [d′], with the unstressed endings -o, -ė, -os, -ės [written -e, -os, -es], and forms in which the so-called “mobile” ending [-a-] is not distinguished should be regarded as western Aukštaitian. However, since such forms are also characteristic of many other eighteenth-century texts mentioned above, both printed and unprinted, there is no particular need to provide illustrative examples here (quite a number have already been mentioned). It is important only to note K. Lukauskas’s clear tendency to conform not only to the eastern Aukštaitian puntininkas dialect, but also to the earlier tradition of the ecclesiastical koine.

This conformity is also indicated, among other things, by hypercorrect forms occurring in his sermons, e.g.: praes. 2 sg. gieydzi 71, n. pl. perkūonay ‘thunderbolts’ 33?, g. sg. prapuolt ies 159, inf. prapuolti 56, praes. 1 pl. tiek iem ‘we believe’ 362?, g. pl. wieszn iu ‘of cherries’ 372, il. sg. zodien 33. Thus, one may say that K. Lukauskas, whose Samogitian origin is also confirmed by the linguistic data in his sermons, was a fairly typical representative of the eighteenth-century ecclesiastical written koine.

127

Individual sermons or parts of sermons have also survived in various collections of Polish or Latin sermons. For instance, the Manuscript Department of Vilnius University holds a collection of Polish sermons from 1767–1768, copied in a neat, small hand as though prepared for printing (F3–N 1033), which contains one unfinished Lithuanian sermon, as well as Latin texts and notes⁵³. Its language, however, is very poor (apparently it was written by a clergyman who was already thoroughly Polonized or of Polish origin) and is based on the ecclesiastical written koine.

It goes without saying that manuscript sermons written in one variant or another of the ecclesiastical koine could not have had any significant influence on the development of the Lithuanian written language, since they were not accessible to a wider circle of writers. They are nevertheless significant as monuments of the considerably degraded written language of the eighteenth century, reflecting its usage at the time and its developmental tendencies.

§ 17. The Ecclesiastical Koine in Primers

The ecclesiastical koine was used not only for writings of a strictly religious nature, but also for primers, in which the texts presented for reading were likewise mostly religious: prayers, hymns, litanies, catechism material (with the exception of the eulogistic poem ryšktei).

It is difficult, for now, to say precisely when the first Lithuanian primer of the eighteenth century appeared. Bibliographers surmise that it may have been printed around 1759–1761. ⁵⁴. From the known 1763 edition, whose title page bears the phrase “Dabar naujey pardrukawotas” [Now newly reprinted], one may infer that it must have been published earlier (perhaps more than one edition appeared before 1763?).

The 1763 edition is entitled “MOKSLAS SKAYTYMA RASZTO LĘKISZKO DEL MAZU WAYKIELU” [A primer for teaching little children to read Polish], but the prayers and other catechism material in it are printed in parallel Lithuanian and Polish (the Lithuanian line comes first, followed by the Polish one; this is true even on the title page).

The primer itself makes up only a very small part (4 pp.) of the 64-page booklet. It begins by presenting three versions of the Latin alphabet: the Lithuanian antiquarian form, with 28 uppercase and 35 lowercase letters; the Polish, in Gothic style (uppercase and lowercase letters); and the German Gothic alphabet (also with uppercase and lowercase letters). Syllabification tables entitled “SUDIEIMAS SYLLABŲ” follow these alphabets, and then come the aforementioned religious texts.

In 1766, the 1763 edition was reprinted. But in later editions (e.g. 1783, 1790, 1796, 1799), the Polish text was dropped, and the title read: “MOKSLAS SKAYTYMA RASZTA LIETUWISZKA DIEL MAZU WAYKU” [A primer for teaching little children to read Lithuanian] (it is now unclear from which edition this change was made, since the editions published before 1783 have not survived).

The language of all known editions of the primer resembles that of many other religious writings of the eighteenth century. It is an ecclesiastical koine, more or less influenced by Samogitian—

⁵³ Žr. dar Labedys J. Lietuvių kalba XVII–XVIII a. viešajame gyvenime, Vilnius, 1958, 38.

⁵⁴ See LTB 1, 266.

128

forms. The language of the 1763 and 1766 editions differs hardly at all. In these editions, usage is inconsistent in both the Aukštaitian and Samogitian forms. As in other printed works of that period, Aukštaitian features are more characteristic—forms with the Aukštaitian diphthongs [uo], [ie], with Aukštaitian affricates, and with Aukštaitian nominal and verbal endings; cf.: a) g. sg. duonas 68⁵⁵, a. pl. nuogus 9, wielzki alus 22, praes. 3 gayluos 12, v. sg. wienas Diewe 15, praep. prielz…; b) g. sg. jaučia 8, žodzia 17, pradžios 46…; c) n. sg. reykatas 21, pirmas 48, wardas 55, a. sg. pačios [merties 27, meytes 34, n. pl. dayktay 46, in. pl. jaunuole 53, nupetnuofe 36, praes. 3 giwena 65, [zaukia 10, imper. 2 pl. darikite 54, pafilikit 25… Samogitian forms, which quite often alternate with Aukštaitian features, include the following examples: adv., tuiaus 35, g. pl. kurius 27, nupetnus 35, n. sg. ližuw ingas 56, trins “three” 41, d. pl. wyfims 27, Senims 56 (// kitiems 9, wifiems 27), n. pl. dowenas 10 (// g. sg. dowanos 30), g. sg. muna 36, praes. 3 fied 7, reyk 39, praes. 1 pl. turem 54, cond. 3 butum 32, turietum 21, cond. 1 pl. dziaugtumemos 62.

There may be somewhat more Samogitian features, especially traces of the Dounininkai subdialect, in the 1783 edition; cf.: part. cont. rokuwdamis 24, praes. 1 sg. gayluws 15, 18, wyluws 18, g. pl. greiku “of the Greeks” 22, g. sg. Eywos “of Eve” 21. However, even in this edition, Samogitian features are often used alongside the Aukštaitian features characteristic of earlier editions. The same can be said of the 1796 and 1799 editions, which were based on the earlier ones⁵⁶.

§ 18. Reflections of Church colloquial speech in administrative-style writings

Reflections of Church colloquial speech can also be found in the few writings in an administrative style. Perhaps the oldest of these writings is the regulations for the village courts of the Šiauliai economy, printed on July 28, 1780⁵⁷. The linguistic basis of the text of these regulations is Aukštaitian, with rare Samogitian features; cf. (opening): “Wiresnibe Administracijos Skarba Jomilstos Karaliaus Szaulu Ekonomios trogszdama wisados, ko gieriausim stonie, ir paredkie uzleykti Walszczonius, ir wisokius Giwiananczius Ekonomio, o pažindama jog Sprawiedliwastis, ir pakajus tarp anu, ir ko labiau-se reikalingas, pastanawije wisokioms niezgadoms, ir nespakajnastims, priartinti gafa, a wzajemnaj noredamas kiek galent daryti wisokio wiresnibe Sprawiedli-wastis, kayp twircziause, žiemesnose punktuosie dara paretka – …”

Since the text is juridical in nature, it contains an abundance of various legal and administrative terms (mostly borrowings): apeliacija, apeliavoti, dekretas, dasviečyti “to testify,” kaltybė “guilt,” protokulas, provotis “to litigate,” spravedlyvastis “justice,” sprova “case, matter,” sūdas, vaitas, valsčius, vyresnybė, etc.

⁵⁵ The forms given here are from the 1763 edition.

⁵⁶ Therefore, the assertion that “at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries the primer became entirely Samogitian” is not quite accurate (Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 42).

⁵⁷ Their text was published by A. Janulaitis in “Lietuvių tauta” (vol. II, part 1, Vilnius, 1911, 129–131).

129

On the basis of the ecclesiastical koine, the text of the Constitution of 3 May 1791 was also translated. This is the largest Lithuanian administrative-style manuscript text of the eighteenth century, and to date it has not received a more extensive linguistic analysis. Since the text was intended for all of Lithuania, it is understandable why an effort was made not to depart from the linguistic norms characteristic of the writings of that century.

Indeed, in this 45-page text of considerable format, entitled „Prowa pastanawita treczio Dieno Moios 1791. Meatu“ and translated from Polish, central-western forms predominate, occasionally interspersed with Samogitian features; cf.: a) inf. pritaist 2, miteti 1, g. sg. iszaydima 5, a. sg. kartaiata “card” 25, a. pl. miatus 6; b) in. pl. dayktósiė 5, rafztosie 4, g. sg. szios dienos 8, Lietuwos 2, inf. dot 7, inf. iesz koti 4, n. pl. tie 30, praep. priefz 3, a. sg. diena 15, c) d. pl. patiem sawiems 1, kitiems 2, swetimiems 1, d) n. sg. pradzie 8, g. sg. pradžios 12, waldžie 7, d. sg. prieinancziam 25, i. pl. tukstanczieys 31, Žodzieys 28, e) n. pl. Bajoray 20, Waykay 13, i. pl. su wisays Warpays 19, dwilikays nedie leys sekretnays balsays 31, 28, f) inf. aprinktie 28, pasiraszitie 9, kiszties t. p., sudėtie 27⁵⁸...

Among the Samogitian features occurring in the text of the Constitution, one may include ja-stem forms n. pl. noriem 3, g. pl. turiencziu 19, forms n. sg. Prezydents 22, tuszts likewise, Seymiks 19, praes. 3 mok “knows” likewise, prypol “falls to one’s lot” 4, in. sg. pirmoio dieno 19, Lietuwo 30, to knigo 32, dieno asztoniolikto 18. However, as is known, the latter forms are also characteristic of the western Aukštaitians south of Samogitia. The forms aple “about” 18, pry “near” 5, Je “if” 10, par “through” 4, 17, praes. 1 pl. paliektam are undoubtedly to be regarded as Samogitian features, but they are used inconsistently, mostly sporadically.

Among the printed, somewhat later administrative-style writings, the proclamations and resolutions that appeared at the end of the eighteenth century are worth mentioning. These are the resolution of the Lithuanian Treasury deputies of 23 April 1794 concerning the transfer to the state treasury of the Palanga eldership, which belonged to Bishop J. Masalskis⁵⁹; the proclamation of the Supreme National Council of Lithuania to all the inhabitants of Lithuania on 30 April of the same year, calling on them to defend their homeland from the Russian occupiers („Aczisaukimas Rodos neydidziasias naradaus letuwos...“)⁶⁰; and the proclamation of Xavier Nesiolowski, colonel-commandant of the Lithuanian army, to the inhabitants of Palanga district on 12 May of that year, requesting support for the army fighting the Russian occupiers⁶¹.

Of these, the proclamation of the Supreme National Council of Lithuania is more interesting from the perspective of the problem under consideration. It is of interest because ecclesiastical koine elements are mixed in it, without much consistency, with certain Samogitian and Eastern Lithuanian features; cf.: a) v. pl. Sunaytey 128, a. pl. sunos 127,

⁵⁸ Therefore, the assertion that this text was translated “essentially in the Samogitian dialect” (Zinkevičius Z. LKJ 4, 50) is inaccurate.

⁵⁹ Its text was reprinted by A. Janulaitis in „Praeityje“ (vol. 1, Kaunas, 1930, 360).

⁶⁰ This text was reprinted by J. Luekevičius in „Lietuvių tautoje“ (book 2, part 1, 127–129).

⁶¹ The text was reprinted by A. Janulaitis in „Praeityje“ (vol. 1, 360–361).

130

d. pl. anyms // anièms 128, in. pl. Dwarunfy, namuly // Dwarosie t. p., praes. 3 nore t. p., praes. 2 pl. galet t. p., imper. 1 pl. Muszkimos 129, 2 pl. deginkiet 128, ginkietes 129 // ginkites t. p., duokiet 128… and b) n. sg. f. abdinkta “covered” 129, a. sg. dziauksmu 127, tu waynu t. p., a. pl. runkas 28, i. sg. gietaziu ir ugniu 127, ugniu ir Mieczų 128, praes. 3 plesza, tusa “continuation” t. p., adv. drusiey “boldly” 127… Apparently, this kind of mixture was intended to appeal to all the people of Lithuania, representatives of various dialects.

There is little to say about the dialectal basis of Ks. Nesiolovskis’s appeal, since it is a short (22-line) text and, moreover, is written in a corrupted language full of Polonisms. Somewhat longer and containing pronounced Samogitian features is the decision of the Lithuanian Treasury deputies. It can already be regarded as almost entirely Samogitian, cf.: neutr. Iszduwta “issued” 361, d. sg. dwaruw ditto, adv. dabarçiuw “now” ditto, wisumet ditto, g. sg. Lyituwos ditto, prisz ditto, n. pl. tyi “those” ditto, g. sg. Palungos 360, d. pl. wysokims zmónyns 361, in. pl. reykatusy ditto miestusy ditto, n. pl. wysy giwentoja ditto, praet. 3 turieje ditto, and so on. Such examples show that the author of the text was himself a Samogitian and consciously sought to adapt to the speech of the coastal Samogitians (dounininkai)—the people of Palanga.⁶²

§ 19. Concluding remarks

An examination of Lithuanian texts of various genres (printed and manuscript) from the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania with regard to the relationship between the written language and dialects shows that this relationship differed from that of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It may be said that, from the beginning of the eighteenth century, Catholic texts (and Calvinist texts even earlier) turned toward the creation of a certain common language, which I call the ecclesiastical koine. Although the reasons for this shift have not yet been adequately clarified, there may have been several, and the shift was significant for the subsequent development of the Lithuanian written language not only in the eighteenth but also in the nineteenth century. The result was that forms of the central (or western) Aukštaitian dialect were codified in the 1737 grammar and predominated in written texts until the second half of the eighteenth century. But in the latter half of that century, as the number of authors of religious texts originating in Samogitia increased, the ecclesiastical koine began to be diluted to a greater or lesser extent with elements of the Samogitian dialect (especially its western varieties).

In some texts of that period (the 1759 “Žiwatas,” Juozas Bukota’s 1773 “Knigialeie apraszanczioie broctwa,” and the manuscript sermons “Contio”), the layer of Samogitian elements is so pronounced that one can speak of a Samogitian dialectal basis for those texts.

On the other hand, no Lithuanian texts from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared in the eighteenth century (at least, I have not come across any) that lacked one or another element of the ecclesiastical koine altogether (such elements occur not only in religious printed works and manuscripts, but also in administrative texts

⁶² For the Samogitian dialectal basis of Mykolas Karpavičius’s sermon of April 20, 1794, see S u b a č i u s G. Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos, Vilnius: 1998, 58–64.

131

and inventories). All this, together with the not infrequent occurrence of hypercorrections in texts of that period, clearly points to certain tendencies toward unifying the ecclesiastical style of the Lithuanian written language. It is also interesting that some texts from both the beginning and the end of the eighteenth century reflect certain features of the eastern Aukštaitian and Dzūkian dialects, which lend the ecclesiastical koine an even greater dialectal mosaic.

Received 1998 04 21

ABBREVIATIONS

AA – Golden Altar... 1793

Ad⁵⁹ – Altar of the Duchaunas... 1759

Ad⁷⁸ – Altar of the Duchaunas... 1778

Ad⁹⁶ – Altar of the Duchaunas... 1796

BŠ – Voice of the Heart... 1726

KN – Book of Christian Devotion... 1653

LB – Lithuanian Bibliography 1, 1547–1861. Supplements, Vilnius 1990.

LDK – Grand Duchy of Lithuania

LKJ – Zinkevičius Z. History of the Lithuanian Language 4, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990

LKK – Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 38. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 1997.

LTB – Bibliography of the Lithuanian SSR 1, 1547–1861, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969

Pav¹ – Christian Conduct...1765

Pav² – Christian Conduct...1781

PKr² – Christian Sermon...1743

PKr³ – Christian Sermon...1762

RS – Manuscripts Department

SIG – Slavočinskis, M. Giesmes... 1646

VUB – Vilnius University Library

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LITHUANIAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THE DIALECTS IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA IN THE 18TH CENTURY

Abstract

The article examines the dialectal basis of the Lithuanian written language through phonetic and morphological analysis of evidence from 18th-century written monuments in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, including hymnals, prayer books, Gospel texts, handwritten sermons, primers, and chancery documents. The study shows that the heterogeneous dialectal basis of the 16th–17th centuries underwent some change from the 18th century onward: the East Aukštaitian variant of the written language was replaced by the Central Aukštaitian (or West Aukštaitian) one. This shift is particularly evident in the publication „Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie“ 1705 and in the grammar „Universitas Linguarum Litvaniae“ 1737. A large number of other religious writings of the 18th century also draw on the Central Aukštaitian dialect, which nevertheless contains certain elements of Žemaitian and Aukštaitian. Exceptions are the translations „Ziwatas Pona yr Diewa musu Jezus Christusa“ 1759 and „Knigiale apraſzanti broctwa“ 1773 from Polish, in which many Žemaitian elements

132

are present. In general, the Lithuanian written language of the 18th century is a mixture of various dialects, which is why it should be called a church written koine. It should be borne in mind that such a koine was used not only in the 18th century, but in religious writings throughout almost the entire 19th century.

133