Apie J. Gerulį – Mažvydo (GA, Mpr) leidėją

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI Pietro U. DINI ON J. GERULIS AS THE EDITOR OF MAŽVYDAS (GA, MPr) Rašydamas apie lietuvių kalbos senųjų raštų leidimą, jau A. Augstkalnis (1935: 156) pastebėjo, kad ”turim ateity saugotis praeities klaidų pakartojimo. Ir jeigu visi tylės, kaip ligšioliniai recenzentai, tai tikrai gali atsitikti”. O iš tikrųjų šitie žodžiai labai tinka ir Mažvydo tekstams bei jų leidimams: apie tai norėtųsi šiuo pranešimu atkreipti filologų lituanistų dėmesį, aptarti du Mažvydo tekstus: Giesmę šv. Ambraziejaus (toliau GA) bei Parafrazį (toliau MPr)1. 1. First, on Mažvydas’s Paraphrase. In a series of articles on the language of M. Mažvydas’s writings, Z. Zinkevičius noted in passing in a footnote that: ”The diacritic on the letter û in J. Gerulis’s 1922 photographic edition of the text of Formos krikštymo and Parafrazis is, as comparison with the microfilms available to us shows, at times printed indistinctly or has even crumbled away entirely. Whether such examples also occur in the hymn texts in Gerulis’s edition cannot be determined without the original” (Zinkevičius 1978: 38, footnote 45). And indeed, if, for example, one examines the text of MPr held in the Uppsala University Library and compares it, even very cursorily, with the text published by Gerulis, it is striking (apart from other minor features) that the letters <u> often need to be corrected to <û>. More precisely, it can be asserted that in Gerulis’s photographic edition of MPr the phenomenon <u>→<û> occurs as many as 15 times in the following forms: 135, 13 reads <tu>, whereas the MPr original has <tû>; 136, 8 reads <nug>, whereas the MPr original has <nûg>; 137, 9 reads <roċitu̇ duna>, whereas the MPr original has <roċitu̇ dūna>; 137, 10 reads <nug>, whereas the MPr original has <nûg>; 139, 8 reads <nug>, whereas the MPr original has <nûg>; 139, 18 reads <duſti>, whereas the MPr original has <dûſti>; 140, 6 reads <nug>, whereas the MPr original has <nûg>; 140, 8 reads <Duna>, whereas the MPr original has <Dûna>; 140, 13 reads <ku>, whereas the MPr original has <kû>; 410, 20 reads <tu>, whereas the MPr original has <tû>; 142, 2 reads <iſchdutas>, whereas the MPr original has <iſchdûtas>; 140, 4 reads <Schitu>, whereas the MPr original has <Schitû>; 147, 1 reads <duk>, whereas the MPr original has <dûk>; 148, 1 reads <duki>, whereas the MPr original has <dûki>. This is just one case, perhaps not very significant, but it shows what more 1 This paper was prepared during a research fellowship at Vilnius University (1993 09 17–1993.10.08); it was funded by CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE. 21 could be expected from a scholarly edition of Mažvydas’s writings, rather than being content with Gerulis’s photographic reprint of 1922 (repeated in 1923). 2. Recently I “put a full stop” to my research, begun some time ago, on the second monument of Lithuanian literature—the GA of M. Mažvydas, published in Königsberg in 1549 (Dini 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989 and finally 19932). While preparing a monograph and examining the text included also in Gerulis’s 1922 and 1923 editions, I noticed certain features of this work by Mažvydas which, it seems to me, are very fitting to discuss at this conference. One of the aims of the aforementioned study was to establish a more accurate text of the GA. The GA was found by chance in 1897 by the Polish bibliographer Z. Celichowski in the Kórnik Library near Poznań and published that same year. It is important to note that J. Gerulis (in 1922 and 1923) and all subsequent editors of the GA relied on the text published by Celichowski in 1897. However, after carefully studying the original GA and comparing it with later editions, I can confidently assert that in some places the photographic text of the GA published by Gerulis requires correction. Altogether, six forms requiring correction were found, and they merit more detailed discussion, point by point. These forms fall into four types: 1) writing an incorrect letter, 2) inserting an unnecessary letter, 3) omitting a necessary letter, 4) dropping the diacritics on nasal letters. The first type is the most varied: <n>→<u>: Gerulis 81,14 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 22) gives <panta> nom. sg., whereas the original has <pauta> id.; <a>→<u>: Gerulis 88, 3 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 29) gives <amβia> gen. sg., whereas the original has <amβiu> gen. pl.; <i>→</f>, <r>→<i>: Gerulis 91, 22 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 32) gives <iichgr> praep., whereas the original has <iſchgi> id.; <r>→<x>: Gerulis 92, 14 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 33) gives <linrmay> adv., whereas the original has <linxmay> id. There is only one form of the second type: <з>→<,>: Gerulis 86, 2 gives <зmogų>, whereas the original has <зmo-gu,> acc. sg.; compare the context in the original: Tu ant iſchgelbeghima prieydams зmo / gu, neſſibayſeijey mergos зiſtos kuna. I think that when Celichowski, i.e. the first editor of GA (who knew little or no Lithuanian!), retouched the text for printing, the letter з was mistakenly inserted between the words зmogų and neſſibayſeijey in the lines mentioned, probably to indicate a comma. Since all later editors of GA uncritically adopted Celichowski’s text, this error has come down to us; on morphosyntactic grounds, I had already drawn attention to this elsewhere (Dini 1987), and now examination of the original confirms it. Incidentally, a difference can be observed here between 2 This monograph develops a systematic picture of the phenomenology of GA sources, as well as of Mažvydas’s work as a translator, and indicates the method used to study Mažvydas’s texts. As is known, GA was presented as an Easter gift to the ruler of Ragainė County, where Mažvydas was soon to serve as a pastor. The work consists of three Easter hymns: the principal one, ”Tawe diewa garbinam”, and ”Per tawa /chwentą priekelimā” and ”Chriſtus Diewas muſu”. 22 Mažvydas’s 1549 printing and the printing of the same text in 1570. Only one form of the third type was also found: ø→<ʃ>: Gerulis 92, 7 gives <ſunu>, whereas the original has <ſunus> nom. sg.; compare the context in the original: Christus ſunus Diewa, Welnuwą pra / wiją, ir pati pamine, galwa ijo ſutri / ne. Since in this sole instance Gerulis does not follow Celichowski (cf. 1897: 33), there is reason to think this is a trivial printing error, caused by flaking ink when Celichowski’s text was reprinted. Finally, the fourth type—the one with the most examples. This is the omission of the diacritic from a nasal letter, occurring on average once every other page: <a>→<ą>: Gerulis 81, 15 (cf. Celichowski 1897; 22) gives <ta> pron. acc. sg. f., whereas the original has <tą> id.; Gerulis 82, 3 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 23) gives <amβinaghi> acc.sg., whereas the original has <amβinąghi> id.; Gerulis 85, 2 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 26) gives <Cӡeʃtingaghi> acc. sg., whereas the original has <Cӡeʃtingąghi> id.; Gerulis 90, 9 (cf. Celichowski 1987: 31) gives <dangu> acc. sg., whereas the original has <dąngu> id.; omission of the diacritic is also suspect in Gerulis 83, 5. <e>→<ę>: Gerulis 81, 12 and 81, 13 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 22) gives <ije> acc. sg., whereas the original has <įje> id.; Gerulis 83, 1 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 24) gives <tawęʃp> acc. sg., whereas the original has <tawęʃp> id.; the notation of the nasal is also suspect in Gerulis 82, 5 and 82, 6. Also, in Gerulis 86, 6 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 27). 3. It is clear that Gerulis adopted the text published by Celichowski in 1897 quite uncritically in his editions, without consulting the original, which was then, as now, kept in the Kurnik Library. I would not like to discuss Gerulis’s own lack of care as a philologist (although it is difficult to imagine how the original of GA could have been inaccessible to him), but these six forms requiring correction, few though they are, are nevertheless significant and worthy of attention, since they once again demonstrate that other works by Mažvydas, too, may require emendation. In other words, the cases of MPr and GA show that this situation applies both to Mažvydas’s writings discovered and published for the first time by Gerulis himself and to those discovered and published for the first time by someone other than Gerulis. This raises the question of whether Gerulis’s edition of Mažvydas’s writings can really continue to be trusted. Gerulis’s 1922 and 1923 editions of Mažvydas’s writings are greatly to his credit for making all the works of the founder of Lithuanian letters accessible to the general reader. Reviewing Gerulis’s edition, Būga wrote: ”Mažvydas’s writings are now accessible to anyone who wishes to read them. So let us set to work studying Mažvydas! Mažvydas provides work not only for linguists, but also for other representatives of philology” (Būga 1961: 691). Unfortunately, his call did not receive the response hoped for, and, paradoxical as it may seem, those photographic reprints are by no means conducive to further paleographic investigations, since, I would say, the reprints have ”embalmed” Mažvydas’s writings in Gerulis’s fashion³. 3 It is important to note the similar role played in Prussian studies by R. Trautmann’s work ”Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler” (Göttingen, 1910). 23 It is high time that the project of a scholarly edition of Mažvydas’s writings began to get moving too... Surely, by now Gerulis’s book can no longer be regarded as a scholarly edition of Mažvydas’s writings. LITERATŪRA Būga K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. GA — Mažvydas M. Giesme S. Ambraziejaus bey S. Augustina... Karalauczuy, 1549. MPr — Mažvydas M. Paraphrastis, permanitina poteraus malda... Karalauczuy, 1589. Augstkalns A. 1935: Smulkūs pastebėjimai. — Archivum Philologicum 5, 149—159. Celichowski Z. 1897: M. Mosswida Waitkuna przekład litewski pieśni Te Deum Laudamus z r. 1549, Poznań. Dini P. U. 1984: Martynas Mažvydas e la lingua del Canto di s. Ambrogio. — Europa Orientalis 3, 17—31. Id. 1986: Apie Mažvydo 1549 m. Te Deum vertimą. — Baltistica 22(1), 66—75. Id. 1987: Apie Mažvydo vertimų bei šaltinių fenomenologiją I: Giesme s. Ambraziejaus bey s. Augustina. — Baltistica 23(1), 52—56. Id. 1989: Apie Mažvydo vertimų bei šaltinių fenomenologiją II: Giesme Schwenta Dwaſſe muſſump ateik. — Kalbotyra 40(1), 11—16. Id. 1993: L’inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mažvydas. Il secondo monumento linguistico lituano. Studio filologico-linguistico del testo antico lituano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche, Roma, 1993. Gerulis J. 1922: Mažvydas. Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams, Kaunas. Id. 1923: Mosvid. Die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmälern bis zum Jahre 1570, Heidelberg. Zinkevičius Z. 1978: M. Mažvydo raštų kalba. — Baltistica 14(1), 38—44. 24