Dėl „Clavis Germanico–Lithvana“ autoriaus

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) VINCENTAS DROTVINAS ON ‘CLAVIS GERMAN-LITHUANIAN’ AUTHOR The future history of Lithuanian lexicography requires special studies of all the most important dictionaries. Some dictionaries in Soviet years already examined?. So far, researchers are waiting Eastern Monuments of Prussia lexicography. Although ne one iš jų is reviewed at least in the ar most general features, but this is only the beginning: little is studied about the vocabulary of these dictionaries, their meaning, their impact on later lexicography. Speaking of Eastern Prussian dictionaries, we still translate the general bibliographical philological information: XVII — XVIII bilingual a. dictionaries are more often mentioned as bibliographical units, phenomena of Lithuanian literary history or sources of our small folklore. The material of these ne dictionaries is fully used in the academic In the Lithuanian language jų dictionary, we know almost nothing about the whole of the lexicon. These dictionaries are little known both lexicologically and lexicographically. Ne one of them, for iš example, Brodovski's J. Lithuanian-German dictionary, during the wars. will probably be gone. Due to the lack of direct historical data about Eastern The oldest dictionaries of Prussia ką are difficult to say more clearly. However, the fact that they have remained unprinted seems not to be a reason not to investigate them, jų perhaps they (o have not been published so far, so that many unexplored things, such as the time ?). Be of writing, authors, more precise environments of appearance, sources, etc., are not investigated. ir tų XVII a. Eastern Prussian lexicographical monuments. Usually stated three surviving? handwritten German-English dictionaries: 1) Lexicon Lithuanicum, attributed to iš tradition D. Klein, the 2) so-called The Krause Dictionary ir 3) ‘Clavis Germanic-Lithuanian". stored F. Pretoria work. Identify Lexicon Lithuanicum su D. Klein's dictionary, as it has been done so far, would be risky: too little we know about D. Klein's written dictionary, both about the patį ‘Lexicon Lithuanicum". Iš watermarks judging, it is written rewritten) (= See. 1 J. Kruopos, K. Pakalkos, B. Tolutienės, B. Vosylytės works on K. Sirvydo, S. Daukanto, Pabrėžos, J. Sutkevičiaus, D. Juškos, A. Būgos etc. K. ir dictionaries. 2 See. Balašaitis A. Words ir dictionary. — V., 1984. — 142 p.; Palionis J. History of the Lithuanian literary language. — V., 1979. — 316 p.; Sabaliauskas A. Research-history of mo Lithuanian language, until 1940 m. — V., 1979. — 252 p.; as well as his. History of Lithuanian Language Research , 1940 — 1980 m. — V., 1982. — 265 p. : * About the mentioned, but probably not preserved XVII a. Kristopo Sapiino, Frydrych Thank you, Jono. Hurtelio bilingual dictionaries we have no jtikinamesniy knowledge. 102 "XVII in the a. fourteen-fifti- — es, so D. Klein's time, Our conduct of the so-called Krause's dictionary studies of paper watermarks show that this ne XVII work: a. dictionary written rewritten) (= XVIII third a. quarter — „decade, so cannot be jo attributed to the lived 1585 (1588) — 1655 m. A. Krauzei®, In its volume, the very lexicon of its presentation the most significant ir XVII a. Eastern The manuscript monument of Prussian Lithuanian lexicography is German-Lithuanian “ dictionary ‘Clavis Germanic-Lithuanian’ (hereinafter referred to as — CGL). It is two-volume (I t. — ‘Aal—- Lujt, II t. — Maal — Zwėlfter) su with folklore addition "Proverbia guedam Litvanica“ ir Word completion work (total p.). 2322 The dictionary has no long history of research. There have jo been several ir opinions about the time of the author's writing, which we will review here. ir Dar In the a. mid-19th century F. Nesselmann in the preface to his dictionary guessed that CGL written in the a. second quarter of ir the 18th ji century, called an Ir anonymous dictionary, later, without knowing the author of the dictionary, the manuscript was attributed to 18th Century a. People. This was the decision of the iš bibliographers based on two surname entries in the dictionary manuscript. The first record in Latin is CGL I volume on empty p. 9: Sum Christiani Friederici Stimeri Sal. Wine. P. Gerwi... In more detail this entry is repeated II on the first unnumbered page: Sum Christiani Friederici Stimeri Salav. Wine. Par. Gerwischk. 17468, The spoken dictionary in the Karaliaučius state archive had a volume :1st Msc. 85 in 4, Msc. 86 in 4. It, like other sources of ir Lithuanian studies, was studied by Kazimieras Booga. J. Balčikonis’s editorial staff of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary had downloaded the manuscript of this dictionary į The words are written down. Po Great Patriotic War m.) (1946 J. Jurginis, J. Kruopas, other scholars šį the dictionary together su J. Brodowski, K. Donelaičio manuscripts ir and other unique items of Lithuanian studies iš Eastern Prussia. Now CGL protected Lietuvos TSR MA Central Library. The question of the authorship of the dictionary has so far been perhaps most thoroughly studied by Jurgis Lebe- -dys”. Based on the illustrations of the ir dictionary in other sources, he attempted to estimate the approximate dė time of writing the dictionary. After reviewing the opinions of previous scholars, he is inclined to believe that the first volume of this dictionary was written 1672 m. "(with the 48 author having a year). Since the II volume mentioned T. Schultz The authorship 1673 m. 4 of the dictionary, the characteristics of the manuscript, the lexicographical presentation of the words are discussed in the Lexicon Lithuanicum publication prepared by the author of this article, published by "Mokslo" publishing house (1987). * For more details see. Drotvin V. When was the so-called Krauze dictionary written? — Baltistica, 1984, t. 20 (2), p. 163—167. $ Kristijonas Friedrich Stimeris was appointed priest of Gerviškėnai in 1746, in the early 19th century the dictionary belonged to Ziliy, where until 1695 Pretorias, precentor Vilhelmas Teodoras Šimelpenigis, was priest. 7 XVII - XVIII century. Proverbs, riddles, proverbs. J. Aebedys. — V., 1956. — 631 p. 103 ‘Compendium Grammaticae Lithvanicae", the entire dictionary was completed about a year later, in the 1674 year®. — 1675 Ši date is now almost universally accepted. In the new edition of the volume of the Lithuanian I Language Dictionary, abbreviation means C ‘Clavis Germanic-Lithuanian’ (buv. Two volumes of the Karaliaučius archive I Msc. 85 in 4, II Msc. 86 in 4 manuscript, written in tarpe 1673—1701 mety)®. The date of writing the dictionary is based on J. Leibniz's investigations. Bibliography in works F. "Pretorius be without reservation ar comments is considered the author of the German-Lithuanian dictionary surviving in the manuscript". Some ne linguists are not convinced of this. Pasak J. Lebed, the author himself who translated the Bible passages needed for the dictionary, Bretkūnas Bible J. translation was not available to him? ?. O J. Palionis claims that Friedrich Pretorius, writing At the end of a. XVII German-Lithuanian dictionary, took words phrases ir iš J. "The Bible Translation". Our selection CGL used concordances ir J. Bretkūno translation comparison shows that the translation of sentences J. Bretkūnas' manuscript of the Bible is probably unused. The authenticity of the translation is shown by quite sharp variations in word choice, word form combinations, word spelling, sentence constructions ir word order abbreviations! *. ir ir All this allows you to store The ir Praetorian Bible, at least its concordants. Thus, considering In order to calculate the CGL writing time, we should first allocate the year ir of the beginning (= of the dictionary preparation to the year of its completion. It is important to find the year the dictionary was written. They are considerI ed to be tomo 1672, II volume — 1673, t. y. the year of the most ir recent language work used in the dictionary. However, this is not a conclusive statement. T. Šulco The year of the grammar's ir publication does not necessarily coincide with the year of its use, and CGL is not necessarily written immediately after the grammar's publication. Since from up 1673 to years 1695 Eastern Neither linguistic works nor religious writings were published in Prussia, T. Schultz The (Sapun) grammar could have been used ir later. Of course, the preparane tion of ir ne CGL took one or two years. After all, po a few years 1690 m. T. Lepner stated that F. Pretoria, the oldest of our Prussians A Lithuanian preacher who has written a dictionary but has not found a publisher**. As is known, the to publisher did not appear until F. Pretoria's death. Ir did not occur for the simple reason that the dictionary was not finished. It shows only left ne blank pages at I the beginning 8 of the volume (J. In the case of a single page, the title page is the main page, but in ir the case of multiple ir pages, the title page is the secondary page. I — jų 121, II — 88, iš total blank pages — 209 (or the 11,5%, entire volume of the dictionary). The main material of the dictionary articles is usually presented on one page, most likely written ir ‘first 8 1000 Years of Folklore..., p. 512. ?* Languages of Lithuania Zodynas/Ats. red. J. A crooked one. — V., 1968, t. 1, p. XVIII. 10 Lietuvos TSR Bibliography. A series. Books in Lithuanian language, 1547—1861. — V., t. 1, p. 328. 11 Sabaliauskas A. The history of Lithuanian language research... — V., 1979, p. 31. 12 1000 Years of Folklore..., p. 509. 13 Jonas Bretcoon. Selected Writings / Par. J. Palionis ir J. Žukauskaitė. — V., 1983, p. 25. 14 Ši a topic worthy of a special textological examination. 15 Lepner Th. Der Preujche Lithauer. — Konigsberg, 1690, S. 115. 104 redakcije" at the time of writing. The pages for t. y. additions, inserting new heading words, and supplementing ar existing words are marked differently: one or two different notes for su additions to the dictionary volume are ar I 158, II — 122, so the iš whole or 280, the text. 99, If we add the empty ir pages we just started, we will see that one-fifth of the dictionary pages are be text. The additions appear to have been written ta later, but by the main author's own hand. Apparently, if The CGL author, when writing the main text, would have had a linguistic characteristic of a word, that would be ja I've got it right ir here. There are also some smaller aspen trees. ny that ir sparse, they could only have occurred over a longer period of po time, that when the main The CGL text was written, the o dictionary itself was already in the hands of others. Of course, the time of writing CGL does not directly depend on it, it was completely ar completed, no. ar It is important to bear in mind that it is 2—3 hardly possible for one person to prepare such a huge ar dictionary in a year. After all, there was no analogue in Lithuanian lexicography (excluding the twice-three-times smaller elementary ir manuscript of German-Lithuanian ‘Lexicon Lithuanicum“), there was no lexicographical tradition, bo finally, the preparation of the dictionary was not the main F. The Pretorian work. Therefore, in the absence of documented facts, so strictly defined The year of CGL's writing is hardly ar reasonable. In view of all į this, it is more appropriate to assume that the dictionary was prepared for a longer time than claimed so far. Specify The year of CGL writing could be helped by ir the time of dictionary paper production. The analysis of vocabulary paper watermarks shows that paper has four types of watermarks. 1. Watermark No. 1 is an oak su tree with three letters ir NK. Paper in su one, two, three ar kikilis (in German) One-finch paper, two-finch paper, three-finch paper) gamino Finken's Paper Workshop Eastern In Prussia from 1680 m. to End of a. XVIII. The number of killis indicated only the sheet format. CGL sheet is half "Three Piggies Paper" (38 cm x 42 cm)? *. Librarians specified CGL format cm) is (20,2 cm x 16,3 inaccurate considerably reduced. — Letters NK denoting the workshop ir founder master (N)icolaus (K)riiger first name ir last name? ". Šį the fact that the paper in ir kikilis was widely used helps to su identify the watermark ir in Lithuania's. 18 Laucevičius E. Paper In Lithuania XV - XVIII a. — V., 1967, p. 138 (watermark atlas position No. 2172). Due to the binding, the watermark was on different pages hardly ir visible in the middle. 17 Žr, Kohtz H. Die Origin East Prussian Paper makers // Paper history. Mainz, 1954, Jahrgang 4, S. 3; also his: Paper making and Family research with special Beruck~ sichtigung Ostpreufens//East German Family History. Géttingen, 1954, H. 3, S. 119. 18 The documents mentioned by E. Laucevitis are: 1) Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius V. Kapsuko University Scientific Library, F—7, Ip. 2 — Court books of Samogitia Inscription in Raseiniai in old Belarusian — 1683 m. July 1 d. Basil Skirmanto ir jo wife's statement that the widow Judita, former Rasmusavičienė, Mikalojaus daughter (wife) Songailienė would accept the collateral agreement; 2) Vilnius V. Kapsuko University Scientific Library, Manuscripts Department F—7, Ip. 2 —Entry in the court books of the castle of the Zemgalių Principality in the Old Belarusian Polish ir — 1686 m. of November 18 d. letter by which Constant She is the wife ir jo of Luke Shemiota, b. Komorovska, pledge The Ostfriesische Landwehr and the Ostfriesische Landwehr. - Kn. : Paper in Lithuania...,. p. 205. 105 2. Watermark No. 2 is with lilies and a crown (German: Lilienpapier). This watermark has not yet been detected or identified. The most similar to CGL watermark No. 2 is the watermark No. 2172 of E. Laucevičiaus atlas, found in a document written in Panevėžys in 1685??. 3. Watermark No. 3 is very similar to watermark No. 2 in its elements, it is only a modification of it. Although E. Laucevičius presents more than 120 watermarks with various heraldic lilies, this CGL paper watermark is not included in the atlas either, probably because not all East Prussian sources have been used in the atlas. Anyway, paper with lilies (some or other attributes) in Lithuania and Poland was produced $flabai widely. In fact, the two-fold heraldic lily was an element of the coats of arms of nearly 120 families. In the 18th century alone, E. Laucevičius mentions 10 variants of watermarks with lilies. There is no doubt that lilies were depicted in watermarks and earlier, i.e. 17th century last quarter. Thus, we could say that the paper with watermarks No. 2 and No. 3 was probably also produced at about the same time. 4. Watermark No 4 depicts a laurel wreath with a crown at the top and crossed twigs and the letters DVG (DOG?) at the bottom. Usually, the letters denote the last name and name of the owner or master of the afternoon workshop. The attribution of this watermark has not been determined so far. Thus, the analysis of CGL paper watermarks does not help much to identify Zodyno paraSymo more accurate time. However, even today the conclusions about the time of writing CGL can be corrected. If part of the paper is produced after 1680, and if that paper is not some special addition added later than all the other papers of the dictionary?®, it must be assumed that all the paper (at least taken separately — tomais) is not earlier. Even if we say that the paper taken for the documents of 1683, 1686 could have been made two or three years earlier, it is still too bold to continue to hold the opinion that the entire CGL was written in 1672 (1673)—1675. This date, judging by the paper watermarks, should be postponed 10 years later and CGL should be regarded as a work of the 1680s. The corrected date of writing the CGL does not contradict the opinion of contemporary authors that its author could be F. Pretorius. There are no other counter-arguments that can refute these contemporary accounts. On the contrary, the knowledge of F. Pretorius’s philological qualification and his engagement in Lithuanian studies, the very nature of the dictionary and its lexicographic quality suggest that there was no man in the second half of the 17th century who could match him. F. Pretoria. The biblical and everyday colloquial vocabulary of F. Pretorius CGL, its presentation best represents the vocabulary of the 17th century East Prussian writings (and partly dialects). For all this, the “Clavis Germanico- -Lithvana” deserves all kinds of lexicographers’ and scholars’ praise.19 See, Vilnius V. Kapsuko University Scientific Library, Manuscripts Department, F—8, 423, Ip. 3, format 33 cm x 20 cm, written in 1685 (not 1681, as indicated by E. Laucevičius) on 19 September in Polish language — a letter in which the Zagrobski and Ciemnolonski families acknowledge the right to Palėvena to the elder of Upytė, Petrui Blūsiui (watermark — on the third page of the letter). 20 Paper dictionary sheets with three kikilis found only twice; CGL first volume 228 (229) — 234 (235) ir 244 (245) — 250 (251) pages. 106 UE LSS US =——7 is the attention of linguists. I am glad that the old plan, along with other — monuments of lexicography, to publish ‘Clavis Germanico-Lithvana”21 — is finally being implemented. Lietuvos TSR Scientific The Central Library of the Academy plans to publish the F. Pretorian vocabulary in four parts (with arrow for Lithuanian words) publication. OB ABTOPE CJIOBAP1A ‘CLAVIS GERMAN-LITHUANIAN’ Pe310oMe CraTesi MOCBAIIEHA YTOHHEHHIO ABTOPCTBA H OGCTOSTEJIBCTB HAIMCAHHA KpYIHEHIIIEro B Bocrounoit Ilpyccunu XVII B. HeMerix0-JMTOBCKOTO pykrorucHoro cjoBapa ‘Clavis GermanicLithvana”. O6seM H coJtepxaHHe COBaps NON-MODULATED CONTROLS CBHICTENLCTBA COBDEMEHHHKOB H CJIYXAT OCHOBAHHMEM UIA 3aKJIPOMEHHS, 4TO aBTOpoM ‘Clavis Germanico-Lithvana“ sBJIs1ETCH ItEpeBOĮMIHK IIECCH, WICH KOMHCCHH IIO EPECMOTPY TpaMMATHKH H IIeCeHHHKA HIM. Kineitnaca, Gjiecrsimin 3HATOK JIATOBCKOTO s3bika Opunpaux Ilperopuroc (1624— 1695). B crarbe TOBOpHTCA, YTO ABTODP Is CIOBAPS KOHKODIAHINI HeMenKOH GuGnux M. Jliorepa IIeDEBOJIKJI Ha JIHTOBCKHŪ 53bIK CAM, a He 530BAJICS pAaHHHMH IIEpeBOJAaMH. Crnosaps O. Multi-layermo ed cYyTH Įtejia Gb IepeBOJIHbIM CJIOBADEM, HE HMEBINMHM AHAJIOTOB B Jimtobckoh Jiekcukorpaduu. IlosrToMy HeoGxoJiKMO pa3iinJaTb TIeDpHOJ IIOJIFOTOBKH CJIOBADA H BpEMS HEIIOCPE/ICTBECHHOTO Hammcanus ciosaps. IlyTeM HIIEHTHOHKAIIHH BOJIAHLIX 3HAKOB YCTAHOBJIEHO, 4TO GyMara clioBapst H3TOTOBJIeHA He paHbire, YeM B 1680 r., mostomy CPOK Hamucaaust ,,Clavis Germanic-Lithuanian’ c 1672— 1675 rr. cneayeT mepeHeCTH Ha HECSTH JET IMO3Xe. 4 Palionis J. Achievements of Lithuanian Linguistics in the Years of Soviet Rule, 1958, —Kalbotyra, 4t. 1, p. 13. 107