Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
IJA LEMEŠKIN
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
Research areas: Old Baltic literature and writings, comparative folkloristics, lexicography, and the history of Baltic studies.
OLD BALTIC LEXICOGRAPHY IN THE SERVICE OF HANSEATIC MERCHANTS. THE PURPOSE AND DATE OF COMPILATION OF MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARIES
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hansa Merchants. Purpose of Manuscript Vocabularies and the Time of Compiling
ABSTRACT
The article advances a new perspective on the oldest lexicographic monuments of the Baltic languages: the Elbing Dictionary and the so-called Simon Grunau glossary. Both manuscript sources are associated with the utilitarian bilingual tradition of Hanseatic lexicography and are examined in detail alongside the so-called “Russian Books,” that is, copies of Low German–Russian dictionaries and phrasebooks compiled by young Hanseatic merchants for practical language learning and business purposes sprakelere. It is concluded that German–Prussian dictionaries and phrasebooks became relevant, or were created, soon after Elbing was granted Lübeck law and German merchants and colonists arrived to settle in the newly opened market. Both the Elbing Dictionary and S. Grunau’s glossary are closely associated with Elbing; Hanseatic lexicographic influence can also be discerned in the “Polish–Yotvingian Glossary.” A vertical reading of S. Grunau’s glossary makes it possible to reconstruct merchants’ conversations, that is, a functional style hitherto unattested in Baltic-language texts—the sociolect of German–Prussian merchants in the mid-to-late thirteenth century. The conditions necessary for lexicography based on Lithuanian to develop did not exist in the thirteenth century (owing to the limited geographical reach of Hanseatic trade).
The article shapes a new approach towards the oldest lexicographic monuments of the Baltic languages: Elbing vocabulary and the so called Simon Grunau’s vocabulary. Both manuscript sources are associated with Hanseatic utilitarian bilingual lexicographic tradition and are thoroughly compared with the so called “Russian books”, i.e. transcripts of Low German-Russian vocabularies and phrase-books compiled by young Hansa men, the so called sprachlehre, for practical language learning and business purposes. A conclusion is made that German-Prussian vocabularies and phrase-books became relevant, i.e. they were compiled, soon after Elbing was granted Lübeck law and German merchants and colonists arived at the new market to make profit. The Elbing vocabulary and Grunau’s vocabulary are closely linked with Elbing: the influence of the Hanseatic lexicography is also seen in the Polish-Yotvingian vocabulary. The vertical reading of Grunau’s vocabulary enables us to reconstruct the mercantile phrase-book, i.e. the functional style which has not yet been grasped in the Baltic corpus – the German-Prussian mercantile sociolect of the second half of the 13th century. There were no respective preconditions for the formation of lexicography on the basis of the Lithuanian language in the 13th century (due to the limited geography of the spread of Hansa merchants).
A comparative look at old written sources reveals one difference: only some of the Baltic peoples—the Prussians and the “Yotvingians”¹—have medieval lexicographic monuments. This raises the question: why are such monuments not attested among the other Baltic peoples? The traces of Basel and Crete (Dini 2014: 331–332, 553–558) may be connected with literate Prussians, who, when copying books, left a corresponding mark about themselves and the circumstances in which the copies originated or were used, in the column position. Could these same educated people also have contributed to compiling dictionaries? To answer these questions, it is necessary to define the purpose of the lexicographic monuments, that is, to determine what factors led to the emergence of dictionaries and for whom, where, and how they were useful.
1.1. The oldest and largest German–Prussian dictionary—the so-called Elbinger Vokabular (hereafter abbreviated as EŽ)—has come down to us as part of the Codex Neumannianus, which was kept in the Elbing City Library (shelfmark Q 84) until the Second World War. The dictionary, the fourth section of the codex, was the final one; it and the entire book were crowned by a colophon, which briefly
1 Žodyno Pogańske gwary z Narew (Zinkevičius 1985) pašymą linktama kelti į „kryžiuočių laikus“. Jo jotvingiškumu abejojama (Schmid 1986; plačiau: Dini 2014: 304–307). Žodynė žvelgiama maišta kalba, kurioje pastebima jidiš kalbos įtaka, baltų-ugrofinų izoglosos (Chelimski 1985; Opel, Xelimxki 1987; Orėl 1986), rytų baltų bei prūsų kalbų leksinių išteklių kompiliacija.
10
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 3
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hanseatic Merchants. The Purpose and Date of Compilation of Manuscript Dictionaries
provides information about the dictionary copy and its creator: Explicit per manus Petri Holc || wecher De mainburg (p. 185). The scribe’s anthropnyms and copying errors, which occur in the dictionary section, indicate that Peter Holweschers of Mayenborg2 was probably German. The widely held claim that the dictionary itself—that is, the protograph copied by P. Holwesch—was compiled by a Teutonic Order monk remains unsubstantiated. The question of authorship is directly dependent on the genre of this lexicographical monument, or rather the problem of the dictionary’s purpose, which remains unresolved to this day. Without a more thorough discussion of this problem, claims about a monk or a person of another social status are premature.
It is thought that P. Holweschers copied the manuscript book in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. In future, more precise dating may be facilitated by reference to the watermark redrawn by Heinrico Niewöhner in 19123, whose date is currently difficult to determine. It has a distinctive feature—a rounded widening at the lower end of the bull’s head (the bull’s muzzle), which makes it difficult to assign to currently known variants and types of precisely dated watermarks. In the section of Gerhard Piccard’s collection entitled “Ochsenkopf – Ohne Gesichtsmerkmale – Darüber Stange – Darüber Kreuz – Einkonriges Kreuz,” there are a couple of images that can only tentatively and approximately be compared with the watermark in the Elbing codex. They (Nos. 56698–56700, 56695) are dated to 1427, 1433, 1435, and 1464. A somewhat similar watermark (with a certain feature of a rounded widening of the bull’s muzzle, but also with eyes and a star between the similarly curved horns), dated to 1434, appears in Nikolai Likhachev’s work—No. 511 (cf. also the 1427 watermark No. 541: Лихачев I 43, 46; III LXXVIII). Given the gradual development of the watermark type under discussion, it would make sense to revise the dating of the paper in the Elbing codex to a later date. It seems that the codex may have been produced in the second quarter of the fifteenth century, or even in the middle of the fifteenth century.
1.2. P. Holweschers copied a collection dominated by legal writings. First, he copied the “Lübeck Law” granted to Elbing – Lübisches
2In interpreting the place name mäenburg, an unwarranted and unnecessary conjecture is made: Marienburg.
3H. Niewöhner’s 1912 description is available in the database Handschriftenensus: http://www.baw.de/forschung/dtm/HSA/Elbing_70033029000.html.
Straipsniai / Articles
11
Page 4
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Recht für Elbing (pp. 1–100)4. The scribe copied the Prussian law second – Preussisches Recht (pp. 100–120)5. Next came the Polish law – Polnisches Recht (pp. 120–168)6 and finally the German-Prussian dictionary (pp. 169–185). The collection’s focus on legal matters is clearly evident and was noted in the sixteenth century. At that time, a general title was written in ink on the front leaf: Buch darin der Lübeschen Rechte beschriben [...], as well as the telling maxim Fiat justicia & pereat mundus (“Let justice be done, though the whole world perish”). The combination of the copied sources led the codex’s first researchers to suppose that the compendium of civil law was used by a high-ranking Teutonic Order official residing in Elbing—a komtur, to whom the townspeople of Elbing and all the local inhabitants, that is, the Prussians, Germans, and Poles of that komturei, were subject. This view was held by Ferdinand Neumann and Edwin Volckmann (Volckmann 1869: 4). Later, the practical legal purpose (für den praktischen rechtsgebrauch) was considered by Adalbert Bezzenberger and Reinhold Trautmann (Bezenberger 1874: 1225; Trautman 1910: XXIV–XXV).
James Marchand questioned the dictionary’s purported legal purpose (Marchand 1970: 112). Indeed, the supposed legal function fits poorly with a German-Prussian vocabulary. On the one hand, it lacks “specialized,” that is, legal, vocabulary; on the other, it contains many words (and entire sections) that are difficult to associate semantically with legal matters (baths, ropes, stars, and so on). Wolfram Euler came up with a modern solution—that is, one viewed through the lens of modern times—arguing that the dictionary’s function corresponds to tourist phrasebooks (Euler 1988: 9). Friedrich Benninghoven also interpreted the dictionary as a “short phrasebook” (kurzer Sprachführer), facilitating communication with Prussians on various everyday subjects: “Einem Deutschen die Möglichkeit zu geben, sich mit der preußischen Landesbevölkerung schnell über die Begriffe des täglichen Lebens zu verständigen” (Benninghoven 1990: 106).
In 2003, Ralf Päsler published a comprehensive study Deutschsprachige Sachliteratur im Preußenland bis 1500. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Überlieferung, in which considerable
4Before the main text of the source, a detailed register with a red heading was provided: “Das ist das lubichs recht und der sack” (p. 1). The beginning of the register, on p. 1, was marked with an initial: “Das erste ist von echtshaft I [...]”. The register ends on p. 11: “Der von sinnen is Komer CXXIX–IX”. Following the register, a Latin preface appears on pp. 11–13. The source itself begins on p. 13: “Von echschaft. Wo en man sinen son dir ine töchts gebet [...]”; it ends on p. 100 with the words: “[...] di en mogen Keyn gut weg gebin daz ist ste sie vnd das is man gewere sie amen”.
5A colored heading and the beginning of the text, “Von wunden bewysunge. Capitulum 1. Eyn man der do gewunt wirt sal sine wunden bewisen dem Kemer [...]” (p. 100), as well as the end of the text: “[...] wer dy sune bricht der ist des geldes bestant” – p. 120.
6At the beginning of this source, on pp. 120–123, a series of preambles was provided.
12
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 5
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankrašinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
attention to the Elbing Codex. Drawing on the extensive material held in libraries, archives, and museums in Central and Western Europe, the researcher offered interesting new insights. Taking issue with the codex’s claimed original purpose, R. Päsler identifies a different function for the manuscript. In his view, the lexicographical work met educational needs: “Daher ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Deutscher es mit sich führte, um sich mit dessen Hilfe mit einheimischen Prūsen verständigen zu können. Zielsprache ist nicht das Prūßische, sondern das Deutsche. Der Prūße lernt die deutsche Sprache und mit ihr lernt er das christlich geprägte Weltbild der Kolonialherren kennen. Letzteres erschließt sich dem Lernenden, also einem Schüler, aber erst durch erklärende Zusätze eines Lehrers. Die Function des Vokabulars ist somit im Umkreis des Sprachunterrichts zu suchen, also im Umkreis von Ausbildung und Schule“ (Päsler 2003: 307).
The scholar sought to substantiate his ideas through a typological comparison with other known lexicographical works from the Königsberg region of East Prussia (for example, with a fifteenth-century Latin-German dictionary, which he abbreviates as Königsberg, SB: 91 – Päsler 2003: 213, 304, 306), as well as through a detailed analysis of the thematic sections making up the dictionary. He lists these in a separate table, Wortgruppen des ‚Elbinger Vokabulars‘ (Päsler 2003: 305–306):
No. | First word of group | Vocabulary no. | Number of items | Description of group 1 | Got | 1–11 | 11 | Heaven (firmament) 2 | Ior | 12–23 | 12 | Seasons and days of the week 3 | Erde | 24–32 | 9 | The four elements 4 | Vier | 33–44 | 12 | The four elements 5 | Lyft | 45–58 | 14 | The four elements 6 | Wasser | 59–66 | 8 | The four elements 7 | Mensch | 67–168 | 102 | The human body from head to toe 8 | Vater | 169–192 | 24 | Kinship terms 9 | Hüs | 193–235 | 43 | House and 10 | Ackerman | 236–293 | 58 | Farm 11 | Wayn | 294–315 | 22 | Wagon 12 | Möle | 316–328 | 9 | Mill 13 | Becker | 329–346 | 18 | Baker 14 | Garbner | 347–381 | 35 | Cook 15 | Krecem | 382–403 | 22 | Tavern 16 | Here | 404–428 | 25 | Social order of the secular free; military affairs 17 | Ros | 429–439 | 11 | Horses 18 | Seteler | 440–453 | 14 | Saddlery 19 | Weber | 454–472 | 19 | Weaving 20 | Schreder | 473–495 | 23 | Tailoring
Straipsniai / Articles
13
Page 6
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
No.
First word of group
Vocabulary no.
Number of items
Description of group
21
Schuwert
496–512
17
Shoemaking
22
Smyt
513–549
37
Blacksmithing
23
Beder
550–559
10
Barber-surgeon’s trade
24
Vysch
560–585
26
Fish
25
Walt
586–646
61
Wald
26
Tyer
647–670
24
Tiere
27
Vare
671–686
16
Vieh
28
Milch
687–695
9
Milk and its products
29
Joger
696–705
10
Jagd
30
Vogel
706–773
68
Vogelnamen
31
Slange
774–791
18
Snakes, worms, and insects
32
Werd
792–802
11
“The world in which we live”
The researcher tends to discern a certain regularity in the presentation of thematic groups—a subtle “schema” (einzelnen Gruppen einen bestimmten Schema folgen): “The subject groups provide an image of the cosmos, in its celestial, temporal, and worldly divisions, thus a rough sketch of the worldview of the Christian German immigrants, whose focus lies on designations for the immediate world of everyday life (Groups 7–31); Groups 1–6 offer the cosmological superstructure, supplemented by Group 32, in which the terms Werd, Lant, Kristenheit, Heidenschaft, Stat and Dorf provide generalizing designations for forms of communal life in descending order. Of these, Lant, Stat and Dorf can readily be associated with law, since they have a constitution and are legally defined. Likewise, the terms Kristenheit and Heidenschaft have a juridical-canonical connotation—particularly in the Prussian lands. And Group 16, with the words König, Ritter, Leman (vassal), Vrier, Gebur, presents a social hierarchy that is certainly of legal significance” (Päsler 2003: 237).
Regarding the dictionary’s functions in connection with the “school sphere,” the researcher argues that such a general or non-specialized (that is, not narrowly legal) lexicographic work could have originated in Heilsberg or Frauenburg. According to him, a school had been operating at the bishop’s residence in Heilsberg since the mid-fourteenth century, while the canons of Frauenburg Cathedral (Ecclesia Warmiensis), who lived in their own houses, were required to support and educate one Prussian youth each⁷. R. Päsler also observes that such a
7 Tyrėjas Päsleris (2003: 237) cituoja Klausą Neitmanną: „Auch jeder der sechzehn Domherren des ermländischen Domkapitels zu Frauenburg hatte einen jungen preußischen Zunge in seinem Hause zu unterhalten und ihn für die spätere Seelsorge unter seinem Volke zu erziehen. Den Unterricht erhielten die Jungen an der dortigen Kathedralschule. Einige Stamprußen sind im 14.
14
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 7
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraščių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
dictionary may also have been needed in Marienburg, where, according to him, Prussians were also studying.
The researcher is uncertain about where the Elbing Codex was compiled. P. Holcwecher may have produced his work in Elbing—für den Elbinger Deutschordenskontent. On the other hand, the author does not rule out the possibility that the compilation of “Prussian” sources and their peculiar archiving took place in Marienburg: “The manuscript could then be seen as part of the efforts at administrative reform and may have been ‘stored’ in Marienburg as a kind of ‘specimen copy’ of various texts; the manuscript may have come to Elbing after Marienburg was abandoned” (Päsel 2003: 237). In any case, in keeping with a long-established tradition, the researcher firmly links the compilation of the codex to the administrative purposes of the Teutonic Order: “In both cases, however, the manuscript would have been produced for the administrative purposes of the Teutonic Order” (Päsel 2003: 237).
1.3. This widespread claim seems overly categorical and restrictive. Can the collection’s function really be explained solely by the official administration of the Teutonic Order? Is it really impossible to reconcile teisnų niekap with a dictionary in the composition of the prologue? It seems to us that this is indeed possible.
It should be borne in mind that all three legal compilations included in the Elbing Codex regulated economic relations in detail, and that they paid particular attention to matters of trade. In essence, these are commercial law codes which, over time—especially the “Lübeck Law”—ensured the dynamic prosperity and development of the cities of the Baltic region. Thus, the codes directed at different administrative units (Pomesania, Elbing, and the territory governed by “Polish Law”) were needed not only by komturs, procurators, and other “administrators,” but also by the merchants representing the powerful Hanseatic League. Moreover, they could hardly have pursued their activities successfully without these sources. Yet merchants also needed other written sources for their business, including linguistic aids to facilitate communication, or negotiations, with nobles, artisans, peasants, wealthy people, attendants, and other groups who spoke little or no local language.
It is important to emphasize that this is not merely a theoretical possibility. Lexicographic works compiled to meet commercial needs are attested in the Hanseatic region. An interesting and particularly relevant cluster of such linguistic sources consists of the so-called “Russian books” (Ein Russisch Buch; Ein Rusck Boeck; acc. sg. русько книго – rusche boek). Russian-German glossaries and dialogues, once used at the Novgorod trading post in “Hanseatic Low German” (on the terms Hansprache or Lübecker Ausgleichsprache, see Sanders 1982; Peters 1973), are
and in the fifteenth century, in the course of their successful careers, attained the episcopal sees of Samland and Pomesania” (see Neitmann 1996: 64).
Straipsniai / Articles
15
Page 8
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
are important for examining the relevant “Prussian book,” that is, the Elbing Vocabulary, since from a genre perspective they explain the origin, structure, and purpose of this lexicographic work (i.e., its typological relationship). We will return to the “Russian books” that concern us, but first we shall look at the source from which the Elbing Vocabulary has traditionally been derived.
1.4. The Elbing German–Prussian dictionary is traditionally associated with a German–Latin glossary widespread in the Middle Ages (Mažiulis 196: 28), but such a linguistic connection between dictionaries in Prussia or elsewhere is not attested at all. Copies of Latin–German dictionaries are known (Päler 2003: 213), but their purpose was quite different. They were used to learn Latin vocabulary. In this way, pupils successfully entered through the “open door to languages and all the sciences” (J. A. Comenius: Janua linguarum reserata sive Seminarium linguarum et scientiarum omnium = Dwēre Jazyků otevřené To aeft Kratký a snadný způsob kterého li Gazyką /ßpolu y s začátky wssech wměni swobodných / pochopeńi). Dictionaries oriented in the opposite direction (from German into Latin) made no sense in the period under discussion (there were no users); consequently, their hypothetical existence, considered in its time by Walthers Ziesemer (Ziesemer 1920: 139–140), is highly doubtful. Theoretically, one could consider an alternative model in which the compiler of the German–Prussian dictionary removed the Latin headwords from a school dictionary and used German equivalents in their place:
Rolando Ferri follows the indicated scheme of relationships between the dictionaries; he was the first researcher to attempt to substantiate the declared connection textologically (Ferri 2018). He makes a thorough comparison between the Elbing Vocabulary and the late-fourteenth-century Latin–German Liber ordinis rerum, which Peter Schmitt prepared for publication and published in Tübingen in 1983. The Italian scholar identifies “significant closeness” between the thematic sections and the key words that serve as identifiers for individual thematic fields (Ferri 2018: 129–130). His comparison yielded the following result:
Book of the Order of Things Elbing vocabulary 1. On God and the saints 1. (1) Got Deywis 2. On the world, heaven, and the stars 2. (12) Jor Metan 3. On time (year jar) 3. (24) Ede Same 4. On fire (=EV4) 4. (33) Vēre Pano 5. On air (=EV5) 5. (45) Luft Wins
16
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 9
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hanseatic Merchants. The Purpose and Dating of Manuscript Dictionaries
Liber ordinis rerum
Elbing vocabulary
6. De aquis (=EV6)
6. (59) Wasser Wundan
7. De terra (=EV3) De montibus (=EV26)
7. (67) Mensch Smonenai(n)s
8. De distinccione et locis nemorum
8. (169) Vater Towis
9. De viis inter terras De aedificiis (=EV9)
9. (193) Hüs Buttan
10. De cognationibus hominis
10. (236) Ackerman Artos
11. De officialibus (=EV16)
11. (294) Wayn Abasus
12. De his qui presunt victui (agrestis ackerman, venator ieger)
12. (316) Möle Malunis
13. De panum preparatoribus (mola mol, fornarius beker) (=EV 12, EV E13)
13. (329) Becker Pecore
14. De cibariorum preparatione (cocus koch)
14. (347) Garbreter Aubigo
15. De diversis generibus ciborum (lac milch)
15. (382) Kretzem Karczemo (384 malcz Piwaltan)
16. De diversis generibus potum (brasiator melcer, brasium malcz)
16. (404) Herre Rikıs
17. De artificibus pro vestitu (textor weber)
17. (429) Ros Rusis
18. De preparatoribus uestium (sartor schrader)
18. (440) Seteler Saddler
19. De preparatoribus corei (shoemaker schowrt)
19. (454) Weber Cobbler
20. On craftsmen for buildings
20. (473) Schroter Scraper
21. De instrumentis ad commutationes rerum necessaris (=EV 11, 17, 18) (seller satlär)
21. (496) Schuwert Shoemaker
22. De emundatoribus (bath attendant, bader)
22. (513) Snẏt Wris
23. On beasts and their kinds (=EV26)
23. (550) Beder Stonemason
24. On inedible household items (=EV17)
24. (560) Vysch Suckis
25. On wild animals (=EV26)
25. (586) Walt Medan
26. On species of birds (=EV30)
26. (647) Tyer Alue
27. De piscibus (=EV24)
27. (671) Varre Lonix
28. De vermibus venenosis (=EV31)
28. (687) Milch Dadan
29. De partibus animalium (=EV7)
29. (696) Jeger Medis
30. (706) Vogel Pepelis
31. (774) Slange Angis
32. (792) Werd Swetan
Straipsniai / Articles
17
Page 10
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
The table revealing the similarity in content and structure has its own specific features, which the researcher correctly refrains from emphasizing. The author acknowledges that Liber ordinis rerum is a much more stable lexicographical work. In P. Schmitt’s edition, it consists of as many as 250 chapters, which is difficult to correlate with the thematic blocks of the Elbing Vocabulary, of which there are only 32 (Ferri 2018: 127–128). The excerpts of Latin headings presented on the left and the continuous numbering of chapters, which visually may suggest a much closer relationship between the works being compared, are a qualified matter: “I have subsumed different subchapters of the LOR [Liber ordinis rerum – I. L.] under the same heading in cases in which different chapters were clearly expansions of the preceding and more general one, like, e.g. De artificibus pro vestitu, De diversis metiebus pannorum, De preparatibus vestium et vestibus, De partibus vestimentorum, De ornamentis, De pannis ad ornatum spectantibus, which I have subsumed under only just one title, de artificibus pro vestitu; this implies that the numbers I have written next to each ‘chapter’ do not designate the order of the same chapter in the MSS of LOR, but are intended only to facilitate comparison with the EV [Elbing Vocabulary – I. L.], which I think is significant in many regards. In addition, the Liber includes several grammatical chapters, which adds up to the total of 250 in Schmitt’s edition. I have added (in bold), in the left column, after the title of each chapter, some Latin-German entries which have a correspondent in the right column“ (Ferri 2018: 127–128).
Ultimately, R. Ferri arrives at cautious conclusions, deriving the observed parallels in structure and content from the continuum of an old and shared (universal) lexicographical tradition: “EV mirrors closely the sequence of chapters found in LOR, in turn inherited from the arrangement of all such lists and most other classified glossaries from antiquity onwards. First come the words for ‘God’ (the various deities of classical mythology in the ancient glossaries), the sky, the weather, and the four elements. Then comes the human world: the human anatomy, kinship, bonds and other relationships describing social relationships. The next group includes nouns for human activities, first the agriculture, then manufacturing (weaving, shoemaking, working textiles). The last section is devoted to animals and plants. Medieval glossary and encyclopedic writers had inherited this preordained structure from antiquity: bilingual Greek-Latin glossaries always follow this macrostructural pattern: the gods and heavens, the human body and the human nature, human activities including the production of food and drink, agriculture, animals, plants“ (Ferri 2018: 130–131). The researcher speaks very cautiously about a potential direct connection between Liber ordinis rerum and the Elbing Vocabulary: “The EV follows one such pre-existing template, close to what we have in the LOR, which I have chosen as a term for comparison because in terms of language (Niederdeutsch), geographical distribution and date may
18
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 11
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraščių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
have been close to what the authors of the EV used as a model for their collection and registration of Prussian data“ (Ferri 2018: 127).
With this caution (may have been close), it is reasonable to agree that at least one intermediary link can be discerned between Latin–German and German–Prussian dictionaries, namely a German x or x–German dictionary intended for trade, represented by the Russian–German lexicographical works already mentioned. The relationship between the dictionaries can be represented in the following sequence:
Roman numerals indicate functional shifts among lexicographical sources: from hermeneutics and education toward the pragmatic, profit-generating application of lexicography. The process is accompanied by inevitable structural change. It is precisely because of its two-plane linguistic structure that R. Pälsler’s hypothesis about the Elbing Vocabulary’s educational purpose and school use must be viewed critically, despite its appeal. If the compiler had in fact been guided by the aims of pursuing the trivium, he would have chosen a Latin–German lexicographical source and under no circumstances would have abandoned the Latin register. The result would then have been an ordinary trilingual dictionary: Latin–German–Prussian. This is precisely how lexicography in national languages generally developed in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance—by “adding on” to existing bilingual or trilingual dictionaries. It is difficult to imagine an author who had discarded the Latin component, such as Konstantinas Sirvydas, publishing an abridged, that is, Polish–Lithuanian dictionary instead of Dictionarium trium linguarum (cf.: 1489 Trialog Vīdenský; 16th c. Vokabülär hebrejsko-německo-latinsko-český; Dictionarius trium linguarum. latine. teutonie: Boemice [...] 1513; Dictionarius Trium Linguarum Latine Teutonice et Polonice [...] 1528; Dictionarius Latine, Germanice, Polonice et Ungarice 1531, etc.). Regional bilingualism indicates that the dictionary compiler/user was not an academic but a practitioner. Of course, the possibility remains that the Elbing Vocabulary was not the first of its kind, that is, that it was created on the model of an older dictionary of German and another language, for example, a German–Russian dictionary.
Straipsniai / Articles
19
Page 12
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
The user was not an academic but a practitioner. Of course, the possibility remains that the Elbing Vocabulary was not the first of its kind, that is, that it was created on the model of an older dictionary of German and another language, for example, a German–Russian dictionary.
1.5.1. Among the oldest still-known Russian–German dictionaries, three works attract our attention; their emergence in the 13th–14th centuries was prompted by the activities of Hanseatic merchants:
a) The lexicographical source Einn Russich Buch—a book of Russian and High German conversations with a glossary (1r–113r ff.; the glossary occupies 68r–89r ff.)—is currently kept as part of a larger codex (147 folios in total) in the Jagiellonian University Library in Krakow. Before the Second World War, the codex, bearing the same shelfmark, Ms. slav. fol. 18, was kept in Berlin (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz). Analysis of the watermarks shows that the manuscript was last copied in 1581–1591 (Falowski 1992: 4). However, the title page reveals when and under what circumstances two earlier copies were made, and why:
A Russian book I am called, quite unknown in the German land. May God let the one who wrote me live and die joyfully. Amen.
Help me, God, in what I begin; may I attain a blessed end. May God grant him, according to God’s will, life here upon this earth, and may his soul have a share in God. Thomas Schroue is his name, so that he may become known to God.
Amen, Anno Domini *146*
Thomas Schroue can be reliably identified as the mayor of Tartu, who visited Moscow as part of a Hanseatic delegation in 1494 and, upon returning from the journey, submitted a brief report on the unsuccessful negotiations with Ivan III (Alexeev 1951: 109–110). In Moscow, the “linguistic” question was the first to be addressed, since the tsar’s authorities had previously detained a Hanseatic interpreter. The interpreter’s detention must have contributed, at least in part, to the compilation of the manuscript dictionary and conversation books, because
20
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 13
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hanseatic Merchants. The Purpose and Date of Compilation of Manuscript Dictionaries
It was necessary to communicate with the Muscovites. Until then, Einn Russisch Buch may have been kept in the “German Court,” which had operated in Novgorod since 1192. An earlier, continually updated “practical manual” was needed by young, novice merchants (in some years their number at the trading post reached 150–200!), who used it to acquire linguistic skills useful for business. In 1494, when Ivan III abolished the Hanseatic trading post, this source, along with other German manuscripts from Novgorod, naturally changed its place of residence. Thus T. Schroue may have brought the dictionary back with him, copied it, or commissioned a subordinate to copy it. This must have happened as early as the end of the 15th century, since he died in Tartu in 1498–1501 while serving as the city’s burgomaster.
The date 1546 indicated on the title page, in turn, marks the existence of another intermediate copy, which came to light during the printing of the book (Akeceev 1951: 108). This is suggested by the invocation to the reader, that is, the opening quatrain, whose form and content are characteristic of 16th-century publications. The dictionary’s quatrain was probably influenced by C. Schnaus’s invocation to the reader, which first appeared in print no later than 1546 (for more on this, see Lemeškin 2017).
Thus, a popular linguistic source that nearly went to press in the mid-16th century was copied at least three times over the course of a century. The “Russian book” had undoubtedly also been continually updated earlier. The 12th–14th-century original of the dictionary must have had roughly the same structure, that is, it was similarly divided into thematic sections (in Einn Russisch Buch there are 43 of them), but those sections must have contained far fewer lexical items. Over time, the form of the German part of the dictionary also changed. Gerld Stone found a number of sporadic Low German forms in the manuscript (Stone 1990). This confirms the hypothesis put forward earlier (Jakobson, Schooneveld 1961; Gernentz, Korol, Rösler 1988: 39–40) that the dictionary’s archetype was in Russian and Low German. The Russian language material, in turn, points unequivocally to Novgorod and/or Pskov, that is, to the area of Hanseatic trade interests on a permanent basis.
The source was published and thoroughly studied by Adam Falowski (Falowski 1992, 1997).
b) A Russian–Low German phrasebook and dictionary, copied and supplemented by Tonies Fenne in Polotsk in 1607 (Tonnies Fenne gheordt dit boek. || Anno 1607 den 1 septemb. || zu Pleschow geschreven – 1 p.). For a long time, the manuscript held in the Royal Danish Library (shelfmark Thott 1104 4) was believed to be an original work of early 17th-century lexicography (the dictionary occupies pp. 31–130); however, Polish scholars established that about 80% of its linguistic data coincides with the lexical material of T. Schroue’s Einn Russisch Buch (Бочек 3003: 215). This means that both dictionaries, which have the same structure, derive from a common archetype (for the identity of the texts and dictionary structures, see also Jakobson, Schooneveld 1961: 5–31).
Straipsniai / Articles
21
Page 14
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Since 1961, the sources have been published in serial form and studied by Louis Leonor Hamerich, Roman Jakobson, Antonius Hendrikus van den Baars, and Hans Joachim Gernenz (Jakobson, Schooneveld 1961; Hamerich, Jakobson 1970; Baar 1885; Gernenz 1986). More recently, the manuscript was deciphered anew (Hendriks, Schaeken 2008; Hendriks 2011)8 and added to the TITUS database9 by Pepijn Hendrik and Jos Schaeken. The dictionary contains 54 thematic sections.
c) A Russian–Low German phrasebook and dictionary entitled Ein Rusch Boeck.... This lexicographic monument (94 folios in extent) is held in the Jagiellonian University Library; before the Second World War, it was held in Berlin under the same shelfmark, Ms. slav. quart. 14 (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz). The manuscript was thoroughly studied by A. Fałowski, who dated it to the mid-16th century and traced its origin to Pskov (Fałowski 1994, 1996). The dictionary comprises 35 thematic units.
1.5.2. All the lexicographic sources mentioned, which are much more similar (in structure and extent) to the Elbing Dictionary than to Liber ordinis rerum, are linked by a close textual relationship, though its nature remains unclear. Neither manuscript can be derived directly from the other. The extant copies are quite old (one is a late-15th-century redaction, another reflects the situation in the mid-16th century, and the third dates to the early 17th century), and the order in which thematic blocks are presented varies considerably among them. Below, without special selection or harmonization, we present in sequence all the section titles attested in the manuscripts:
Einn Russisch Buch
(1546 dictionary redaction)
Ein Rusch Boeck...
(mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne
(1607, Pskov)
On God and Heavenly Things
On God and heavenly things
On the four elements
On the times of the year
On human nature
On the wind and the moon
On the ecclesiastical estate
On secular authority
Names of the months and days
On the secular estate
On the times of the year and the warmth, also times
Old Baltic lexicography in the service of Hanseatic merchants. The purpose and date of compilation of manuscript dictionaries
A Russian Book
(1546 dictionary edition)
A Russian Book...
(mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne
(1607, Pskov)
Vom Steden Vnnd Landschafften
Van Krüges Lüden
Van geschiden luden guder artt
Vom Gewete
Here I want to see father and mother, sister and brother, and kinship
Van vngeschikten luden boß artt
Of weights, measures, and ells
Of all sorts of names of people
Of people’s names
On fishing
On all kinds of offices and master craftsmen
On countries and towns
On birds
On documents and letters
On the nations of the people
On wood
On books
On all kinds of handicrafts
On grain
On clothing
On war and other affairs
On livestock
On towns, castles, lands, and villages
On all kinds of games
On horses
Of vinegar and printing, and what is needed for the task
Of measures and weights
Of game or wild animals
Of houses and household management
Bread and lard
Of provisions
Of various kinds of wood and shrubs, and other trees
Of the earth
Of drinks
Of wild animals and other livestock and horses
Of waters
Of the sea and ships
Of the selling of horses
Of shrubs and wood
Of household utensils and their use
Of various kinds of fish in the water
On fruits of the earth
On housekeeping and its furnishings
On all kinds of birds and poultry
On all kinds of grain
On ironwork
On gold, silver, iron, and copper
On all kinds of wild and tame birds
On sewing
On differences in money
On all kinds of spices
On threshing
On all kinds of berries and fruit
On fish and their kinds
On writing
Writing, people, and illnesses
On wild animals
On human limbs
On ships
On tame animals
On men's names
On precious stones
On horses
On beds and their accessories
On all kinds of wine and beer
On horse equipment
On clothing
On eels and herbs
On all kinds of utensils
Straipsniai / Articles
23
Page 16
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
A Russian Book (1546 dictionary edition)
A Russian Book... (mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne (1607, Pskov)
On riding horses
On silk fabrics
On various kinds of meat
On war and its accessories
On wall cloths
On various kinds of drinks
On dancing, singing and jumping
On various furs
On human limbs
On smoke and goods as follows
On measures, loads and weights, and all kinds of merchants’ goods
On clothing
On all kinds of goods, as follows
On ship's goods
On various spices
On household goods
On precious stones
On fire
On gold and goldwork
On tools and equipment
On Russian coinage
On ships
On silk fabrics
On various furs
On various colors
On various leathers and hides
On various cloths
On various German goods
On salt and herring
Of wax and tallow
Of flax and hemp
Of precious stones
Of gold and silver
Of Russian coinage
Of herbs and spices
Of silk cloth
Of linen cloth
Of various furs
Of various fabrics
The differences among the works discussed indicate that in the 14th–15th centuries there must have existed more than the similar copies we know of, which even then formed a tangled network from a textual perspective. This points to the great demand for and circulation of the “Russian Books.” It will hardly be possible to determine the precise relationship among the three copies that still survive (except perhaps on the basis of a comparative analysis of the Elbing dictionary). The reconstruction of a common archetype is complicated by the fact that the headings of sections containing the same terms differ. We will now list the section headings side by side, without regard to their place in the dictionaries’ arrangement:
A Russian Book (the 1546 edition of the dictionary)
A Russian Book... (mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne (1607, Pskov)
Of God and heavenly things
Of God and heavenly things
24
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 17
Old Baltic lexicography in the service of Hanseatic merchants. The purpose and date of compilation of manuscript dictionaries
Einn Russisch Buch
(1546 dictionary version)
Ein Rusch Boec...
(mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne
(1607, Pskov)
On the times of the year
On times of the year and the warmth of days, also on customs
On the four seasons of the year
On the ecclesiastical estate
On ecclesiastical matters
On the ecclesiastical estate and government
On the secular estate
On secular superiors
On the secular estate and government
On friendship and companionship
Here I wish to write about father and mother, sister and brother, and friendship
On friendship and affiliation
The four elements: on various waters
On the four elements; on goods; on wind and the moon; on the earth; on fire
On the different kinds of people
On people and the appearance of folk; on people of good character; on ill-mannered people of bad character
On crafts
On various occupations and masters
On various crafts
On towns; on towns and regions
On towns and castles, lands and villages
On lands and towns
On weight; on weights, measures, and yards
On measures and loads and weights, and various merchandise
On measures and weights
About fishing
About various fish in the water
About fish and other kinds
About birds
About various birds in the sky
About all kinds of birds, wild and tame
About wood
About various wood and bushes and other trees
About bushes and wood
About livestock, about wild game or wild animals
About wild animals and other livestock and horses
About wild animals, about tame animals
About horses
About the colors of horses
About horses
About beverages, about food
On eating and drinking and necessary requirements
On all kinds of beverages; on all kinds of food
On the sea and ships
On ships
On ships
Straipsniai / Articles
25
Page 18
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Einn Russisch Buch (1546 dictionary redaction)
Ein Rusch Boec... (mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne (1607, P. Škovas)
On household goods and their accessories; on household management and its accessories
On house and household management
On household goods; on tools of the trades
On writing
On writers and letters; on books
On writing materials
On the parts of the human body
On the human body, the whole body and its nature
Of the limbs of men
Of men’s names
Of all kinds of names of people
Of men’s names
Of clothing
Of garments
Of clothing
Of war and its accessories
Of people of war
Of war and military affairs
Of gold and goldwork
Of gold, silver, iron, copper
Of gold and silver
Of all kinds of herbs
Of edible herbs
Of herbs and spices
On precious stones
On precious stones
On precious stones
On silk garments
On silk garments
On various colors
On various colors
On various colors
On various cloths
On cloths
On various cloths
On Russian currency
On money and exchange
On Russian currency
On the 12 months. On the four seasons of the year
Names of the months and days
Of equipment for horses
Of equipment for horses
Of various kinds of berries and vegetables
Of fruits of the earth; of various kinds of vegetables
Of ironwork
Of various kinds of household goods
Of dancing, singing, and jumping
Of various kinds of playthings
Of the thirty-two thematic sections of the Elbing dictionary, only eight lack nominal counterparts: “Farm and agricultural work” (it is the 10th in the Elbing dictionary), “Wheels and sledges” (11th), “Mill” (13th), “Shoemaking” (21st), “Bathhouse” (23rd), “Milk and dairy products” (28th), “Hunting” (29th), and “orbis mundi” (32nd). Twenty-three sections of the Elbing dictionary have close parallels in at least two copies of the “Russian Books.” A counterpart for one thematic section can be identified in only one of them: the Elbing dictionary’s “Reptiles and insects” corresponds to T. Fenne’s “Van allerley gewrme.” It may be that this section, added in T. Fenne’s copy, derives from the archetype of a Russian–German dictionary (close to the Elbing
26
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 19
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankrašinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
dictionary), but other unique sections may be of an anthological, innovative nature. Specifically, these are:
Enn Russisch Buch (the 1546 edition of the dictionary)
Ein Rusch Boeck... (mid-16th century)
Tönies Fenne (1607, Pskov)
On Grain, On Harvest, On Threshing, On Prayers and Their Accessories, On Merchandise as Follows, On All Kinds of Goods as Follows
On Vessels, Liquids and Diseases; On All Kinds of Wine and Beer; On Silk Fabrics
On the nations of the people; Bread and Linen; On All Kinds of Meat; On All Kinds of Spices; On All Kinds of Leather and Hides; On Salt and Herring; On Wax and Tallow; On Flax and Hemp; On Linen Clothing
1.5.3. Variation in the headings of the groups suggests that the Russian–German dictionary’s archetype had no section titles, i.e., that in this respect it resembled the Elbing Dictionary, in which the headword marking the thematic block was distinguished by color at the points delimiting the entries. This partly explains the emergence of some “superfluous” thematic blocks. A text arranged according to headwords (themes) provided room to isolate a particular lexical stratum and “reprofile” it as a separate semantic field. It was enough to color the initial additionally and expand such a section. We could illustrate this process by drawing on the Elbing Dictionary. For example, let us look at the consecutive thematic sections: “The Human Body, Health” (EŽ 67–168), “Family, Kinship” (EŽ 169–192), “House, Farm Buildings” (EŽ 193–235). The section “Family, Kinship” is based on kinship concepts, but it concludes with several words carrying a social and occupational nuance (EŽ 190–192):
The lexical items cited form a semantic transition from one thematic field to another, since, before the section “House, Farm Buildings,” they refer to household staff close to or surrounding the family. At this position in the dictionary (conceptual dictionaries must also be read vertically, since the words accumulated during compilation on the basis of semantic associations), the words Waklis, Geweinis, Merg must mean ‘servant, farmhand’ (as
Thus, in the passage under discussion, the dictionary concealed a certain potential for a new terminological block to emerge. In the Elbing dictionary, this potential remained unrealized, because the dictionary itself, rigid and undeveloped (having fallen out of use before the language shift), became a dead end in the lexicographical tradition. Russian-German dictionaries that developed from monuments of the same or similar structure, by contrast, remained relevant for centuries; that is, they were refined and expanded (even in the 17th century). This potential was recognized in them and duly exploited, which is why the section on kinship, “Von freund vnd Geschefften,” is consistently followed by “Von Mannes Personen” and “Von Handwercken” (T. Schroue’s Ein Russich Buch edition). The same sequence, though with different section titles, appears in the anonymous 16th-century Ein Rusch Boeck... (Hier wil Ic schrieen van Vader vnd moder Süter vnd Broder vnd Frundschap [...] Van Allerlei Ampten und meisters) and in T. Fenne’s copy (Van frundtschap und thoeborige [...] Van allerlei hantwercken). The secondary thematic chain, “On occupations and work duties,” which developed additionally on the periphery of the sections “Family, kinship” and “Homes, farm buildings,” may also have led to the inclusion of other semantically related thematic fields, placed for reasons of priority before the survey of kinship: “Von dem Geistlichen Standt,” “Vom weltlichen Stande” (T. Schroue’s Ein Russich Buch); “Van Geistüchen wesen,” “Van weldtlicker Oberü-gheütt” (16th-century Ein Rusch Boeck...); “Van geistlichen stand vnd regiment,” “Van weltlichen stande vnd regiment” (T. Fenne).
The impression is that the program of the “Russian books” was similar to that of the Elbing dictionary in its arrangement, scope, and structure. Comparison of lexicographical works sometimes reveals a closer relationship between the Elbing dictionary and the mid-16th-century Ein Rusch Boeck... (this is true, for example, of the total number of thematic blocks and their sequence at the beginning of the manuscripts: “Van Gott vnd hemmelschen dingen” – EŽ 1; “Van Geistüchen wesen”; “Van weldtlicker Oberügh eütt”; “Van tiden des Jars vnd den werne Auch tunden” – EŽ 2; “Van Allerlei Watter,” “De quatuor Elementis” – EŽ 3–6; “De 12 Mensibus. De quatuor Tempora auiji”; “Van müinschen dat ganze lijf vnd sin wesen” – EŽ 7; “Van Krüges Lüden” – EŽ 16; “Hier wil Ic schrieen van Vader vnd moder Süter vnd Broder vnd Frundschap” – EŽ 8, etc.), although elsewhere similarities can be found with other copies. It seems that the Elbing dictionary will be useful for reconstructing the program of Russian-German dictionaries.
The relationship between the programs of the Elbing dictionary and the “Russian books” can, for now, only be conjectured. Medieval Hanseatic lexicography must have been limited, since the Hanseatic merchants did not encounter major communication problems in the North Sea and along the western coast of the Baltic Sea. Because of the relatedness of the languages and diglossia
28
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 21
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankrašinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
it was not difficult for them to carry out their work in the trading posts in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. The situation was somewhat more complicated in England, where verbal communication (based on Low German) was more complex because of the influence of French. In this region, one might already expect auxiliary manuscript glossaries that helped novice Hanseatic merchants find their way linguistically. Moving eastward into Eastern Europe, the need for bilingual dictionaries inevitably increased, as merchants increasingly encountered “foreign” languages. Consequently, in the East one can predict lexicographical works of varying dates for Low German–Slavic (for example, Russian or Polish), Low German–Baltic (Prussian, Latvian), and Low German–Finno-Ugric (Estonian, Livonian) languages. Of course, this is only a theoretical possibility and does not mean that all such dictionaries were actually written at the time.
Atsižvelgus į Hanzos regiono kalbinę specifiką (plačiau: Скайре, Фердинанд 2002: 78–80), būtų galima hipotetiškai svarstyti apie mūsų laiku nepasiekusio dvikalbio žodyno pavyzdį, pavyzdžiui, vokiečių–anglų kalbą, kuris vėliau buvo panaudotas sudarant vokiečių–prūsų ir (arba) vokiečių–rusų kalbų žodynus. Kita vertus, Elbingo žodynas gali būti kildinamas iš vokiečių–rusų kalbų žodyno, iš kurio ilgainiui išsirutuliojo mūsų dienas pasiekusios gerokai išplėtotos „Rusiškos knygos“. Galėjo būti ir atvirkščiai: XIII a. vokiečių–prūsų kalbų žodynas galėjo padėti pamatą „Rusiškai knygai“ atsirasti. Kokia bebūtų raidos kryptis, mums svarbu kultūrinis istorinis kontekstas ir praktinis gimininių žodynų funkcionavimas, kuris lėmė jų sandarą ir turinį.
1.6. An analogy with the circumstances surrounding the emergence and use of Russian-German dictionaries will help us better understand the origins and typology of the Elbing dictionary. Catherine Squires and Svetlana Ferdinant aptly described the practical attitude of Hanseatic merchants toward foreign languages: “The advantages offered by knowing one’s partner’s language are quite clear. It is specifically in sources concerning Rus’ that sprakerere—merchant’s sons learning Russian—are mentioned [...]. Mastery of a foreign language was a compulsory item in the educational program of aspiring Hanseatic merchants [Bruchhäuser 1989, 99, 118]. At the same time, as far as the sources allow us to judge, the approach to language learning was purely practical: Hanseatic ‘apprentices’ acquired knowledge through oral communication with their Russian hosts while staying in the boyars’ courtyards. The draft treaty of 1268–1269 already stipulates the possibility of sending German and Dutch youths to Rus’ to learn the language: Hospites libere et sine contradictione pueros suos mittant ad discendum loquelam in terram quoque uolunt” (Squires, Ferdinant 2002: 59). Here, the essential model of language proficiency is especially worth emphasizing.
Both the forerunner of the “Russian books” and the precursor of the Elbing dictionary must have covered a wide range of everyday life: from the court and the nobility to
Straipsniai / Articles
29
Page 22
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
various human affairs to a great variety of animals (and, in the case of insects, even the bathhouse). There was no place in them for specialized subjects. Their primary purpose was to provide general orientation in a new language, to show what things were called in a new place. Among other things, this must have prompted a “nomenclatural” approach to language, that is, the dominance of nouns. Nomenclatural dictionaries can be compared with modern illustrated bilingual phrasebooks for beginners (an illustration here would correspond to the German entry). The absence of concepts related to reading, measuring, exchanging, selling, and buying is also understandable. These belong to another level of language acquisition, which, because of its relevance (in the eyes of future merchants), could—and needed to—be specifically recorded on paper, since such matters were drilled into memory and then further developed in conversation.
One might suppose that the intended dictionary user was a young man—a person who had reached adulthood: “Knowledge of Russian was considered a very important and valuable quality for a merchant doing business with Rus’. The Russian-German conversation manuals by Schroue, Fenne, and the anonymous 1568 conversation manual, as their analysis shows, were most likely not isolated works of this kind but represented an entire tradition [Rösler 1990]. Their authors were generally young merchant’s sons, since for people over 20 it was considered impractical to begin a career involving the study of such a difficult language as Russian. “Nen lekent boven twintich jar olt sal de sprake in deme Naugardescher richte noch to Nou-garden ennenn, he se we he si, de in des kopmanne riche wesen wille“ (Squires, Ferdinant 2002: 68). Prussian, without doubt, belonged among the difficult languages; therefore, a dictionary of the Elbing type must have been intended for a younger generation of users.
The same Hanseatic trading strategy—based on exceptional attention to the local language—must have been implemented in Prussia as well, especially intensively after a port was established at the mouth of the Elbing River following military intervention (1237). Ten years later (1246), the inhabitants of Elbing were granted Lübeck city rights—disadvantageous to the Order, since they provided various concessions and privileges to the merchant estate10. In legal relations, merchants thereby acquired a special status (guaranteed by law), which encouraged exceptional commercial development. Founded in the mid-13th century and controlled by Lübeck, the town soon became an important center of international trade, where merchants on a par with those of the Hanseatic cities (traveling through Elbing to Novgorod and back) enjoyed the opportunity of free trade. It is thought that these rights, not particularly advantageous to the Order, were granted “as a matter of prudence,” that is, in gratitude for the substantial support provided by Lübeck’s merchants in conquering and colonizing Prussia. What matters to us is the town’s exceptional accessibility
10 Later, these specific town rights were granted to Braniewo (1284) in the territory inhabited by Prussians.
30
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 23
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hanseatic Merchants. The Purpose and Dating of Manuscript Dictionaries
This encouraged competition among Hanseatic merchants and, consequently, interest in the local language; this, in turn, predictably led to the emergence of a distinct category of people—young sprakelere.
1.7. The Hanseatic language policy—one of deference toward all potential trading partners—may suggest that the dictionary came about at the initiative of merchants arriving from abroad. This is true, but the importance of local German colonists engaged in trade must not be underestimated either. They did not view the language of the conquered people negatively, since they did not perceive it as an obstacle. At certain times, the opposite may even have been true. Under competitive conditions, knowledge of the local language ensured a monopoly position, which capable merchants were eager to exploit. We know of strict language restrictions from Novgorod itself. In order to eliminate competitors, a consistent “language blockade” was implemented there: instruction in Russian was forbidden to be provided to the French, Dutch, Flemish, Walloons, English, Scots, and other foreigners. For example, at the Lübeck assembly in 1423, a ban was adopted against Dutch youths: “dat man jennen Hollendschen jungen up de sprake bringe”. At the Hanseatic assembly in Valmiera in 1434, another restriction was imposed: “Ok en sall man neynes Hollanders, Zeelanders, Campeers, Vlaminghe noch Engelsche jungen doen noch doen helpen up de sprake” (for further discussion, see Squires 2009: 38; Prūša 2009: 228). In the case of Prussian, the complex relationship between Hanseatics and foreigners is not documented, but a certain internal tension may then have existed in Prussian lands between the Elbingers and representatives of all other Hanseatic towns. This is understandable, since for some, an exotic language that was difficult or hard to access became an important tool that prevented them from appropriating a greater share of profits in the local market and thereby ensuring the long-term prosperity of merchants.
Thus, representatives of distant Hanseatic towns as well as local Elbing merchants (townspeople) had an interest in sending their sons to “Prussian-language studies.” The German–Prussian dictionary and similar linguistic sources provided a competitive advantage to a considerable degree, so one might even speculate that their circulation and dissemination were restricted or regulated. This encouraged the controlled copying of dictionaries as part of professionally specialized collections that remained the property of merchants. In this regard, it is worth recalling the history of the Elbing Codex. Until 1823 it belonged to Abraham Grübnau (Abraham Grübnau, 1740–1823). The first owner known to us was an influential Elbing merchant, also renowned as an avid collector of books and various antiquities. He may have obtained the Elbing Codex from his colleagues—that is, from other merchants like himself—or acquired it from members of other professions, but it is quite possible that the book had long belonged to the “family”11.
11The Grübnau family is thought to have originated in Königsberg. A. Grübnau’s ancestors are believed to have moved to Elbing in the seventeenth century, but this does not contradict our reasoning. In the city government, old
Straipsniai / Articles
31
Page 24
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
1.8. It is worth emphasizing that the “Lübeck rights” granted to Elbing in 1246 form the core of the codex, Q 84. In our view, this codicological aspect is significant because it substantiates the German–Prussian dictionary’s affiliation with the utilitarian Hanseatic lexicography discussed above, and supports the validity of this attribution. It seems that the specialized local composition of the codex, or its commercial and mercantile character, has not yet been duly taken into account. There will, in fact, have been a close causal link between the legal framework granted to Elbing and the German–Prussian dictionary: without the firmly established Hanseatics in Elbing, Prussian lexicography would scarcely ever have come into being. The situation would have been entirely different had the codex contained Magdeburg or Kulm law. Such a combination of sources would have required a fundamentally different interpretation.
Other parts of the codex are also noteworthy in relation to the Prussians. After the failed uprising of 1242–1249, the Prussians, as the Treaty of Christburg shows, came to follow Polish law: “Poste dicti neophiti requisiti a nobis quam legem mundanam vellent eligere. vel que vellent secularia iudicia obseruare, habito inter se consilio pecierunt et elegerunt legem mundanam et secularia iudicia Polonorum vicinorum suorum. Et predicti fratres eis concesserunt benigne” (Kregždys 2012: 45). This explains the inclusion of Polnisches Recht in the codex. The close connection with the Prussians is also evident in the case of the Pomesanian law code.Polnisches Recht inclusion in the codex. The close connection with the Prussians is also evident in the case of the Pomesanian law code.
In view of the circumstances discussed, one may hypothesize that the collection, “Prussian” in purpose and content, was compiled in the castle milieu in Elbing. A city governed by Lübeck law offered the most favorable conditions, which explain the combination of the dictionary and legal compilations in a single volume. Initially, such a collection may have consisted of the “Lübeck Law,” the “Polish Law,” and the dictionary. The “Pomesanian Law” was added to the collection no earlier than 1340. Of course, the manuscript book may have been compiled from the sources available only in the mid-fourteenth century, but even in that case its compilation must have taken practical Hanseatic merchants’ interests into account (at least in part retrospectively).
1.9. Understanding the Elbing Dictionary through the prism of Hanseatic language policy and in the context of Hanseatic lexicographic production (bilingual and utilitarian) helps determine when the prototype of the Elbing Dictionary may have been compiled. The prerequisites and conditions for the dictionary’s emergence took shape in the mid-thirteenth century. It is doubtful that this would have been possible before the Elbing factor emerged. The need for a dictionary of this kind probably grew soon after the granting of Lübeck rights in 1246, when German merchants and colonists flowed into the new market in search of profit. This situation continued until
(scattered) merchant dynasties gave way to representatives of non-local families with the capital to form advantageous marital alliances. In the course of doing business, the holdings of one family regularly passed into the hands of “others” (through marriage). This may also have been the case with the Grübnau family. What matters to us is their membership of the city government (Stadtrath) and the merchant estate.
32
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 25
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraščių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
It was possible to negotiate with suppliers and buyers of various goods only in Prussian. Compared with other Prussian lands, this period in Pamedė was not long. The use of Polish and German increased rapidly here. From the beginning or middle of the 14th century, one can speak of conditions of bilingualism, at least in that specific contact communication involving Hanseatic merchants. This gives us an upper limit, i.e., the point in time before which compiling a nomenclatural dictionary still made sense. Thus, the hypothetical sequence of stages in the compilation of the Elbing Codex can be imagined as follows:
a) During approximately 1237–1300, a German–Prussian or Prussian–German dictionary (or dictionaries) was compiled to meet the needs of the Hanseatic sprek(e)lere, which may have differed considerably from P. Holcvescher’s copy (it may / must have included conversational material; see below).
b) The “Lübeck Law” granted to Elbing, which forms the basis of Codex sign. Q 84, represents a recension of the legal code that arose no later than 1300 (the recension’s origins are traced to the manuscript of the “Lübeck Law,” which was kept in the Elbing City Archive until the Second World War (signature E 135) – Päsler 2003: 234). Thus, sometime around 1300–1340, a parchment manuscript book may have come into being, comprising the “Lübeck Law” granted to Elbing, the “Polish Law,” and the dictionary, all of approximately the same age.
c) The “Pomesanian Law” was incorporated later, after 1340. The collection in this form was probably copied (not compiled) by P. Holcvescher in the second quarter of the 15th century or around the middle of the 15th century.
2. The reconstructable gradual compilation of the Elbing Codex indicates that the German–Prussian dictionary was copied several times at different points in time. It seems that at least two intermediate copies may have been made between the original, dating from the mid-to-late 12th century, and P. Holcvescher’s copy. Naturally, this prompts us to consider how lexicographic work changed over those centuries. While the dictionary served its original purpose (in the second half of the 13th century), it was probably improved and expanded; later, however, as trade shifted to German, established copies of the dictionary were mechanically reproduced and probably also abridged. This latter possibility is supported by comparison with another lexicographic monument (its structure is that of a small dictionary with conversational material), traditionally closely associated with the name of Simon Grunau (Simon Grunau, c. 1470–1530 / 37). It draws our attention because of the same Hanseatic lexicographic tradition widespread in the Baltic region.
2.1. The designation Simon Grunau’s little dictionary, established in Baltic studies, is not very apt, since it merely expresses the possibility that the monk from Tolkemita contributed to compiling the dictionary. His actual role was probably much more modest and superficial. S. Grunau’s contribution may have been comparable to P. Holcvescher’s. And
Straipsniai / Articles
33
Page 26
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
both went through the available sources and thereby made a significant contribution to their preservation. It is true that S. Grunau used the manuscript source in the compilation he produced, i.e., while writing Preussische Chronik (by 1529 / 30), but the very mechanism by which the dictionary was presented was probably exactly the same as in P. Holcvescher’s case. The author of the “Prussian Chronicle” did not even think to inform the reader of where the list of “a few words” had come into his hands, nor did he offer any clues that would allow us even hypothetically to consider that he had personally contributed to compiling the little dictionary: “Domit aber imant moge begreifen, und Preufch ein beſonder ſprache ſey, ſo had ich etliche worte geſatz” (GrA), “Domit man aber mag haben ein Vnderſcheid der ſprache / ſo ſent volgenede Voculen in beiden ſprachen hernacheſetzt” (GrG).
The idea of a much older manuscript dictionary, which S. Grunau merely reproduced in his chronicle, is suggested by the diversity of the copies. Five copies of the dictionary are currently being analyzed, and fairly substantial differences can be observed among them. The copies are designated by the following abbreviations:
GrG – German–Prussian Göttingen copy (16th century), discovered in the Göttingen University Library and published in 1949 by Eduard Hermann (Hermann 1949; reprinted in Mažiulis 1966, 1981);
GrA – Prussian–German copy from the Königsberg University Library (turn of the 17th and 18th centuries). Edited, with reference to GrC and GrH, by Reinhold Trautmann (Trautmann 1910: 94–96);
GrC – Prussian–German copy from the Königsberg State Archive (c. 1750);
GrF – Prussian–Latin copy, found in the Helsinki Library in 1970 (Kiparsky 1970);
GrH1 and GrH2 – Prussian–German copy (or copies), published in 1679 and 1684 by Christoph Hartknoch (1644–1687) (edited and commented on by Pietro Umberto Dini (2013), based on the 1679 and 1684 publications).
Textual analysis shows that the presentation order of individual lexemes and even languages differs across the copies (GrG: German–Prussian; GrF: Prussian–Latin; Prussian–German); some words are attested only in certain copies; and errors and layout vary. The abundance of such striking and typologically heterogeneous differences is surprising, especially since the copies belong to a late historiographical work. Those who had to copy the “Prussian Chronicle” in the 17th–18th centuries understood absolutely nothing about the extinct Prussian language, which means they also had no desire whatsoever to modify the dictionary in any way. So what mysterious causes, theoretically responsible for the diversity of the copies, might have prompted the copyists to do something to the lexicographic insert?
34
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 27
Old Baltic lexicography in the service of Hanseatic merchants. The purpose and date of compilation of manuscript dictionaries
In our view, the answer must be sought in the process of writing the chronicle. S. Grūnavas must have begun his work in 1510. Work intensified in 1517, and the first version of the chronicle must have been produced in 1521. Following the secularization of the Teutonic Order in 1525, the work was revised, and additions were made in 1529–1530. It is also worth bearing in mind the long-standing view that the compiler relied on an older historiographical work—the so-called “Elbing Dominican Chronicle” (Kronika dominikanów elbląskich – Dworzaczkowa 1958: 125). It is not known exactly at which stage of the compilation(s) the dictionary was used. Substantial differences between individual copies would suggest that the glossary entered the chronicle at an early stage, and perhaps even originated in the aforementioned anonymous “Elbing Dominican Chronicle.” There is reason to believe that around the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries several copies of Prussian–German and/or German–Prussian glossaries (possibly in different versions) were available and used in compilations at different times. A copy of a glossary initially available, for example, in the “Elbing Dominican Chronicle,” and therefore used earlier, may have been replaced by another (or others), which the compilers considered better preserved and older. Such updating of the lexicographical section may have recurred in 1525–1526 and later (after 1529), as the chronicle continued to circulate in copies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the diversity of the copies.
2.2. A closer comparative examination of the glossary used by S. Grūnavas reveals a typological connection with the “Russian Books” and the Elbing Dictionary. The lexicographical insert included in Preussiche Chronik has clear features of a nomenclatural dictionary. Nouns predominate in the glossary, accompanied by several adjectives (e.g.: labis Sur ‘good cheese’ / Ante ‘holy’ / [...] GrG 59–60 and following), whereas verbs are fewer than might appear at first glance. Following the example of the EŽ, most words can easily be divided into thematic groups. As an example, we will cite the lexemes GrG 28–32, which make up (part of) the thematic group “Church”¹²:
Beichen
Sunde
kirche
Faten
Erbeis
gerbeis ‘confess’
greki ‘sins’
kirke ‘church’
paſenick ‘fasting’
hekits ‘pea’
12 Here and below are photographs of excerpts from GrG, taken by Dr. Diego Ardoino, who has permitted me to publish them in this article.
Straipsniai / Articles
35
Page 28
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
The forms of thematic words (successive lemmas are underlined), taken from the GrG copy, which appears to have been defective (the ending was missing), are presented in the table according to the classification of concepts in EŽ; the gap in GrG is reconstructed on the basis of GrA:
It is not entirely clear which thematic section the verb Moite ‘to sleep’ (GrG 34) and the noun mola ‘glue’ (GrG 73) might belong to14, but the entire remainder of the glossary corresponds perfectly well to the conversational phrasebooks compiled by Hanseatic merchants (sic).
Let us recall that the dialogues in the “Russian Book” are closely connected with dictionaries. In T. Schroue’s copies, they precede the dictionary and continue after it; in other copies, dialogues and grammatical material are simply integrated into the dictionary. The dialogues, which address various commercial topics, eventually influenced the structure of dictionaries, that is, they led to the appearance of newer thematic sections. For example, in the mid-sixteenth-century copy Ein Rusch Boeck... the section Wonen söck schal vnder Einander Erbden is inserted between the thematic fields Hier wil Ick schrien van Vader vnd moder Sister vnd Broder vnd Freundschaf and Van Allerlei Namen Der menschen. The section incorporated into the dictionary clearly illustrates the function of the dialogues. Through them, merchants initially learned to address their trading partners in other languages and to strike up a conversation, but that was not all. The main focus, naturally, was on various kinds of negotiations, offering goods to potential buyers and, of course, resolving problematic, often conflict-ridden situations! Thus, these dialogues equipped young merchants not only with polite expressions but also with some very strong curses and obscenities (for example, Fenne, p. 490).
In our case, words and fixed phrases (given at the end of the text) are related to linguistic etiquette and aspects of complicated communication: Hure – Manga ‘whore’ (GrG 88), Ein gut man – Dirlos gintos ‘a good man’ (GrG 97), Ein huren kind – Mangos Sones ‘a whore’s son’ (GrG 98), Ein chalck – Maiters ‘rogue’ (GrG 99), Gehe furt – Sanday ‘goodbye’ (GrG 96), hut dich [Got]15 – Jaydit [thi Dewes]16 ‘(may) God [judge you]’ (GrA 86).
The gender of Jaydit requires a special explanation; according to Vytautas Mažiulis, it is “almost impossible to reconstruct from the Prussian forms.” The conjectured researcher attempted to link it with Pr. *sargis-tin ‘may it guard you’ (PEŽ IV 38). Taking into account the probable influence of the closely related “Russian Books,” the obscure word may be interpreted as a banal foreignism (for other foreignisms in this source, including typologically identical ones, such as ieft = эст ‘is’, Dam = дам ‘will give’, see below): Jaydit < is an inaccurately transliterated verb, 2nd person singular present tense, соѵагт ‘(you) judge’ (the digraph ов
14 Perhaps under goods.
15 In the GrG copy: Behut dich Got (GrG 95).
16 The GrA copy has only: Jaydit (GrA 86). The continuation in square brackets is supplied according to GrG: thi Dewes (GrG 95).
Straipsniai / Articles
37
Page 30
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
rendered as <ay>). The widespread expression (dā) cðum meβa βoʒ ‘(may) God judge you’ is perfectly suited to a commercial context. Expressions in which God is regarded as a human judge (oszudik), to whom appeal is made in seeking justice, are numerous in copies of the “Russian Books.” In one lyles /? (GrG 86) in the GrG copy we find the form Warbo (GrG 95), which is probably the result of diplography: two lines earlier the word sequence Warmes Wobele is given. An error introduced through inert repetition resulted in the rendering of the same initial letters War, but the ending -bo may be considered the original form. Taking this into account, it would be possible cautiously to reconstruct the word sequence *sayt boh (/ boh / bog) (= cov- дтъ возъ) in the GrG protograph. It is difficult to determine whether the verb had a Prussian equivalent in the protograph. Perhaps the informant did not know how to translate this word properly, and for that reason the Slavic variant was retained; perhaps the word remained untranslated through carelessness.
The noun kalte ‘mark’ (GrG 80) and the “phrases” Bezalən Saltz – plateys Sali ‘pay the salt’ (GrG 38–39) belong to the sphere of trade;
Hab Ir es nicht – Ny thuer thu ‘you do not want it’ (GrG 89) <==> Ich wils euch geben Ein roter apfel – Damᵗ thoi Warmes Wobele ‘I will give you a red apple (lo. gala)’ (GrG 90–92);
17 The verb 1st person singular future ϑΔΜZ ‘I will give’ was probably not translated into Prussian.
38
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 31
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraščių žodynų paskirtis bei sudaromo laikas
Ein vogel Wo Woltu hin – Pipelko kayt thu ‘you want a bird’ (GrG 93–94);
Wiltu nicht [habit] – Ny koyto [wifę] ‘you do not want oats’ (GrG 100, GrA 91–92).
The fact that the words ligo are not in agreement need not worry us, just as it did not concern the compiler of the little word list at the time it was written down. A novice Hanseatic spraklere made similar notes to meet his own—or, rather, the most basic—communication needs. No attention was paid then to grammatical correctness or linguistic culture. Linguistic information was gathered in a primitive manner: a young German (partly orienting himself by the declension of his native language) asked how the predicate and this or that changing complement (in nominative form) would sound in Prussian. The informant, a Prussian or an “experienced” German, mechanically translated the requested pieces (that is, the components of the syntagmatic relationship) one after another: ‘bird’ – ‘you want’, ‘pay’ – ‘salt’, ‘you do not want’ – ‘oats’, and so on. The fragmented sentence parts were densely written on one line of the expensive parchment, while the “paper” era—that is, later times—brought elegant columns in which the material was neatly arranged vertically.
The identification of grammatically incomplete sentences and their vertical reading must be based on a formal criterion: we must look for different, successive inflected verbs presented alongside nouns. These are all the following entries: GrG 28–29, GrG 38–39, GrG 82–83, GrG 86–87, GrG 89–92, GrG 93–94, GrG 100 (GrA91)–GrA 92, GrA 94–95, GrA 97–98, and GrA 99–100. We see that most such pairs occur toward the end of the lexicographic work (GrG 82–100, GrA 76–98; a separate cluster of verbs, forming a thematic group, consists of Moite, Pog eis, wolge t, wimbis GrG 34–37), which is precisely where the announcements belong.
Close semantic connections are no less important, since the sentences concern matters of considerable relevance in those times. It is worth briefly recalling that salt was the principal
18 Taking into account the possible verbal government (cf. Lithuanian norėti ko? ‘to want what?’), it can be interpreted as a singular genitive form *pipelkā ‘of a bird’.
19 The “thematization” of parts of speech is not exceptional. In the composition of Hanseatic Russian–German dictionaries, we find sections consisting of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
Straipsniai / Articles
39
Page 32
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
A Hanseatic export commodity, and this determines the use of the imperative 2nd person singular present playes ‘pay’. Leather was transported from the Baltic region, and tanning it required large quantities of dried “worm-eaten [red oak] apples” (German gälpfel = roter apfel, cf. Middle High German rōt ‘false, cunning’; the correct form is the GrA word combination warm wabelce, in which one can recognize the noun plural genitive functioning as an attribute, warm ‘of worms, insects’ (< noun Prussian *warmas ‘worm; insect’); cf. PĖŽ IV 263). This commodity, rich in tannin (galai or cecidios, Latin galla), also appears to have featured in the offerings of merchants of the time, judging by the glossary: ‘You don’t have any? – I’ll give you galls.’ In the “Russian books” it corresponds to: ⲥⲕⲁⲛⲏ ⲱⲣⲉⲛ – gallen (Fenne 123.14). It would not make sense to understand warm wabelce otherwise, since who in the 12th century would have made or bought such a “commodity” as an ordinary apple? One sentence reveals the piety of merchants of the time, or their missionary role, or both. It occurs at the beginning of the section “Church”: Bechten Sunde – gerbis grei ‘speak (confess) your sins’ (GrG 28–29). For the gender of grei, we would expect the masculine nominative plural *grei (PĖŽ I 408). The written ending may reflect the influence of Russian (the accusative plural ending).
From an unusual communicative perspective, the Prussians are portrayed through sharp curses and vulgarisms:
der arch leck – pefda pomelēs ‘lick my backside’ (GrA 76–77), Arch kuffen – pilda pomelēs ‘the same’ (GrG 82–83) (cf. German küssen Sie meinen Arsch; Lithuanian kiss my ass, lick my ass; Czech polib mi prdel, vylíž si prdel, etc.);
nim gefatter – ymay s comatter ‘take the godfather’ (GrA 80–81) (cf.: nouemb kymey; emb meoo mam);
40
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII
Page 33
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraštinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
er ist ein dreck – ieft gofen ‘(that is) shit’ (GrA 99–100) (cf. German das ist scheiße).
The examples cited are interesting from the perspective of linguistic interference and the leveling of curses. The person inquiring about (“collecting”) Prussian-language data evidently had in mind curses encountered earlier while bargaining with representatives of other peoples. These were probably the same Novgorodians. One may hypothesize that some phrases from the Russian–German phrasebooks at hand were adapted to Prussian, because the German merchant perceived greater similarity between the East Slavic and Prussian languages and patterns of linguistic behavior.
The widespread Slavic expletive *(to / on) jest govno was “translated” into Prussian in its own way, but through carelessness the verb remained in the original, merely written in Latin letters—Russian ieft = есть ‘is’²⁰ (cf. faydit = сооружить; Dam = дамъ (see footnote 17); likewise the form aucm (Polish bośiań, = Russian aucm) ‘stork’ in the so-called Yatvingian glossary—Zinkevičius 1985: 67). This method of working determined the artificiality of the Prussian “equivalents”; for example, the expression ymays comatter ‘take the godfather’ can be understood only within the Russian obscene lexicon (the word combination noumemb куму is first attested in a monument of Novgorod Rus’, the so-called First Novgorod Chronicle: “Иже поиметь куме себѣ женъ, по закону людскому носа объма урѣзати и разлучити я” (“Whoever has sexual intercourse with his godmother, according to human law, both their noses are to be cut off and they are to be separated”) (НПЛ 499)).
The phrase is readily understood in the context of trade relations: flo ein richter21 – kyrteis tickers ‘strike true’ (GrA 94–95). This is a standard formula for sealing agreements, which, in a harmonized form, would read *kyrteis tickran ‘strike the true one’, where the accusative singular feminine tickran means ‘right (hand)’ (cf. dative singular feminine tickray ‘to the right (hand)’ I 9₂ – PEŽ IV 192–193; also Russian пра́вша ‘right hand’, Lithuanian tiesė ‘the same’, etc.). The command *kyrteis tickran ‘strike the right hand [in making an agreement]’ would correspond to: Lithuanian (su)kirsti rankas, duoti dešinę; Russian рукобитие; Czech placnout si (rukama) = ruku na to, pravicu dáti, etc. Need it be mentioned that the handshake and striking of hands characteristic of buying and selling—once a transaction had been agreed and settled—feature repeatedly in Russian–German phrasebooks, where
20 On the other hand, the form ieft (GrA 98) can potentially also be read as the infinitive ecmb ‘to eat’. The form gofen could then be interpreted as Prussian singular accusative gosen ‘dung’ (Prussian singular nominative feminine *gāzē ‘dung’). Coprophagy had a semantic association (cf. dream interpretations) with sudden gains in income, commercial success, money, and enrichment.
21 For the gender of richter, see T. Fenne’s pair of sentences: Kottoreu dorogo mnie praemo iechatt na praua al leua: Welchen wech sall ich rechtt reisen vp de rechter oder luhter handtt (p. 217).
Straipsniai / Articles
41
Page 34
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Is the parallel that concerns us used as an obligatory terminus technicus? As one of many examples, we will cite a phrase recorded by T. Fenne:
Bei: vdari sim porukarn, da dai bog vam obernæ na prikub. Slae mÿt ehme in de handt, vnd godt geue beyde thor winst. (Fenne 394)
Because the communicative situation is unclear, the meaning of the phrase zum irjten kom her – pirmas eykete ‘first go there’ (GrA 97–98) remains open to dispute. Since R. Trautmann’s time, the form eykete has been read as Lithuanian eïki tẽ ‘go there’ (Trautmann 1910: 326; PEŽ I 246). The influence of another language was illustrated earlier on the basis of curses, and it is hardly surprising. In the marketplace, where Hanseatic merchants engaged in their “language practice,” various peoples came together, so neighboring Polish and Lithuanian were certainly spoken there. It is difficult to say how the words in question could or should have functioned. Perhaps they were used to retort to the Lithuanian expression eik velniop ‘go to hell’. In that case, the numeral pirmas would most likely be a Lithuanian lexical item, which would further expand the ranks of loanwords.
Thus, the little work, whose copies found their way in the sixteenth century into S. Grünau’s Preussische Chronik, can be properly understood in the context of Hanseatic utilitarian lexicography. The part corresponding to the dialogues in the “Russian books” is represented by eleven sentence-construction patterns. These are cases in which complements, not always in agreement, are placed alongside the grammatical core (the verb):
1. gerbeis greki: *gerbais grēkans ‘confess your sins’ (GrG 28–29);
2. plateys Sali: *plāteis sālis ‘pay the salt’ (GrG 38–39);
3. pejda pomēleis: *peizdan pa-mi-leis ‘lick my ass’ (GrA 76–77);
5. Ny thueri thu – Dam thoi warmun wabelcke: *ni turi tu – dam (< дамъ) toi varmun vābelkans ‘you don’t have [any]? – I’ll give you wormy little apples’ (GrG 89–90, GrA 83);
Also belonging here are the lexical resources that facilitated communication with the esteemed trading partners and various Prussian swindlers: Dirjos gintos
42
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVIII
Page 35
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraštinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
‘A fine fellow’ (GrG 97), Mangos Sones ‘son of a whore’ (GrG 98), Maiters ‘rascal’ (GrG 99). It is worth noting that these potential forms of address are presented together with: faydit [thi Dewes] ‘(may) [God] judge (you)’ (GrG 95, GrA 86) and Sanday ‘farewell’ (GrG 96). Thus, with regard to potential syntagmatic relations, the following pairs can also be reconstructed: Sanday Dirfos gintos ‘farewell, fine fellow’ (GrG 96–97); faydit [thi Dewes] Mangos Sones / Maiters ‘(may) [God] judge (you), son of a whore / rascal’ (GrG 95, GrA 86, GrG 98–99).
2.3. Most of the examples cited are expressive words and phrases associated in one way or another with trade, many of which have exact counterparts in the copies of the “Russian Books.” The list contains identifiable grammatical, semantic, lexical, and idiomatic foreignisms, which is normal given the possible influence of Russian–German phrasebooks and the characteristics of Hanseatic lexicographic works. The contents of the glossary and phrasebook were shaped by the multilingual marketplace, where rudimentary barter took place22. The sequence of verbs and nouns in GrG and GrA, which gives the text its unique marketplace-speech color, cannot be accidental. This is easy to verify. It is enough to move the nouns up or down by one position. The cluster of semantic relations identified then disappears instantly. Such an experiment yields a set of semantically incongruous and, in principle, incompatible lexemes: ‘confess’ – ‘salt’, ‘pay’ – ‘buttocks’, ‘lick me’ – ‘godmother’, and so on.
Thus, it may be concluded that the lexicographic source under discussion is much older than the “Prussian Chronicle,” into which it was mechanically incorporated much later. It may be contemporary with the archetype of the Elbing Vocabulary, since work of this kind must have been undertaken when barter was still conducted on the basis of the Prussian language, that is, when there were members of the merchant class (young Germans sprakel erere) interested in gaining at least a superficial grasp of the local market’s language. Preserved in several copies, the source was regarded in the sixteenth century as an example of “pure” Prussian. This relic of bygone times attracted S. Grunau’s attention,
22 The nature of barter determined the use of semantic pairs: ‘(do not) want’ / ‘(do not) have’ – ‘I will give’. The glossary also attests to elements of monetary trade: plateys ‘pay’, kalte ‘mark’. It is worth noting that the glossary reveals one-way trade—selling (without acquiring goods). Lacking the relevant skills, the young merchant acts as a distributor: he sells, makes offers, and looks for a buyer.
Straipsniai / Articles
43
Page 36
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
However, he can hardly have understood the purpose of the lexicographic source included in the chronicle, or the reasons and circumstances behind its compilation. The entirely unfounded hypothesis that the author of the “Prussian Chronicle” adapted a German–Latin phrasebook (Rosenkranz 1957) can be firmly rejected. Thus, the compilation of the lexicographic source has nothing to do with S. Grunau’s person, and it is therefore inappropriate to name it after him. In our view, it would be fitting to call it the “Prussian Booklet,” a term that can also be applied to the Elbing Vocabulary itself, without the diminutive.
3. The proposed titles—“Prussian (Elbing) Book” and “Prussian Booklet”—are based on an analogy with the related “Russian Books,” in which phrasebooks are presented alongside a glossary. This brings us back to the issue raised earlier: what might the relationship be between the Elbing Vocabulary and the “Russian Books,” or their predecessors? The context of the Hanseatic lexicographic tradition discussed above suggests that the Elbing Vocabulary—that is, the fifteenth-century copy—probably reflects only part of the original dating from the mid-to-late thirteenth century. At some point, the source may have been substantially abridged, with an important component of the “Prussian Book”—the phrasebook—removed from the text being copied. This is understandable in the conditions of the fifteenth century, since by P. Holcvescher’s time it had lost its relevance and purpose: trade had long since shifted to German (and the nature of trade had also changed considerably, moving from barter to money). From the perspective of learning Prussian—that is, from the vantage point of the thirteenth century—this practical section is very much missed, since the glossary and phrasebook once formed a single whole (it is difficult to determine which part was “primary”).
The relationship between the closely related “Prussian” and “Russian Books” unfortunately remains unclear. As has already been noted, their archetypes may have derived from a third source, that is, a hypothetical German–X-language glossary (for example, perhaps a German–English one with a phrasebook). The East Slavic elements discernible in the “Prussian Booklet” used by S. Grunau point to a highly plausible influence from Russian–German phrasebooks, but they do not provide decisive evidence for determining the direction of development between Russian and Prussian lexicography. The close contacts between Novgorod, Elbing, and other Hanseatic cities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries must be taken into account. Merchants traveled to Rus’ of Novgorod through Elbing, and they returned home with their cargoes by way of the same Elbing. Thus, the same people traveled through this trading city and traded there. Since the same widely known language-learning practice was applied everywhere for commercial purposes, it is not surprising that someone among them, in translating and adapting it, copied out some short Russian–German language-learning aid (perhaps they did not translate it, but only rendered it freely). The influence of this latter source may have been secondary, since Russian–German lexicography itself may have developed from the thirteenth-century “Prussian Book.” The “Prussian Book” is now represented by the Elbing Vocabulary, that is, an abridged version of the “Prussian Book” (without the phrasebook), which typologically appears to be older than all currently known copies of the “Russian
44
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVIII
Page 37
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraštinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
Books.” Their relationship can tentatively and only approximately be represented as shown in Fig. 1.
Discussion of the Elbing Vocabulary and the “Prussian Booklet” encourages us to mention briefly the so-called “Polish–Yotvingian Glossary,” which in its structure, content, and scope recalls the Hanseatic lexicographic tradition.
A comparative look at the oldest manuscript dictionaries of the Baltic languages leads us to the clear understanding that, in the period under discussion, the compilation, copying, compilation, and expansion of bilingual lexicographic works of regional significance were driven by purely practical aims. Compiling dictionaries is hard work, and it had to provide tangible practical benefits, since no one at the time wrote such things for pleasure or for abstract “intellectual” purposes. It may be assumed that Pogańske gwary z Narewu functioned in a similar way to the dictionaries discussed earlier. Most likely, the same long-tested language-learning method was used for the same commercial reasons. The place of compilation and the intended user—perhaps Polish merchants—must have differed. This explains the extensive mixing of languages. The language of the “Yotvingian” glossary reminds us of a specific pidgin that emerged for commercial purposes and was used among traders, which potentially
FIG. 1
Straipsniai / Articles
45
Page 38
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
may have originated near Elbing—in Tczew, Toruń, or Bydgoszcz. The last of these locations seems more plausible to us, as it explains the strong influence of Yiddish.
Thus, it makes sense to study medieval Baltic lexicography, represented by the German–Prussian Elbing Vocabulary, the so-called S. Grunau Glossary and, probably, the “Polish–Yatvingian Vocabulary,” through the prism of Hanseatic language policy and in the context of Hanseatic lexicographic production (bilingual and utilitarian). This approach to the research reveals the structural similarities between closely related dictionaries. A comparative analysis of German–Prussian, Prussian–German, and Russian–German dictionaries shows that the 13th–14th-century archetype of the “Russian Books” (created in Low German at the Novgorod trading station) was similar in format, size, and structure to the Elbing Vocabulary of the mid-to-late 13th century. This source will be useful in reconstructing the archetype of the Russian–German dictionaries. Comparison with the late-14th-century Latin–Low German Liber ordinis rerum should be considered too distant. By analogy with the related “Russian Books,” it makes sense to call the Elbing Vocabulary (Elbinger Vokabular) and the so-called S. Grunau Glossary the “Prussian (Elbing) Book” and the “Prussian Booklet.”
Affiliation with medieval Hanseatic lexicography is supported by the close correspondence in the classification of semantic fields, regional bilingualism, utilitarian character, and comparable size, but not only these factors. No less important is the close connection of the vocabulary with Elbing (which acquired Lübeck law in 1246) and the composition of the Elbing codex itself, in which the central place is occupied by Lübisches Recht für Elbing.
The relative chronology of the compilation of the Elbing codex can be reconstructed in the following stages:
1. Between approximately 1237 and 1300, a German–Prussian or Prussian–German dictionary was compiled to meet the needs of Hanseatic sprakelerēre, and it may also have included a conversational section.
2. Between 1300 and 1340, a parchment manuscript book may have come into being, comprising three texts of the same age: the “Lübeck Law” granted to Elbing, the “Polish Law Code,” and the dictionary.
3. The “Pomesanian Law Code” was added later, after 1340. P. Holcvescher copied a collection with this composition in the mid-15th century.
The gradual compilation of the codex indicates that at least two intermediate copies may have been made between the original from the mid-to-late 13th century and P. Holcvescher’s copy. In the course of copying, the lexicographic work changed. While the dictionary served its original purpose (in the second half of the 13th century), it was refined and supplemented (in the case of the “Russian Books,” the process of updating continued until the 17th century); later, however, as trade shifted to German, copies of the fossilized dictionary were mechanically reproduced and very likely also substantially abridged. In shortening it, the “Prussian (Elbing) Book” may have lost its conversational section. The importance of conversation is revealed by the lexicographic material incorporated into the “Prussian Chronicle”
46
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVIII
Page 39
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraščių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
work, at the end of which sentences important for the successful conduct of trade are reconstructed (by reading the dictionary entries vertically).
Returning to the question raised at the beginning of the article (why is the genre of lexicography restricted to a narrow geolinguistic area, and who were the first creators of Baltic dictionaries?), it must be stated that the emergence of Prussian and “Yatvingian” monuments was driven by economic relations and motives. The incorporation of the region into the Hanseatic sphere of influence must have been decisive, specifically the founding of the city of Elbing and its strong impact on trade throughout the region. The expansion of Hanseatic merchants into lands inhabited by Prussians and Yatvingians brought with it the Hanseatic method of teaching the local language, practiced by young men sprakelere. This language-learning mechanism is not attested in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), that is, where the Hanseatic League emerged much later and where obstacles were placed in the way of its activities. For this reason, the beginnings of Lithuanian lexicography are dated to a much later period.
LITERATŪRA
Baar Antonius Hendrikus 1885: Tönnies Fenne’s Low German Manual of Spoken Russian – Pskov 1607. III. Russian-Low German Glossary. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
Benninghoven Friedrich 1990: Unter Kreuz und Adler. Der Deutsche Orden im Mittelalter. Ausstellung des Geheimen Staatsarchivs Preußischer Kulturbesitz anläßlich des 800jährigen Bestehens des Deutschen Orden. Berlin: Geheimes Staatsarchiv.
Bruchhäuser Hanns-Peter 1989: Kaufmannsbildung im Mittelalter. Determinanten des Curriculums deutscher Kaufleute im Spiegel der Formalisierung von Qualifizierungsprozessen. Köln; Wien: Böhlau.
Chelimskij Evgenij 1985: Fenno–Ugrica в ятвяжском словарике? – Tarptautinė baltistų konferencija 85, 234–235.
Dini Pietro Umberto 2013: A Note on the Tradition of the Old Prussian GrH. – Res Balticae 13, 51–59.
Dini Pietro Umberto 2014: Foundations of Baltic Languages. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
Straipsniai / Articles
47
Page 40
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Dworzaczkowa Jolanta 1958: Kronika pruska Szymona Grunaua jako źródło historyczne (Die Chronica Prussia des Simon Grunau als Geschichtsquelle). – Studia Źródłoznawcze. Commentationes 2, 119–146.
Euler Wolfram 1988: Das Altpreußische als Volkssprache im Kreise der indogermanischen und baltischen Sprachen. – Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 39.
Fałowski Adam 1992: „Einn Russisch Buch“ by Thomas Schroue. The 16th-century Russian-German dictionary and phrase-book. I. Introduction. Photocopies. Cracow.
Fałowski Adam 1994: „Ein Rusch Boeck…“. Ein Russisch-Deutsches anonymes Wörter- und Gesprächsbuch aus dem XVI. Jahrhundert. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.
Fałowski Adam 1996: „Ein Rusch Boeck…“. Rosyjsko-niemiecki anonimowy słownik i rozmówki z XVI wieku. Analiza językowa. Kraków: Universitas.
Fałowski Adam 1997: „Einn Russisch Buch“ Thomasa Schrouego. Słownik i rozmówki rosyjsko-niemieckie z XVI wieku. II. Transl iteracja tekstu. Indeks wyrazów i form rosyjskich. Kraków: Grell.
Ferri Rolando 2018: A note on the Elbing Vocabulary in the context of the ancient and medieval lexicographical traditions. – Incontri Baltistici in Pisa. Studi e saggi. II, Studia Baltica Pisana 3, 123–131.
Gernentz Hans Joachim 1986: Tönnies Fenne’s Low German Manual of Spoken Russian – Pskov 1607. IV. Mittelniederdeutsch-neuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch zum Russisch-niederdeutschen Gesprächsbuch. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
Gernentz Hans Joachim, Korol Tamara, Rösler Irmtraud 1988: Das Gesprächsbuch des Tönnies Fenne in seinem sprach- und gesellschaftshistorischen Umfeld. – Untersuchungen zum Russisch-niederdeutschen Gesprächsbuch des Tönnies Fenne, Pskov 1607. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Berlin: Akademie–Verlag.
Hammerich Louis Leonor, Jakobson Roman 1970: Tönnies Fenne’s Low German Manual of Spoken Russian – Pskov 1607. II. Transliteration and Translation. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
Hendriks Pepijn, Schaeken Jos 2008: Tönnies Fenne’s Low German Manual of Spoken Russian, Pskov 1607. An electronic text edition. Leiden: Opl. Slavistiek.
Hermann Eduard 1949: Eine unbeachtete Überlieferung des preussischen Vokabulars Simon Grunaus. – Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 6, 151–166.
48
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVIII
Page 41
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraštinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
Jakobson Roman, Schooneveld Elizabeth 1961: Foreword, Tönnies Fenne’s Low German Manual of Spoken Russian – Pskov 1607. I. Facsimile Copy. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
Kiparsky Valentin 1970: Das Schicksal eines altpreußischen Katechismus (II). – Baltistica 6(2), 219–226.
Kregždys Rolandas 2012: Baltų mitologemų etimologijos žodynas. I. Kristburgo sutar-tis. Vilnius: Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas.
Lemeškin Ilja 2017: „Pirk it mane ir skaitykit“. Pirmieji spausdinti LDK akrosti-chai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 77, 9–52.
Marchand James 1970: Some remarks on the German side of the Elbing Vocabu-lary. – Baltic Linguistics, 109–117.
Mažiulis Vytautas 1966–1981: Prūsų kalbos paminklai 1–2. Vilnius: Mintis.
Neitmann Klaus 1996: Christliche Unterweisung von Deutschen und Preußen im Ordensland Preußen. – Westpreußen-Jahrbuch 46, 57–72.
Orėl Vladimir 1986: Marginalia to the Polish-‘Jatvingian’ Glossary. – Indogerma-nische Forschungen 91, 269–272.
Päsler Ralf G. 2003: Deutschsprachige Sachliteratur im Preußenland bis 1500. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Überlieferung (Aus Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen Mittel- und Osteuropas 2). Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau Köln.
Peters Robert 1973: Mittelniederdeutsche Sprache. – Niederdeutsch. Sprache und Literatur. Eine Einführung. 1. Sprache. Wachholtz, Neumünster, 66–115.
PEŽ I–IV – Mažiulis Vytautas. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 1–4. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988–1997.
Rosenkranz Bernhard 1957: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des preussischen Vokabulars Simon Grunaus, ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift P. Kretschmer II. Wiesbaden-Wien, Harrassowitz-Holl inek, 113–117.
Rösler Irmtraut 1990: Fremdsprachliche Kommunikation vor 450 Jahren. Das russische Buch: ein russisch-deutscher Sprachführer von 1546. – Skamandros. Germanistisches Jahrbuch der DDR und der Republik Polen. Warschau.
Sanders Willy 1982: Sachsensprache, Hansesprache, Plattdeutsch. Sprachgeschichtliche Grundzüge des Niederdeutschen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Schmid Wolfgang Paul 1986: Die ‘Germanismen’ im sog. Polnisch-Jatvingischen Glossar. – Indogermanische Forschungen 91, 273–286.
Straipsniai / Articles
49
Page 42
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
Schmitt Peter 1983: ‘Liber ordinis rerum’ (Esse–Essencia–Glossar) 1. Einleitung, Text. 2. Apparat, Wortregister. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer Verlag.
Squires Catherine 2009: Die Hanse in Novgorod Sprachkontakte des Mittelniederdeutschen mit dem Russischen Mit einer Vergleichsstudie über die Hanse in England. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.
Stone Gerald 1990: Thomas Schrove’s ‘Russisch Buch’: a Source for the Language of Muscovite Russia. Tgoľi chole Mêstró. Gedenkschrift für Reinhold Olesch, 341–348.
Trautmann Reinhold 1910: Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler. Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Volckmann Edwin 1869: Das älteste geschriebene polnische Rechtsdenkmal. Elbing.
Ziesemer Walther 1920: Zum deutschen Text des Elbinger Vocabulars. – Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 44, 138–146.
Алексеев Михаил Павлович 1951: «Книга русского языка» Т. Шрове 1546 г. и ее автор. – Памяти академика Льва Владимировича Щербы. Сборник статей. Ленинград: Изд-во Ленинградского гос. университета, 103–112.
Болек Анна 2003: Псковские разговорники-словари в работах краковских русистов. – Псков в российской и европейской истории (к 1100-летию первого летописного упоминания) 2. Москва: Московский государственный университет печати, 213–218.
Лихачев Николай I, III: Палеографическое значение бумажных водяных знаков 1. Исследование и описание филиграней; 3. Альбом снимков. Санкт-Петербург: В.С. Балашев и К°, 1899.
НПЛ – Новгородская первая летопись старшего и младшего изводов. Москва; Ленинград: АН СССР, 1950.
Орел Владимир, Хелимский Евгений 1987: Наблюдения над балтийским языком польско-‘ятвяжского’ словарика. – Балто-славянские исследования 1985, 121–134.
Рыбина Елена Александровна 2009: Новгород и Ганза. Москва: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси.
Сквайрс Екатерина, Фердинанд Светлана 2002: Ганза и Новгород: Языковые аспекты исторических контактов. Москва: Индрик.
50
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVIII
Page 43
Senoji baltų leksikografija Hanzos pirklių tarnyboje. Rankraštinių žodynų paskirtis bei sudarymo laikas
Old Baltic Lexicography in the Service of Hansa Merchants. Purpose of Manuscript Vocabularies and the Time of Compiling
SUMMARY
It is meaningful to study the medieval Baltic lexicography from the perspective of the Hanseatic linguistic policy and in the context of the Hanseatic lexicographic production (bilingual and utilitarian). Such a direction of research reveals the similarity of composition of closely related vocabularies. The comparative analysis of German-Prussian, Prussian-German and Russian-German vocabularies shows that the protograph of the “Russian books” of the 13th–14th centuries (created in Low German in the office of Novgorod) resembled the Elbing vocabulary of the second half of the 13th century by its layout, scope and composition. The latter source will be useful in reconstructing the protograph of Russian-German vocabularies. The comparison with the Latin-Low German Liber ordinis rerum dating to the late 14th century should be considered remote and abstract. By analogy with the akin “Russian books”, it is proposed to call Elbing vocabulary (Elbinger Vokabular) and the so called Grunau’s vocabulary the “Prussian (Elbing) Book” and the “Littl Prussian Book” respectively.
The attribution to the Hanseatic lexicography is supported by the similar division of thematic fields, regional bilingualism, utilitarian type, compact scope. But that is not all. The vocabulary’s close link with Elbing (granted Lübeck law in 1246) and the composition of the Elbing codex itself with Lübisches Recht für Elbing taking the central place are equally important.
The relative process of composition of the Elbing codex is reconstructed in the following stages:
1. Driven by the needs of the Hanseatic sprakelærere, the German-Prussian and the Prussian-German vocabulary, which could possibly also include a phrase-book, was compiled in around 1246–1300.
2. A parchment manuscript comprising Lübeck law granted to Elbing, Polish law and vocabulary of the same period could originate from 1300 to 1340.
3. Prussian law was added at a later date, after 1340. Peter Holcwescher transcribed the collection of such composition in the middle of the 15th century.
The gradual formation of the codex shows that at least two intermediate copies could have been made between the original of the second half of the 13th century and the transcript of Peter Holcwescher. The lexicographic work underwent certain changes in the course of transcribing. While the vocabulary functioned in line with its original purpose (2nd half of the 13th century), it used to be revised and supplemented (in case of “Russian
Straipsniai / Articles
51
Page 44
ILJA LEMEŠKIN
books”, the updating process still continued in the 17th century); however, later, after trade reoriented itself towards the German language, the transcripts of the outdated vocabulary were mechanically copied and most likely severely shortened. “Prussian (Elbing) Book” could have lost its phrasebook in the course of shortening. The importance of the phrasebook also reveals in the lexicographic work included in the Prussian Chronicle; it ends with the reconstructed sentences (on the basis of vertical reading of vocabulary entries) important for successful trade.
