Mažvydo „Katekizmo“ giesmių redakcijos XVI–XVII a. Rytų Prūsijos giesmynuose

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LI (2004), 69-80 A comparison between the hymns contained in Mazvydas’ Catechism and their counterparts in Mažvydas" and Vilentas’, Bretkiinas- ’, Sengstock’s and Klein’s hymnals shows that the successive editors introduced minor corrections but (with the exception of one hymn in Klein’s collection) did not thoroughly revise the texts. Sengstock's corrections are based, in some instances, not only on Mažvydas and Bretkiinas, but also on the 1547 Catechism. Klein was much more consistent than his predecessors in correcting imperfections in language and versification. Many scholars have studied the language, poetry, and melodic text of the hymns of Mažvydas’ Catechism, but a more detailed comparison of the hymns of the Catechism with the variants reprinted in later hymnals is not yet available. This comparison is interesting in that it shows the composers’ attitude to the old hymns, helps reveal the motives for some changes and traces which books of predecessors were used by the composers. Some revisions in the old hymns were not directed, for example, only a few verse changes in Mažvydo or Bretkūno hymns cannot be called an attempt to correct the syllabicity of the hymns, but such corrections show the efforts of the composers. Therefore, the article also includes individual corrections that cannot be summarised, but which provide information about the work done by the authors as language editors. This time we tried to use the method of comparative text analysis to compare the hymns of Mažvydas’ Catechism with their variants in the hymns of Martynas Mažvydas and Baltramejus Vilentas, Jonas Bretkūnas, Lazaros Zengštokas and Danielius Kleinas. 1.1 The early leaders of the Reformation tried to continue the relatively small folk tradition of universal singing that had emerged in the late Middle Ages. They gradually added to their repertoire folk songs from the 13th to 15th centuries, as well as a few translations of the most popular festive hymns from Latin, which appeared in the late Middle Ages (Pociūtė 1995: 51). In 1547, two publications with hymns were published in the local Choctaw languages in the Duchy of Prussia. These were Seklucjan’s hymn Pieśni duchowne and, a few months later, Mažvydas’ Catechism, which printed 11 hymns with music. The latter publication was not typical, because usually the catechisms either did not include hymns at all, or were printed only with the main hymn “The Promises of God” (Pociūtė 1995: 14). Probably it was not Mazvydas himself, but Prince Albrecht or his advisers who thought that the Lithuanian catechism should be printed with hymns, which at that time had a particularly great significance in the Lutheran liturgy (Michelini 2000: 11). The prince wanted 70 | INGA STRUNGYTĖ The Lutheran Church of Prussia was not able to establish the standard foundations of the Lutheran faith, so Mažvydas could have been recommended to rely on the Seklucijan hymn (Michelini 2000: 11). At the beginning of the 20th century, Christian Stang identified this hymnal as the main source for the translation of the seven Catechism hymns (Stang 1929: 29-47). The most popular psalm of the Prussian Principality, “Liauplink dufcha mana pana”, which was sung by the pastor of Karaliaučius, Johannas Graumanas (Polianderis), was included in the Catechism (Pociūtė 1995: 15). The second, also very popular psalm of the time, Sufimilk op mule Diewe, was dedicated to funeral rites. Other texts are attributed to Luther, who reworked medieval hymns, and to the Czech reformer Jan Hus. The last three hymns are not related to the Seculian hymn: "Bernelis gime mumus", one of the variants of the popular medieval hymn "Dies est leticiae", and the evening hymn "Chriltau Dena el[i i [chwelibe" could have been translated directly from the Latin source." The catechism printed the programmatic Protestant hymn "O Diewe kurls dąngui eBi" (a Catholic Litany adapted by Johann Freder), translated by J. Zablocki from the German text "O Gott Vatter im hymelreich" (Michelini 2000: 114). The source of the translation of the versed medieval decalogue „Tas elt Dieva prilakimas®, with which the hymn begins, was probably the hymn „Tocz iest boże przikazanie“ from the Secular Catechism of 1545. 2. in the Mažvydo hymn were reprinted almost all the hymns of the Lithuanian Catechism of 1547, with the exception of “Thiewe mulu Danguielis”, which was translated in the Catechism based on the hymn “Oicze nasz, ktoryš jest w niebie” (from the Seklucijan hymn of 1547), and a new translation of Luther’s hymn “Vater unser im himelreich” was added to the Mažvydo hymn (Michelini 2000: 443). Some of the corrections show that the hymns have been more carefully adapted to the peculiarities of the original, bringing the translation closer to the source. That's how the vocabulary is harmonized. Here instead of Catechism (gen. pl.) funu is written waiku"*: on fawa miloiu funu | MŽK 6, —Ant fawa miluyu waiku/MŽG,, cf. Polish. over their mythical children“; Sgt. Gen. fweikatas fixed to acc. s.g. ifchganima, plg. : Be tawęs gauti fweikatas MŽK 7, —Be tawas gauti ifehganima MŽG,, cf. pol. Bull saved without your bag. (Len. saved ‘iSganyta’). In the Hymnbook, the translation is further improved in comparison with the Catechism, correcting the forms of the literal translation that have broken through: At mufchk iu ftrelas beganczias | MZK 5,, —Atmufchk io ftrelas beganczias /MŽG,, cf. Turn away from us his fiery arrow. The Lithuanian equivalent is sg. f. spirit-adjusted noun entertainer, because in the Catechism subst. max. Grammatical forms of duch: Lig/inintaiu mes wadinam | MzK 3, —Linksmintoie mes wadinam | MZG,, plg. We'll call you a cheerleader. In the works "Liaupfink dulcha mana pa- "We believe ijg wenagi Diewa",,,- Papralchaim [chwentales dwales",,- ,Schwenta Dwale mufump ateik",,,"Thiewe mufu Danguielis". 2 wJelus Chriftus ifch gielbetas mufu®. 3 The Lithuanian hymn “Bernelis gime mumus” has no exact equivalent. 4 In abbreviations, the large number denotes the hymn of the Mažvydo Catechism in the same order as it is printed in the Catechism, the small number 0 — the line of the hymn, e.g., the hymn “Schwenta Dwafe mufump ateik” in the Catechism is the third. 5 Reference is made here and elsewhere to Michelini (2000) for translation equivalents. 71 na" and "Paprafchaim [chwentales dwales] several times corrected loan lafka (original fafka) in lit. equivalent love. The structure of the hymns was also adjusted (a stanza or verse was omitted or inserted- ). In the hymn "Bernelis gime mumus" the verse 60 and the fifth stanza are inserted. An additional segment (Ing ghi tikedami) at the end of the stanza equalized the number of lines in the verse—it was the only one to have nine instead of ten. The earlier type of syllabic poetry was characterized by approximately the same number of syllables in the lines, the same form of grammatical ending, consonants and rhymes (Girdzijauskas 2001: 448-449). The same principle, although not smoothly, applies to the hymns of Mažvydas' Catechism. In the Mažvydas Hymn, syllabism was observed and inaccuracies were not inclined to be corrected, except in a few cases. The metric construction of the stanza of the hymn "Schwenta Dwale mu- [ump come" is 8/8/8/7. Mažvydas quite simply corrected the clumsy last line — shortened the word vienybé[- je] by one syllable: Venibe Diewa garbinta. MZK 3,, —venib God's glory. MG,,. Also, in the hymn "O Diewe kurl[s dangui eBi", the deviations in the verse are eliminated, and the former metric scheme 8/8/9/9/8/8 is improved (8/8/9/8/8/- 8), cf. : Venibe Diewa amflinagij /MŽK 5, — Venib Diewa amflinagi /MŽG,,. Improvements and ending consonants: Dufcha mana tu platink | Csiefti i garbe Dewui. LXX 6,,, —Spread your dufcha mana | C3iefti and honor Gods. MG,,. In the reprint of the hymn “Liaupfink dufcha mana pana”, without which the church liturgy was inconceivable at the time, the melodic text was corrected and the fifth stanza was added — the traditional veneration and glorification of the Holy Trinity at the end of the hymn. It also takes into account the changing realities of the time. Mažvydas reprinted Zablocki’s Litany “O Diewe kurls dangui eBi” in the hymn without the thirteenth stanza, which is dedicated to the wife of the Prussian Prince Albrecht, Princess Dorothea (she is wished health and a healthy baby), who died after the release of Mažvydas’ Catechism (Kaunas 1999: 17). This resulted in the verse having to be deleted. The language of the hymns is also edited. There was an effort to avoid archaic and Žemaitic forms (the long vowel /a/ is more and more often corrected to /0/; in the stem and at the end of the word the Žemaitic diphthong /ie/ is translated into the High Slovak long vowel /ė/, which in writing is marked /e/ and so on)°. BRETKŪNAS did not include the hymn „Bernelis gime mumus“ in the collection Giefmes Duchaunas, published in 1589. Dainora Pociūtė mentions that Bretkūnas, when composing the hymnal, abandoned Catholic texts, which were still sung in the Middle Ages, in order to include as many hymns as possible created during the Reformation, especially by Martin Luther. This is probably why he could refuse the Catholic "Bernelis geboren ons". This anthem was sung in the Middle Ages not only in Latin, but also in the national languages of Europe (Pociūtė 1995: 17). As far as we know, the hymn was not included in the Protestant publications of the LDK, Poland and Prussia at that time. If Mažvydas printed the supposed translation in the first Lithuanian book and in the 1566 hymnbook, it is possible to assume that the Lithuanian hymn was also popular. 6 Phonetic and morphological corrections will not be discussed in more detail, as they are consistently described in the literature, cf. Palionis (1967, 1995), Zinkevičius (1988). 72 || INGA STRUNGYTĖ The hymns „Tas elt Dieva prilakimas“ and „Papralchaim [chwentales dwales]“ were not printed in this hymnal. By the way, there is a text with a similar beginning, “Pralchikime [chwentaie Dwa[llia”, but further on it differs considerably, apparently it is a new translation from another (German) source “Nu bitten wir der heyligen Geist” (see Michelini 2001: 36-37). Bretkūnas, like the correctors of Mažvydas' hymn, tried to bring the texts closer to the original: If you yourself fau can fweikata dūti. MzG, 10,, —If you yourself [au help can thunder. BGD, plg. vok. if you want to help yourself. As in Mažvydo giesmynas, the translation is being improved. In addition, the Polish-speaking population was reduced to a small minority. f. spirit, because in Polish duch is sg. max. : Malanes ghis fawa mums nefchikft | MŽG, 8, —Malones ghi Jawa mums nefchikfcht /BGD". Also, the rhyme and the ending consonants of the hymns have been adjusted: findancjias has been adapted to the fiunking of the last word in the previous line: Saugak i Pindanczias waikus/MŽK 5, —Saugok i waikus Bindanczias /BGD. Otherwise, the athematic form of the verb is chosen, thus compensating for the lack of one syllable in the line: Kurs amflins efti fu Tiewu BGD 8,,. For the purpose of syllabics, the gender of the aliphatic is written with the postposition -pi instead of the Mažvydo user -p, e.g. : Steikes mufumpi et ne truk /BGD 11,,. In one hymn Bretkūnas probably inserted a noun for poetic reasons: ditk malone fimanefu MŽG, 3,, —Dūk malone tu Pmonefu BGD. Bretkūnas also slightly edited the language of the translations, but in a slightly different way than the editors of Mažvydas’ hymn. That. s.g. In the forms 0 and io the nouns of the root were occasionally given with the ending -u (instead of Mažvydo -ui): Maieftatu BGD 5,., kunigaikfche3šiu BGD 5, milietoiu BGD 5,,. Other language corrections are basically the same as in Mažvydo giesmynas — the /a/(—/0/)*, Žemaičių dat is abandoned. pl. -ims (—-iems)’ —but they are much more consistent. The Bretkūn /o/ reduction in the unpronounced ending remained uncorrected. Most often, the words in the middle of the line are edited in this way, and the last word of the line is avoided." It is probably due to the poetry that Mažvydas's dialect has a characteristic feature of the southern Žemaičių dialektas —instr. s.g. narrowing of the ending -ia, graphically represented by the letter <i>, e.g. : Tawefp fchaukem nafrais nii ja [chirdi/Jeib mus neapleiftumbi BGD 11, “; If you can do it [chirdi | Galetu tawe garbinti BGD 5 —26? 83-84. 4 Zengstock relied on Bretkūn- 's version and retained the feminine noun form in his hymn. Klein nevertheless edited it in his own way, realizing that it was not the spirit, but God, who was not grateful. 5 PBadžia MzG, 5, —S3odza BGD, Apfaugak MžG, 5,, —Apfaugok BGD, naglas MžG, 5,,—noglos BGD. ?—sweikims M2G, 10,, —fweikiems BGD, Turtims M2G,, 5,, —Turintiems BGD, ghims MžG, 5, — iems BGD, wifims MžG, 7,,—wiffiems BGD, Lauientims MiG, 6,, —Liauientiems BGD. This is a rather peculiar Bretkūn- ’s position — even if the rhyme was changed, he would not have suffered (for example, in the consecutive lines ending in ifchganima and fugriefchima, the /a/ vowel would be changed to /o/ to maintain the systematic ending consonants). On the other hand, Bretkūnas was well acquainted with both uses. In Frydland, where he originated, there was no reduction of the long vowel in the unpronounced endings, but in Labguva (where he began to work from 1587) the unpronounced long vocalism of the ending was reduced (see Zinkevičius 1988: 71-72.) and coincided with Mažvydo usage, probably therefore it was not always corrected. 73 Since Bretkūnas takes the hymns with added or omitted verses, with revisions of speech and poetry only from Mažvydas’s hymnbook, it is likely that he did not use Mažvydas’s Catechism. 4. ZENGSTOKAS printed his hymnal Giesmes Chrikfczionifchko and Duchaunifchko in 1612. All of them, except for the hymn "Bernelis gime mumus", were printed in Bretkūnas hymnbook. Thus, Zengstokas returned to his hymnal the medieval anthem "Bernelis gime mumus", which probably could still be as popular at the time as in the days of Mažvydas. This is the first indication that Zengstokas used two collections of hymns — Bretkūnas- ’s Giefmes Duchaunas (1589) and Mažvydas’s hymnal. A consistent analysis of the hymns showed that on Zengstok’s desk lay not only these two books, but also Mažvydas’ Catechism. One testimony that Zengstock relied on the Catechism is found in the hymn "Bernelis gime mumus". Zengstok repeated a verse from the Catechism, which had already been replaced in the hymnbook with other words: buki cjieftis i garbe | MZK 9,, —Buki c3eftis wienamui | MŽG, —buki c3eftis i garbe | ZG. Another clear reference to the Catechism is in Zablocki's Litany "O Diewe kurf[s hangui eBi". Here the verb neapleisk is chosen instead of the one in the hymn and the Bretkūnas variant is written neprastok: Ach wefchpate mus neapleifk | MZK 5, —Ach wiefchpate mufs nepraftak | MzG, —Ach Wiefchpatie mus nepraftok | BGD —Ach wie[chpatie mus neapleifk | ZG. Since more lexical and syntactic changes have not been observed, it is difficult to judge from the spelling and other peculiarities of the hymn whether Zengštokas used the Catechism when editing other works, because he only implemented the Bretkūnas-- initiated language corrections of the hymns even more consistently. It is important to note that Zengstok, editing Zablocki- ’s Litany, also relied on a copy of Mažvydas’ hymnal. Here in one line the word order coincides not with Bretkūnas' work, but with Mažvydas' hymn: Lijnkfmink tu pats fchitus didei | MŽG, 9, — Linkfmink fchitus tu pats didei | BGD —Linkfmink tu pats [chitus didei | ZG. In the psalm, Liaupfink dulfcha mana pana, Zengstock also used Mažvydas' hymn. Bretkūno was chosen pron. bean, or Zengstoko pron. his own, which is used in the variant of the song in Mažvydo giesmynas, cf. : Ba daukfijn gieribe fawa | MŽG, 6, —Ba daukfin geribe tawa | BGD —Ba daukfin geribe fawa / ZG. In the same hymn, another correction is noted, which could hardly have been invented by Zengstock. Instead of Mažvydas subst. the redeemer Bretkūnas seemed more suitable for Mr. Christ. "Zengštokas grįžta prie Mažvydo giesmyno varianto- ". Plg. : Jefui mufu atpirktojui /MŽG, 6,, —Jefui Chriftui mufu Ponui | BGD —Jefui mufu atpirktojui | ZG. There are more examples that suggest that Zengstok, when correcting the old hymns, used not only Bretkūnas’s hymns, but also Mažvydas’s hymns of 1566 and 1570. From there he could transcribe the shorter athematic forms of verbs and prepositions- '" Guido Michelini- 's recently published book (Michelini 2004) also refers to the corrections made by Zengstock and the coincidences with Mažvydas' hymn. However, the Italian language is not spoken by the majority of the population. 74 | INGA STRUNGYTĖ mas. Plg. : Kurs ampins eft Ju tewu | MŽG, 8,, —Kurs amflins efti fu Tiewu /BGD — Kurs amflins eft fu Tiewu | ZG; Ba io mokfla [weikegi tur vf iūka. MŽG, 10,—ba io mokfla [weikieghi tur upu iūka. BGD —Ba io mokfla [weikeghi tur up itika ZG; As you yourself gwai nig Diewa Tewa MzG, 10, —As you yourself gwai nugi Diewa Tiewa. BGD —as you yourselves gave to God ZG. On the other hand, Zeng Stock could have edited these lines himself, without the influence of additional text, since such (somewhat primitive and unpretentious) corrections to avoid an uneven number of syllables in a line were popular. However, it appears that Zengstock did not correct the deviations of the old hymns from syllabism (except in one case). Therefore, the amendments discussed were probably not independent. Also, the recording of the long vowel /a/ instead of Bretkūno /0/ and some orthographical cases can be interpreted as a transcription from Mažvydo hymn. Example: filpnams bei Jerganczams | MŽG, 5. —filpnoms bei [erganczioms | BGD —filpnoms bei ferganciams | ZG; "Redik materis i Sunus | MŽG, 5,". —Redik moteris ir funus /BGD — Redik woman and funus | ZG; [chito naktie MŽG,, 11, —[chita Nakte BGD —[chito naktie ZG. ZengStock chose a rather inconsistent orthographic resolution for the long vowel /a/. This is reflected in the text "O Diewe który niebu efi". One word or syllable is written <0>, the other <a>. Since the choice of <a> coincided with Mažvydas- ’s hymn in many cases, it is possible to assume that Zengštokas used both Bretkūnas’s and Mažvydas- ’s hymns and a little bit of the Catechism when editing this text. However, the orthography of other hymns is closer to Bretkūnas. Although Zengstock was a consistent follower of his predecessors and continued their reforms, he also made some changes on his own. For example, in several places he transformed the text of the Litany "O Diewe kurls dangui eBi": Saugok tu mus funus fawa. BGD 5,,— Protect us with thy hand. ZG; Diewe faugok tawa ranka. BGD 5,,—Jefau faugok tawa ranka. ZG; 5,, —Dūk miera starp wiffu Pmoniu | ZG. ZengStokas was criticised by his contemporaries (he mentions this in the preface of the hymnal,,- Respected... priests of Lithuanian churches“, cf. Koženiauskienė, ed., 1990: 236) and by later composers of hymnals, who claimed that he had made mistakes and distorted the meaning of words and sayings in his editing of Bretkūnas and Mažvydas’ legacy. As mentioned earlier, Zengstok may have been criticized by his contemporaries for his spelling irregularities, perhaps because he sometimes returned to the older Mažvydas variant. However, the work of Zengstock did not deserve only criticism. Here are his efforts as an editor to correct the mistakes of the printers: pildanc3in /BGD 7,,—pildancziu ZG, teife BGD 7,, —teifei ZG, gen. pl. kowa BGD 5, —kowu ZG, nur BGD 8, —nor ZG, wed mes efini futwerims tawa. BGD 7,—nes mes efine futwerims tawa. ZG. He also noticed Mažvydo hypercorrect forms in the hymn,,Gime mumus Bernelis” and corrected them: fiedi MŽG, 12 — Bidi BGD. In the same hymn, he edited the grapheme <g> used by Mažvydas, written instead of the diphthong /an/, for example: dągaus MŽG, 29 —dangaus ZG, dggufu MŽG, 68 —dangufa ZG. In other hymns, Zengstock corrected Bretkūn- 's use of the grapheme <o> | <i>: doft BGD 8,, —diift ZG, dok BGD 7,, —ditk ZG. Among the phonetic corrections is the use of the Afrikaans /dz/: verb. praes. 3 atleid BGD 6,—atleid5 ZG, adj. didem BGD 75 6,, —didzem ZG. 75 6,, —didzem ZG. Fixable dat. s.g. ending -u to -ui: kunigaikfchcziu BGD 5, — kunigaikfchcsui ZG, milietoiu BGD 5, —miletoiui ZG. Some phonetic and morphological corrections suggest that Zengstok made an effort to bring the language of the hymns closer to the Prussian Lithuanian West Highland dialect, e.g.: prifch BGD 7,,—priefch ZG, instr. sg. /merti BGD 5,,—-[mertim ZG (Sawa fmerti ifchwadawai —[awa [mertim ifchwadawai). Like his predecessors, Zengstock continued to improve translation. Changed word order and prefix pro with acc. to mean: Pro fawa malone MŽG, 9,,—per fawa malone ZG. The Slavic conjunction ved, taken over by Bretkūnas from Mažvydas, Zengštokas corrected several times to nes (ZG 7,,, 7,,). Edited the unmatched number of words left by predecessors: And leaves falling on Bemes | On which as weias ufchpus BGD 6,, "„-> And leaves falling on Pemes | On which as weias ufchpus ZG. It is not possible unless a change can be considered: Ach Diewe neapleifk mufu | Dufchas and kuna wargūfu BGD 5,,,, —Ach Diewe neapleifk mufu | Dufchas and kuna wargiifu ZG. 17-18 5, KLEIN took almost all the old hymns from Zengstock and printed them in the hymnbook New Giefmju Book published in 1666. The hymn “O Diewe kurfs dangui eBi”*?, which Klein has extensively reworked, is worth mentioning. In comparing Klein's and the German hymn "O Gott Vater im Himelreich"'s stanzas, the connection between the two texts becomes apparent. Note the following excerpts from Zengstock, Klein and Luther's hymn: (i) 2nd stanza (last three lines)": ZENGSTOCK KLEIN LUTHERN 10. "Greek Mufu Wiffus 10". Mums kung lobį Leib | Ehr und Gut behiit uf3mirfchk /apfaugok | vor [chad|/ 11. Del did3ia fuffimilima /11. IB méiles [ufimilk didsos [ey us gracious | and help us Herr | 12. faugok dufche so and kuna. 12. And apléifk us never. verlafy us now and never again. (ii) Verse 4: ZENGSTOCK, LITLE LUTER 19. Defend you us tawa 19. Protect us now and Behiit uns HEm ju ranka/wisfadal/allerftund/ 20. nug malibiu i kiek 20. Nū giedos ir fufgrieffima/Fiir Jerthumb/lafier/ griekal/Schand unnd Siind / 12 Klein called it "O Diewe Téwe Heaven". 3 Printed in Martin Luther Geiftliche Pfalmen Und Lieder, Nirnberg, 1658 (MAB, sign. :V-17/ 12099), 756-759. * In the VokiSkam text, words that match the words of Klein's hymn are highlighted. 76 | INGA STRUNGYTĖ 21. nūg karaughima ir 21. Nit karo ir neprietelu/fiir Krieg/Has Feind fhafft kowu//Gifft und Neyd | 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 1995 - The 20th Anniversary of the Death of Dr. John F. Kennedy / 23rd Anniversary of the Death of Dr. John F. Kennedy / 24th Anniversary of the Death of Dr. John F. Kennedy. Nig Ugnies wandens 23. Nū wandens ir ugunies fiir Wa [fer | Fewer/und ir mara/bedos/theuer 3eit/ 24. Saugok tu mus tawa 24. And neither thunderstorms nor winds. fiir Unwetter/fchédlich ranka. Wind. It seems that Klein did not re-write the hymn, but re-edited Zengstock's text based on the Lutheran source mentioned." The creative and free reworking reveals that Klein did not slaverily follow the German original. The length of Klein’s hymn is also different: it is one stanza longer than Luther’s (18 and 17), but much shorter than the original Mažvydas’ version (21). By the way, Klein himself mentions this hymn in the preface to the hymnbook („Naujas giesmių knygos: Naudinga prefacija su kreipimu į skaitytoją“, see Girdzijauskas, par., 1985: 52-69) and explains why it had to be edited: „How it was necessary to correct the hymn of repentance „God the Father of heaven“ („Gott Vater im Himmelreich“), which had neither a regular meter nor a clear construction and which the translator did not understand, the devoted reader will see for himself, comparing the previous translation with our corrected one“ (Girdzijauskas 1985: 57). Klein presented the hymn to the believers with his initials. This version of the hymn was reprinted in later East Prussian hymns'®. Klein, like his predecessors, tried to bring the translation closer to the original, e.g. : Ifchgida kiek ligga tawa | ZG 6, —Ir gydo tawą filpnumą | KING, plg. polk. Heal all your diseases ir vok. and do not hold your weakness great; If you think you are ifch fchirdies wifos / ZG 10,, —Jey tikki tattai iff Pirdies dugna /KLNG, plg. Believe that from the heart. However, Klein was the first to undertake a decisive editing of the old translation. He repeatedly replaced the word used by Zengstock with a more appropriate synonym in his opinion. For example, Zengštoko gailestis is changed to grace ‘mercy, pity’ KZ A 803), Slavism nedastainai, dastainas ‘valuable, worthy of honor’ (LKZ, 308) | germanizma nevertingai, neapgaléti ‘[unable, [unlistengti’ (LKZ,, 63), neprimanyti ‘[un]istenti, [un]galeti’ (LKZ,,, 838) and so on: wiffur gaileffi rodidams ZG 6,,—Wyfur malonę rodidams KLNG; Kurs nedaflainai [talop prifiengs ZG 10, —Kurs newertingay Jtalop prisengs KLNG; Dufches mufu to neapgal ZG 7, —Duflos mufu neprimana 5 Some lexical correspondences or similarities do not allow to say that Klein re-interpreted the hymn, cf. verse 1: 1. O Diewe kurs dangui effi/1. O Diewe Téwe danguje/ 2. The Jefau and [chwenta Dwaffe/2. OJE3AU and fwenta Dwa(Jé/ 3. The Traitor Goddess [chwentaghi/3. O Traice Diewo garbinta/4. wienibe Diewa amflinaghi/- 4. Wienybe God am3ina/ 5. Prafchom tawe as Padeiei/5. We are praying for you / 6. Ifchklauf, you've done us a favor. 6. How you zjadėjęs us effi. 16 It is Klein’s version of the hymn that was adopted by Rikovius and Schuster, and it can be found in hymnal collections of the late 19th century. 77 KLNG (by the way, the motive for this correction could be twofold — lexical and feminine rhyme). Klein or taxonic words were sometimes corrected into newer ones, žorai —mouth; jautėti ‘to wake up, not to sleep’ (LKZ,, 318) —wake up, cf. : And so really fkelpfi Jawa nafiais | ZG 10,, —And so ispazyfti fawa mouth | KLNG; 11:11-13, "Then he said to them, "I am not going to give you the treasures of the heavens, but I will give you the treasures of the earth. For example, the participle construction is corrected to the participle: Meldenczius mus ifch [tipros wieros | ZG 7,, — Meldsent uns ip [tipprés woddens | KLNG. It is striking that the editing was complex in many cases. For example, in the hymn "Chriltau Dena effi i [chwelibe]" a more precise word is chosen, thus bringing the syllabic poetry closer to isosyllabicism. Klein corrects the metric construction 10/7 to 8/8, adapting the lines to the eight-string meter: Idant funkus fapnas neufigrutu / Jeib welns mus nefugautu 2G 11,,, —Jeib Junkus mieg’s ne ujpultu | Ir weln's mus neiskaditu KL NG. Other examples suggest that Klein's revision may have been determined not only by a more precise wording, but also by improvements in the metric structure (uniformization of the number of syllables in the lines). For example: otherwise we can not biloti | ZG 7,, —But otherwise negatim say KLNG; Which I sniffed through the fugriefchima. ZG,, —Pameftą per [ugriefimg. KLNG (to cease ‘to cease, to cease’, see Urbas 1996: 250); Schis efmi gadnas prafudima ZG 7,, —Efmi wertas prajudima KLNG (gadnas “suitable, worthy’ LKŽ, 12); Atreme the evils of the dead. ZG 6,, —Prawar mufu's vices KLNG (to repel "to remove, to drive away", see Urbas 1996: 52). There are instances where Klein has also arranged the poem and chosen a newer word instead of the archaic one used by Zengstock. Here is a fuzzy “food, feed’ KZ. 78) is corrected in the meal. Plg. : And you penukfchlu dufche papeneei. ZG 10, "Ir tii walgiu duf3¢ pennéjei KING;" The already numerous corrections of the verse in the old hymns were usually made by changing the word construction (for example, by making the base word a derivative of a suffix or prefix) or by inserting/omit a single-syllable word, choosing another grammatical form. The following sequence changes may be made: 1. Klein abbreviated pronouns to which the postpositional particle -ai was attached, or vice versa —he attributed the said particle: kurfai numalde Diewa Tiewa narfu | ZG 10,— Kurs numalde Diewą Tewą ruftu KLNG; That's a very stupid guy. ZG 10,, —Taffai us grace fmerti get. KLNG; 2. added a suffix, prefix (or dropped them): Ligei as padsiuf poles | ZG 6,, —Lygey as padjuft' joèlès | KLNG; The Greek flesh is not eaten | ZG 7,, —The Greek flesh is not eaten /KUNG; Serkti/iaut/gin ir reda/ZG 8,,—[ergti- /jaut’ apgin’ ir reda | KLNG; 3. chose the nominative form or vice versa —they avoided: Wienibe Traices Jehwentas | ZG 6,, —Wienybg Traices Bwentofes KLNG; efti tikras Diewas | ZG 9, — Efti tikkra fis Diewas | KLNG; 2006-08-08. pp. 2. "Dwff¢ punttq | KING; Mes tikim ing Dwaffe fchwentaie | ZG 8,,—Mes tikim ing Dwf¢ punttq | KING;". When the disease picks up. ZG 10,, —Jeib destitution and angry wages KING; 4. changed the imperative number or chose a shorter/- longer imperative form. For example: : Garbink kofinas wiernas | ZG 6,, —Garbinkem wiernay košnas/KLNG; 10 Thou, O man, worship the Lord thy God; thou, O man, worship the Lord thy God.