ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LI (2004), 115–124

REVIEWS

Reviews

KNYGA NOBAŽNYSTĖS KRIKŠČIONIŠKOS 1653. FAKSIMILINIS LEIDIMAS. Parengė Dainora Pociūtė.

Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, MMIV, lxv, 660 pp., ISBN 9955-9408-0-8

The publication under review is unique in two respects. First, this monument of our written culture is now readily accessible to a wider circle of researchers, since, as we know, Lithuanian libraries hold only a microfilm of this important mid-seventeenth-century source and Knygos nobażnystės krikščioniškos (hereafter: KN), a counterfeit edition published in Königsberg in 1684. It is therefore very gratifying that, taking into account the fact that the original of Knygos nobażnystės krikščioniškos preserved in Sweden is the only copy known to date, the editor undertook, in 2003, on the 350th anniversary of the book’s publication, the “initiative to prepare a facsimile edition of this work that would be convenient both for scholarly textual research and for deepening Lithuanian studies at universities” (p. ix).

Second, this publication by the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore is unique in that its publishers have returned (if one may put it that way) to the “traditional” practice of publishing facsimiles of old writings, retaining the so-called background, and have quite rightly abandoned the “modern” principle promoted for a time by the Baltų lankų publishing house: presenting facsimiles of old writings not only without the background, but also in a reduced format. Thus, by taking the “traditional” route, the publishers of this edition have clearly demonstrated that producing a high-quality facsimile edition today is not difficult. The editor and publishers of this KN edition therefore deserve not only praise but also thanks: in publishing it, they did not chase fashions blown in from who knows where, but thought first and foremost about its quality and importance for scholarly research, rather than commercial or other concerns.

The publication consists of a Preface (pp. ix–x) and, as one would expect, two unequal parts. These are an introductory article, The Book of the Lithuanian Church (pp. xiii–lxv), written by the well-known scholar of old Lithuanian literature Dainora Pociūtė and comparable to a study in its own right, and the photographic reproduction of the KN text (pp. 1–660). The quoted words from the Preface, which set out the aims of preparing the publication, and the subsequent statement that this edition “will mark the beginning of the preparation and publication of further critical editions of individual parts of this work and their sources” (p. x; see also pp. xlvi, xlviii) make it clear why this edition contains no detailed commentary. We will have to wait for that.

A reader less familiar with our old literature (and the number of such readers—even among Lithuanian studies specialists—is growing, as some institutions of higher education graduate them) will learn from the Preface that, after the counterfeit edition of the KN was published in Königsberg in 1684, the first edition of this book was very quickly forgotten, and serious discussion of it began only after Józef Trypućko, who came from the Vilnius region, published a bibliographic survey in Uppsala in 1958, Polonica vetera Upsaliensia, which (pp. 102, 162, 166) provided information about this convolute held in the Uppsala University Library.

116 |

RECENZIJOS

Juozas Tumelis was probably the first to take an interest in this publication. Comparing the data published by Józef Trypućko with corresponding information about copies held in Lithuanian libraries, he noticed that they did not quite match. It then began to become clear that the inscription on the title page of copies held in Lithuania, O dabar antra karta perdrukavota (“And now reprinted for the second time”), does not indicate that the first edition was the 1598 Catechism by Merkelis Petkevičius (hereafter: PK), nor was it intended to mislead opponents of the Reformation; rather, it reflects the actual facts. Nevertheless, the KN counterfeit copies held in Lithuania do contain one misleading statement for Catholics: the year of publication, place of printing, and publisher.

Indeed, the statement at the beginning of the Preface that “the Book of Christian Piety, published in Kėdainiai in 1653, was the most prominent historical milestone in Lithuanian Calvinist literature, crowning a century of experience in Calvinist printing in Lithuania, beginning when Mikalojus Radvilas¹ the Black began the continuous history of printed books in Lithuania at his estate in Brest in 1553” (italics mine – J. K.) (p. ix), immediately raises the question whether this broad cultural-historical perspective, undoubtedly essential when examining matters pertaining to Lithuanian heritage, in this case overshadows Lithuanian studies proper.

The introductory study, The Book of the Lithuanian Church, begins with the sections “The Radziwiłłs’ Kėdainiai” (pp. xiii–xvii) and “The Kėdainiai School” (pp. xviii–xx). The first provides more historical information about Kėdainiai and its former rulers, while the second discusses not only Kėdainiai College but also the book collections—libraries—that existed in Kėdainiai at the time. Here the study’s author mentions the libraries of Duke Jonušas Radvila and the Kėdainiai church, as well as Samuel Tomaševskis’s personal book collection. At first glance, the facts presented would seem to raise no doubts. However, when one recalls the assertion by the renowned scholar of the Reformation Ingė Lukšaitė that it is still not entirely “clear whether the libraries of the Kėdainiai church and gymnasium were one and the same library” (Lukšaitė 2001:15), one cannot help asking why this problem is not mentioned here. Could it be that the author of the introductory study has reliable evidence that the library of the Kėdainiai church and gymnasium (or college) was one and the same? If so, it would have been useful to set out all the arguments supporting this view, especially since elsewhere in the same article, which Dainora Pociūtė also draws on, Ingė Lukšaitė writes of the Kėdainiai gymnasium library; compare: “The list or catalogue of the Kėdainiai gymnasium library is unknown” (Lukšaitė 2001: 16).

Naturally, a linguist’s attention immediately turns to the third subsection, “The Use of the Lithuanian Language in Public Life in Kėdainiai” (pp. xx–xxii), in the hope of gaining an adequate picture of the place Lithuanian occupied in Kėdainiai at the time. But after reading the subsection, one is led to conclude that its title does not quite match its content. It is limited to a discussion of the use of Lithuanian for religious purposes. Moreover, some statements here, too, need qualification. For example, the subsection opens with the statement: “Although Polish had been used (perhaps employed? – J. K.) in the Lithuanian Reformed Church from its inception, and had also become the Church’s principal written language, in the early seventeenth century the Reformed synods took systematic measures to expand the use of Lithuanian, directing that catechization be carried out and services held in Lithuanian as well” (p. xx). One would immediately like to know which years’ synods took measures to expand the use of Lithuanian, since the already-mentioned expert on the history of the Reformation, Ingė Lukšaitė, states that “the minutes of the sixteenth-century synods were burned,” while the synod minutes surviving from 1611 onward “make it clear that for several more decades the preparation of Lithuanian books was not an important concern of the synod” (Lukšaitė 2001:

¹ It is not entirely clear why Dainora Pociūtė changes the apparently generally accepted form of the surnames of these Grand Duchy of Lithuania magnates, Radvila, to Radvilas. In quotations, the form used by the author, Radvilas, is retained.

RECENZIJOS

117

7). If, in writing about measures to expand the use of the Lithuanian language, Dainora Pociūtė has in mind the 1627 general synod, at which Kristupas Minvydas was appointed pastor of Kėdainiai, it is highly doubtful that this synod should be assigned to the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Indeed, seemingly wishing to justify the section title, Dainora Pociūtė, though not as certain as Ingė Lukšaitė (2001: 14), speculates that Lithuanian “may have been used” at the Kėdainiai school “as an auxiliary language for catechetical instruction [...]” (p. xxi). In my view, however, such speculation is insufficient. It would probably have been very useful here to examine how necessary Lithuanian was to the officials of the Kėdainiai magistrate, especially since there seem to be grounds for such an inquiry (cf. Lukšaitė 2001: 17).

However, the section that raises perhaps the most doubts and various questions is “The situation of Polish literature of the Reformed Church in the ecclesiastical Grand Duchy of Lithuania” (pp. xxii–xxvii), which begins by reiterating that the year KN was published in Kėdainiai—1653—“indirectly marked the centenary of the history of Lithuanian Evangelical literature and printing” (p. xxii). The overview of Polish publications begins with the claim that it was launched in 1553 by “the first Latin (!? italics mine—J. K.) printing press in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, founded by Mikalojus Radvila the Black...”; it then surveys the Minor and Major Catechisms, the 1559 hymnbook, the Brest and Gdańsk Bibles², and other Polish Reformed publications. These are undoubtedly important from a confessional and cultural-historical point of view, but in my view have little to do with the emergence of KN. On the contrary, the earliest Polish Calvinist publications contributed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the ascendancy of Polish and pushed Lithuanian out of wider use. Thus, from the perspective of Lithuanian studies, such an extensive discussion of Polish publications is hardly justified—unless the author intended it to refute the desire of some Reformation historians to exaggerate their contribution to Lithuanian writing (cf. Kregždė 1978³), or once again to emphasize that, at its very beginning, Calvinism was not the religion of the masses (peasants), but of the elect (the elite), and turned to ordinary people only after it had already lost its struggle against the relatively progressive educational ideas of the Jesuits at the time.

Of course, in order to justify the author, one could argue that, in surveying Polish Reformed religious books, she sought to show how the religious texts later included in KN were codified and standardized. Such a conclusion would follow from the end of this section. However, the author herself partly undermines this conclusion by asserting that the relationship between the KN hymnbook and the standardized Polish publications from Gdańsk is ambivalent (p. xxvii). A detailed account of that relationship is planned for future publications.

Moreover, a closer examination of the claims in this section also fails to justify the analysis of Polish Reformed publications, as does the assertion that “the texts prepared for Knygos nobžnystės krikščioniškos were primarily intended to reflect the system of orthodoxy established in the first half of the seventeenth century, and to represent in Lithuanian the Polish-language texts of the Churches of the Reformation in Lithuania and Poland, codified after lengthy disputes and deliberations” (p. xxvii). But it is self-evident that a publication issued for religious practice must conform to codified texts. Nor does this survey of Polish publications answer the question of why the compilers of the KN hymnbook did not consistently adhere to this principle.

² It is unclear, however, why, when comparing the Brest and Gdańsk Bibles (pp. xxvi–xxvii), Dainora Pociūtė does not cite, alongside other literature in her footnotes, Gina Kavaliūnaitė’s dissertation, which also discusses both Bibles and their translation principles (see Kavaliūnaitė 2003: 82–89).

³ Dainora Pociūtė does not mention this publication, although she repeats ideas expressed in it not only about KN and its authors, but even some old errors—for example, the claim that good-quality paper was made in Kėdainiai and marked with the watermark inscription Civitas Caiodunensis (see Kregždė 1978: 81–95).

118 |

RECENZIJOS

In her further discussion of the Kėdainiai printing press, its establishment and publications, Dainora Pociūtė likewise indulges in broad historical digressions, considerably exceeding the chronological limits. For example, when discussing other Reformed (and non-Reformed) printing presses in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the author mentions the press that operated in Slutsk from 1672. Moreover, an occasional, perhaps somewhat excessive, desire to extol matters associated with the Reformed can overshadow historical facts. This seems to have happened in the claim that the printing press that began operating in Slutsk was “the only (italics mine—J. K.) printing press operating in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the time (besides the Vilnius Academy press)” (pp. xxvii–xxix). Why “only,” if another one was also operating? Unless the Slutsk press is called the only one because it did not print Lithuanian books.

In discussing historical data relating to the preparation and printing of KN, the author draws on a letter dated 18 March 1653 from Jonušas Radvila, in which the prince suspected that the obstacles to printing “had been deliberately created because some local pastors did not want to see Telega’s name mentioned” (p. xxxii). After quoting in the main text a sentence translated from Jonušas Radvila’s letter, Dainora Pociūtė quotes it in Polish in footnote 81 and immediately adds: “In literary historiography, probably because of an erroneous interpretation of this quotation from Radvila, the reverse [= reverse] opinion has become widespread, claiming that Radvila was angry that Telega was named as the author of the book on the pastors’ pretext” (p. xxxii). After these words, she cites sources presenting this interpretation: Vaclovas Biržiška’s Aleksandrynas, Juozas Tumelis’s article “On the question of the first edition of Knygos nobažnystės krikščioniškos (1653),” published in volume 7 of Bibliotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimų, and Jurgis Lebedys’s Senąją lietuvių literatūrą, but does not cite (perhaps inadvertently?) the recently published article by Ingė Lukšaitė, mentioned several times, which advances a similar interpretation⁴, even though Dainora Pociūtė draws on this article relatively often.

In the section “Authorship of the book” (pp. xxxiii–xxxiv), drawing on the Polish “Preface to the kind reader” in KN and the work of linguist Antanas Jakulis, Dainora Pociūtė indicates who prepared, or may have prepared, each part of the book. After this useful and necessary overview, the author unexpectedly states, without elaboration, that “three written variants of the Lithuanian language had emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (p. xxxiv). Since so far the discussion has focused mainly on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a reader less familiar with the early period in the history of written Lithuanian may conclude from this statement that three written-language variants existed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. Such ambiguity could have been avoided had the author of the study elaborated on this claim at least somewhat or cited relevant literature.

Having introduced readers to the compilers of KN—Steponas Jaugelys Telega (pp. xxxiv–xxxvi), Samuelis Tomaševskis (pp. xxxvi–xxxvii), Jonas Božimovskis (pp. xxxvii–xxxviii), and Samuelis Minvydas (p. xxxviii)—Dainora Pociūtė turns to the book’s structure (pp. xxxix–xl) and considers how many books make up the convolute under review. Some (Dalia Jakulytė, Zigmas Zinkevičius) argue that it consists of three books; others (Juozas Tumelis, Ingė Lukšaitė, whom the author does not cite (2001: 4), and the author herself, with reservations) tend to regard it as a collection of four books. This view is based on the premise that the defining feature of a religious book has long been its genre. In seeking to substantiate this claim

⁴ Cf.: “Some doubts about Samuelis Tamašauskas (also known as Tomašauskas, Tomaszewski, c. 1605–1650) and Steponas Jaugelys Telega’s contribution to the preparation of the hymnbook were raised by Jonušas Radvila in his letter of 18 March 1653 to the elder Laurynas Kochanskis, when he remarked that the attribution of authorship to Telega was a pastor’s invention” (Lukšaitė 2001: 19).

RECENZIJOS

119

To substantiate this, Dainora Pociūtė writes: “Just as the Hebrew title of the Bible denoted ‘books,’ so Martynas Mažvydas’s Catechism, which contained not only a catechism but also a small hymnal and primer (not counting the dedications and prefaces that accompanied many books of that period), was called not a single ‘book’ (even though it had continuous pagination), but ‘booklets.’ Examples of this kind can also be found in literature printed in other languages” (p. xl). First, it is questionable whether the author needed to reach back from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to such distant times and lands, especially since she supplies neither the title Tanakh of the Hebrew Old Testament (which, incidentally, is also the one followed by Protestants; see Rubšys 1995: 1, 26) nor its meaning. Second, in explaining the meaning of Martynas Mažvydas’s word knygelės (nominative plural), Dainora Pociūtė forgot to remind readers that the Ukrainian linguist Anatolijus Nepokupnas had investigated the meaning of this derivative. According to his findings, Martynas Mažvydas’s knygelės “means not ‘a little book’ or ‘this book,’ as traditionally claimed in Lithuanian-language research, but ‘a textbook’” (Nepokupnas 1994: 75, 76). Moreover, when examining the meaning of the derivative knygelės used by Martynas Mažvydas, one probably ought not to forget the form of the base word knyga in seventeenth-century texts from Lithuania Minor. Since in seventeenth-century manuscript dictionaries the Lithuanian equivalent of the German word Buch is knygos (nominative plural) (see, for example, Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987: 106–107; Clavis Germanico–Lithuana 1997: 1, 408), it seems reasonable to suspect that the derivative knygeles may be a suffixal derivative of the plural form knygos.

Since Dainora Pociūtė’s arguments can be interpreted in various ways, it would therefore be most practical in this case, without going into detail, to adopt a strictly bibliographic approach and speak of three books, each with its own pagination as well as its own errata. The author herself takes this approach when discussing the separate parts of KN (pp. xl–xlv).

The introduction to the KN hymnal (pp. xl–xlii) begins by asserting that it “contains the texts of 100 psalm translations and 158 hymns (147 of them in the various main sections of the hymnal and 11 in its appendix ‘Giesmes Pridotka’)” (p. xl). But, apparently realizing that the first part of this statement might mislead the reader (given Samuel Chylinskis’s words, quoted on p. xxxix, that the hymnal contains “only 78 psalms of David, translated poetically from Polish”), the author immediately clarifies that in fact only 78 psalms are printed in the hymnal, 22 of them in two translation versions. And almost immediately after this clarification, she quite rightly refutes Vaclovas Biržiška’s assertion that the KN hymnal, “together with the other publications of the Kėdainiai printing house in 1653, was not a newly prepared and written book, but only a second, enlarged and somewhat corrected and supplemented edition of the 1598 catechism, only without the Polish text” (Biržiška 1990: 1, 289).

Everything the author says in this subsection is correct. It would, however, have been even more convincing had Dainora Pociūtė provided more statistical data here or in the subsection “KN’s relationship to Merkelis Petkevičius’s Catechism” (pp. xlv–xlvi). For, bearing in mind that PK contains translations of 40 psalms and 41 psalm texts (that is, Psalm 128 is presented in PK in two translation versions), and that 8 of these psalms (namely 26, 46, 67, 80, 82, 109, 117, 122) were omitted from the KN hymnal, we find that 46 psalms were translated into Lithuanian for the first time when the KN hymnal was prepared for publication (that is, 78 KN psalms – 32 PK psalms = 46 newly translated psalms).

The number of hymns in the KN hymnal supports Dainora Pociūtė’s point even more clearly. Since only a little over 50 hymns were printed in PK, it is clear that there is no basis for treating KN as a reprint of PK.

On the same occasion, I would also like to draw Dainora Pociūtė’s attention to the fact that, while preparing the long-promised critical editions of the parts of KN, she might try to explain why 22 psalms in the KN hymnal

120

RECENZIJOS

(namely 1, 3, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 51, 68, 86, 91, 103, 113, 118 (apparently incorrectly marked cviii in KN), 121, 127, 128, 130, 134, 142, 146) are presented in two translation versions. Could PK have influenced this presentation? For a merely cursory comparison of the texts reveals that in 17 of these 22 psalms in KN that are presented in two translation versions (namely 1, 3, 23, 27, 28, 32, 51, 86, 91, 103, 121, 127, 128, 130, 134, 142, 146), one version is closer to the text of PK. PK contains none of the remaining five psalms (namely 25, 30, 68, 113, 118) that have two translation versions in the KN hymnal. Might exploring these questions help clarify why the compilers of the KN hymnal omitted 6 PK psalms (namely 26, 46, 67, 80, 82, 109, 117, 122)?

Introducing readers to the KN postil Suma..., Dainora Pociūtė, drawing mainly on Antanas Jakulis’s provisional research, points out that the Lithuanian Kėdainiai version and the Polish texts of Grzegorz of Żarnowiec’s Postil are not equivalent and await further investigation. The view now established in the historiography of Lithuanian literature—that the KN Suma is a translation of Grzegorz of Żarnowiec’s Postil—is based on information in the Polish “Preface to the Kind Reader” in KN and, of course, is not precise.

It remains to praise the author for devoting a relatively brief subsection, “The Counterfactual 1684 Edition of Knyga nobžnystės krikščioniškos” (pp. xlvi–lii), to this topic. Drawing chiefly on the works of Juozas Tumelis, which are not easily accessible to all readers today, she not only clarifies them but also indicates clearly enough how the second—the counterfactual—edition of KN differs from the first. She also draws future readers’ attention to the fact that the catechism text included in the counterfactual edition was not that of the first KN edition, but rather was based on a slightly expanded catechism text published separately in Königsberg in 1680.

In describing the only known copy of KN at present, Dainora Pociūtė discusses in some detail the Latin and Polish inscriptions in the Uppsala copy and provides translations of them. From these we learn that one of the book’s authors, Samuelis Minvydas, presented this copy of KN to Paulius Gnatovskis, pastor of the Žiuproniai church, on March 27, 1656. Here I would also like to draw the attention of both the author and readers to an error that has crept into the translation of the first (Latin) inscription by Paulius Gnatovskis: instead of... honored Minvydas Stanislovas’s gift, it should read honored Minvydas Samuelis’s gift (p. lvi, second line from the top).

A second important point is that, in examining the inscriptions, the author also introduces readers to the rather colorful personality of Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld, the book’s former owner in Sweden (pp. lvi–lvii).

All those interested in the history of old Lithuanian books will read with interest the account of how a fragment of the prayer book from the first edition of KN, now held at the library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, came to be in that library (pp. lviii–lix).

The article in the reviewed publication concludes with two subsections: an overview of the history of research on KN paper watermarks (pp. lix–lxviii) and a description of the binding of the Uppsala copy. From the first, we learn that paper produced at two Vilnius paper mills was used for the first edition of KN (p. lxii), while from the second, that the Uppsala copy reached Sweden unbound, since the Swedish diplomat and collector Gabriel Sparwenfeld used so-called “Dutch” paper, made by the Frenchman Tuilledary Bauvais, to bind it (pp. lxiv–lxv).

Having turned not only the last page of the introduction but also that of the entire reviewed publication, one would like to rejoice once again that the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore has published a much-needed, high-quality work. And one would like to ask the editor of the book, Dainora Pociūtė, not to delay too long in preparing

RECENZIJOS

121

critical editions of the individual parts of KN, although this is an extraordinarily difficult and meticulous undertaking. The remarks made here, which may at times be overly subjective, were intended first and foremost to draw the editor’s attention to what should be clarified and examined in greater depth in future critical editions. And if these remarks prove even somewhat useful, their author will have achieved his aim.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

BIRŽIŠKA, V. 1990: Aleksandrynas 1, Vilnius: Sietynas.

Clavis Germanico–Lithuana 1997. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. I dalis: A–E, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2003: Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertimo santykis su originalais. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius.

KREGŽDĖ, J. 1978: Lietuvos reformato raštija, Chicago: Devenių kultūrinio fondo leidinys.

Lexicon Lithuanicum 1987. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LUKŠAITĖ, I. 1999: Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

LUKŠAITĖ, I. 2001: Knygos nobžanystės (1653) parengimo kultūrinė aplinka. Knyga nobžanystės krikščioniškos (1653), XVII a. Lietuvos kultūros paminklas, Kėdainiai: Kėdainių krašto muziejus, 4–29.

NEPOKUPNAS, A. 1994: M. Mažvydo „Katekizmo“ – bylojančio vadovėlio (knygelių) vaizdas istorijos ir kultūros kontekste. Protestantizmas Lietuvoje: istorija ir dabartis, Vilnius: Apyaušris, 70–77.

RUBŠYS, A. 1995: Raktas į Senąjį Testamentą 1, Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis.

Juozas Karaciejus Institute of the Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

Received 2004 12 12

BERTHOLD FORSSMAN

LETTISCHE GRAMMATIK

Dettelbach: J. H. Röll, 2001, 418 p., ISBN 3-89754-194-7 (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 20)

Berthold Forssman’s Latvian Grammar, as stated in its “Preface,” is intended not only for Indo-Europeanists and Balticists but also for Slavicists and other linguists interested both in contemporary written Latvian and in the historical grammar of the language. Although written sources attest to Baltic languages only relatively late, their phonetics and well-preserved inflectional systems are considered highly archaic. The author of the grammar also notes that Jānis Endzelīns’s Latvian Grammar, published in 1923, was and remains an indispensable model textbook; however, it is too detailed for beginners learning Latvian, difficult to use in practice, and lacks connections to contemporary literary Latvian. Thus, B. Forssman’s grammar, which is the subject of this review, serves as a kind of bridge between contemporary literary Latvian and its historical treatment, while the synchronic chapters provided can serve as an introduction for those interested in Latvian. The author of the grammar also emphasizes that knowledge of Lithuanian is essential for Indo-Europeanists; accordingly, Lithuanian material is used contrastively in the diachronic chapters, but,