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

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE QUESTIONS XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS AND STUDIES Pietro U. DINI ABOUT J. GERULIS —MAŽVYDO (GA, MPr) PUBLISHER Writing about the publication of the ancient writings of the Lithuanian language, already A. Augstkalnis (1935: 156) observed that "in the future we must beware of repeating the mistakes of the past. And if everyone remains silent, as the reviewers have done so far, it can really happen." In fact, these words are also very appropriate for Mažvydas’s texts and their editions: I would like to draw the attention of Lithuanian philologists to this in this report, discussing two Mažvydas’s texts: Ambraziejaus (hereinafter GA) and Paraphrase (hereinafter referred to as MPr)!. : 1. First of all about Mazvydo Parafrazi. In one of his articles in the series on Mažvydas's writings in probégom, Z. Zinkevičius noted in a footnote that: "The diacritics of letter 1 in the photographable text of the Baptism of the Form and Paraphrasing by J. Gerulis in the 1922 edition, as shown by comparison with the available microfilms, are printed in places unclearly or are not printed at all. Whether such examples exist in the text of Gerulis's edition of hymns cannot be determined without the original" (Zinkevičius 1978: 38, footnote 45). And indeed, if we look at, for example, the MPr text, which is kept in the Uppsala University library, and compare it, even if very superficially, with the text published by Gerulis, it falls to the eye (despite other minor phenomena) that the letters <u> are often corrected by <u>. More precisely, it can be affirmed that in the photographic edition of MPr Gerulis the phenomenon <u>—-<ū> is found even 15 times in the following forms: 135, 13 times written <tu>, while the MPr original is <tū>; 136, 8 is written <nug>, and MPr original is <nūg>; 137, 9 is written <rocjitu duna>, while the original MPr is <rocžitū dūna>; 137, 10 is written <nug>, and MPr original is <nūg>; 139, 8 is written <nug>, and MPr original is <nūg>; 139, 18 is written <du/ti>, while the original MPr is <dū/ti>; 140, 6 is written <nug>, and MPr original is <nūg>; 140, 8 is written <Duna>, while the original MPr is <Dūna>; 140, 13 is written <ku>, and MPr original is <kū>; 410, 20 is written <tu>, and MPr original is <tū>; 142, 2 is written <i/chdutas>, and The original MPr is <i/chdūtas>; 140, 4 is written <Schitu>, while the original MPr is <Schitū>; 147, 1 is written <duk>, and MPr original is <dūk>; 148, 1 is written <duki>, and the MPr original is <dūki>. This is only one case, perhaps not very significant, but it shows what else 1 This report was prepared during an internship at Vilnius University (1993.09.17— 1993.10.08- ); it was funded by CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE. 21 could be expected from the scientific edition of Mažvydas’ writings, not contenting with Gerulis’ photographic reprint of 1922 (repeated in 1923). 2.Last time I have "set a point" to my research about the second monument of Lithuanian literature — the GA of M. Mažvydas published in 1549 in Karaliaučius (Dini 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989 and finally 1993*). While preparing the monograph and examining the text, which was also included in Gerulis’ 1922 and 1923 editions, I noticed some peculiarities of this work by Mažvydas, which I think it is very appropriate to talk about at this conference. Among the objectives of the aforementioned study was the task of identifying a more accurate GA text. GA was found by chance in 1897 by the Polish bibliographer Z. Celichowski in the Kurnik library near Poznań and published in the same year. It is important to note that Celichowski’s text published in 1897 was used by J. Gerulis (in 1922 and 1923) and all other subsequent publishers of GA. However, after careful examination of the GA original and comparing it with later editions, I can boldly state that in some places the photographed GA text published by Gerulis requires corrections. In total, six correctable forms were found, about which it is worth saying something in more detail and for a sub-point. These forms are divided into four types: 1) spelling a wrong letter, 2) inserting an unnecessary letter, 3) removing a necessary letter, 4) dropping the diacritics of the nasal letters. The first type is the most diverse: | 1897) 1822 – Janusz Korczak, Polish poet (d. sg., and the original is <pauta> id. ; <a>—<u>: Gerulis 88, 3 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 29) gives <am Jia> gen. sg., while the original is <amfiu> gen. pl. ; ) | <i>—<[>, <r>—<i>: Gerulis 91, 22 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 32) gives <iichgr> prefix, while the original is <i/chgi> id. ; | <r>—<x>: Gerulis 92, 14 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 33) gives <linrmay> adv. and the original is <linxmay> id. The second type has only one form: <-3>—<,>: Gerulis 86, 2 gives <3jmogu3>, while the original is <zmogu,> acc. sg., cf. original context: Tu on i[chgelbeghima prieymdams 3mo | gu, nef[ibay[- eijey mergos c3iftos kuna. I think that Celichowski, i.e. the first publisher of GA (with little or no knowledge of Lithuanian!), retouching the text for the press, in the lines mentioned between the words žmogu and nef [ibay[eijey incorrectly added the letter 4, probably to mark a comma. Since all subsequent GA publishers uncritically adopted Celichowski's text, such an error has reached us; based on morphosyntactic arguments, I had already pointed out this elsewhere (Dini 1987), and now it is confirmed by the study of the original. By the way, at this point there is a noticeable difference between 2 This monograph creates a systematic picture of the phenomenology of GA sources, as well as of Mažvydas’s activity as a translator, and specifies the method by which Mažvydas’s texts are studied. As is known, A was presented as an Easter gift to the then ruler of Ragainė county, where Mažvydas was soon to be pastored. The work consists of three Easter hymns: the main * Tawe diewa garbinam” and “Per tawa [chwenta priekelima” and “Chri/tus Diewas mu [[u”. 22 It was printed in 1549 and published in 1550. The third type is also found only in one form:; 6—< [>: Gerulis 92, 7 gives < /unu>, and the original is < funus> nom. sg., cf. the context of the original: Chriftus [unus Diewa, Welnuwa pra | wtija, i sama pamine, galwa ijo [utri | ne. Since Gerulis does not follow Celichowski in this one case (cf. 1897: 33), there is reason to believe that this is a trivial printing error, which occurred when reprinting Celichowski’s text, due to the fading of the ink. Finally, the fourth type is the richest in examples. This is the dropping of the diacritic of the nosíné letter on average once every second page: <a>—<a>: Gerulis 81, 15 (cf. Celichowski 1897; 22) gives <ta> pron. acc. s.g. f., and the original is <that> id. ; Gerulis 82, 3 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 23) gives <amfinaghi> acc.sg., while the original is <amfinąghi> id. ; Gerulis 85, 2 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 26) gives <Cje [tingaghi> acc. sg., and the original is <Cje[tingaghi> id. ; Gerulis 90, 9 (cf. Celichowski 1987: 31) gives <dangu> acc. sg., while the original is <dangu> id., the dropping of the diacritics is also suspect in Gerulio 83, 5. <e>—<g>: Gerulis 81, 12 and 81, 13 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 22) gives <ije> acc. sg., and the original is <ije> id. ; Gerulis 83, 1 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 24) gives <tawe[p] acc. sg., while the original is <tawe, [p> id., the nosines marking is also suspected in Gerulio 82, 5 and 82, 6. In addition, also Gerulio 86, 6 (cf. Celichowski 1897: 27). It is clear that Gerulis took Celichowski’s text published in 1897 rather uncritically in his editions, without looking at the original, which was then, as it is now, stored in Kurnik’s library. Here I would not like to talk about Gerulis’s own lack of openness as a philologist (although it is difficult to imagine how the GA original could have been inaccessible to him), but these six correctable forms, although few in number, are nonetheless significant and worthy of attention, because they prove once again that other works by Mažvydas could also require corrections. In other words, the MPr and GA cases show that this situation is typical for both those Mažvydo writings that were discovered and published for the first time by Gerulis himself, and those that were discovered and published for the first time not by Gerulis. This raises the question of whether the publication of Gerulis Mažvydas’ writings can still be trusted. Gerulis’ 1922 and 1923 editions of Mažvydas’ writings have a great merit in that they made all the works of the founder of Lithuanian literature accessible to a broad reader. In his review of Gerulis' publication, Būga wrote: "Now Mažvydas' writings are available to everyone who wants to read them. So, let's explore Mažvydas! Mažvydas gives work not only to a linguist, but also to other representatives of philology” (Būga 1961: 691). Unfortunately, his appeal did not have the expected response, and, paradoxically enough, those photographed reprints are far from encouraging further palaeographical investigations, because they have, I would say, "embalmed" Mažvydas' own writings*. i 3 It is important to note how a similar role was played in Prussian studies by R. Trautman- 's work "Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmaler" (Göttingen, 1910). 23 It is high time that the ice of the scientific edition of Mažvydas’ writings began to move… Perhaps today Gerulis’ book can no longer be considered a scientific edition of Mažvydas’ writings. | LITERATURE Būga K. 1961: Selected Writings 3, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House. GA —Mažvydas M. Gie[me S. Ambra eijaus bey S. Augu[tina... Karalaucjuy, MPr —Mažvydas M. Paraphrasis, permanitina poteraus malda... 1549. Karalaucjuy, Augstkalns A. 1935: Smulkūs pastebėjimai. —Archivum Philologicum 1589. 5, Celichowski Z. 1897: M. Mosswida Waitkuna Lithuanian translation of Te Deum Laudamus 149—159. from 1549, Poznan. Dini P. U. 1984: Martynas Mažvydas and the language of St. Ambrose's Song. — Europa Orientalis 3, 17—31. Id. 1986: About Mažvydas's translation of Te Deum in 1549. —Baltistica 22(1), 66—75. Id. 1987: On the phenomenology of Mažvydo translations and sources I: Gie/me s. Ambrafeijaus bey s. Augu/tina. —Baltistica 23(1), 52—56. Id. 1989: On the Phenomenology of Mažvydas' Translations and Sources II: Gie [me Schwenta Dwa [fe mu fump ateik. —Kalbotyra 40(1), 11—16. Id. 1993: The Anthem of St. Ambrose by Martynas Mažvydas. The second Lithuanian linguistic monument. A philological-- linguistic study of the ancient Lithuanian text (1549) and its Latin and Polish sources, Rome, 1993. 1922. pp. 22. "Small". The oldest Lithuanian language monuments up to 1570, Kaunas. Id. 1923: Mosvid. The oldest Lithuanian language monuments up to 1570, Heidelberg. Zinkevičius ŽZ. 1978: The language of M. Mažvydas' writings. —Baltistica 14(1), 38—44. 24