Slavizmai Lizijaus ir Engelio katekizmuose: gretinamoji analizė

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS Pietro U. DINI SLAVISMS IN THE LYSIUS AND ENGEL CATECHISMS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 0. This paper is yet another attempt to emphasize the importance and relevance of studying early writings for Lithuanian studies. At the same time, this could be no less important and relevant to the theme of this conference. The texts examined here from the perspective of Slavic loanwords come from early eighteenth-century Lithuania Minor, where the struggle against the Germanization of the region was still under way. These are the catechisms of Lysius and Engel, familiar to specialists and bibliographers—both translated from German. It is known that Henrikas Johanas Lizijus (H. J. Lysius, 1670–1731), school inspector in East Prussia during the second decade of the eighteenth century (1718–1719) and the author of a project to accelerate Germanization in Lithuanian-inhabited areas, prepared a Lithuanian manuscript version in 1719, that is, a “Kleiner Katechismus.” It is also known that Gabrielius Engelis (G.Engel, 1685–1761) was particularly hostile toward him and his intentions. In 1721 he became the new inspector, and in 1722 he sent to press Mažą Katgismą D.[aktaro] Mertino Luteraus lietuviškay ir vokiškay (...) iš naujo Tilžėje mete 1722 perveizdėta. The linguistic features of these works, as well as their actual relationship, have not yet been studied. Opinions on the relationship between the texts, in particular, vary, but are always presented without suitable comparative evidence: in the second volume of "Aleksandrynas" (1963, 7), V.Biržiška wrote that Engel “substantially corrected” it, whereas "Mažojoje lietuvių tarybinėje enciklopedijoje"(2, 467) states that Engel published the Catechism “with minor changes.” It is particularly surprising that such a claim could be made, since Lysius’s manuscript disappeared after the Second World War, and it was only two years ago that the author of these lines was fortunate enough to discover it in the library of the University of Kraków1. I will consider many aspects of this question in greater detail on another occasion, perhaps. In this paper I will confine myself to a few textual observations that could be significant in characterizing, in broad terms, the affinity between these works. Although I will present only a handful of pieces of evidence, I believe they will suffice to show that neither of the two opinions mentioned above accords with the textual evidence. 1 Žr. Aut. Del Lizijaus "Mažojo Katekizmo" berlyniškio rankraščio // Baltistica, 1989. T. 25. 33 1. Engel’s Catechism is considerably longer than Lysius’s. The former has 72 pages, printed in parallel columns in German and Lithuanian, as well as another 15 pages containing only Lithuanian text; Lysius’s manuscript, by contrast, consists of just 55 leaves. Moreover, even a superficial comparative analysis of the texts would suffice to show that the Catechisms differ considerably. More precisely, Engel’s Catechism consists of the text of Lysius’s Catechism together with additional sections prepared by Engel: some of these new sections are inserted into the text of Lysius’s Catechism, while others are presented separately, before and after Lysius’s Catechism itself. 2. In discussing Slavisms in the aforementioned Catechisms, the most interesting comparison for present purposes would be between Lysius’s original and the reproduction of that same text in Engel’s “revised” version. The catechisms of Lysius and Engel are both rich in Slavisms. There are about 160 in Lysius’s work, and no fewer in Engel’s2. The following discussion draws on a comparative analysis of the texts to present and examine several cases in which the Catechism compilers’ approaches to Slavisms differ. In revising Lysius’s manuscript, Engel not only inserted new sections of text but also sought to standardize the spelling and, in places, correct individual forms. With regard to Slavisms, it should be noted that Engel’s Catechism has a fairly consistent spelling of forms of the verb šlūžyti, of Slavic origin, with initial /š/ (22, 3 ßlužiti, 22, 24 ßlužiciau, 49, 1 užßlužijes, etc.) instead of /s/, as throughout Lysius’s manuscript: 13 Služiti, 16, 8 Služiciau, 31 3 užßlužijes; the exception here is the form 36, 19 ßluzma). An example of a correction is the form pasninkauti (39, 14 Pasninkaut’), where Engel changes the variant of Lysius’s manuscript text pasninkauti (29, 2 Pálnikaut’). However, substitution is characteristic of Engel’s approach to revision. Substitution may be direct or indirect; in other words, a loanword is replaced by another individual word or by a paraphrase. Let us first consider cases in which a loanword is directly replaced by a separate Lithuanian word. For instance, where Lysius uses the rare loanword valė (38, 15), whose Slavic origin is disputed, the corresponding passage in Engel’s edition gives the Lithuanian form valdžia (60, 8). It is interesting that, although the words differ semantically, they occur in the same context. Thus Lysius writes: Kožna Dubia tur but padūta Wyraulybei Waļę ant jós turrincżej. Engel, meanwhile, gives this variant: Kožna Dubia tur buti padūta Wyraulybei Waldžia ant jós turrincżej. 2 See Author, “O slavizmach u Lysiusa” (BJ, Ms. Slav. Quart. 4) // Sprawozdania z posiedzeń komisji naukowych Oddziału PAN w Krakowie and Author, “Slavismi e germanismi lessicali nel catechismo lituano di Lysius del 1719” // Annali della facolta’ di lettere dell’universita’ della Basilicata, 1989. 34 Let us now examine paraphrase—an indirect means of substitution—whereby Engel indirectly replaces a loanword with an explanatory paraphrase. One example is when Lysius, in a manner very common in ecclesiastical style, uses in a chapter heading of the Catechism a word that entered Lithuanian from Polish, koznadėja (from the Polish word kaznodzieja). The contexts are the same; Lysius writes: Wykupams, Klebbonams ir Koźnadėjams (37, 1), while the corresponding passage in Engel's edition gives a paraphrase: Wyłkupams Klebonams ir Bažnyčios Kunigams (58, 2). Interestingly, in seeking to avoid a word of Slavic origin, Engel seems unwittingly to use another Slavism (i.e., Lithuanian bažnyčia, from the Old Russian word božnica)! 3. Here it is worth pausing over a disputed loanword (also found in Lysius's Catechism)—the very rare Lithuanian plural form parendininkai, found only in texts written in Lithuania Minor3. It is a nomen agentis, formed from the verb parėndyti “beichten; to confess” with the suffix *-iniko-, and related to the form parėndas (masc.) / parėnda (fem.) “communion.” Also found alongside these are the forms parėdyti “zubereiten; to prepare,” parėdnas, parėdningas “ordentlich, tüchtig; orderly, capable,” parėdkas, parėt­kas “Ordnung; order.” Their Belarusian origin is indicated by the correspondence of Lithuanian -ė- with Belarusian -ja-, cf. the verb rjadit'-sja4. To explain the relationship between the nasal and non-nasal forms, one may hypothesize that the Belarusian form was partly Polonized phonetically and acquired a new semantic meaning. Something similar occurs, as Otrębski5 observed, with the nasal form *pa-reñjic in the Tverečius dialect (based on the form rašipareñžija “roz-porządził się”), which is semantically related to the non-nasal verb parėdyti “zubereiten, zuberichten; to prepare.” Here one should probably understand “the preparation of a believer’s heart” before communion; thus, the meaning is “beichten; to confess.” But let us return to Lysius. His catechism contains the following sentence: Apie Graudinimą Parendininkų (57, 13), while the same sentence in Engel reads: Graudinimas prie Diewo Stalo / einančiųmp (86, 1). Thus the Lithuanian plural form parendininkai is replaced by the paraphrase—those going to the Lord’s table [people]—most likely because it was considered not to be understood by everyone. 4. It is also worth noting that Engel treats Slavisms inconsistently in some places. Sometimes he retains the form used by Lysius, sometimes he changes it. A good example is the following sentence by Lysius: Kągi tu užlužijęs elfi Griekas 3 LKŽ IX 417; P. Skardžius does not mention it; see: Skardžius P. Die slawischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen // Tauta ir žodis, 1931. Vol. 7. P. 1-252. 4 Cf. Buga K. Die litauisch-weißrussischen Beziehungen und ihr Alter // Zeit. f. sl. Phil. 1, 1925-RR T. 3. V. 1963. P. 749-778. 5 Cf. Otrębski J. Wschodniolitewskie Narzecze Twereckie. Part III. Zapożyczenia słowiańskie. Published by the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences. Kraków, 1932. 35 ławo? (31, 3), which Engel reproduces unchanged in one place in his edition (49, 1), but elsewhere changes to: Ką pelnęs elfi ławo Griekas nū Diewo? (42, 25). The verb compositum of Slavic origin užsłużyti (cf. Old Polish zasłuzyć) is rendered by Engel as the Lithuanian predicative phrase ‘to have earned’. There are also cases to the contrary, though fewer of them. For example, Engel replaces the Lithuanian form (ne-)tikėti given by Lysius with the verb of Slavic origin (ne-)vierýti in the same context. For instance, Lysius says: O kur’s Bittiems žodžiems netik’, arba abbejoj’, tas newertingas (39, 26), whereas Engel has: O kuris Bitiems žodžiams niewierij’ arba abejój’ tas newertingas (39, 26). 5. So, what is the translators’ and editors’ attitude toward the use of Slavisms? Or, more precisely: can we speak of a conscious approach to loanwords? At least two points deserve attention. The abundance of Slavisms belonging to the ecclesiastical sphere in early Lithuanian writing was due to the significant influence of Belarusian and Polish on the developing Christian terminology of the Lithuanian language. On the other hand, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, a debate was taking place in Lithuania Minor about which language should be used to address the common people (loquendum cum vulgo); thus, Lysius’s proofreaders were probably most concerned with avoiding as many loanwords from German as possible, while Slavisms, in their view, were little or not at all marked as foreign, since they had long been established in Lithuanian. It is interesting to note, however, that the new sections of the text prepared by Engel contain fewer Slavisms than the reprinted portions of Lysius’s catechism, although there is no shortage of contrasts there either. Overall, Engel’s work shows a marked tendency in places to use fewer foreign forms. This raises the question: should we regard Engel as a fairly resolute defender of the language? In any case, the evidence available here is insufficient to support such a supposition firmly, since, as the examples given show, it is often very difficult or simply impossible to determine where spontaneous stylistic selection ends and conscious “language policy” begins. SLAVIC LOANWORDS IN THE CATECHISMS OF LYSIUS AND ENGEL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Summary Nach dem Vergleichen der Handschrift des Katechismus von H. J. Lysius, datierter 1719, mit dem im Jahre 1722 gedrucktem Katechismus von G. Engel wurde es festgestellt, daß der Katechismus von Engel viel größer ist: er beträgt den Text des Katechismus von Lysius und die von Engel geschriebenen Teile. Engel korrigierte auch den Text von Lysius. Die von Lysius gebrauchten Slavischen Lehnwörter verbesserte er nicht selten zu echt litauischen Wörtern, z. B.: užsłużyti: pelnyti "verdienen, gewinnen". Doch kommen auch einige Verbesserungen der gegensätzlichen Art vor (z. B. netikėti: nevie ryti "unglauben"). Außerdem gibt es in den von Engel geschriebenen Teilen weniger Slavischer Lehnwörter als in dem von Lysius nachgedrucktem Text. 36