ŽODŽIŲ FORMOS IR JŲ VARTOSENA LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

Z. ZINKEVIČIUS

THE LANGUAGE OF S. M. SLAVOČINSKIS’S HYMNAL (1646)

The author dedicates this article to the memory of Prof. Dr. Jurgis Lebedys, the first researcher of the hymnal

Researchers regard the language of S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnal as a mixture of various dialects. The academic history of Lithuanian literature states that although “the Samogitian dialect forms the basis of the hymnal, efforts to combine elements of various dialects and make the hymnal accessible to the broadest possible readership of Lithuanians are clearly evident here”¹.

The editor of the facsimile edition of the hymnal and its first researcher, Prof. Dr. Jurgis Lebedys, writes that “the dialectal basis of the hymnal is not very pronounced; it does not immediately catch the eye, but is nevertheless readily discernible. Many phonetic, morphological, and, in part, lexical and syntactic features link the hymnal with the Samogitian dialect”². Having indicated the characteristic Samogitian features, the researcher concludes that “the translator was a Samogitian dūnininkas, but he vacillated, or his work was revised by others”³. Having brought to light some elements of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect in the hymnal, J. Lebedys hypothesizes that “it is possible that the translator of the hymnal, using K. Sirvydas’s dictionary, was sometimes unable to distinguish dialectal phonetics, or unconsciously succumbed to its influence and took a word from the dictionary in the form in which it appeared there”⁴. Having established that “quite a number of the hymnal’s phonetic and, in part, morphological features are characteristic of transitional dialects”⁵, the author draws the following conclusion: “In preparing the hymnal, an effort was made to accommodate as large a number of inhabitants as possible. The translator himself—and this is not to mention those who may have revised his work—probably knew more than just his own dialect. It should be assumed that at least a superficial knowledge of other dialects, the desire to be read more widely, and the example of earlier writers helped smooth out the dialectal differences. Inconsistencies and vacillations may also be explained by the absence of a firm criterion and an established norm for the literary language”⁶.

J. Palionis, essentially agreeing with J. Lebedys’s conclusions, observes that “the language of the hymnal contains a considerable mixture of dialects: elements of the Samogitian dūnininkai, Western Aukštaitian—especially Veliuona—Central Lithuanian, and Eastern Lithuanian dialects”⁷.

¹History of Lithuanian Literature. I. The Feudal Era. Edited by Prof. K. Korsakas. Vilnius, 1957, p. 151.

²J. Lebedys, The Hymnal of 1646. – S. M. Slavočinskis, Hymns Appropriate to the Catholic Faith 1646. Facsimile edition. Vilnius, 1958, p. 20.

³J. Lebedys, ibid., p. 21.

⁴Ibid., p. 24.

⁵Ibid.

⁶Ibid., pp. 24–25.

⁷ J. Palionis, Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius, 1967, p. 90.

137

The mixture of dialects in S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnal, emphatically highlighted by researchers, also attracted the author of this article, prompting him to undertake a special investigation of the language of the hymnal from this perspective⁸, to identify the elements of the individual dialects present and localize them, to shed light on the process of translating the hymns and preparing the hymnal for print, and finally to bring out the hymnal’s significance for the history of the Lithuanian language and historical dialectology. The author hoped that comparing the localized dialectal elements in a hymnal from the mid-seventeenth century with corresponding dialect data from the present day would help clarify the origins and development of certain phenomena in the Lithuanian language.

Elements of the Samogitian dialect

We must agree with the conclusion of earlier researchers that the hymnal’s translator was a Samogitian. The hymnal exhibits the following features of the Samogitian dialect:

1. The consonants t, d are used instead of the affricates č, dž before the old short vowel *a; for example, n. pl. medey II 109₁₁ ‘trees’, ʒodey II 29₁₇ ‘words’, i. pl. Erβkieteys II 84₂ ‘with thistles’, peteys I 97₁₈ ‘with shoulders’, žodeys I 18₉ ‘with words’, a. sg. f. ne turinte II 10₁₀ ‘not having’, Priderante I 3₁₅ ‘befitting’, 3. praes. gieyd I 131₂₈ ‘desires’, Jaut II 29₈ ‘feels’, kient I 92₄ ‘suffers’, refl. glaudes II 6₂₁ ‘draws close’, 2. pl. praes. kientete II 20₂₃ ‘you suffer’, adv. didey II 12₂₅ ‘greatly’, kartey I 88₉ ‘bitterly’, /skaystey II 5₂₃ ‘brightly’. Compare also a. sg. m. kiantanti I 87₇ ‘suffering’, g. pl. refl. meldénčiuße I 140₄ ‘of those praying’, i.e. ‘of those who pray’, d. pl. m. meldéntiems II 82₂₃ ‘to those praying’, a. pl. m. iautančius II 102₂₆ ‘those who feel’, kientančius II 4₁₆ ‘those who suffer’, a. pl. f. Gieydénčias II 110₁₅ ‘those who desire’. Altogether, the hymnal contains 51 examples in which the “Samogitian sound law” is preserved. The hymnal has no examples of t, d before old *ā and back vowels, as found in the western part of the present-day Samogitian dialect.

2. The diphthongs uo, ie are often replaced in the hymnal by the “dūnininkai” monophthongs ū, ī; for example, a) g. sg. gluśnio II 60₂₃ ‘of the willow’, a. sg. kuodeli I 66₁₇ ‘a tuft’, a. pl. obulus I 65₁ ‘apples’, 3. praet. pule I 53₁₇ ‘fell’, i. pl. /słutomis I 78₁₇ ‘with brooms’, 2. sg. praet. ßlußtey II 76₁₀ ‘you wiped’; b) g. sg. Diwa II 126₁ ‘of God’, inf. gidot I 42₂₁ ‘to sing’, ißkoti I 131₁₇ ‘to seek’, g. sg. Iwos I 15₁₃ ‘of Eve’, l. sg. lipßnoy I 129₁₅ ‘in the flame’, a. pl. f. ißlitas II 27₂ ‘poured out’, g. pl. pitu I 148₁₃ ‘of the south’, prip II 26₁₂ ‘against’, l. sg. filwarte II 9₂₅ ‘in sorrow’, a. sg. ßniga II 23₉ ‘snow’, adv. ßiedina I 71₉ ‘today’, praep. tis I 25₈ ‘toward’, adv. Tifey II 90₁₃ ‘straight’, l. sg. winibiey I 129₁₉ ‘in unity’; c) i. sg. m. tu I 103₁₆ ‘by that’, n. pl. m. Ti II 44₁₈ ‘those’, g. sg. ßalis II 104₁₃ ‘of the country’, 3. fut. Ißlußus I 30₁₀ ‘I will release, set free’, 1. sg. refl. iaučius II 55₂₀ ‘I feel’, 1. sg. fut. Raßiut I 65₁₃ ‘I will write to you’ (~ rašiuo t[i]). Altogether, approximately three and a half hundred examples of ū, ī replacing uo, ie have been counted in the hymnal⁹. The words gluśnis, Ieva, kuodelis, pietūs, sielvartas, šluota, šluostyti, ties, and the present-tense forms of the verb likti are written only in the Samogitian form. The hymnal has no Aukštaitian variants of these words and forms. Samogitian forms of the words ieškoti, liepsna, and the verb

⁸The object of study was the facsimile edition published by J. Lebedys in 1958. Its missing pages were supplemented with photocopies made from a microfilm of a complete copy held at the Ossoliński Library in Wrocław (Poland), which is kept at the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR.

⁹An exact number cannot be given, since some forms may be interpreted in two ways. For example, the ending -tis of an infinitive reflexive form (e.g., girdėtis I 139₂₁ ‘to be heard’) could be interpreted not only as Samogitian -tis (= Aukštaitian -ties), but also as an Aukštaitian variant -tis.

138

the corresponding forms of the present-tense forms of pulti, the 1. sg. m. pronoun, 1. sg. reflexive verbs, n. pl. m. reflexive participles, and certain other endings.

3. The vowels o, ė are often diphthongized; for example, a) g. sg. m. Tuo I 72₂₀ ‘of that’, g. sg. f. tuos I 77₈ ‘of that’, n. pl. f. tuos I 44₁₂ ‘those’, 1. pl. tupuoße I 105₁₁ ‘on the lips’, 3. praes. šildot I 59₂₁ ‘it warms you’ (~ šildot [i]); b) 3. praes. Biega I 19₂₀ ‘runs’, inf. dieti II 31₃ ‘to put’, 3. praet. ieme II 14₁₅ ‘took’, 1. sg. fut. girdiesiu II 48₂₀ ‘I will hear’, 3 praet. kwiepawa I 62₁₇ ‘breathed’, 1. sg. mieble II 58₁ ‘manured’, 3. praes. nier II 82₁₅ ‘is not’, g. sg. pawießio II 64₁₉ ‘of the shade’, g. sg. Tiewa I 74a₁₈ ‘of the father’, a. pl. vąmušieius II 26₆ ‘killers’, n. sg. m. wietringas II 40₂ ‘stormy’, n. pl. žwieris II 66₁₂ ‘beasts’; c) n. sg. Duktie I 104₁₉ ‘daughter’, g. sg. garbies II 53₁₃ ‘of honor’, 1. sg. žiamiey II 10₂₂ ‘on the ground’, d. pl. žmoniems I 98₄ ‘to people’, 1. pl. žiamieſa I 99₂ ‘on the ground’, 3. refl. Iauties I 87₁₉ ‘felt’, 2. pl. refl. wadinaties II 9₂₀ ‘you are called’. The vowel ė is diphthongized much more often. In positions other than after k, g, š, ž (after these consonants, the letter i may be a palatalization marker), 159 examples were found. Diphthongization of the vowel o is much rarer: only 12 examples were found in all, all with o > uo in inflection or in monosyllabic pronoun forms.

4. In general, ą, ę, y, į are treated in the Samogitian manner: the nasal element is preserved in word stems and oxytonic endings, while it is usually absent from barytonic endings.

The old nasal vowels ą, ę in stems and oxytonic endings are denoted by the letters ą, ę or by ą, ę with a “cross-stroke” (because of technical constraints, in the examples in this article we replace them with ą, ę), and also by the letter combinations an, en (rarely)¹⁰; for example, a) adv. drąſey II 58₂₆ ‘boldly’, a. sg. įgałti II 24₁₉ ‘to frighten’, inf. gražinti II 99₂₀ ‘to return’, 1. sg. fut. ne ikanſiu I 64₁₅ ‘I will not bite’, i. pl. kaſnays II 19₂ ‘with sores’, a. pl. ſpaſtus II 93₂₅ ‘traps’, 3. praet. taſi I 91₅ ‘dragged’; b) 3. praes. ne dręſ I 76b₆ ‘does not dare’ (~ nedreſa), Grež II 6₂₁ ‘squeezes’, inf. Kieſt I 155₂₂ ‘to endure’; c) a. sg. amą I 45₁₃ ‘that one, him’, kure I 93₁₂ ‘which’, g. sg. manęs I 67₄, tawes I 17₅ ‘of you’, ſawes I 17₆ ‘of oneself’, n. sg. m. neſąs I 121₂₂ ‘carrying’, n. pl. m. ſergą II 114₁₁ ‘those who are ill.’ In some places, especially in texts printed in Gothic type, the “cross-stroke” is indistinctly printed, considerably or even almost entirely worn away. A clear exception is the singular allative forms manęsp, tawęsp, sawęsp, systematically written without the nasalization mark, i.e. manęſp, tawęſp, ſawęſp (why?), although the corresponding genitives manęs, tavęs, savęs usually bear the nasalization mark (at least 104 of 110 examples)¹¹.

In barytonic endings, the letters a, e are generally written instead of the old ą, ę, without any nasalization mark. Of the approximately 1,200 examples in the hymnal of the nominal singular accusative ending -ą, only a dozen or so were found that might be suspected of having a “cross-stroke”; even these examples are not entirely clear, since either the stroke is indistinct (perhaps clearest in the word wargą I 135₁₇), or they could also be plural genitives (e.g., Teyſingą I 93₅, Piktą I 99₁₅ ‘righteous?’, ‘wicked?’) with the oxytonic ending -ų, which in the hymnal is often written -ą (more precisely, a with a “cross-stroke”). The stem-type accusative singular ending -ę, marked with a nasal letter ė, occurs somewhat more frequently: 53 instances (not all equally clear) among nearly 300 examples. Nevertheless, as we can see, -e ‘-ę’ clearly predominates here as well (about 82% of all examples). The same applies to ę in the past-tense—

¹⁰ On the confusion between the graphemes ą, ę and an, en, compare the spellings šiediena I 71₄ or šiedina I 71₉, ‘today’ (22 examples), Neſąg II 49₅ ‘will carry’ (~ nesang), tęn I 117₁₃ ‘there’ (a dozen or so examples each), 3. praet. Kienėta II 75₂₈ ‘suffered’.

¹¹ Only three genitive examples have an entirely clear letter ę (with no trace of any nasalization mark) (I 127₁₀, II 43₁₃, 119₁₀); the cross-stroke on three others may have worn away. Nevertheless, those three examples with e, if they are not simply typographical errors, could indicate that the translator’s speech at the time had a shortened barytonic variant manęs, tavęs, savęs, now universally established in the present-day Samogitian dialect.

139

in the endings of participles: of the 145 examples found of the n. sg. ending -ęs, 134 are written with a clear -es or -ias (without a nasalization mark or traces of one); all 25 examples found of the n. pl. ending -ę are written with -e or -ia (no “transverse twig” appears to have broken off)¹². No baritone forms of present-tense participles with the endings -ąs, pl. -ą were observed at all.

Thus, in the translator’s native dialect, as in present-day Samogitian, the baritone endings already had a short, denasalized vowel a, e¹³.

The nasal vowels u, i in the hymnbook are marked with the letters u, i (the printing house did not have the letters ų, į or ų, į with a “transverse twig”); sometimes they are represented by a letter combination with n, and ą is also written instead of ų (more precisely, a with a “transverse twig”).

Only 8 forms of the verb siųsti ‘to send’ were found with the archaic nasal vowel in the word root; in 7 of them, the letter combination un appears instead of ų, e.g., 2. sg. imp. Siun/k II 10₂₁ ‘send!’, n. sg. m. siun/damas I 122₁₂ ‘sending’. One form is written with ū (n. sg. m. Siū/ftas I 3₇ ‘sent’), but this is equivalent to un, since in the hymnbook a sign resembling a circumflex is often placed over n and m instead (it is often faintly printed and looks like a dash) on the preceding vowel, e.g., ant dāgaus I 132₂₈ ‘in heaven’, potā I 146₄ ‘after that, i.e. afterwards’, n. sg. f. fūwēta I 130₂₈ ‘holy’, 3. praes. trē I 144₁₃ ‘crushes’ (~ trem), i. sg. sunū I 132₈ ‘with a son’ (~ sūnum), inf. palikfmit I 137₂ ‘to comfort’.

In oxytone endings, u or ą is written (i.e. a with a “transverse twig”). The latter spelling was observed in as many as 89 cases, e.g., g. pl. ią I 126₂ ‘of them’, kalbą I 96₁₂ ‘of languages’, fūtįną I 92₅ ‘weak’, pikčiau II 5₁₁ ‘of the wicked’, Tą weykalą II 57₇ ‘of those works’, werkfmingą funą I 29₁₆ ‘of the sorrowful sons’, tarp žmonią neteyfingą II 10₂₇ ‘among unjust people’, 3. cond. ne pražūtą II 9₁₆ ‘would not perish’, Kad trintą piktybes I 8₁ ‘that they might eradicate evils’. Apparently, since the printing house lacked the letter ų, a similar-looking a with a “transverse twig” came to be used in its place. In baritone endings, u is written. Only 6 examples written with ą (more precisely, a with a “transverse twig”) were observed; these should be regarded as translator’s slips or printing errors. The distinction between baritones and oxytones is especially clear in spellings such as Del tą žodžių II 25₁₀ ‘because of those words’. The vowel u in baritone endings was short¹⁴.

The archaic nasal vowel į, both stressed and unstressed, is marked with the letter i (the letter į or its substitute is absent), e.g.: a) 3. praet. drifja I 76a₁₄ ‘dared’, Pažįft I 43₂₆ ‘knows’ (there are 17 examples with root į ‘into’)¹⁵, b) n. sg. m. galis I 146₁₆ ‘able’, ftowis I 156₁ ‘standing’ (10 participial examples in all of the ending -is ‘-ęs’; examples of n. pl. m.

¹² The latter data support this article’s author’s assumption that the present-day Samogitian nom. pl. ending -e (pronounced -en in the southeast) is secondary, having been introduced from reflexive verbs; see Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, p. 77—78.

¹³ Their shortness is shown by the versification: at the ends of hymn lines, the endings -ą ‘-ą’, -e ‘-ę’, -es ‘-es’ rhyme with endings of other cases or persons that have short vowels a, e, e.g., a. sg. f. pamatitá I 23₁ ‘seen’ rhymes with n. sg. f. pripildyta ‘filled’, a. sg. f. wifa II 103₁₅ ‘all’—with 1. sg. akyfa ‘in the eye’, a. sg. motiná II 58₂₁ ‘mother’—with 3. praes. gina ‘defends’, a. sg. apsakima ‘account’—with 1. pl. fut. žinoſima ‘we shall know’, per bukliſtę I 115₆ ‘through cunning’—with voc. sg. Chriſte ‘Christ’, n. sg. m. atmines I 56₈ ‘remembering’—with a. pl. gimines ‘relatives’, n. sg. m. apturėias II 35₁₈ ‘having obtained, i.e. received’—with n. sg. abgineias ‘defender’.

¹⁴ Cf. the rhyme of a. sg. Sunu II 103₂ ‘son’ with i. sg. kunu, and g. pl. numiruſiu II 64₂₄ ‘of the dead’ with 1. sg. fut. buſiu ‘I shall be’.

¹⁵ In the translator’s dialect, į was also present (perhaps facultatively) in future-tense forms, e.g., 3. as. fugražis II 52₁₆ ‘will return’, 2. sg. pažįfi II 43₁₇ ‘you will know’, 2. pl. pažįfit II 16₁₂ ‘you will know’. Cf. the rhyme of 1. pl. įppažįfime II 37₁₃ ‘we shall confess’ with sakįfime ‘we shall say’. The hymnbook also has n. pl. m. refl. Rupidamis II 26₂₃ ‘taking care’ (~ Samogitian rūpīdamis), 3. cond. garbitu II 96₇ ‘they would honor’ (~ garbitų). However, the latter example was corrected to garbitų, i.e. ‘they would honor’, in the errata.

140

not found), c) a. sg. dali I 104₂₂ ‘part’, gimuƒi I 22₁₇ ‘born’ (a. sg. -i ‘-i’ has many examples).

Rhyme shows that participles had a long vowel in oxytone endings and a short one in barytone endings, e.g., n. sg. m. galis II 103₂₆ ‘capable’ rhymes with g. sg. dalis ‘of a part’ (~Samogitian dalis), whereas turis II 70₁₃ ‘having’ rhymes with n. sg. m. kuris or, in II 58₁₀, with a. pl. duris¹⁶. It is unclear from the spelling whether the long vowel was pronounced with a nasal timbre. However, the present-day South Samogitian dialect, from the area where the translator originated, suggests that such a pronunciation should be assumed.

The preposition and prefix į need to be discussed separately. Instead of the present-day preposition į, the hymnbook uses ing (59 examples). There are no other variants. The prefix į- is written į- before non-plosive consonants, e.g., inf. įleyƒti I 106₁₈ ‘to let in’, 1. sg. cond. imaničiau II 24₂₁ ‘I would think’, 3. praet. inika I 75₈ ‘took to’, a. sg. f. irūƒtintas II 5₄ ‘enraged’, 3. praet iƒaki I 76a₁₈ ‘ordered’, 1. sg. praet. Iweykiau II 5₁₀ ‘overcame’, 2. sg. imp. Ižwelk II 5₅ ‘see through’ (51 examples in all). į- is also written before k, g, e.g., 3. praet. ne įkalbina I 78₃ ‘did not persuade’, n. sg. m. įkankintas I 100₁₇ ‘tortured’, ikáršintas II 78₁₅ ‘enraged’, 1. sg. fut. ne įkanƒiu I 64₁₅ ‘I will not bite’, 3. praet. įgawa I 141₁₈ ‘acquired’, inf. įgiti I 60₁₈ ‘to acquire’, n. sg. m. Igundes I 25₂₂ ‘become accustomed’ (50 examples altogether). Before t, d, in- is written, e.g., 2. sg. imp. inteyk I 124₁₇ ‘hand over’, 3. praet ne intikieia I 118₁₄ ‘did not believe’, intiká II 70₁₅ ‘pleased’, indeia I 85₁₁ ‘put in’, n. sg. f. indeta II 119₁ ‘put in’. There are only three exceptions (out of 42), namely, n. sg. f. itikuƒi II 104₂₄ ‘having believed’, a. sg. m. itikuƒi I 105₅ ‘having believed’, a. pl. m. itikinčius I 3₁₃ ‘convincing’ (the other two examples of the verb įtikti have in-). Before labial consonants there is only one example: n. sg. f. impinta I 110₁ ‘woven in’.

Since Samogitians today do not have the verbal prefix in-, but have introduced the variant without n before all consonants, the situation recorded in the hymnbook could be regarded as older, indicating a particular stage in the introduction of the variant į- into the position before plosive consonants. Perhaps in the translator’s dialect both variants were still used optionally before plosives, especially t, d. The influence of other dialects and written traditions may also be discerned; cf. the preposition ing ‘into’ (used by M. Mažvydas, J. Bretkūnas, M. Daukša, M. Petkevičius, K. Sirvydas) alongside the prefix į- before k, g.

5. Endings are often shortened in Samogitian fashion in the hymnbook, e.g., n. sg. m. wakars I 50₂₁ ‘evening’, 3. praes. kient I 92₄ ‘suffers’, wadin I 129₁₀ ‘calls’ (in the unversified text), Gul I 46₉ ‘lies’, atio I 103₂₁ ‘comes riding’, wießpatau I 130₂₆ ‘rules’, and many others.

6. Samogitian singular inessive forms of i- and (i)ia-stem nouns are used, e.g., a) daley II 129₃ ‘in a part’, ßalley II 110₂₁ ‘on the side’, śirdiey II 28₂ ‘in the heart’, vgniey I 133₁₃ ‘in the fire’; b) daržialey II 78₁₅ ‘in the garden’, kieley II 34₄ ‘on the road’, mediey I 64₁₂ ‘in the tree’, łowney I 38₅ ‘in the bed’, truputiey I 152₃₁ ‘in a little’, žodiey I 145₆ ‘in the word’ (about 40 examples in all). It should be noted that the hymnbook systematically retains the ending’s jotation, which is no longer found in today’s Samogitian dialect.

7. Samogitian plural inessive forms occur: a) žodžiuƒe II 16₂₄ ‘in words’ (i.e., in words or in words; the only example), b) Sirdeleƒa I 144₈ ‘in hearts’, vgnieƒa II 115₂₁ ‘in fires’ (4 examples with -ieƒa). Besides the inessive, the endings of the ē-stem sometimes also occur in the i-stem paradigm in the singular instrumental and plural instrumental:

¹⁶ There was, of course, a short vowel in the a. sg. ending as well; cf. the rhyme of a. sg. m. dideli I 91₁₇ ‘big’ with voc. sg. ƒuneli ‘dear son!’, a. sg. ißminti II 102₁₁ ‘wisdom’ with inf. atminti, and a. sg. ƒunwertoi I 99₉ ‘creator’ (~sutvertojį) with 2. sg. praes. nesioi ‘you carry’.

141

a) širden I 81₇, 12₄₁₈, II 79₂₂ ‘into the heart, to the heart’, b) širdiemis I 35₂₁, širdėmis I 5₂₀ ‘with hearts’ (all examples noted are given).

8. The nominative singular of superlative adjectives has the ending -is, e.g., didžiaufis I 89₁₄ ‘greatest’, galingaufis I 73₁₇ ‘most powerful’, βwenčiaufis II 80₂₀ ‘holiest’ (many examples).

9. Forms of the pronominal stem ana- (f. anā-) have the meaning of a third-person pronoun, e.g., ju ānu waykśćioti II 46₇ ‘to walk with him’, anam dekawokiam I 36₁₂ ‘let us thank him’, Aukfas ano karalifte I 35₆ ‘gold (is) his kingdom’.

10. The Žemaitian ending -ims ‘-iems’ is used in the masculine dative plural of personal pronouns and adjectives, as well as active participles, e.g.: a) Anims II 29₂₀ ‘to those, to them’ (~ anims), ims I 79₈ or iims I 143₁, ijims I 126₅ ‘to them’, Kurims II 44₃ ‘to whom’, tims I 113₂ ‘to those’, wijims I 8₁₅ ‘to everyone’, b) Aklims II 90₁ ‘to the blind’, Giwenantims I 15₁ ‘to those living’ (13 examples in all).

11. Žemaitian masculine accusative plural forms of personal pronouns of the anūs ‘those, them’ type, e.g.: anus I 38₂, ius I 68₂₁ ‘them’, kurius I 148₉ ‘which (ones)’, tus I 14₁₇ ‘those’ (36 examples in all). There are no Highland Lithuanian equivalents (anuos, juos …) at all.

12. The Žemaitian genitive plural form abiu I 143₁₈ of the numeral abu ‘both’ means ‘of both’ (~ abijų). There is no Highland Lithuanian equivalent abiejų.

13. The Žemaitian second-person dual imperative form eykiau II 117₁₄ means ‘go, you two’. No other dual forms of verbs were noted.

14. Žemaitian remodeled forms of athematic verbs are used in some places: 3. praes. refl. atliktafe I 153₁ ‘remains’ (~ atliektafe), a. pl. m. Ateytančius II 97₂₆ ‘those arriving’.

15. Present-tense i-stem forms of verbs are often replaced by (i)a-stem forms, e.g.: 1. sg. Nenoru II 14₂₄ ‘I do not want’, turu II 46₁₃ ‘I have’, 1. pl. minem I 98₉ ‘we mention’ (~ minjam), regiem I 120₁₁ ‘we see’, turem I 152₁₁ ‘we have’, 3. praes. refl. Gaylefe II 107₁₅ ‘repents’, regiefe I 34₉ ‘appears, can be seen’, tikiafe I 143₆ ‘hopes’, g. pl. refl. meldenčiųfe I 140₄ ‘of those praying, i.e. of those who pray’, d. pl. m. regien-temus II 6₁₉ ‘to those seeing’.

16. The Žemaitian second-person singular reflexive ending -is(e) means ‘-iesi’, e.g., 2. sg. praes. randife I 93₂ ‘you find yourself’ (~ randyse), wadinis I 124₉ ‘you are called’, wilije I 93₃ ‘you hope’, 2. sg. fut. Nebijo fis II 46₂₂ ‘does not fear’ (~ nebįjosys), ftofis I 14₆ ‘you stand, will become’ (7 examples in all; no Highland Lithuanian variant of this ending was found).

17. Žemaitian first-person plural verb forms with -ma, reflexive -mos, are used fairly often, e.g., 1. pl. praes. gierbiemot I 58₁₃ ‘we honor you’ (~ gerbiamo t[i]), Wadīnamot¹⁷ II 86₅ ‘we call you’, 1. pl. fut. žinośima I 54₁₃ ‘we will know’, 1. pl. imper. garbiṅkima I 57₁₅ ‘let us glorify’, 1. pl. permis. refl. terandamos I 33₁₀ ‘let us find ourselves’, Te ftoiamas II 108₁₉ ‘let us be, become’.

18. Imperative forms often have the formative -kia- (-ke-), e.g.: 2. sg. Eykieg I 29₁₅ ‘go, then’, refl. artinkias I 6₁₅ ‘draw near’, džiaukiafe I 27₃ ‘rejoice’, 1. pl. garbinkiem I 38₈ ‘let us glorify’, refl. džiaukiamo fe I 45₆ ‘let us rejoice’, 2. pl. atminkiet I 122₁₅ ‘remember’, Neβkiet II 11₂₇ ‘carry’ (about 200 examples in all).

19. The prefix atti- often lacks the į before a root beginning with d-, e.g., 3. praet. adāwe I 68₃ ‘gave back’, 3. praes. adara I 112₂ ‘opens’, n. pl. f. adaritas I 155₆ ‘opened’.

¹⁷ J. Lebedys wrongly regarded this form as a proofreading error and emended it to Wadinamet (S. M. Slavončinskis, Giesmės … Vilnius, 1958, p. 418). The same was said of gierbiemot I 58₁₃ ‘we honor you’ (see ibid., 362).

142

20. Words characteristic of the Samogitian dialect are used, e.g., bėngti ‘to finish’ (3rd sg. pres. beng _{I 152₂₂}, refl. bengiaje II 57₁₉, instr. pl. f. ne pabengtomis I 35₁₁ ‘unfinished’, etc.), pabanga ‘end’ (all. sg. pábúngosp II 37₁₇), pabengimas ‘finishing’ (gen. sg. pabengima II 70₁₉), klėbýs ‘embrace’ (acc. sg. klebelį I 62₈ ‘small embrace’), nùmas ‘house’ (nom. pl. numay II 98₁₀, acc. pl. numus II 74₁₃, etc.), pìlė ‘castle, fortress, palace’ (acc. pl. piles II 21₂₀, etc.)¹⁸.

21. The prepositions prie (in certain contexts meaning ‘at, to’), pas (with the genitive), ant (in a particular sense with the instrumental) are used in Samogitian; for example, a) Gaway madonę pri Jutwertoja I 14₅ ‘… to the creator’, Vįtark mus … Pri Jezáus II 109₂₁₋₂₂ ‘intercede for us … with Jesus’ (frequent usage); b) Pas Bernela I 63₁₆ ‘with the lad’, pas Sunaus II 80₁ ‘with the son’, pas táwęs II 46₂₃ ‘with you’ (apparently, all examples occur only with the genitive); c) Ant križiumi I 145₇ ‘on the cross’ (the only example).

All these Samogitian features convincingly show that the hymnbook’s translator was a Samogitian. The “Dūnininkai” equivalents of the diphthongs uo, ie lead us to seek his native dialect in the area of Southern Samogitian. On the diagram, line 1 shows the present-day boundaries of this area. Over three hundred years, the isophones ū ‘uo’ and ī ‘ie’ may of course have shifted somewhat, although we have no clear evidence of this¹⁹.

Many other features of the hymnbook’s language, which will be discussed below, also point to the area of Southern Samogitian. For now, among the phonetic features we should note the sporadic “secondary nasalization” characteristic of Southern Samogitian²⁰, e.g., nom. pl. jãs I 26₁₈, II 96₃ ‘their’ (~ jǫs), Ią/gį II 2₁₄ ‘their indeed’, instr. sg. m. tą II 12₁₅, 16₂₂, 27₈, 86₁₉, 104₁₂, 109₂₀ ‘that’ (~ tų from Southern Samogitian tū ‘that’), iǫ II 84₆ ‘him’, ieg I 116₁₅ ‘him indeed’, adv. nǫ I 32₁₀ ‘now’ or någ I 7₁₉, Nagi I 143₈ ‘now indeed’ (written this way as many as 25 times), conj. Nęs I 119₁₇ ‘because’ (47 examples) or nęfag I 63₁₁, Nęsg I 132₂₂ ‘the same’ (9 examples). Among the morphological features, we should mention the 2nd pl. imperative forms in -kiat (-ket) characteristic of Southern Samogitian, e.g., atmin kier I 122₁₅ ‘remember’, of which there are 55 examples in the hymnbook, and 1st sg. conditional forms in -čiau, e.g., tikėčiau I 145₁₃ ‘I would believe’ (there are no other examples). Northern Samogitians do not use these forms: their 2nd pl. imperative ending is -kit (alongside 1st pl. -kiam), and their 1st sg. conditional ending is -čio or -čiu (the latter variant is also used in the northern part of the Southern Samogitian area).

The present-day Southern Samogitian dialect is most conveniently divided into two subdialects according to the treatment of an, am, en, em. In the northwestern subdialect, which A. Girdenis named Varniškiai, as in the Northern Samogitian area, the first element of an-type sequences is raised (pronounced on, or un), whereas in the southeastern subdialect, named Raseiniškiai, it remains unchanged. On the diagram, line 2 shows the present-day boundary between the two subdialects. Slavočins-

¹⁸ From the perspective of the present day, quite a few of the hymnbook’s Samogitian features were apparently also words used at the time in the Aukštaitian dialect, e.g., atpén(t) ‘again’ (atpen I 78₇), found in M. Petkevičius’s catechism, Knygoje Nobanžystės, J. Bretkūnas’s Bible; dingoti ‘to think, seem, appear, suppose’ (1st sg. past dingojau II 39₇) is found in East Prussian Lithuanian Aukštaitian texts from various periods, and so on.

¹⁹ J. Kazlauskas’s hypothesis that “in part of the Dūnininkai dialect that directly bordered the Dounininkai, ei, ou may also have existed earlier; under the influence of neighboring dialects that lack ę, ǫ, they could have changed into ī, ū>i, ū together with the transformation of ę, ǫ into i, u” (Baltistica, V(I) 33), even if it proved correct (cf. A. Girdenis’s article, ibid., VI (2), 143—145), would not fundamentally alter the picture, since, firstly, we do not know when the hypothesized change of ou, ei into uu, ii>ū, ī took place; moreover, J. Kazlauskas applies it to the northern part of the area, whereas, as we shall see, the hymnbook translator’s native dialect must be sought in the south of the area.

²⁰ On this, see V. Vitkauskas, “Kelios pastabos dėl formų šių, sesių,” — “Baltistica,” II (2), Vilnius, 1966, pp. 203—206; Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, pp. 196—197.

143

A scheme for localizing the dialect of the translator of S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnbook (1646)

1 — southern Samogitians (“dūnininkai” isophone),

2 — boundary between the Varniškiai and Raseiniškiai dialect areas (isophone of the narrowing of an, am, en, em),

3 — dat. sg. ending isogloss -ū (~-uo) || -ui,

4 — present-day indentation where the “Samogitian sound law” is not observed,

5 — word-initial e- is systematically changed to a-,

6 — zd > z,

7 — approximate area in which the speech of the translator of S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnbook should be localized (it could be extended somewhat in the southeast and northeast directions)

In the hymnbook, an-type combinations remain intact ²¹. Consequently, they point us toward the Raseiniškiai area. That by the mid-seventeenth century the Samogitians elsewhere had already narrowed these sounds may be indicated by such spellings of Samogitian place names found in the Raseiniai court records as Анмалецъ лунку²²(A. Salys reads Aпt Alėjos [: Alėja — a river in the Viduklė district]), унто̄ гурио певасъ²³ (= aпt girių pievos). Finally, other linguistic features of the hymnbook also undoubtedly lead to the Raseiniškiai subdialect. For example, in the hymnbook,

²¹ Of well over a thousand examples, four with a narrowed first component are to be considered eastern features of the hymnbook’s language. They are discussed in the chapter on the Highland Lithuanian elements in the hymnbook’s language.

²² SEE И. Я. Спрогис, Географический словарь древней Жемойтской земли XVI столетия, Вильна, 1888, p. 5.

²³ Ibid., p. 12.

144

as in the Raseiniai area, the short vowels u, i²⁴ are preserved intact; many Varniškiai speakers shift them, while some (Kuršėnai, Šaukėnai), as J. Kazlauskas²⁵ reasonably believed, had earlier shifted them to o, ė.

Ilgasis balsis ė atviroje nekirčiuotoje galūnėje giesmyne dažnai pakeičiamas į, pvz., n. sg. rikβti II 98₄ ‘rykštė’, Sauli I 84₁₆ ‘saulė’, žiami II 61₃ ‘žemė’, 3. praet. pamati I 77₁₃ ‘pamatė’, tafi I 91₅ ‘tašė’, vžmuši I 51₁₇ ‘užmušė’ (net 112 pavyzdžių). Greičiausia čia priklauso dar per dvidešimt n. sg. f. superl. formų su -iausi (< iausė?), pvz., gražiaufi II 87₈ ‘gražiausia’, bვენčiaufi I 32₁₄ ‘švenčiausia’. Trumpąjį²⁶ balsį į vietoj ė dabar nekirčiuotoje galūnėje turi visi raseiniškiai ir jų artimesni kaimynai apie Šaukėnus, Kuršėnus, Šakius, Veliuoną²⁷. Kiti žemaičiai taria -ė²⁸.

Among all Samogitians, the reflexive particle -se ‘-si’ has so far been recorded only in the Raseiniai area (around Pagramantis, Skaudvilė, Eržvilkas, and Raseiniai); it is used throughout Slavčinskis’s hymnal, e.g., 1. sg. bįiau/e II 19₂₂ ‘I feared’, artin/iu/e II 25₁₇ ‘I will approach’, f točiause II 102₅ ‘I would stand’, 2. sg. randi/e I 93₂ ‘you find yourself’, dawej/e I 135₁₀ ‘you gave yourself’, 1. pl. džiaukiamuo/e I 45₆ ‘let us rejoice’, 3. person atranda/e I 131₁₈ ‘appears’, bengia/e II 57₁₉ ‘ends’, prikiel/j/e I 133₆ ‘will rise’, wargintu/e I 74a₁₆ ‘would trouble oneself’, inf. abgintje II 21₄ ‘to defend oneself’, n. sg. m. Nuwile/e II 26₁₉ ‘disappointed’, n. pl. m. Džiaugdamie II 49₂₃ ‘rejoicing’, g. pl. gaylenčiu/e I 140₃ ‘of those gaining, i.e. of the gainers’ (about 230 examples in all). The reflexive particle -si is never used at the end of a word²⁹; as in present-day dialects, it occurs only after a prefix, e.g., Su/imiles II 56₁₆ ‘having taken pity’, at/iranda/e II 48₂₈ ‘appears’. The examples above show that with prefixed verbs the reflexive particle is used in the “Samogitian” manner, i.e. not only after the prefix, but also at the end of the word, or both.

Several distinct isoglosses now traverse the Raseiniai area itself. First among them is the differing dative singular ending of a-stem nouns: in the northwestern part of the area it is -ū (=Highland Lithuanian -uo), and in the southeastern part -ui. On the map, line 3 marks the boundary. It is fairly sharp, with no broad zone of doublet forms, indicating the isogloss’s durability and stability.

The ending -ui (written -uy) is used systematically in Slavčinskis’s hymnal. It also occurs in the longer forms of adjectives and participles found there, e.g., amžingmy I 40₂₃ ‘eternal’, gimu/iamuy I 40₁₈ ‘born’. There is not a single example of a noun or other declined word with -ū! Thus, the translator’s native dialect should be sought

Inf. gerdeti II 55₇ ‘to hear’ and 1. sg. mireme II 106₁₁ ‘we die’, as the g. sg. form gimenes II 43₂₈ ‘relative’ shows, are undoubtedly printing errors; in the errata correcting the translator’s own errors, it was corrected to gimines (II 128₂₂).²⁴

See J. Kazlauskas, On the development of Baltic *ei and *ō in the Lithuanian Samogitian dialects, — “Baltistica”, V, Vilnius, 1969, pp. 32—33.²⁵

The line endings show that the translator of the hymnal’s dialect had a short vowel here, e.g., n. sg. roželi I 42₁₁ ‘rose’ rhymes with voc. sg. berneli; 3. praet. ap/jiauti I 78₆ ‘put on’ rhymes with inf. gauni; 3. praet. i/jaki I 76a₁₈ ‘uttered’ rhymes with n. -a. du. abi aki, and so on.²⁶

The traditional classification of dialects, treating this feature as a distinguishing characteristic of the Veliuona subdialect of Western Aukštaitian, misled J. Palionis, who claimed that elements of the Veliuona dialect were present in Slavčinskis’s hymnal.²⁷

For technical reasons, a serious error appeared in map no. 42 in the author’s Lietuvių dialektologija (Vilnius, 1966), marking the boundary between the -i and -ė areas. In fact, the surroundings of Plungė, Rietavas, Kvėdarna, Laukuva, Varniai, and Luokė, of course, belong to the -ė area. The examples from these localities are correctly written in the book.²⁸

The sole example of 3. praet. fotino/ii II 223 ‘was satisfied’ was corrected in the errata to foti-no/e (II 128₁₆).²⁹

10. 520

145

the area southeast of line 3. This conclusion might also be supported by the preservation throughout the hymnal of the diphthongs ai, ei in all cases (of course, if their monophthongization did not occur later than the seventeenth century), since northwest of the middle section of line 3 (the most important section for us), these diphthongs are monophthongized in word endings.

In the area southeast of line 3, affricates č, dž are now treated inconsistently: specifically, closer to the Aukštaitian area, from line 4 onward, the “Samogitian sound law” is disregarded. However, this isogloss may formerly have extended somewhat farther south and east as well. This is suggested not only by its northwesterly bend, but also by the clearly observable, intensive process of Samogitian assimilation to Aukštaitian in these places.

The Raseiniai area is bisected vertically by the isogloss marking the change of word-initial e-, ei- to a-, ai-. However, it is very imprecise: there is considerable variation across a broad band in the middle of the area, where some words are pronounced with a-, others with e-, and still others both ways (with great variation in particular places); the change of ei- to ai-, however, occurs almost throughout the Raseiniai area. Nevertheless, systematically, word-initial e- is changed to a- only east of line 5. In Slavočinskis’s hymnal, e- has changed to a- only in the frequently used present active participle forms of the verb būti ‘to be’, e.g., n. sg. m. Aſas _{I 156₄} ‘being’, g. sg. ąſančia _{II 22₅}, d. sg. asańčiamuy _{II 36₂₃}, a. sg. aſanti _{I 102₁₀₉}, g. pl. aſančiu _{I 153₁₁₁₁}, d. pl. aſantiemus _{I 50₄}, a. pl. aſančius _{I 125₁₉}. Elsewhere e- and ei-, respectively, are preserved, e.g., n. sg. elnis _{II 17₂₀} ‘deer’, i. pl. erſpkieteeys _{II 14₂₁} ‘with thorns’, g. pl. eſibiu _{I 129₂₂} ‘of beings’, inf. eyt _{II 26₂₆} ‘to go’, 1. sg. fut. eyſiu _{I 81₁₈}, n. sg. Eydamas _{II 47₉} ‘going’, eyla _{II 6₁₈} ‘a row’. Since the hymnal does contain an instance of this change, the translator’s native dialect cannot be sought in the area where esu (with e-) is now pronounced; it must therefore be sought east of line 5.

In the translator’s native dialect, the word barzda was pronounced barza (without the consonant d), cf. Plaukus barzos, gahwos trauki _{I 75₁₃} ‘he pulled the hair of the beard and head’, ant barzos Arona _{II 59₂₂} ‘on Aaron’s beard’. Nowadays, zd is most consistently changed to z (pronounced baržà ‘beard’, blaužà ‘shin’, lazà ‘stick’) in the western and central parts of the Raseiniai area, approximately as far as line 6. However, in the seventeenth century this change may also have occurred beyond that line, since it is now found farther north (Užventis, Šaukėnai, Kuršėnai) and east (Tytuvėnai—between Kelmė and Šaukotas).

All this makes it clear that the translator’s dialect is most likely to be sought in the Raseiniai area, bounded on the northwest and southwest by lines 3 and 5. To the southeast and northeast, this area could extend somewhat beyond lines 4 and 6. In the diagram, the most likely area is marked with hatching³⁰.

This conclusion fully accords with the archival data published by K. Jablonskis³¹, which indicate that Slavočinskis’s birthplace was Lįpkiškė, approximately 6 km to the southeast

³⁰ The isogloss of conditional accent retraction crossing this area has not been taken into account here (it is very imprecise), since it is difficult to infer the accentuation of that period from the meter of the hymns. Nevertheless, line endings that rhyme—for example, a. pl. dienas I 63₈ ‘days’ with n. sg. m. vienas ‘one’, a frequent instance; 3. praes. niera I 117₂₀ ‘is not’ with sg. m. gera ‘good’; 1. sg. Diewu I 28₂₂ ‘with God’ with Tewut ‘with father’—might suggest that forms with retracted stress from the ending were not entirely unfamiliar to the translator, which essentially confirms that his dialect was located on the border of the accent-retraction zone.

³¹ Žr. K. Jablonskis, Saliamono Slavočinskio biografijos žinios. — S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės... Vilnius, 1958, p. 53 tt.

146

from Nemakščiai. At the same time, this could also seem to refute the doubt raised by literary historians concerning Slavočinskis’s authorship. Nevertheless, the doubt persists to some extent, since, as we shall see later, it is supported by elements of other dialects in the hymnal and, in particular, by an analysis of the hymns’ translation technique.

Elements of the Aukštaitian dialect

The following features may be identified among the linguistic characteristics of Slavočinskis’s hymnal that are more or less typical of all Aukštaitians:

1. Use of the affricates č, dž instead of the consonants t, d expected according to the “Samogitian sound law,” e.g., n. sg. Jaučias I 59₂₁ ‘bull’, n. pl. žodžiai I 3₂₀ ‘words’, d. pl. Žodžiams I 14₁ ‘to the words’, i. pl. Erškietėys II 72₁₇ ‘with thorns’, d. sg. m. kalbančiam I 41₁₂ ‘to the speaking (one)’, a. sg. f. Turinčią I 20₂₀ ‘having’, l. pl. gieydžiame I 28₁ ‘we desire’, 3rd person apšviečia I 25₉ ‘illuminates’, adv. nuoširdžiei I 48₂ ‘sincerely’. There are more such Aukštaitian forms in the hymnal than Samogitian ones. They make up as much as 68% of all examples and are distributed more or less evenly throughout the hymnal. The translator was apparently quite accustomed to Aukštaitian affricate forms and deliberately sought to make the language of the hymnal more Aukštaitian in this respect. This is indicated by occasional hypercorrect forms, e.g., a. sg. žvaizdžia I 33₁, 46₂₂ ‘star’, 3. praes. weyzdžia II 16₂₇ ‘sees’.

2. Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie instead of “Dūnininkian” ū, į, e.g., a) inf. duoti II 19₁₅, n. sg. Duona I 145₁₆, a. pl. nuodemes I 128₂₁ ‘sins’; b) n. sg. Giesme I 8₄, liežuvį I 140₇, świeśa I 38₁₂ ‘light’, žiedas I 34₁₂ ‘ring’; c) n. sg. Akmuo I 117₁₃, g. sg. širdies I 21₁₉ ‘of the heart’, i. sg. m. Tuo I 45₂₀, n. pl. m. Tie I 51₁₁. Forms with the Aukštaitian uo, ie likewise predominate, making up as much as about 84% of all examples in the hymnal (words such as miestas, niekas, etc., in which Samogitians also have uo and ie, respectively, are not counted here). Some words, e.g., diena, duona, duoti, giesmė, juokas, kiekvienas, liežuvis, mėnuo, nuoširdžiai, priešingas, šviesa, vienas, viešpats, žiedas, are used only with uo, ie. Many others have a dominant Aukštaitian variant. For instance, dievas is written in the Aukštaitian form (with ie) as many as 515 times, and in the Samogitian form only once (g. sg. Diwa II 126₁). Alongside 52 Aukštaitian forms, the verb giedoti also has just one Samogitian form (inf. gidot I 42₂₁). While the noun diena and the numeral vienas are consistently written in the Aukštaitian form, the adverb šiandien and the derivatives vienybė, vienoks have both variants (the ratio of Aukštaitian to Samogitian forms is, respectively, 14: 6, 3: 3, 3: 1). Hypercorrect forms such as g. sg. nuoplakimą II 85₂ ‘of whipping’, 3. permis. Te prieduod I 15₂₁ ‘may he add, may he grant’ probably arose from the mixing of Aukštaitian and Samogitian sounds and the desire to make the hymnal’s language more Aukštaitian.

3. Instead of Samogitian uo, ie (= Aukštaitian o, ė), the letters o, ė are most often written in the hymnal, e.g., n. pl. žmones I 16₅ ‘people’, g. sg. f. ios I 6₁₀ ‘her’, inf. Turet I 36₁₀ ‘to have’, d. sg. Tewuy I 63₂₃ ‘to the father’. As noted earlier, only 12 examples with Samogitian uo have been observed in the hymnal in total, while there are more with ie: 159 were found in the position after k, g, š, ž alone. Nevertheless, such spellings constitute a small proportion of all examples; Aukštaitian spelling predominates throughout.

4. Full endings are often used instead of shortened Samogitian ones, e.g., n. sg. m. amžinas I 29₂₁, Niekas I 23₅, 3. praes. randą II 10₃, tarnauja I 22₇, ne gali I 152₆. However, by no means can all such examples be regarded as features of the Aukštaitian dialect

10*

147

element. It is entirely possible that at that time in the Aukštaitian area, variant forms with full and shortened endings were still in use³². The translator chose one ending or another, striving to preserve the required number of syllables in the hymn line. As a result, forms with short and full endings are thoroughly mixed; compare even this couplet:

For the honor of the King, a plentiful evening, Grant that our evening be good (50_20-21).

5. Aukštaitian locative forms are used: i-stem loc. sg. with the ending -ų(je), e.g. ugnì II 4₁₉ ‘in the fire’ (rare; the Samogitian ending -ėj(e) > -iej predominates); a-stem noun loc. pl. forms with the ending -uose, e.g., namuose I 60₂₀ ‘at home’ (59 examples alongside one with the Samogitian ending -ise or -ųse); i-stem loc. pl. forms with -isa (-ysa?), e.g., akyse I 37₁ ‘in the eyes’ (more frequent than Samogitian forms with -ėsa > -iesa, although these may be not Aukštaitian forms but Samogitian forms of the older type, unaffected by the ē paradigm).

6. The Aukštaitian pronominal dative plural masculine ending -iem(u)s, e.g., Tiems II 17₁₅, šventiemus I 13₃, ganantiemus I 44₁₆. It is more frequent (77 examples) than the Samogitian -ims (13 examples).

7. Aukštaitian 1st person plural verb forms with -me, e.g., 1. pl. praes. regime I 25₈, refl. stojames II 88₁₀ ‘we stand, i.e., we become’, fut. veykfime I 81₃ ‘we will act’, imper. bekime I 57₂ ‘let us run’. They are more frequent than Samogitian forms with -ma.

8. Imperative forms with -ki-, e.g., 2. sg. Bukig I 22₁₉ ‘be, then’, 1. pl. giedokime I 31₅, refl. džiaukimes I 32₃ ‘let us rejoice’, 2. pl. eykite I 41₃. These are somewhat more numerous (58%) than the Samogitian forms with -kia- (42%). However, it is questionable whether forms with -ki-, as well as the fairly frequent present-tense i-stem forms (e.g., 1. pl. regime I 25₈, 2. pl. regite I 102₁₀, ne gali I 152₆ ‘cannot’), should be regarded as unequivocal features of the Aukštaitian dialect, since at that time they could also have been used as variants in the translator’s own native Aukštaitian-area Samogitian subdialect.

The Aukštaitian character of the use of the third-person pronoun forms jis, ji is even more doubtful, particularly since these forms are still found in some areas of the southeastern part of the Samogitian dialect alongside forms of the ana- (f. anā-) stem. Perhaps only the frequency of such usage in the hymnal should be explained by the influence of the Aukštaitian dialect. The choice of one or another pronoun form was probably nevertheless determined by the need to observe the required number of syllables in the hymn lines.

Among the Aukštaitian elements in Slavočinskis’s hymnal that are characteristic not of all Aukštaitians but only of certain subdialects, the first to be noted is hardening of the consonant l (marked by the letter ł³³) before e-type vowels (e, ei, ę, ē), e.g., a) a. sg. Šiotelė II 53₁₁, a. pl. Gieſmeles I 32₆₂, 1. sg. żerkole II 98₁₁ ‘in the mirror’; b) 1. sg. fut. leyſiu I 81₁₇ ‘I will allow’, a. sg. atleydima I 123₁₁ ‘forgiveness’; c) a. sg. taurele I 71₁₆,

³² That such forms were once found elsewhere in the Samogitian area as well is shown by the preservation of am intact in the present-day n. sg. form nešams ‘carried’. Only if there was a doublet nešamas || nešams could am have remained intact in the shorter variant. Otherwise, we would have to assume that short vowels in the ending disappeared only after am-type sequences had contracted, and even after reduction and denasalization of the acc. sg. ending -ą; but that would be absurd, since in that case -a’ -ą’ should have disappeared along with the other short vowels in the ending.

³³A hard ł before back vowels is marked in the same way, e.g., malone I 21₅ ‘grace’, 3rd pers. praet. lauži I 52₁₁ ‘broke’. The graphemes ł and l are strictly distinguished. Cf. acc. sg. linkſmibe I 27₂₀ ‘joy’, corrected in the errata to linkſmibe (II 128₈).

148

nom. sg. m. nuwilęs II 21₈ ‘disappointed’, nom. pl. m. priwilę II 21₆ ‘overfilled, poured out’; d) inf. ple/št I 97₁₀ ‘to tear’, 1st pers. sg. praet. mileiau II 43₄ ‘I loved’, 2nd pers. sg. praet. pralejai I 137₄ ‘you poured out’ (~pralejai³⁴), 3rd pers. fut. gales II 3₁₈ ‘will be able’, nom. sg. žole II 55₁₄ ‘grass’, nom. pl. kirmeles II 66₁₂. This hardening is not systematic, but sporadic. About 80 examples have been found. The crossing-out of the letter l is unclear in some cases. After hardening, the vowels following l remain unchanged, except in these forms: 3rd pers. praes. (?) sląpa³⁵ II 26₄ ‘hides?’, 3rd pers. praet. layde³⁶ II 40₂ ‘allowed’ (~leide), prikala³⁷ I 80₁ ‘nailed down’. Hardening of l is even more frequent in the consonant cluster lbe, in forms of the verbs gelbeti (33 examples) and kalbeti (21 examples).

Highlanders who have a hard l before e-type vowels behave variably with the nasal vowels ą and ę and the first element of an-type combinations: in the west, the ancient quality of these sounds survived in a certain area, whereas throughout the rest of the territory they became narrower—everywhere in some areas (in the East Highlander area), and only ą and ę elsewhere (in the South Highlander area). In the Slavocinskis hymnal, both ą and ę, as well as an-type combinations, are generally preserved intact. However, there are also examples with narrowing. These should be regarded as elements of the dialects of eastern Lithuania.

The following sporadic examples have been observed with eastern-type changes to ą:

1. Forms of the verb mąstyti ‘to think’ and the nouns mąstymas, mąstis ‘thought, mind’ (13 examples in all): a) inf. muſtit II 48₁₀ ‘to think’, 1st pers. sg. fut. muſtiſiu II 39₁₇ ‘I will think’; b) nom. sg. muſtimas II 6₂₁ ‘thinking, reflection’, gen. sg. muſtima I 132₂₄, II 31₂₇, muſtim II 5₁₈ (corrected in the errata³⁸: muſtima II 128₁₅), acc. sg. muſtima II 1₁₁, 9₉, acc. pl. muſtimns (misprinted instead of muſtimus) II 23₁₅, all. pl. muſtimump II 6₂; c) 1st pers. sg. muſtiey II 75₁₅ ‘in thought, in mind’, acc. pl. muſtis II 26₁, 107₁₉. Cf. acc. sg. mąſtima II 39₃ ‘thought, reflection’.

2. One form of the noun sąnarys ‘joint’: acc. pl. funarius I 91₄.

3. Three forms of the noun sąžinia ‘conscience’: gen. sg. Sužinios II 25₂₆, acc. sg. fužiniá II 2₂₃, 1st pers. sg. Sužinioy II 14₁₆.

4. One eastern-type acc. sg. ending: karalunu I 118₉ ‘king’.

These examples make up only a small proportion (about 1.2%) of all positions of nasal vowel ą.

The eastern-type changed e occurs in the following sporadically used forms:

1. Acc. sg. -ę in the expression per puſi I 87₈ ‘by half’.

2. Nom. sg. m. -ęs: piautis I 49₁₁, 62₁₆ ‘having sensed’, pálikis II 21₁₆ ‘having left’ (perhaps also the rhyming netikis II 21₁₅ ‘unsuitable’, if this is not netikis).

They make up only about 0.6% of all ę positions.

³⁴The verb lieti ‘to pour’ has two variants of the past-tense stem in the hymnal: lėj- (e.g., 3rd pers. leia I 86₁₄ ‘poured’, acc. sg. lejma I 121₁ ‘pouring’) and liej- (e.g. lieia I 117₃ ‘poured’, acc. sg. lieiima II 12₄ ‘pouring’). The former occurs 11 times, the latter 4 times. The hymnal has no present-tense forms of this verb. Of the 11 examples of the shared stem, 8 are written with ei, one Samogitian form with i (acc. pl. f. iſblitas II 27₂ ‘poured out’) and two are written with the letter e: 2nd pers. sg. fut. leſi I 66₁₄ ‘you will pour’ (probably because of the rhyme with mineſi ‘you will remember’), acc. sg. iſzleta I 145₂₁ ‘poured out’.

³⁵The example is questionable, since the context is not entirely clear either. See J. Lebedys’s comment in S. M. Slavocińskis, Giesmės… p. 397.

³⁶The verb leisti ‘to let’ and its derivatives with hard l occur 31 times, of which only this single instance has lei>lai.

³⁷ Cf. 3rd person preterite iſpuole II 40₃ ‘fell’, reflexive Skieles I 94₃ ‘split, i.e. cracked, fractured’, with -le(s).

³⁸ J. Lebedys, lacking a complete copy of the hymnal, wrongly took mąstis > mūstis to be an inflected form of a noun (M. Slavocińskis, Giesmės … 474).

149

Here one should also include the accusative singular form of the personal pronoun Tawi I 95₆ ‘you’, if this is not simply a proofing error. In general, the accusative forms of personal pronouns always end in -e.

Only these four examples (about 0.4%) were observed with altered an-type sequences: infinitive aptunkiti II 82₁₇ ‘to surround’, genitive singular aptunkima II 85₇ ‘of surrounding’, second-person plural future nekim-tiefite II 16₁₆ ‘you will not hate’, accusative singular Nindre II 75₂₅ ‘reed’ (cf. accusative singular nendre II 78₂₄, instrumental singular Nendre II 72₁₈).

The few examples with eastern-type alterations of ą, ę, and an-type sequences (all accounting for less than 1%) indicate that the translator’s inherently Samogitian dialect was more strongly tempered in the hymnal by elements from the western part of the “hardening” area—that is, from the dialect that preserved ą, ę and an-type sequences intact—than by elements from the eastern part, which had narrowed them. This conclusion corresponds well to the linguistic situation of Lithuanian writing at the time. By the mid-seventeenth century, the dialect of the western part of the area in question, which, after its main center of the time—the town of Kėdainiai—might provisionally be called the Kėdainiai-region dialect, had become firmly established in the Lithuanian written tradition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The very first known printed book in that tradition, M. Daukša’s 1595 catechism, was published in this dialect. In competition with the Catholics, the Calvinists also published their first (M. Petkevičius’s 1598 catechism) and later works in the dialect of this region³⁹. The first major collections of sermons by both Catholics and Calvinists were also prepared for printing and published in it: M. Daukša’s 1599 and the so-called J. Morkūnas’s 1600 postils. Thus, by that time a certain written-language tradition based on the Kėdainiai-region dialect had already taken shape, along with more or less clearly established norms for that language. It is therefore entirely natural that, when publishing the first hymnal in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, efforts were made not to depart too far from that tradition and to follow those norms.

Although the Kėdainiai-region dialect predominated in Lithuanian writing of the time, it was not the only one. Men of letters from the Eastern Aukštaitian area, above all K. Sirvydas (Širvydas), J. Jaknavičius, and the anonymous translator of the 1605 catechism, followed later by others, wrote in their native dialect. Thus another written language was then taking shape, based on the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect (with Vilnius as its center), which its proponents tended to regard as “genuine Lithuanian,” contrasting it with the written language based on the Kėdainiai-region dialect, supposedly “Samogitian” (i.e. situated within the territory of the Duchy of Samogitia)⁴⁰. K. Sirvydas’s dictionary played a significant role in the spread of eastern features in the writings of authors who used other dialects; by the time Slavocinskis’s hymnal appeared, it had already gone through as many as three editions.

In the following discussion of the Aukštaitian features of Slavocinskis’s hymnal, we will first consider those that point, to a greater or lesser extent, to the Kėdainiai-region dialect of the time; we will then discuss those whose source should be sought in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect area.

In Slavocinskis’s hymnal, the open unstressed final vowel o is usually written with the letter a, e.g., genitive singular nora I 7₂ ‘of desire’, 3rd person preterite pažina I 34₂₀ ‘recognized’. Such

³⁹ See Z. Zinkevičius, “The dialect of M. Petkevičius’s catechism (1598),” — “Baltistica”, VI (2), Vilnius, 1970, p. 243.

⁴⁰ Cf. the words in the preface by the translator of the 1605 catechism: “Atáiō auſiumė mano ne wieno ʒodʒey, kurie neyʒmánu ʃákos Cathechiſmo pérguldito, nuog io mili fiſtos kúngo Mikaloiaus Dáukʃbos [...] iog éſus ánas pérguldis ii ʒemáytiſbkay, ir gieyde aniš nuog mani, idant Lietúwiʃbkay butũ pérgulditas” (emphasis mine. — Z. Z.).

150

The spelling in many cases apparently reflects the Samogitian pronunciation of this ending⁴¹. However, sometimes o also occurs in the hymnbook, e.g., ant oro I 46₂₂, 3. praet. Ne buvo I 73₄. This is clearly an Aukštaitian feature. Spellings with -o account for only 4.5% of all examples. Yet the writings of representatives of the Kėdainiai region of that period also vacillate between -o and -a: M. Daukša’s writings predominantly have -o, -o. whereas in M. Petkevičius’s catechism, conversely, -a accounts for as much as 75.7%⁴². Thus, at that time, the pronunciation in this part of the Aukštaitian dialect area was -a or -ą (the quantity is unclear). This explains the relatively low percentage of -o spellings in Slavočinskis’s hymnbook.

In the closed unstressed ending -os, spellings with o (e.g., g. sg. Motinos I 95₃, n. pl. f. wijos I 131₉₃) are incomparably more frequent. They account for as much as 66%. In the writings from that period in the Kėdainiai region, the ending is likewise only -os; indeed, no examples with -as are found at all in Petkevičius’s catechism.

Examples with the letter e instead of the ė of the present-day standard language in the open unstressed ending (e.g., n. sg. žiame I 63₁₂ ‘earth’, 3. praet. dawe I 84₁₅ ‘gave’) should be considered Aukštaitian features; they occur in the hymnbook alongside the Samogitian ending -i ‘-ė’⁴³. They account for as much as 76% of all examples. Interestingly, at the ends of lines the ending vowel is treated as a short and apparently open vowel⁴⁴.

The quality and quantity of the vowel in the unstressed ending -es ‘-ės’ are less clear. Rhymes at line endings indicate that this ending had two pronunciation variants: 1) with a short vowel (i.e., most likely a Samogitian pronunciation), cf. the rhyming of g. sg. matones I 11₂₀ ‘pleasures’ with a. pl. žmones ‘people’⁴⁵, and 2) with a long vowel, cf. the rhyming of n. pl. gimines II 10₈ ‘relatives’ with 3. fut. puldines ‘will attack’. The second variant should be considered an Aukštaitian feature.

A feature of the Kėdainiai regional dialect should also be considered the sporadic use of the nasal letter in the acc. sg. endings of nouns and adjectives -ą (only a dozen or so examples have been observed, some of them not entirely clear; see p. 139) and -ę (this is much more frequent, about 18% of examples), as well as in the n. sg. m. ending -ęs of active past participles (about 7%), since in central Lithuania these endings had not yet been denasalized at that time, unlike in the Samogitian dialect area and eastern Lithuania. This is clearly shown by the writings of M. Daukša, M. Petkevičius, and other authors.

Aukštaitian features that point us toward eastern Lithuania are much rarer and sporadic. In addition to those noted earlier, the most prominent are the following:

1. Three examples with re>ra: i. pl. skaralėmis I 45₁₅ ‘with scarves, i.e., rags’, adv. grata II 77₃ or Gratu II 73₈ ‘alongside’.

2. One example with v- before word-initial uo (written o): n. pl. wolas I 101₁₄ ‘rocks’.

3. One form of the noun obuolys ‘apple’, in which uo > a (ā?): g. pl. Obalu I 64₁₈ ‘apples’. Cf. the Samogitian form a. pl. obulus I 65₁ ‘apples’.

⁴¹ The brevity of the vowel is indicated by the ends of the hymn lines; cf. the rhyming of 3. praet. wargina I 95₈ ‘tormented’ with n. sg. Motina ‘mother’, and g. sg. m. gera I 117₁₉ ‘good’ with 3. praes. mera ‘is not’.

⁴² Z. Zinkevičius, The dialect of M. Petkevičius’s catechism (1598), p. 240.

⁴³ The latter cannot be considered an Aukštaitian feature, since it is absent from the area where hard l occurs before vowels of the e type.

⁴⁴ Cf. the rhyming of 3. praet. pawijte I 63₉₃ ‘swaddled’ with voc. sg. Christe ‘Christ’, n. sg. žiame I 63₁₂ ‘earth’ with 1. sg. m. tame, 3. praet. dawe I 120₃ ‘gave’ with a. sg. Jawe ‘oneself’, 3. praet. gime I 31₆ ‘was born’ with l. pl. imper. giedokime, and 3. praet. klause II 18₈ ‘asked’ with 3. praes. refl. sotinause ‘you satisfy yourself’.

⁴⁵ For the vowel quality (openness) of this variant, cf. also the rhyming of n. pl. gimines II 56₂₇ ‘relatives’ with n. sg. m. pažines ‘having known’ (= cf. Samogitian -ęs).

151

4. Seven examples with the prefix ażu- (otherwise used as už-): 1st sg. praet. ażu mirßau II 55₁₃ ‘I forgot’, 3rd praes. dźutur II 18₁₈ ‘holds back’, 2nd pl. imper. ne ażu kietinnkite II 50₁₅ ‘do not harden’, n. sg. m. ażu wilkies II 49₄ ‘having put on’, ne ażu meruotas II 57₁₀ ‘unmeasured’, g. sg. ażu mirsimo II 39₁₃ ‘of forgetting’, ażu fiejė-dima II 6₁₅ ‘of descent’.

The full form of the 3rd-person pronoun, n. sg. m. anas ‘he’ (I 8₁₇, 17₁₈, 29₁₁, etc.) and 3rd praes. rodźiafje II 48₁₁, ₂₇ ‘appears’ (because of the stem, not a reflexive particle) could be regarded as an element of both the Kėdainiai region and the eastern Aukštaitian dialect, since these forms were then used in the writings of representatives of both dialects⁴⁶. The preposition ing ‘into’ was used even more widely (59 examples), occurring in the Lithuanian writings of both the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and East Prussia (e.g., M. Mažvydas, J. Bretkūnas).

It is unclear how the 1st sg. praet. fregu form budawau II 25₁₄ ‘used to be’ should be interpreted. At that time, it appears to have occurred only in East Prussian writings (chiefly the “Wolfenbüttel Postil,” as well as the books of J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, and L. Zengštokas), whereas today it is found only at the southeastern margins of the Lithuanian-language area (Zietela, Lazūnai, Dievėniškės, Druskininkai, Kápčiamiestis, Veisiejai, Leipalingis, Liškiava).

How the hymns were translated

J. Lebedys demonstrated that Slavočinskis’s hymnal is not a collection of hymns translated into Lithuanian earlier (little is known about them), but a book prepared all at once⁴⁷. The hymns were translated from Latin and Polish hymnals of the period (the psalms not from the Bible, but from adaptations by the distinguished 16th-century Polish poet J. Kochanowski); moreover, they were translated very freely, not literally, as was customary at the time⁴⁸. Therefore, in many cases, the term “recreation” rather than “translation” would better describe them (from the perspective of the period). Literary historians hold the translator’s work in very high regard, considering him a great innovator in Lithuanian versification⁴⁹.

Without delving into the artistic aspect of the translation, it is necessary here to note only those features of its versification that help explain phenomena in the language of the translation.

First of all, it should be noted that the translator adhered very strictly to the required number of syllables per line. As a result, words are sometimes shortened in unusual ways, e.g., n. sg. duš II 116₁₈, 118₈ ‘soul’, waland I 66₄ ‘hour’, 3rd praet. Giwen II 22₁₂ ‘lived’, liep I 76b₂₀, 78₈ ‘ordered’, tar I 17₃ ‘said’. In some places even vowels in the middle of a word are omitted, e.g., ill. sg. kalnen I 76b₃ ‘into prison’ (cf. a. pl. kalines II 34₁₀), voc. sg. Stansłoway I 118₇ ‘Stanislav’ (cf. g. sg. Stanisłowo I 118₆). The opposite cases also occur—so-called “filler” words, otherwise unnecessary (they are absent from the original), which obscure the meaning of the phrase but were introduced, like word shortenings, solely because of the translator’s efforts to maintain the required number of syllables per line⁵⁰. The extent of these efforts

⁴⁶ Žemaitian ańs ‘he’ lost its final vowel before the narrowing of an-type sequences, cf. northern Žemaitian ąns.

⁴⁷ See J. Lebedys, 1646 metų giesmynas. — S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės … p. 15—18.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 31—39.

⁴⁹ Žr. Lietuvių literatūros istorija, I. Redagavo prof. K. Korsakas. Vilnius, 1957, p. 150—151; J. Lebedys, 1646 metų giesmynas, p. 39—45; J. Girdzijauskas, Lietuvių eiledara. Vilnius, 1966, p. 118—124.

⁵⁰ Examples are cited by J. Lebedys; see S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės … p. 377 (note on line 131₁₃).

152

Among other things, this is shown by the errata appended at the end of the hymnal, which include cases where one variant form is replaced by another (e.g., inf. judit is replaced by juditi II 128₁₁ ‘to judge’), if required by the number of syllables in the line.

The translator also paid much attention to rhyme. His rhymes are characterized by full assonance across two syllables (more rarely, one and a half syllables). Rhymes occur even where the original is almost entirely unrhymed or uses medieval rhyme⁵¹. For the sake of rhyme, the translator sometimes uses even unusual, artificial case or person forms, e.g., d. pl. piemenėmus I 68₈ ‘to the shepherds’ (rhyming with ganantiemus ‘to those tending’), i. pl. f. būyjemis II 30₇ ‘terrible’ (rhyming with pādutiklemis ‘with rifles’), i. pl. pelenomis (!) II 55₂₅ ‘with ashes’ (with ábaromis ‘with tears’), i. pl. f. žibantiemis II 5₂₃ ‘shining’ (with žwayzdemis ‘with stars’), 1. pl. praes. dusaujime I 63₃ ‘we sigh’ (with 3. praet. užgime ‘was born’). An interesting example in this respect is provided by the stanza

Brought a manger for the animals, laid it out for him in the crib (I 62₁₃–₁₄)⁵²,

where, for the sake of rhyme and the required syllable count of the line, the verb form nuėjo is unusually contracted.

For the purposes of versification, the translator made fine use of older forms, especially plural dative forms with -mus (e.g., people I 11₁₀, saints I 13₃, us I 10₂) and singular dative forms with -mui (e.g., to the good one I 81₁₅, to the born one I 40₁₈), used alongside the corresponding usual short forms for rhyme and, in particular, to produce a line with the required number of syllables. For this purpose, shorter and longer singular locative forms are also used (cf. the rhyme between 3rd person singular past tense hung ‘was hanging’ and 1st person singular in the forest I 85₂₁–₂₂), as well as the singular instrumental of i- and u-stems (e.g., with a stone II 47₈, with the Son I 77₇ and with the Lord II 15₂₄, with them I 81₂₀), two forms of the future tense (e.g., 2nd person plural you will see I 117₁₈ and you will stand I 126₄); postpositional locatives or prepositional constructions replacing them are aptly selected as needed (e.g., illative singular into the earth II 40₄, allative singular to God II 45₂₂ and the preposition ing into the earth II 26₁₄, to God II 88₁₈), longer or shorter variants of individual words (e.g., devil II 93₂₂ and devil II 70₇ ‘devil’), and so on.

Analysis of the hymnal’s text shows that the Samogitian elements derive from a single source—the translator’s own native dialect. The Aukštaitian elements, however, are heterogeneous. They comprise features of subdialects from different Aukštaitian dialect areas, some of which were introduced by the hymnal’s translator himself, while others were apparently introduced by those preparing the hymnal for printing, and perhaps also by the printers.

The hymnal’s translator must have been well acquainted with the Aukštaitian dialect. Having come from the Samogitian area bordering Aukštaitia, he may have heard some Aukštaitian word forms alongside Samogitian ones from an early age. And not only from the lips of neighboring Aukštaitians. In his own native dialect at that time, as apparently is still the case today around Nemakščiai, there were likely a certain number of Aukštaitian variants. The translator must have become even more accustomed to Aukštaitian forms later, while living for a longer period in the area of the Aukštaitian dialect and associating with Aukštaitians.

The rhymes at the ends of the lines clearly show that the translator was familiar with and accustomed to the following features of the Aukštaitian dialect:

⁵¹ Examples are cited by J. Lebedys, ibid., p. 41.

⁵² ‘Having brought the hay, nuėjo, laid him in the manger’.

153

1. Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie in place of the ū, ī of his native dialect. This is shown by cases in which the translator rhymes Aukštaitian words with those that preserve uo, ie in the Samogitian dialect as well, e.g., a. sg. wieta I 6₃ ‘place’ with a. sg. /wieta ‘world’ (as many as a dozen times!). In some places he uses Aukštaitian words in rhyme with those written with the letter e in a stressed root, e.g., a. sg. viena I 65₂ ‘one’ rhymes with g. sg. pena ‘nourishment’, g. sg. m. kiekwiena I 109₃ ‘each’ with iž/iena ‘from of old’, d. sg. wietay II 70₃ ‘place’ with n. pl. metay ‘years’. Such rhyming would have been impossible with Samogitian equivalents.

2. Short vowels in endings in cases where Samogitians do not preserve them. For instance, n. sg. m. amžinas I 29₂₁ rhymes with 3. praes. refl. artinas ‘approaches’, 3. praes. duoda II 65₂ with 3. praet. roda ‘shows’ (several times), and 3. praes. ne gali I 152₆ with a. sg. dali ‘share’.

3. Aukštaitian unstressed ending -ė (-e). E.g., 3. praet. pawijte I 63₂₂ ‘swaddled’ rhymes with voc. sg. Christe ‘Christ’ (several times), dawe I 84₁₅ ‘gave’ with a. sg. fawe ‘oneself’, klause II 18₂ ‘listened’ with l. sg. praet. refl. sotinause ‘I was satiated’, and n. sg. žiame I 63₁₂ ‘earth’ with l. sg. m. tame.

4. Aukštaitian unstressed ending -os. E.g., g. sg. motinos I 74a₉, II 59₉ rhymes with 3. praet. refl. warginos ‘troubled herself’ and numažinos ‘reduced herself’.

No other person could have introduced these Aukštaitian elements: determined by the versification itself, they belong to the original linguistic material used by the translator when composing verse, not to secondary, supplementary material introduced later in the course of elevating the text.

The longer forms of nouns and adjectives in the loc. sg. (cf. the rhyme of girioia I 85₂₂ ‘in the forest’ with 3. praet. kaboia ‘was hanging’), the 1st and 2nd pl. forms of verbs (cf. the rhyme of 2. pl. praes. žinote I 77₂ ‘you know’ with voc. sg. Pitote ‘Pilate’), and the imperative variant with -ki- (cf. the frequent rhyme of 2. pl. imper. klikaukimę I 63₁₅ ‘let us cry out’ with 1. sg. fueime ‘in the gathering’) should probably also be counted among the forms familiar to the translator, unless, of course, these forms were then present in the translator’s own native Samogitian dialect.

Apparently, when composing verse, the translator chose Samogitian or Aukštaitian forms as needed. For instance, for g. sg. wina [vyna] ‘wine’, the Samogitian adverbial form šiendina [šendīna] ‘today’ (I 71—73) suited him better as a rhyme than Aukštaitian *šėdīena [šandīeną]⁵³. Likewise, the Samogitian genitive form dális [dalis] ‘of a share’ (II 103₂₆) matched n. sg. m. galis [galis or galīs] ‘power’ better than the Aukštaitian equivalent *dalies [daliės]. Cf. also the rhyme of n. sg. m. wižágális ‘almighty’ with g. sg. pális II 44₁₂ ‘of the country’, and n. sg. świeſa ‘light’ with the Samogitian 1. sg. form vgnieſa II 115₂₁ ‘in fire’. By contrast, the Aukštaitian n. sg. form žiame [žeme] ‘earth’ (I 63₁₉) suited 1. sg. m. tame much better than the *žiami [žemī] of the translator’s native southern Samogitian dialect, just as the Aukštaitian 3. praet. form pawijte [pavīste or pavīštė] ‘swaddled’ (I 63₂₂) matched voc. sg. Christe ‘Christ’ better than Samogitian *pawijti [pavīsti].

In this way, seeking better rhyme, the translator often placed side by side words and forms with Samogitian phonetics and those with typically Aukštaitian features, e.g., g. sg. giedas II 91₂₆ ‘of shame’ (Samogitian ie < ē and -as ‘-os’) rhymes with

⁵³ Cf. the stanza: Hey wina tokio wina, Ne buwa dar šiędina (I 71₈–₉) ‘Hey, wine, such wine; there was none today yet’. In that hymn the rhyme wina: šiędina is used as many as 6 times.

154

n. sg. žiedas II 92₈, ‘ring’ (the Aukštaitian ie and the ending -as). There are quite many such examples, and they vary. Further, cf. the rhyme of Žemaitian 1. pl. forms tupuoƒe ‘on the lips’ with Aukštaitian danguoƒe I 105₁₂ ‘in the heavens.’

In the hymnal, Aukštaitian endings are often added to words with Žemaitian phonetics, e.g., 3. praet. ieme II 14₁₅ ‘took’, n. sg. m. iƒzkodamas I 140₁₆ ‘searching’, d. pl. m. iƒzkantiemus I 140₅ ‘to those searching’, 1. pl. lipƒnoƒe I 133₁₁, 156₁₁, II 117₅ ‘in the flames.’ Sometimes an essentially Žemaitian form has Aukštaitian sounds, e.g., 1. pl. imper. refl. džiaukaimoƒe I 45₆ ‘let us rejoice’ (with o instead of uo). The reverse also occurs: an Aukštaitian form may receive a Žemaitian phonetic guise, e.g., 1. pl. praes. refl. wilamieƒe II 31₁₇ ‘we rejoice’ (the Aukštaitian ending -ėse pronounced in the Žemaitian manner).

The translator was undoubtedly prompted to introduce Aukštaitian elements into the hymnal by a desire to appeal to a larger number of Lithuanians and by efforts to prepare a hymnal as popular as possible⁵⁴. The example of earlier Aukštaitian writing in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was, of course, also significant. However, in the absence of clear rules for every case and of a normative grammar to regulate them, it was naturally difficult to achieve greater consistency in Aukštaitianizing the Žemaitian language of the hymns.

Perhaps the greatest source of confusion for the translator and those Aukštaitianizing the hymnal’s language was the use of the graphemes o, e and uo, ie. These two pairs are often mixed in the hymnal, especially in word inflections and suffixes. This happened because of the difficulty of discerning where the Žemaitian diphthongization of the Aukštaitian vowels o, ė occurs, and where the Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie are present, which the translator tried to use in adapting the text to Aukštaitian speech. Similar confusion is also observed in linguistic practice today, when a less educated Žemaitian, especially one from a family with a mixed dialect background, tries to write in the standard language.

In the hymnal, the graphemes o and uo are most often confused in the plural locative endings (cf. masculine -uose and feminine -ose > Žem. -uose) and in the suffixes -uotas and -otas (> Žem. – uots). This concerns examples both within the line and in rhyme position, e.g., 1. pl. kalboƒe ‘in languages’ rhymes with weykałoƒe ‘in works’ (II 97₂), mal̇dnoƒe ‘in prayers’ with lipƒnoƒe ‘in flames’ (I 156₁₀–₁₁), namuoƒe ‘in houses’ with mieƒtoƒe ‘in cities’ (I 60₂₀–₂₁), wargoƒe ‘in hardships’ with kawlinioƒe ‘in fur coats’ (I 66₂₀–₂₁). In the hymnal, the masculine plural locative ending with grapheme o is used even more frequently (35 examples)⁵⁵ than the form with uo (26 examples). Likewise, the suffixes -uotas, -uotinis, -uoti are written with grapheme o more often (13 examples) than with uo (8 examples).

The graphemes ie and e (instead of ė) are most often confused in the pronominal plural dative ending; cf. the rhyme of d. pl. m. teyƒingiemus ‘to the righteous’ with kaltemus ‘to the guilty’ (II 37₁₉–₂₀), i̇bgriebt emus ‘to the rescued’ with giminemus ‘to relatives’ (II 42₂₃–₂₄), taukiantemus ‘to those waiting’ with βauk iantemus ‘to those calling’ (II 41₁₆–₁₇). The ending -iem(u)s is written with ie 62 times and with e 15 times.

In word roots, confusion between the graphemes uo, ie and o, e is rarer, but it does occur; for example, 3. praes. is written doda II 114₉ ‘gives’ (rhyming with roda ‘shows’), n. sg. m. lepdās I 154₂ < lepdams ‘running’. It was not difficult to make a mistake here either, considering the words used in the hymnal in which both Žemaitians and Aukštaitians pronounce uo, ie, e.g., afiera,

⁵⁴ The effort to popularize the hymnal is also indicated, among other things, by the correction of errors: the 3. cond. form fectu ‘would follow’, appearing at I 116₆, was corrected to fektu (II 128₅).

⁵⁵ The loc. pl. wiƒrikłoƒe I 44₁₉, 59₉, ‘in diaper rooms’ is not counted here, because the noun vystykłai was feminine, not masculine, in the translator’s dialect; cf. i. pl. wiƒtikłomis I 53₂₃, II 8₁₅ ‘with diapers’.

155

oil, Andriejus, tielybė, Elžbieta, Gabrielis, Juozapas (8 examples alongside the genitive singular Juzapa I ³₉), Kazimieras, kielikas, Maižiešius ‘Moses’, miera ‘moderation, modesty’, mieruoti ‘to measure’, miestas, niekas, niekad(os), niekur, (pa)niekinti, (ne)prietelius, siera, sviestas, Vaitiekus. Of the 282 examples of this type observed, 248 are written with uo, ie, and 34 with o, e. It is characteristic that most of the latter consist of the word niekas and its derivatives. The verb (pa)niekinti and the noun (pa)niekinimas are consistently written only with the letter e. The suffix -ienė is also written with e; this could indicate the translator’s efforts to give words from his native Samogitian dialect an Aukštaitian phonetic form by transposing them with raised vowels⁵⁶.

In the Hymnal, the graphemes o, e are used fairly consistently instead of the Samogitian diphthongs uo, ie (= Aukštaitian o, ė) in words that rhyme with forms having the Aukštaitian diphthongs, or diphthongs common to both dialects, uo, ie, e.g., in forms of the verbs stoti (Samogitian stuoti) and duoti (II 2₁₆–₁₇, ₂₄–₂₅, 19₁₅–₁₆, 36₉–₁₀, ₁₃–₁₄, 56₁₉–₂₀, etc.), the masculine accusative singular forms žadeta ‘promised’ and pradeta ‘begun’, and the genitive singular swieta ‘of the world’ (I 39b₆–₈, ₁₃–₁₅, ₂₀–₂₂). However, this may be the work not only of the translator but also of another person who gave the Hymnal’s language an Aukštaitian character.

The presence of Eastern Lithuanian forms in the Hymnal poses a separate problem. Analysis of the versification shows that at least some of them must have been introduced by the translator of the hymns himself; cf. the nominative singular masculine paiautis ‘having sensed’ rhyming with the nominative singular iautis ‘ox’ (I 49₁₀–₁₁, 62₁₅–₁₆), the accusative singular puſi ‘half’ rhyming with the masculine accusative singular iſdžiuwuſi ‘dried up’ (I 87₈–₉), and the accusative singular karalunu ‘king’ rhyming with the accusative singular ſunu ‘son’ (I 118₉–₁₀).

J. Lebedys explains the Eastern Lithuanian forms in the Hymnal as the result of the influence of K. Sirvydas’s dictionary⁵⁷. But the Hymnal also contains Eastern Lithuanian forms that do not occur in that dictionary⁵⁸, e.g., (ne)kintėti ‘(not) to endure’, aplunkyti ‘to visit’, aplunkymas ‘visiting’ (the metrical evidence is given on p. 150), skaralė ‘rag’, grata ‘beside’, obalys ‘apple’ (p. 151). Moreover, Eastern Lithuanian inflectional endings could not have been taken from the dictionary, e.g., the accusative singular karalunu I 118₉ ‘king’, puſi I 87₈ ‘half’. The participles paiautis I 49₁₁, 62₁₆ ‘having sensed’ and palikis II 21₁₆ ‘having left’ are likewise absent from that dictionary. Thus, besides it, there must have been another source from which Eastern Lithuanian forms entered the Hymnal. Such a source should be identified as the living Eastern Aukštaitian dialect of the time, in whose area the translator apparently had to live for an extended period. Most likely, these were the inhabitants of Vilnius who spoke an Eastern Lithuanian dialect at the time and with whom the translator must have interacted, for example, while studying at the Vilnius Academy. It is noteworthy that the Hymnal even contains Eastern Lithuanian forms that have been Samogitianized, e.g., the second-person plural future nekintiesite II 16₁₆ ‘you will not endure’ (with Samogitian diphthongization of the vowel ė).

The translator did in fact make extensive use of K. Sirvydas’s dictionaries⁵⁹. In J. Lebedys’s words, it was his principal reference book when translating the hymns into Lithuanian. The Eastern Lithuanian equivalents of the words mąstyti, mąstymas, mąstis ‘thought, mind’, sąnarys, sąžinia, nenėrė (listed on pp. 149–150) were most likely taken from this dictionary, as was the noun uola with an added v- (the translator misunderstood K. Sirvydas’s spelling, in which the letters vo at the beginning of a word represent the diphthong uo), most of the words with the Eastern Lithuanian prefix ažu- (p. 152), and many others with no clear dialectal features (coinages, loanwords, etc.), including didėžuvìs ‘whale’ (II 66₄), miestakelis

⁵⁶ The preposition apie is likewise consistently written with e (all 40 examples). However, it may have the vowel ė or e rather than ie; cf. the forms in modern dialects apė, ape.

⁵⁷ See J. Lebedys, “The Hymnal of 1646.” — S. M. Slavočinskis, Giesmės..., p. 24.

⁵⁸ The author is grateful to K. Pakalka, a researcher of this dictionary, for providing the data presented below.

⁵⁹ See J. Lebedys, op. cit., pp. 26–30.

156

‘street’ (II 25₆), pelikonas ‘pelican (a kind of bird)’ (I 145₁₉, II 55₁₉), adv. piktadaringai ‘wickedly, shamelessly’ (II 25₈), persūna ‘persona, person’ (I 129₂₃, 131₂₃, II 115₁₄, etc.), rožių vainikas ‘rosary’ (II 68₄, 69₁₃), sudara ‘harmony, concord’ (II 46₉, 60₄), sumania ‘plan, intention’ (II 24₂₄), skalinis ‘pupil’ (II 82₉), tikybė ‘faith’ (I 143₁₀), visotimė ‘people, crowd’ (I 103₂₀). Not only the forms but also the spelling of these and some other words are entirely identical in Sirvydas’s dictionary and Slavčinskis’s hymnal. Moreover, they occur mostly in psalms and in other hymns whose texts were more difficult to translate.

To sum up everything that has been said about the original linguistic material used by the translator himself when versifying, we must conclude that its Samogitian basis was strongly influenced by the Aukštaitian dialect, primarily that of the Kėdainiai region of the time, and to a lesser extent by the eastern Aukštaitian subdialects. The translator must have had prolonged contact with speakers of these subdialects and lived among them for a long time. It is therefore unlikely that he was a young man. This seems to support the doubts raised by literary historians as to whether Saliamonas Mozerka Slavčinskis, who was still studying in Vilnius in 1646, could really have been the translator of such a polished hymnal⁶⁰. However, the localization of the translator’s native dialect in the very places from which S. M. Slavčinskis came speaks against this doubt. Thus, the question of authorship of the hymnal’s translation remains to be investigated⁶¹.

Although the language of the hymnal prepared by the Samogitian translator contained many Aukštaitian elements, it nevertheless differed considerably from the customary language of Lithuanian writings published at that time in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was based on the Aukštaitian dialect of the Kėdainiai region (in the Samogitian Diocese) or the eastern Aukštaitian dialect (in the Vilnius Diocese). Apparently, this did not satisfy the Jesuit publishers of the hymnal, who required that its language be made still more Aukštaitian, so that the hymnal would be accessible to an even larger number of Lithuanians.

Who carried out this work—the translator himself or another person (or persons?)—is now difficult to determine. Nevertheless, it is most likely that others besides the translator contributed to revising the hymn texts, perhaps an editor (or editors?) appointed specifically for this purpose. The rhymes damaged in places by the process of making the text more Aukštaitian at least give grounds for this assumption, since, as we have seen, the translator took great care over their pleasing sound. For instance, in the hymn “about the Wedding at Cana of Galilee” (I 70—73), alongside the sonorous rhyme g. sg. wina [vīna] ‘of wine’: adv. šiedina [šendina] ‘today’, repeated six times and formed by the Samogitian noun vynas and the adverb šiandieną, there are four instances in which this rhyme is damaged, the Samogitian form of the adverb šiandieną having been replaced with its Aukštaitian counterpart šiediena (I 71₄, ₁₉, 72₂, ₂₉). Another example of a rhyme damaged in the process of making the text more Aukštaitian is n. sg. žiedas ‘ring’ rhyming with g. sg. giedos ‘of shame’ (instead of Samogitian giedas; II 112₁₉)⁶². We would sooner expect the translator to have reworked such passages in a different way than to have spoiled the rhyme.

⁶⁰ Žr. Lietuvių literatūros istorijos chrestomatija. Redagavo K. Korsakas ir J. Lebedys. Vilnius, 1957, p. 76; Lietuvių literatūros istorija, I. Redagavo K. Korsakas, Vilnius, 1957, p. 150; J. Lebedys, 1646 metų giesmynas. — S. M. Slavčinskis, Giesmės..., p. 45—49.

⁶¹ The hymnal’s title page and preface indicate that S. M. Slavčinskis was the translator. For this, see D. Gargasaitė’s article in „Pergalė“, 1968, No. 9, pp. 179—180, and Lietuvos TSR bibliografija, I. Vilnius, 1969, p. 369. However, this is contradicted by the biographical information about S. M. Slavčinskis published by J. Jablonskis, and even by the doubts that S. M. Slavčinskis had anything to do with literature; see K. Jablonskis, Saliamono Slavčinskio biografijos žinios. — S. M. Slavčinskis, Giesmės..., pp. 53—58.

⁶² Perhaps even the sole example of a form with the reflexive particle -si at the end of the word (in the translator’s dialect it was only -se), namely the 3. praet. form fotinošī II 22₃ ‘was sated’, is the result of such a “correction”; the translator corrected it again in the errata (II 128₁₆), since this form rhymes with 1. pl. peklofe ‘in hell’.

157

The person (or persons?) who made the hymn text more Aukštaitian must have been a speaker of the Kėdainiai regional dialect. An eastern Aukštaitian speaker would, undoubtedly, have altered the an-type sequences. A western Aukštaitian speaker who did not intend to pronounce the consonant l would not have inserted the letter i before e-type vowels. Moreover, this latter dialect was not used in the written literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. It had become generally established only in writings published in East Prussia.

The language corrector primarily altered passages of unrhymed text and the hymn titles. Here, only two Samogitian features were left altogether (apparently because they went unnoticed): a. sg. iwá I 64₅ ‘Eve’ and 3. praes. wadin I 129₁₀ ‘calls’. Otherwise, everything was made Aukštaitian, more precisely, “Kėdainiai-ized.”

In the rhymed text, the corrector’s efforts were constrained by the meter of the hymns. He had somewhat more freedom in the middle of a line (outside the rhyme position), and made more corrections there. For example, in the hymn with the Polish title “W dzień Bożego narodzenia” (I 51—53), of the three 3. praet. forms of the verb (už)mušti ‘to strike, kill’, two occur in the middle of a line and both have an Aukštaitian ending (written -e), while one occurs at the end of a line and retains the ending -i of the translator’s native dialect, since it rhymes with the a. sg. m. ending -i ‘-į’. There are nine 3. praet. forms with ė-stems in this hymn altogether. Of these, four occur in the middle of a line (three have the ending -e and one -i), and five at the end of a line (in rhyme position); all of the latter retain the ending -i of the translator’s dialect.

In the middle of lines, the corrector was constrained above all by the need not to alter the existing number of syllables. Consequently, for example, he could not replace Samogitian forms without a short vowel in the ending with the corresponding Aukštaitian forms with an intact ending. The form used by the translator himself had to be retained. Thus, apparently, the language was corrected chiefly by introducing the affricates č, dž in place of t, d, which had occurred according to the “Samogitian sound law”; Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie in place of the South Samogitian monophthongs ū, ī; vowels o, ė in place of Samogitian diphthongs uo, ie; inserting the letter t before e-type vowels, and so on—that is, making changes that did not alter the number of syllables in a line. The corrector was not careful, since numerous hybrid forms, half Samogitian and half Aukštaitian, were produced, e.g., 2. pl. imper. Duokit II 11₂₆, duokiet I 40₁₇ ‘give’, giedokiat I 37₂₃, giedokiet I 40₁₇ ‘sing’, Heyskiet I 111₁₁ ‘let in’, 2. sg. Giebiek II 63₁₉ ‘save’, n. sg. žoteli I 22₂₅ ‘little herb’ (with Aukštaitian uo, ie, o, t, but Samogitian -kia-, ie < ė, -i ‘-ė’).

The corrector did not touch, or only rarely touched, those Samogitian forms that were not entirely unfamiliar to Aukštaitians at the time. For example, the Samogitian i-stem loc. sg. ending -iey ‘-yje’ was most often left uncorrected; compare -eie in the Aukštaitian writings of J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, and others⁶³, adv. nesavėjė Jurbarkas ‘like a stranger’. The Samogitian preposition pri [pri] ‘at, by’ was acceptable to the corrector, since a variant with short i [pri] was used by Aukštaitian speakers at the time (perhaps even the corrector’s own dialect), and is still used in places today⁶⁴. Consequently, of the 113 examples of this preposition in the hymnal, only 6 are written prie(g) and 1 preg, while everywhere else (i.e., in 106 examples) pri⁶⁵ was retained. The preposition nuo is another matter: its Aukštaitian variant nuog occurs 134 times (written nog once), while the Samogitian nu [nū] occurs only 26 times.

In the middle of lines, the only elements of the translator’s language that mostly remained un-Aukštaitianized were those the corrector apparently simply failed to notice. For example, of the 516 instances of the word dievas without-

⁶³ Žr. J. Kazlauskas, Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika, Vilnius, 1968, p. 152—154. ⁶⁴ Žr. Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, p. 424. ⁶⁵ Daiktavardžių priešdėlis pri- [žem. pri-], pvz. 1. sg. priwáyždoy II 11₂₀ ‘prievaizdoje, globoje’, giesmyne pavartotas 7 kartus, o prie-, pvz., n. sg. priewayžda II 32₆, 6 kartus.

158

Only a single southern Samogitian form remained: the genitive singular Diwa II 126₁, and even that is not in the hymn text but in the book’s contents (the heading in the line within the hymn text itself has been corrected).

At line endings, correction was constrained by rhyme. Without spoiling the rhyme, only both members of a pair could be changed. In the hymnbook they are often Aukštaitian, for example, nominative singular diena: naujiena ‘novelty’ (I 61₁₃–₁₄), genitive singular feminine pašlovintos ‘praised’: paženklinktos ‘marked’ (I 24₂₁–₂₂), dative plural masculine pamestietiems ‘abandoned’: pučiantiems ‘blowing’ (II 1₂₂–₂₃), third-person preterite tare ‘said’: įžvare ‘drove out’ (I 65₁₂–₁₃), first-person plural imperative dumokime ‘let us think, dream’: minekime ‘let us remember’ (I 74a₇–₈). However, some pairs were also left un-Aukštaitianized, for example, second-person singular present reflexive randije ‘you find yourself, are’: wilije ‘you hope’ (I 93₂–₃), infinitive turieti ‘to have’: kientieti ‘to suffer’ (I 85₁₅–₁₆), third-person preterite trauki ‘pulled’: rauki ‘wrinkled’ (I 75₁₃–₁₄), second-person singular imperative reflexive artinkias ‘draw near’: šveikinkias ‘greet’ (I 6₁₅–₁₆), second-person plural dž iaukiaties ‘rejoice’: linkšminkiaties ‘be merry’ (I 26₁₃–₁₄).

It was impossible to change just one member of a pair without spoiling the rhyme. Therefore, when a pair consisted of two different grammatical forms, the corrector had to leave them untouched, even though one of them was Samogitian, for example, adverb didey ‘greatly’: second-person singular preterite įbgidey ‘you healed’ (II 12₂₅–₂₆), infinitive gauti ‘to get’: third-person preterite apšiauti ‘shod’ (I 78₅–₆), second-person singular imperative reflexive džiaukiafse ‘rejoice’: third-person present reflexive artinafe ‘approaches’ (I 27₃–₄), first-person plural imperative reflexive džiaukiamoſe ‘let us rejoice’: third-person preterite reflexive ſtojoſe ‘stood up’ (I 45₆–₇). Only in very rare cases were such rhymes nevertheless spoiled, apparently through oversight or by a particularly strict (and incompetent) corrector.

Samogitian monophthongs ū, ī (= Aukštaitian uo, ie) remained un-Aukštaitianized in rhyme position only when the word forming the second member of the pair had the ancient vowels ū, ī, for example, accusative plural feminine paskaytitas ‘read’: iššiltas ‘poured out’ (II 27₁–₂). Such cases, however, were rare. In general, Aukštaitianization was carried out excessively throughout. This is why so few examples with Samogitian ū, ī remain in the hymnbook (about 17%), usually left “through oversight” in the middle of a line.⁶⁶

Very often the rhymes of a pair differ in that one has uo and the other o, for example, infinitive duoti: infinitive atſtoti (II 19₁₅–₁₆). Perhaps here the translator rhymed an Aukštaitian form (uo) with a Samogitian one (uo < o), which the corrector Aukštaitianized by changing Samogitian uo to Aukštaitian o. The frequent ie: ė (written e) rhyme should also be explained in this way, for example, genitive plural wietu ‘of places’: masculine instrumental singular negirdetu ‘unheard’ (I 125₂₁–₂₂). For this reason, and also because Samogitian uo, ie were often replaced by the Aukštaitian monophthongs o, ė (written e) in the middle of lines, so few Samogitian diphthongs uo, ie (= Aukštaitian o, ė) remain in the hymnbook.

Vocalism contributes more than consonantism to a pleasing rhyme. The translator therefore paid less attention to the latter; compare the rhyming of genitive singular masculine ano ‘his’ with locative singular Kanoy ‘in Cana, in the land of Cana’ (I 70₉–₁₀). This may have contributed to the more intensive replacement of Samogitian non-affricated forms with Aukštaitian affricated ones. The change may have been made by the translator himself

⁶⁶ It should be noted that such cases make up a higher percentage in certain endings. Among the Samogitian variants of the pronoun masculine instrumental singular ending -uo, the proportion is as high as 70%; for the nominative plural masculine ending -ie, it is 25%, whereas for the genitive singular ending -ies of i-stem nouns, it is only about 6%. In individual cases, the corrector probably avoided touching Samogitian forms that were not entirely clear to him. This seems to be indicated by the treatment of first-person singular present verb forms with the enclitic pronoun -t(i) ‘to you, you’ added. Of the three examples of such forms in the hymnbook (I 65₁₃, 144₁₁, II 121₁₅), all retain Samogitian phonetics, i.e. end in -ūt < -uo-t (i) (written -ut). Likewise, the first-person singular reflexive ending -uos(e) is Samogitian in as many as 10 instances and Aukštaitianized only 4 times. The adesive ending -iep was left as -ip (= cf. Samogitian -ip?), apparently because, written this way, it was not unfamiliar to Aukštaitians either, who had -ip primarily in the paradigms of nouns belonging to the (i)ja stem.

159

both the translator and the language correctors (after all, only 32% of the examples retain the “Samogitian sound law”).

The analysis presented shows that the language correctors not only substantially Aukštaitianized the hymnbook, but also increased the number of various doublets and, more generally, linguistic inconsistencies.

The significance of Slavočinskis’s hymnal for the history of the Lithuanian language and historical dialectology

Slavočinskis’s hymnal contains a considerable amount of important linguistic data that makes it possible to shed light on various problems in the history of our language and the development of its dialects.

From the hymnal we learn that in the first half of the 17th century the southern Samogitians already had the monophthongs ū, ī in place of the Aukštaitian diphthongs uo, ie. In this Samogitian area, the long narrow monophthongs o, ė had also already been diphthongized by that time. Approximately the same distribution of ą, ę, ų, į (= an, en, un, in) and a, e, u, i existed as is found in the dialect today. The preposition and prefix į had at that time, in certain cases, still retained variants with n (ing, in-), at least optionally. The “secondary nasalization” characteristic of the southern Samogitians was present. In the hymnal it occurs in not quite the same words as today; this in turn indicates that in the past there was considerable variation between forms with nasalized and denasalized vowels, especially narrow ones⁶⁷. In places in the Raseiniai area, the beginnings of the change of word-initial e- to a- were already present.

However, in the dialect spoken by the translator, tautosyllabic diphthongs with falling accent, consisting of u, i + r, l, m, n, still had an intact first component. Today in those localities (Žalpiai, Nemakščiai, Očikiai, Sugintai, Viduklė, Sujainiai, and Lipkiškė itself) it has been diphthongized: pronounced, for example, dùorti ‘to pierce’, kūolti ‘to thresh’, skùonsti ‘to complain’ (< skūnsti), dùomples ‘lungs’, pièrms ‘first’, jièlks ‘long’, piènti ‘to plait’, riemc ‘calm’. The fact that this diphthongization is not old is shown, among other things, by the change of diphthongs of secondary origin, e.g., 3. praes dùor ‘pierces’, guòl ‘lies’, d. sg. mùon < mùn ‘to me’, sunkùoms ‘heaviness’, pìpiers ‘pepper’.

In the consonant system, it is worth noting first of all that consonant palatalization before e-type vowels was somewhat different then than it is today. Today, the Raseiniai southern Samogitians palatalize all consonants in this context. In the first half of the 17th century, only k and g were clearly still palatalized before e-type vowels, and perhaps, at least in part, š and ž as well⁶⁸. The others were still hard or had undergone only very slight palatalization. This is clearly shown by an analysis of the spelling in Slavočinskis’s hymnal.

A total of 687 examples of the combinations k, g + an e-type vowel were found in the hymnal. All are written with the palatalizing grapheme i after k, g, with the sole exception of n. sg. Ewangeliſta I 128₁₄ ‘evangelist’, which, being a foreign word, retains the spelling of the original. Stressed combinations [kė], [gė], and those containing [e] in an acute diphthongal combination ([kéi], [géi], [kér], [gér]...) are written with the graphemes kia, gia, e.g., n. sg. kìalas I 86₁₂ ‘road’, gìaras I 50₂₁ ‘good’, kialdamas II 73₁₆ ‘while carrying’, inf. giarti II 17₂₁ ‘to drink’, etc. Unstressed combinations, or those occurring in a circumflex combination, as well as short stressed ones, are systematically written with the graphemes kie, gie, e.g., 3. praes. kient I 92₄ ‘suffers’, 1. sg.

⁶⁷A very unusual instance of nasalization is the form tą II 104₁₂ ‘you’ of the second-person pronoun (a nasalized short vowel?). It is hard to believe that this conceals *tū =, the equivalent of Russian ты. Could this be a proofreading error?

⁶⁸There are no clear examples involving affricates. The hymnal contains only the foreign word večeria ‘supper’, whose spelling is inconsistent (twice after č the palatalizing letter i is written, and twice it is absent).

160

Laukie I 54₃ ‘waited’, adv. gierav I 21₉ ‘well’, 1st pl. pres. gievdžiame I 19₂ ‘we desire’, adv. Draugie I 22₂₁ ‘as a friend, together’, etc.⁶⁹. The distinction between the graphemes ia and ie is maintained well; cf. the pairs a. sg. kiala I 155₁₀ ‘road’ and i. sg. kielu I 117₁₁ ‘by road’, a. sg. giara I 142₂₂ ‘good’ and g. sg. f. gieros I 100₇ ‘good’⁷⁰.

There are 233 examples in the hymnal of combinations of š, ž + an e-type vowel. The palatalizing grapheme i is written 154 times, and omitted 79 times. The letter i is systematically omitted in two cases: a) after the prefix iš- (7 examples), where, apparently, pronunciation before a pause is retained, and b) in forms of the verb šelpti (26 examples), which may have been known to the translator or editors only from written sources (?). Other instances of the palatalizing letter i being omitted are non-systematic and occur only in forms and derivatives of the verbs žengti (18 examples without i and 2 with i), žeisti (6 without i, 1 with i), žeminti (4 without i, 7 with i), the numeral šeštas (1 without i, 5 with i), and the noun ženklas (14 without i, 6 with i), as well as in the diminutive roželė (1 example, whereas rožė and the diminutive darželis are written with i—6 examples), and in the 3rd-person past-tense form of the verb (už)mušti (2 without i, 1 with i). These facts point to inconsistent palatalization of the consonants š, ž. Two explanations are possible: either those consonants in the translator’s native dialect had not yet become noticeably palatalized at the time (the letter i may have been inserted here and there by the Aukštaitianizers of the hymnal’s language), or they had already become palatalized in that dialect, while the examples without i arose through the fault of editors from dialects without palatalization. The first assumption seems more reliable, since it is supported by evidence from the writings of the Samogitian Mažvydas (according to Chr. Stang, only k, g are palatalized in his catechism⁷¹) and the Aukštaitian M. Petkevičius from the Kėdainiai region (who palatalized not only k, g but also š, ž⁷²). The distribution between the graphemes ie and ia after š, ž is the same as after k, g, although there are somewhat more inconsistencies (11%).

Other consonants are not palatalized by the letter i before e-type vowels⁷³; likewise, stressed e after them is not written with the grapheme ia⁷⁴.

⁶⁹ In the hymnal, the diminutive vaikelis is written as if stressed vaikelis; cf. waykielis II 59₉, voc. sg. waykieli I 27₇, n. pl. waykielay I 37₂₂. Likewise, the verb (pra)keikti is treated by the translator as (pra)keikti (the same is true in M. Petkevičius’s catechism!). The verb gelbėti has two stress patterns: gelbėti and gelbėti (the rhymes also indicate this). 3rd fut. Giers II 38₁₄ ‘will heal’ and refl. prikielſiſe I 156₂₄ ‘will rise’ indicate the Aukštaitian circumflex in the 3rd-person future forms (with metatony). In the 2nd-person singular reflexive past form Džiaugieys II 72₅ ‘you rejoiced’, too, there is apparently the Aukštaitian 2nd-person singular ending -ei(s), not the Samogitian -ėi(s).

⁷⁰ There are relatively few deviations. Excluding the cases cited in footnote 69, only 40 have been counted, amounting to 9% of all [ke], [ge] examples in the hymnal. The confusion of the letters a and e in the hymnal created conditions for these deviations (e.g., adv. skaney I 71₂₁ ‘pleasantly’, n. sg. f. buſenti I 74b₄ ‘who will be’, mažiaufe II 8₆ ‘smallest’ alongside i. sg. f. baymia I 80₁₄ ‘fear’, n. sg. m. ateias I 56₆ ‘having come’, 2nd sg. praet. refl. kielayſe II 25₁₁ ‘you moved’), resulting from the merger of [a] after a palatalized consonant with [e] in the Samogitian dialect. It should be noted that the Samogitian marker of the imperative mood in the hymnal should be interpreted as kia, not ke: although it is never stressed, spellings with ia account for 38%, and in 2nd-person singular and 1st-person plural forms as much as 50%.

⁷¹ Žr. Chr. S. Stang, Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo, 1929, p. 98.

⁷² See Z. Zinkevičius, The dialect of M. Petkevičius’s catechism (1598), “Baltistica”, VII (1), Vilnius, 1971, pp. 74–77.

⁷³ Only 6 examples with i were noted in all (g. sg. ſmirties II 24₁₉ ‘of death’, inf. tieyſti II 26₂₃ ‘to judge’, 2nd sg. pres. refl. Tieykies II 65₅, 110₁₂ ‘you take for yourself’, 3rd praet. Pražwiełgie I 18₁₆ ‘looked through’, adv. wievkley II 64₂₁ ‘quickly’), but these are clear proofreading errors, since in all other instances the forms are written without i. The error in the corrected I. sg. form miedey ‘in the tree’ (~ Samogitian mediey) is corrected to mediey (II 128₉), but this error is also corrected in the text itself (I 64₁₄). The adjective n. sg. f. Anielibſka I 155₃ ‘angelic’ has the diphthong ie (cf. anielas ‘angel’ LKKŽ I² 141), whereas in the g. sg. f. form nieſakſtos II 103₅ ‘unstained’, instead of ne- there may be nė- > Samogitian nie- (?).

⁷⁴ The examples arising from the merger of [a] after a palatalized consonant with [e] (see footnote 70) have a both in stressed and unstressed positions.

11. 520

161

The Slavočinskis hymnbook shows that in the first half of the seventeenth century the southern Samogitian Raseiniai speakers already no longer pronounced the consonant d between z and a vowel, e.g., gen. sg. barzos I 75₁₃, II 59₂₂ ‘of the beard’.

At that time, the noun žvaigždė was still pronounced without -g- (today in the translator’s dialect, as in the Aukštaitian area, it is pronounced with -g-), e.g., nom. sg. žwayzde II 86₁, instr. pl. žwayzdemis II 5₂₄.

The eastern features of the hymnbook suggest that by that time at least part of the eastern Aukštaitian area had already undergone, at least in certain cases, monophthongization of the diphthong uo in unstressed syllables, e.g., gen. pl. Obalu I 64₁₈ ‘of apples’. Apparently, only the beginnings of this phenomenon were present at the time.

At that time, in eastern Lithuania, the syllable re was already pronounced as ra in some places, e.g., grata II 77₃ ‘grėta’.

Among the morphological features, the living use in the hymnbook of grammatical forms that are now absent from the southern Samogitian Raseiniai area, or are close to disappearing altogether, should be noted first of all. For example, the dual nominative of nouns is used (e.g., Kur šiuo metu mudu, Ir bandikščiu tudu, Gaujim atiljės I 61₉–₁₁ ‘where we two and those two animals will now find rest’), as are dual verb forms (e.g., eykiau fu manimi II 117₁₄ ‘let us two go with me’).

Illative forms are attested. The singular illative is quite frequent in the hymnbook, with as many as 44 examples (nouns of various stem types). There is only one example of the plural illative: plenifn I 154₁₇ ‘into the ashes (of smoldering embers)’. In place of plural illative forms, the construction preposition ing ‘into’ + acc. pl. is used. The singular illative, too, is often replaced by the construction ing ‘into’ + acc. sg., e.g., graban I 98₆ || ing grabą II 111₄, Bažničion II 78₁ || Ing Bažničia II 74₂₀, žiámen II 40₄ || ing žiame II 26₁₄, šírden I 81₇ || ing šir dí II 53₁₈, dangún II 85₁₁ || ing dangu II 73₆. In the hymnbook, the two means of expression are entirely interchangeable, and the translator chooses one or the other according to the number of syllables required by the line.

The illative forms cannot be regarded as an eastern feature, if only because of their abundance. The person who rendered the hymnbook’s language more Aukštaitian could not have introduced them without disrupting the hymns’ meter. Thus, they were part of the translator’s own linguistic repertoire, most likely acquired from his native southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect⁷⁵. This is also indicated, among other things, by the Samogitian phonetics of the forms (e.g., numan I 54₃ ‘home, to the house’) and their morphology (e.g., šírden I 81₇ ‘into the heart’).

Plural illative forms were most likely no longer used, or were very rare, in the translator’s native dialect at the time. The form pleniƒn I 154₁₇ could, of course, also be considered an element of the Kėdainiai-area dialect, since the plural illative was still fully alive in that dialect at the time (unlike today), as found in the writings of M. Daukša, M. Petkevičius, and other speakers from Kėdainiai; moreover, its forms were often used there in shortened form, i.e., ending in -sn (without -a!).

The adessive and allative forms are also used productively in the hymnbook. There are 272 examples in all: 84 adessives and 188 allatives. In both cases the singular forms are more frequent (81 and 153 examples, respectively), though plural forms are also attested (3 and 35 examples). They occur in a wide range of parts of speech, e.g., ad. sg. Diewip⁷⁶ I 14₄ (: God),

⁷⁵ This contradicts J. Kazlauskas’s a priori claim that the illative was probably never used as a case in the Samogitian dialect; see his Lietuvių kalbos istorinę gramatiką, V., 1968, p. 165.

⁷⁶ All the adessive and allative forms end in -p. There is not a single example with the full postposition -pi. The ending -ip may conceal the southern Samogitian -ip (= Aukštaitian -iep). The form is written with -ip 18 times, and with -iep only once.

162

Motinip⁷⁷ I 14₁₅ (: motina), Mäloningämimp II 20₁₂ (: maloningas), manimp I 60₁₀ (: aš), Kurimp I 54₅ (: kuris), Tämimp⁷⁸ II 28₁₁ (: tas), all. sg. Wardop II 41₁₇ (: vardas), šveykatoƒp I 144₁₂ (: sveikata), žiameƒp I 108₁₇ (: žemė), Sirdieƒp I 100₂₀ (: širdis), funauƒp I 95₁₃ (: sūnus), Wießpatieƒp II 16₇ (: viešpats), skaysčiaufioƒp I 5₁ (: skaiščiausia), kuriop I 63₃ (: kuris), Toƒp I 27₁₁ (: ta), Manieƒp I 91₂₀ (: aš), all. pl. Koiump I 110₁₄ (: kojos), äuƒump II 29₅ (: ausys), Rupeƒtingump II 17₆ (: rūpestingį), fäwump II 22₁₃ (: savi), Tump II 6₂ (: tie), muƒump⁷⁹ I 29₁₅ (: mes). The plural adessive forms are rare (only 3 examples) and unusual: animp ⁸⁰ I 84₄, II 48₂₇ (: anie), imp II 48₂₈ (: jie).

Both the adessive and the allative forms are used productively (not fossilized) and may be accompanied by agreeing adjectives⁸¹; the two cases are not confused with one another⁸². Sometimes they are replaced by a construction with the preposition pri ‘at, by’ and the genitive (the inessive also occurs in place of the adessive). This construction rarely replaces the allative (only 15 clear cases were observed), e.g., Iezauƒp pri ƒiartina I 75₃ || evtymem Pri IEzauß II 90₁₄, Diewop pri toia II 45₂₂ || pri Dievä ƒto ƒimeƒe II 88₁₈. The adessive is replaced much more often (the plural has been almost entirely displaced from usage; more than 40 cases of replacement of the singular were observed); in practice, the two means of expression are used as variants, e.g., fawimp Diews rada wieta I 20₇ || Diews [yra] pri tawęs I 17₅, Tu Diewip laymingas I 118₈ || Anna pri Diewá gärbinga II 109₃, Ne iaute ƒawimp ƒtipribes I 94₃ || iaučiau pri ƒawęs toki maƒima II 39₈.

This indicates that in western Lithuania the adessive was disappearing more rapidly than the allative, unlike in eastern Lithuania, where, judging from the present situation in Lithuanian villages in the Byelorussian SSR⁸³, the allative had disappeared earlier. This alone is enough to rule out treating the inessive forms of exterior location in Slavočinskis’s hymnal as eastern Lithuanian features. As with the illative forms, they could not have been introduced by the highlander who adapted the hymnal’s language without disrupting the hymns’ meter. Thus they should be regarded as part of the translator’s native dialect, the southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect of that period. This is also indicated, among other things, by the Samogitian features of the forms themselves, e.g., all. sg. Iwoƒp I 64₁₁ (: lewa), päbängoƒp II 37₁₇ (: Samogitian pabanga ‘end’), all. pl. pitump I 148₁₀ (: pietūs ‘south’), numump II 47₄ (: namai ‘home’)⁸⁴.

In the hymnal, the longer plural dative endings (with -mus) and the singular dative endings of pronominal origin (with -mui) are fairly common. As already noted, the translator makes effective use of them in versification, either to produce a line with the required number of syllables or to find a suitable rhythm. They point to a competition then under way (perhaps also in the southern Samogitian area?) between the long and short endings of this case

⁷⁷ The only example of the ā-stem ad. sg. The ending -ip (instead of the expected -aip) comes from the ja-stem paradigm.

⁷⁸ Only two ad. sg. forms of possessive pronouns are given here.

⁷⁹ Once written as muƒump I 32₈ (q = ų).

⁸⁰ Perhaps the letter i denotes Samogitian i (= Highlander ie)?

⁸¹ E.g., Dek tawā wilti Diewip, Mäloningämimp Tewip II 20₁₁–₁₂ ‘trust in God, the merciful Father’, Siunte Diews Aniola… skaysčiaufioƒp Pannoƒp ir eiƒeianioƒp Marioƒp (žwenčiaufioƒp I 4₂₃–₅ ‘God sent an angel… to the most immaculate Virgin and to the holiest Mary’.

⁸² Perhaps only the all. pl. muƒump I 108₁₅, 127₁₃, II 90₁₀ could be interpreted as adessive usage (?).

⁸³ See Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, pp. 202–203.

⁸⁴ All these facts argue against J. Kazlauskas’s assumption that exterior local cases, like the illative, have never played a significant role in the Samogitian dialect (have never been cases); see И. Казлаускас, Историческая грамматика литовского языка. Автореферат. Вильнюс, 1967, p. 18.

11*

163

forms. The same applies to the longer and shorter forms of the singular instrumental of i- and consonant stems and (i)u-stems, e.g., akmenimi II 47₈ || wiešpatim I 131₅ ‘with the lord’, Sunumi I 77₇ || šunumi I 81₂₀ ‘with the dog’, wayšiumi I 23₂₂ || wayšium I 29₃ ‘with the fruit’. They vary considerably and apparently also depend on the number of syllables in the line.

The locative and plural instrumental are treated somewhat differently: the hymnal is dominated by short loc. sg. forms (e.g., walándoy I 28₁₈ ‘in the hour’, mediey I 64₁₂ ‘in the tree’, danguy I 21₁₀ ‘in heaven’) and long loc. pl. forms (e.g., warguofe I 66₁₁ ‘in troubles’, žiamieſa I 99₂ ‘in lands’, akyſa I 50₂₃ ‘in eyes’) and instr. pl. forms (e.g., dowanomís I 30₁₃ ‘with gifts’, Krutimís I 45₁₈ ‘with breasts’). Apparently, the full loc. sg. ending (cf. girioia I 85₂₂ ‘in the forest’, Rouie I 64₈ ‘in paradise’), the loc. pl. ending without -e or -a, and the instr. pl. ending without -i- were unfamiliar to the translator, and perhaps to the language correctors as well⁸⁵. Today, short variants have become dominant in all cases in the southern Samogitian Raseiniai area. The singular locative has also lost its jod: píwuo ‘in the meadow’, žėmie ‘on the earth’ are pronounced.

In the hymnal, plural locative forms end in -se or -sa, e.g. knigoſe I 102₁₈ ‘in books’, akiſa I 37₁ ‘in eyes’. It should be noted that -se occurs with nouns of both genders, whereas -sa occurs only with feminine nouns⁸⁶. The rhymes show that both variants were used by the hymnal’s translator himself; for example, 1. pl. galibeſa I 146₂₀ ‘in powers’ rhymes with n. sg. šwieſa ‘light’, while 1. pl. rankoſe II 25₁ ‘in hands’ rhymes with 3. praes. refl. ſtoioſe ‘stood up’.

Today, forms with -sa are entirely absent in the southern Samogitian Raseiniai area. The short variant, without any vowel after s, has become established. It should be noted that the variant -sa was much more widely used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it is today: it is found not only in the writings of the Eastern Aukštaitian K. Sirvydas and the Kėdainiai writer M. Daukša (rare in both, with -se dominant), but also in the works of the Western Aukštaitians J. Bretkūnas, B. Vilentas, and J. Rėza, and of the Samogitian M. Mažvydas. Thus, in present-day dialects, shortened forms have not everywhere lost the vowel e after s; in many places it was a (and, in some places, u). Perhaps this is why s is now usually pronounced as a hard consonant.

In the hymnal, the singular dative ending of i-stem and consonant-stem nouns is represented by the graphemes -ij (occasionally -ii), e.g., širdii I 137₁₂ ‘to the heart’, wiebpátii II 1₁₆. Wießpátii II 20₈ ‘to the lord’. Today, the southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect uses new forms with the ia (masculine) and ė (feminine) stem endings. Only very rarely, in some places, can the archaic i-stem ending -i (= Aukštaitian -ie) be heard. The evidence of the Slavocinskio hymnal suggests that in the first half of the seventeenth century this ending was still in general use; moreover, it still had a jod or nonsyllabic į, that is, it was pronounced -ij or -īj⁸⁷. The latter circumstance explains the dialect’s monophthong i ne-

⁸⁵ The situation described closely resembles the use of short and long endings in the writings of authors from the Kėdainiai region, for example, in M. Petkevičius’s catechism; see Z. Zinkevičius, “The dialect of M. Petkevičius’s catechism (1598),” „Baltistica“, VII (1), pp. 82–84.

⁸⁶ Not a single masculine noun or other nominal form with the loc. pl. ending -sa was observed. This recalls the recommendation in D. Klein’s grammar, which appeared seven years later, to use -sa only with feminine words; see Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius, 1957, p. 434. Among other things, this usage is found in the edicts of the East Prussian authorities from 1712–1788, published in 1955 by P. Pakarklis (Lietuvos TSR MA Darbai, Serija A, I); see G. Bense, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu neugefundenen litauischen Dokumenten aus dem XVIII. Jahrhundert. — Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg, 1958, pp. 659–660.

⁸⁷ That the ending certainly contained a jod or į is also shown by the correction of errors, where the d. sg. form wieſpaty is corrected to wieſpatii (II 128₉–₁₀). In the text itself, this form is corrected to wieſpatii (I 69₉).

164

shortening due to the reduction of long vowels in unstressed endings. The language normalizers of the hymnal did not correct this ending, because its written form did not differ from the ending [-ij] or [-ii], widely used at that time in the Aukštaitian dialect⁸⁸.

Slavočinskis’s hymnal shows that in the first half of the seventeenth century the Žemaitian i-stem noun paradigm already had some ē-stem case endings (examples are given on pp. 141–142). In the hymnal, the singular instrumental of feminine nouns consistently has the ending -ia, e.g., akia I 23₂₅ ‘with the eye’, širdžia I 23₉ ‘with the heart’.

The plural paradigm of u-stem nouns was still fairly intact at that time, cf. n.pl. dāngus aukščiauſi II 109₁₂ ‘highest heavens’, karalus II 56₂₇ ‘kings’, ſunus iſbremti I 21₁₆ ‘banished sons’, tris ſunus I 131₁₇ ‘three sons’, d.pl. pelums II 1₂₂ ‘to the chaff’. New forms with a-stem endings were apparently still rare then, though they occur even in the singular paradigm, e.g., i.sg. Sunu I 106₁ ‘with the son’.

The nominative plural inflection of consonant-stem nouns in the hymnal is of three types, e.g., moters I 37₂₁ ‘women’, ſeſers I 46₁₇ ‘sisters’ || krikśćiones II 84₂₇ ‘Christians’ || Moteris I 41₃ ‘women’, ſzunis I 75₁₁ ‘dogs’. This may, of course, be the work of the hymnal’s language editors. The variant with the i-stem ending is used in the translator’s dialect today. Genitives also vary in the hymnal, e.g., g.sg. dukters II 110₁₀, wandens II 43₈ || wandenio I 71₂ ‘of water’, g.pl. wieſpatu I 131₇ ‘of lords’ || βakniu II 12₁₂ ‘of roots’. The a.sg. form meniſi I 24₁₃ ‘month’ is interesting. If it was not coined by the translator for the rhyme with wiſi ‘all’, it could indicate that forms of consonant stems with i instead of unstressed e were once found over a wider area of the Žemaitian dialect than today⁸⁹.

Slavočinskis’s hymnal does not yet have the ending -ums, now very widespread in this region for the dative and instrumental plural of all feminine nouns, e.g., d.pl. śakūms ‘to branches’, mergūms ‘to girls’, aviūms ‘to sheep’, i.pl. śakūms ‘with branches’, mergūms ‘with girls’, aviūms ‘with sheep’⁹⁰. Apparently, it did not yet exist in the first half of the seventeenth century. However, the pronominal-origin masculine dative plural ending -iems was already being replaced by -ims (examples are given on p. 142).

Adjectives in the hymnal have some archaic features. For instance, aiśkus, aśtrus, brangus, pigus, stiprus have older a-stem inflection, cf. adv. ayβkay I 2₄, II 6₁₉, Ayſzkay I 99₁ ‘clearly’, a.sg.f. aśtra I 84₇ ‘sharp’ (still said today), i.sg.m. brangu I 119₁₈ ‘dear’, n.sg.f. piga I 94₁₁ ‘cheap’, adv. pigai I 94₆ ‘cheaply’ (but n.sg.m. ne pigus II 69₉ ‘not cheap’, adv. pigiey I 60₂₃ ‘cheaply’), n.sg.f. Stipra II 86₂₅ ‘strong’, adv. ſtipray II 53₁₉ ‘strongly’ (still said today). The u-stem paradigm itself also contains older forms, e.g., g.pl.m. bayſu II 79₂ ‘fearsome’, teyſu żmoniu I 141₆, II 17₈ ‘righteous people’, a.pl.m. neteyſius II 62₁₃ ‘unrighteous’.

Among the paradigm forms of pronominal adjectives, the n.sg.f. forms in -oja are noteworthy, e.g., giwoia I 136₇ ‘the living one’, Panna ſżwentoia I 9₁₃ ‘the holy maiden’, Graźiaufioia lilila I 24₃ ‘the most beautiful lily’. The translator’s dialect today has -oji. That formerly here

⁸⁸ It is written -ii (Knyga Nobažnystės, M. Petkevičius, Volfenbiutelio postilė), -iy (B. Vilentas, B. Chilinskis, Knyga Nobažnystės), or -ii (M. Daukša, Knyga Nobažnystės). J. Kazlauskas gives examples in „Вопросы славянского языкознания“, выпуск 5, Москва, 1961, pp. 97—98.

⁸⁹ For the present-day situation, see Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, pp. 58—59.

⁹⁰ See Z. Zinkevičius, cited work, pp. 72—73.

165

The existence of the ending -ja, apart from in Slavočinskis’s hymnal, is also attested by the place names in sixteenth-century documents collected by J. Spruogis, e.g., Диделя – нива в Видуклев. вол⁹¹.

Among pronouns, the use of the enclitic forms mi, ti should be noted first; for example, a) Diewe kam apleydaim I 82₁₀ ‘... you abandoned me’, kankint nepalaujam II 18₂₇ ‘torture does not overcome me’, Draskõ [=Draskom] werksmas I 89₁₄ ‘tears me apart...’, ſuminem II 26₁₁ ‘crushed me’, Gierbſim wiſos ßalis I 21₄ ‘all lands will honor me’, neſzkiem linkſmibe I 147₁₂ ‘carry joy to me...’, Szełpkiėmgi I 155₂₁ ‘help me, too’, b) Garbe duodut Diewe I 144₂₁ ‘I give you glory...’, (~duoduot), Raſiut čia I 65₁₃ ‘I will write you here’ (~raſiuot), Wadinamot Pán-ná II 86₅ ‘we call you...’, Aniolay [...] garbinat I 106₆ ‘... worship you’, Jaučias [...] šilduot I 59₂₁ ‘the ox... warms you’, Minios Zidu priešj įžėiot, O palmas ant garbes dejot I 106₁₀–₁₁ ‘... went out before you... laid palms for you’, dáwet turtus Diews II 28₂₁ ‘God gave you riches...’, welinay [...] Deginſit ugnim nugara II 118₆ ‘devils... will burn your back with fire’ (40 examples in all).⁹²

That these forms are part of the translator’s linguistic repertoire is shown by their occurrence in rhyme position (e.g., I 88₂₂–₂₃, II 18₂₇–₂₈). They are now no longer used not only in the translator’s dialect but in other Lithuanian dialects as well; however, their traces have remained chiefly in the South Samogitian area⁹³. They apparently disappeared there late.

The translator’s dialect at that time already used, for the genitive pronouns acc. pl. m., endings -us matching those of nouns and adjectives (tùs ‘those’, anuos ‘those’, etc.; examples are given on p. 142). On one occasion, the form tiems was used in place of d.pl.f. toms (II 10₁₄). If this is not a typographical error⁹⁴, it may be an archaism known from other old writings⁹⁵ and former Lithuanian dialects of East Prussia⁹⁶.

The hymnal of Slavočinskis uses athematic forms of the verbs būti, (pa-, pra-)dėti, paduoti, (at-, pa-, per-, pra-, pri-, iš-, už)eiti, giedoti, palikti, pasiekti; for example, 1.sg. eſmi I 95₂₁ ‘I am’, Pademi II 63₁₆ ‘I put’, Paduomi II 43₁₁ ‘I hand over’, Eymi I 74₁₇ ‘I go’, 1. pl. Eſme II 50₁₃ ‘we are’, 3. person eſt I 29₈ ‘is’, Padeſt II 107₂₈ ‘puts’, Paduoſt II 38₉ ‘hands over’, eyt I 26₁₁ ‘goes’, Gieſt I 105₁₉ ‘sings’, Pàlikt II 6₁₀ ‘leaves’, ne paſiekt II 57₂₂ ‘does not reach’, refl. deſtis II 121₅ ‘takes place, is put’ (88 examples in all). Compare a.sg.m. atenti I 104₂₀, 121₂₁, II 111₁₁ ‘coming’⁹⁷.

Some athematic forms show features of Samogitian phonetics, e.g., 3. praes. Pàlikt II 6₁₀ ‘leaves’ (= highland Lithuanian paliekti). Samogitian reshaped forms of athematic forms are also used alongside them, e.g., 3. praes. refl. atliktaſe I 153₁ ‘remains’ (~ atliktase), a.pl.m. Ateytančius II 97₂₆ ‘those who are coming’. These facts show that the South Samogitians sp-

⁹¹ И. Я. Спругис, cited work, 94.

⁹² The vowel in the enclitic forms is not preserved. The following three somewhat unclear examples with te (not ti!) are exceptions: 1. Sunau te girdžiu raudanti, Aſž ſaweſp tawe bilanti I 95₁₆–₁₇ (J. Lebedys, cited work, 368, suggests understanding this as: ‘Son, may I hear you, weeping, speaking to me (with me)’), 2. Tu weykdàla iki gala Mánà ßelpki kad kálbomïs Aß teyſingay ir láymingay Gárbinčiau te tulomis II 98₂₅–₂₇ (J. Lebedys, ibid., 421, doubts Garbinčiau te and suggests understanding it as ‘may I worship’ or ‘I would worship you’), 3. IOzupay pamazù, Meldžiute pamazù, Regi iog asz ne galiu, Eyti grey tay šiu kialu I 60₄–₇ (J. Lebedys, ibid., 363, suggests understanding Meldžiute as ‘I beg you’).

⁹³ See Z. Zinkevičius, cited work, pp. 300–301.

⁹⁴ J. Lebedys, cited work, 391, emends it.

⁹⁵ Examples are given by F. Špechtas, K Z LVI 264 ff.

⁹⁶ Žr. J. Gerullis ir Chr. Stang’as, Lietuvių žvejų tarmė Prūsuose, Kaunas, 1933, p. 44.

⁹⁷ An interesting participial form occurs in the phrase Tie weyda Diewa žibanti Reg, įBkur garbe eiánti Im ſáu II 107₆–₈. This phrase should probably be understood as ‘They see God’s shining face and take for themselves the glory coming from it’.

166

In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Šeina dialect speakers were already using, alongside athematic verbs, innovations formed on the basis of the third person, which later completely displaced the athematic forms from usage.

The reflexive particle -se ‘-si’ (examples are given on p. 145) was then used much more widely in the southern Samogitian Raseiniai dialect area than it is now. In the present-day dialect, the shortened variant -s, already attested in Slavočinskis’s hymnbook, has become generally established. Only in some places (e.g., around Pagramantis, Skaudvilė, Eižvilkas, and Raseiniai) is -se still occasionally used alongside it. In Lipkiškė (S. M. Slavočinskis’s birthplace), -se is not attested today. It is possible that before -s became established, many Samogitians (it is found even in M. Mažvydas’s catechism) and Western Aukštaitians had -se at the end of the word. Today it is attested in places in the latter’s area around Jurbarkas, Ariogala, Liubavas, and Kapsukas, and it was also used in the speech of the Curonian Lagoon fishermen⁹⁸. The Aukštaitianizing editor of the hymnbook left the reflexive particle -se untouched⁹⁹, which shows that it was then popular in the Aukštaitian area as well. Indeed, it is found in the writings of J. Bretkūnas and B. Vilentas, in “Margarita Theologica,” and in one or two examples in K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” and J. Jaknavičius’s Gospels.

Among other verb features, it should be noted that the present-tense forms of the i stem in the editor’s dialect were already being replaced optionally by ia-stem forms (examples are given on p. 142); the dialect already had the imperative marker -kia- resp. -ke- (see p. 142); first-person plural forms already ended in -ma, reflexive forms in -mos (see p. 142); and there was a first-person singular conditional ending -čiau (see p. 143). Apparently, in the first half of the seventeenth century, as in various dialects today (including the southern Samogitian area), the “athematic” and i-stem forms of the future tense were already competing, e.g., 2nd pl. dirifite II 2₂₄ ‘you will do’, waykščioſite II 2₁₂ ‘you will walk’ || negauſite I 102₁₃ ‘you will not get’, perſekineſite II 2₁₁ ‘you will pursue’¹⁰⁰.

Among the hymnbook’s more unusual indeclinable words, mention should be made of the longer adverbial form daug, daugi I 90₁₀ (a dozen or so examples; today it is used only by southern Aukštaitians); the adverb Niau I 61₆, 96₄ or nau II 119₁₄ ‘perhaps, maybe’ (not found at all in dialects or other writings); the conjunction Nesag II 65₂₃ or Neſag II 49₅ (~ nesag, nesang) ‘because’ (not used in dialects today); and the preposition Anta II 22₅ ‘on’ (today found only among southern Aukštaitians)¹⁰¹.

A much-favored particle is gi > g, which is attached to various inflected and indeclinable words, e.g., gen. sg. m. tog I 139₁₀ ‘that one too’, 1st sg. f. toyg I 138₁₇ ‘there too’, nom. pl. m. Wiſig I 63₁₅ ‘all of them too’, 3rd pres. Irogi¹⁰² I 132₆ ‘it is indeed’ (< *irā + gi), 2nd sg. imperative Bukig I 109₁ ‘be, then’, conjunction Betayg I 14₁₂ ‘but, yet, however’, and particle Tegigul II 56₁₇ ‘let it be so, then’. Today, usage that is even partly similar has been observed perhaps only in the Zietela dialect.

Among word-formation features, the suffix -inykas should be noted, e.g., acc. sg. daržinika I 114₄ ‘gardener’, nom. pl. káltinikay II 117₁₅ ‘accusers’. Today the editor’s dialect uses -ininkas, which is entirely absent from Slavočinskis’s hymnbook. The variant -inykas

⁹⁸ See J. Gerullis and Chr. Stang'as, cited work, p. 47.

⁹⁹ There is only one corrected example, but even it was “corrected” back to -se in the errata (see note 62).

¹⁰⁰ An interesting first-person plural future form is peykſim I 114₆ ‘we will peck’. If it is not a typographical error for peykſim, it could indicate that forms with a repeated -m- element in the first-person plural already existed at that time; see Z. Zinkevičius, cited work, p. 367 (§ 670).

¹⁰¹ The preposition ant in the hymnbook is also used with the instrumental case (Ant kryžiumi I 145₇, ‘on the cross’). Today, this usage appears to have been observed only in the western part of the Samogitian dialect area.

¹⁰² J. Lebedys (cited work, 377) mistakenly regards it as a typographical error.

167

it is now attested only farther east of the translator’s dialect, in the very eastern Aukštaitian area around Raseiniai (Gerviniai) and Kelmė. In earlier times, apparently, it was used across a much larger area, since we also find it in the writings of authors from East Prussia who originated in Samogitia¹⁰³.

Slavočinskis’s hymnal shows that in the first half of the seventeenth century the Samogitians already placed the prefix at- (not ati-!) before verbs beginning with the consonant d, e.g., inf. atiduoti II 3₁₈ ‘to give back’, 3. praet. atadawė I 68₃ ‘gave back’, 3. praes. adara I 112₂ ‘opens’, n.pl.f. adaritas I 155₆ ‘opened’.

The hymnal also contains a substantial amount of material relevant to the history of our vocabulary. Researchers will find in it words no longer used in Lithuanian today, such as padukšė (I 99₁₃, 140₁₂, II 19₇,₈, 47₂) and paduksis (II 22₆, 28₁₃) ‘hope’, penukšlas (I 143₂₁, 148₁₄, 150₃) ‘food, nourishment’, rudulis (I 65₁₉) ‘poor person, pauper’, 3. praes. tieg (I 76ₐ₉, 78₉, 83₁₅, 122₁₄, II 19₃, etc.) ‘says’. Some words have retained an older form, e.g., velinas (I 69₁₃, 100₃, 121₁₃, II 76₁₈, 116₁₅, etc.) ‘devil’¹⁰⁴. Many others are now known only in certain dialects. For instance, the noun kėltuva (I 46₉, 68₉, II 21₂₅, 22₁₉, 32₁₈) was then used in eastern (K. Sirvydas), central (M. Petkevičius), and western (J. Bretkūnas, M. Mažvydas) Lithuania alike. Today, this word can be heard only in eastern Lithuania, approximately as far as the Labanõras–Giedraičiai–Daugai line.

The researcher of the hymnal’s vocabulary will also find words that we now use with a different, often more recent, meaning, e.g., bernelis (I 31₂₀, 34₁₆, 36₂₀, 59₂₇, II 57₁₅) ‘little child, baby’, grynas (I 142₃, II 100₇) ‘destitute, poor’, nasrai (II 26₂) ‘mouth’.

* * *

The analysis of the language of Slavočinskis’s hymnal presented here should be regarded as the first attempt to examine this important monument of our language from the perspective of dialectology. The analysis should demonstrate that research into old writings from this perspective is promising. In the future, it may yield a great deal of important evidence for the history of the language. After all, without such evidence it will be impossible to create a historical dialectology of Lithuanian, since comparing only present-day dialect facts leads to endless hypotheses. Finally, studies of this kind are the key to illuminating the very complex history of the formation of standard Lithuanian—above all, its written form (in the past, there was more than one).

Received

1971.V.5.

З. ЗИНКЯВИЧЮС

THE LANGUAGE OF S. M. SLAVOČINSKIS’S HYMNAL (1646)

Summary

It is generally accepted that the language of this monument exhibits a mixture of different Lithuanian dialects of the first half of the seventeenth century. The aim of this study is to provide an accurate inventory of the elements of those dialects that

¹⁰³ Cf. Pr. Skardžius’s note, “Archivum philologicum,” II (Kaunas, 1931), p. 197.

¹⁰⁴ The Hymnal also has a shorter form, but with an a (not ja!) stem ending, e.g., n.sg. Welnas II 94₁₀, g.sg. welna I 56₂, d.sg. Welnuy II 103₁, n.pl. welnay II 118₁₁. That the longer form is not the work of language correctors is shown by the versification of the hymns; cf. the rhyming of n. sg. welinas II 116₆ with a. pl. f. amžinas ‘eternal’, and a. pl. welinus II 76₁₈ with a. pl. kalinius.

168

are part of the language of the monument under study, to localize the dialects in question, to clarify the process of translating the hymns into Lithuanian, and to determine the significance of the data drawn from this monument for the history and historical dialectology of the Lithuanian language.

The detailed analysis of the monument’s linguistic features revealed that it contains elements of only three dialects, namely: (1) Samogitian, from the area around Nemakščiai–Viduklė; (2) Aukštaitian, from the area around Kėdainiai; and (3) East Lithuanian (the city of Vilnius).

The hymns were initially translated into the Samogitian dialect (the translator’s native speech), with the addition of some Aukštaitian elements used by the translator chiefly for versification, primarily when seeking a suitable rhyme. However, those who organized the publication of the collection were displeased with the spiritual hymns translated into Lithuanian in this way. The text was therefore subsequently revised (apparently not only by the translator himself, but also by other people) to replace Samogitian forms, wherever the verse allowed, with those Aukštaitian forms that were characteristic of the written language then accepted in Lithuania, above all in the Diocese of Samogitia, which, in the author’s view, originated on the basis of the dialect spoken around Kėdainiai.

The few East Lithuanian elements found in the hymns appeared for two reasons: (1) the translator made extensive use of K. Sirvydas’s (Širvydas’s) East Lithuanian dictionary; (2) the translator borrowed some of those elements directly from the East Lithuanian koine of the city of Vilnius, where he lived while studying at the Vilnius Academy.

The monument under study contains much valuable data for the history and historical dialectology of the Lithuanian language. For example, it shows that in the first half of the seventeenth century the southern Samogitian dialect already had long monophthongs ī, ī (instead of uo, ie in the modern standard language), diphthongs uo, ie (from o, ē), and the shift of initial e- to a- was already beginning; however, the acute diphthongal sequences u, i+r, l, m, n in the area around Nemakščiai–Viduklė had not yet undergone diphthongization. In the consonant system, the first feature to note is the change of consonants zd to z. At that time, palatalization of consonants before e-type vowels differed from that in the modern dialect: only k, g, and to some extent š, ž (č, dž) were substantially softened, while the other consonants retained their original hardness to a greater or lesser degree. At that time, the dialect retained many ancient morphological forms that have now disappeared entirely or almost entirely, e.g., the dual, the illative, the adessive, the allative, plural locative forms in -sa, dative singular forms in -iej for nouns with stems in -i, enclitic pronominal forms mi, ti, athematic verb forms, and widespread use of the reflexive particle -se. At the same time, the monument already contains some new elements characteristic of the modern southern Samogitian dialect.

169

The study also examines data that shed light on the history of the dialects of the Aukštaitian dialect.

In conclusion, linguists’ attention is drawn to the need for a more in-depth study of ancient Lithuanian written monuments from a dialectological perspective.

Received 5.V.1971