Reikšmingas žemaitiškas rankraštinis tekstas

ŽODŽIŲ FORMOS IR JŲ VARTOSENA LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA Z. ZINKEVIČIUS A SIGNIFICANT SAMOGITIAN MANUSCRIPT TEXT In the spring of 1971, in the Rare Books Department of the Vilnius University Library, I discovered a previously unknown old Lithuanian manuscript text written in the Samogitian dialect. The text is in a composite volume bearing the shelfmark LR 881—882. The volume consists of: 1) Rituale Sacramentorum Ac Aliarum Ecclesiæ ceremoniarum... Vilnæ Typis Academicis Societatis Iesu Anno Domini 1701; 2) Ewanielie polskie y litewskie... W Wilnie W Drukarni Academickiey Soc: Iesu, Roku Pańskiego 1705; 3) a substantial bundle of manuscripts consisting of 30 unnumbered leaves measuring 9 × 14 cm (including a leaf inscribed on the inside of the binding cover). The Lithuanian text is in the third part of the convolute—in the manuscript bundle, folios 22–25 and 27–28 (pp. 44–49, 53–55). The text consists of: a Gospel intended for All Souls’ Day, prayers and other elements of the catechism, and a retelling of Pope Urban VIII’s bull “In Coena Domini.” The entire Lithuanian text was written in one hand. It was written before the convolute was bound, since there are letters cut off at the edges of the pages or lying deep beneath the stitching, where writing them after binding would have been impossible1. The Lithuanian text contains no date or proper name from which its time of inscription could be determined. However, the text’s contents—above all, the bull “In Coena Domini”—provide evidence for dating it. This bull of Pope Urban VIII (1623—1644), which arose from the custom of cursing certain persons on Maundy Thursday (in Coena Domini)2, was ordered to be proclaimed in the Diocese of Samogitia from 16303. Initially, however, it was little known. Apparently, priests did not even have the complete Latin text, which was officially published only in the resolutions of the 1636 synod4. Because the bull was relevant to the struggle against the Reformation, Bishop of Samogitia Jurgis Tiškevičius ordered in 1636 that it be proclaimed not only on Maundy Thursday (as had been done until then), but also on other feast days and at larger gatherings of people generally. In the aforementioned synod resolutions, in the section “De publicatione Coenae 1 It is most likely that the entire bundle (or almost all of it) had already been inscribed when it was bound. The edge letters on other leaves too (not in the Lithuanian text) are cut off in places or lie under the sewing; moreover, all the paper was folded into gatherings of unequal size (with 1+1+4+4+4+4+1+1 folded leaves; the third gathering is incomplete, and the last three pages have been separated), following the inscribed text. Presumably, blank paper would have been arranged in gatherings of equal size. 2 Podręczna encyklopedya kościelna, B—C, tom V—VI, Warszawa, 1905, p. 215. 3 M. Valančius, Raštai, II, Vilnius, 1972, p. 354. 4 The copy held at the Vilnius University Library (shelfmark III 10701) is missing its title page. The following heading is handwritten: “Acta Synodus Primæ [in fact, it was the second synod. — Z.Z.] Samogitiens sub Georgio Tyszkiewicz Anno Domini 1636”. 171 “Domini” requires that preachers proclaim in the local language of the people (lingua vernacula) the ideas (points) of the bull most relevant to the diocese5. This requirement was observed, but lacking a Lithuanian text, the priests substantially distorted the ideas of the bull. This was noted at the 1647 synod, whose decrees6 state that “some parish priests and preachers (concionatores) improperly proclaim the points of this bull to the people in the local language, either adding things that do not belong to it or explaining the meaning of the words in a way inconsistent with the requirements of the subject and the law.” It goes on to say: “foreseeing that they might become entangled in such errors, we decided that this bull, accurately translated into the Samogitian language (lingua Samogitica) and proclaimed, should be appended here.” The Lithuanian translation of the bull7, with explanations, was appended; it was printed in Gothic type (the explanations in Latin type) in the so-called “Middle” written language then used in the Samogitian diocese, which, as we see, was at that time called the Samogitian language8. The entire text was reprinted a second time in 1690 in the collection of decrees of the Samogitian diocesan synods, “Collectanea”9. But apparently, by the end of the seventeenth century, the bull had already lost its original relevance, since when it was published a second time, it was placed at the end of the collection and carelessly reprinted, with omissions from the text (see points 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19), and even without appropriately correcting the sentences. Apparently, the bull was never reprinted again. The Lithuanian manuscript text of the bull that concerns us (lines 108–162) differs from the printed text discussed above not only in language (it is written in the actual Samogitian dialect, not the “Middle” written language), but also in content. It is not a translation of the entire bull, but a retelling of only those of its ideas that are relevant to the struggle against the Reformation. The scribe attacks the Reformers much more skillfully than does the authentic printed text of the bull. To this end, he chooses images stronger than those in the original, but more readily understood by the people; for example, instead of the printed text’s statement that (heretics) deserve a curse, he simply curses them, consigning them “to the accursed power of the Devil.” He acts similarly when defending the interests of the clergy of his diocese against the Reformers; for instance, he curses those who take away a clergyman’s meadows, fields, livestock, grain, and money, although the bull itself contained no such specific curse. All this indicates that the retelling of the bull under discussion must have originated at the very height of the struggles of the Reformation. Given the distortion of the original’s ideas, we might even suppose that it originated before 1647, that is, at a time when no official Lithuanian translation of the bull yet existed. However, on page 17 of the convolute manuscripts there is a Latin entry, apparently in the same hand, which mentions the 1669 synod. In addition, the second book of the convolute— 5 M. Valančius writes that the priests were ordered to “render that bull into Samogitian” (cited work, p. 354). 6 Synodus quarta dioecesis Samogitiæ… Vilnæ Typis Academicis Societatis Iesu A.D. M. DC. XLVII, p. 31. 7 The translator is unknown, but it could not have been Jonas Jaknavičius, as V. Biržiška suspected (see “Tauta ir žodis”, IV, 310). The simplest comparison of the languages shows this. Later, apparently, V. Biržiška also abandoned that opinion, since he no longer mentioned a translation of this bull among J. Jaknavičius’s works, suspecting instead that it might have been translated by the Jesuit Jonas Gruževskis (Aleksandrynas, I, 242). 8 The translator of the 1605 catechism called it that as well, claiming that M. Daukša’s catechism was written “in Samogitian.” These facts clearly demonstrate the historical evolution in the meaning of the term Samogitian. 9 Collectanea Conſtitutionum Synodalium Diæceſis Samogitiensis [Vilnius, Academy Press, 1690]. — The bibliography of the Lithuanian SSR (Series A, vol. I, Vilnius, 1969, p. 479, entry 99) mistakenly claims, through an oversight, that the 1547 synod text was copied from this text (the earlier one from the later one!). 172 At the end of the printed text, on the last page of (Ewanielie polskie y litewskie... 1705 m.), the words Garbie Dywu etc. were written by hand. This latter addition may also have been made by the same person (?), since the handwriting is similar and, moreover, the dialect is the same. It is therefore most likely that the text was entered later, at the end of the seventeenth century (if Garbie Dywu etc was added by another person) or even at the beginning of the eighteenth century¹⁰, but in either case following or simply copying an earlier manuscript text, which had emerged in the heat of the struggle against the Reformation. The bundle of manuscripts in the convolute also includes a Polish translation of the aforementioned bull (pp. 49–52), likewise abridged, but more extensive than the Lithuanian version. This, too, appears to have been written by the same person. A comparison of the two texts shows that, when entering the Lithuanian text, the unknown person initially followed the Polish version: the opening and the first point are very similar. But then, after translating the first point a second time somewhat differently (cf. lines 119–123 and 124–128), the writer abandoned that approach and thereafter followed some other, unknown version of the bull (perhaps a Samogitian one; cf. the distortion of the Samogitian form of the word bandykštis ‘cattle’ discussed in footnote 68), apparently written before 164711, no longer distinguishing the individual points of the bull. This indicates that at the time there were more manuscript variants of this bull in Lithuanian (and perhaps Polish), adapted to the needs of the Samogitian diocese in its struggle against the Reformation. In these, as in the surviving Lithuanian and Polish manuscripts, everything not directly connected with that struggle was omitted, for example, the prohibition on attacking ships at sea, appropriating the property of shipwrecks, and so on. Certain motifs from the presumed manuscript variants may also have found their way into the printed text. Therefore, the final sentence in the 1690 „Collectanea“ collection (O tokie wifi tegul užgeſa ant duoſios ir ant Kuno amžinay kaypo ta zwake užgeſa) does not necessarily show that the manuscript text that concerns us, whose ending it strongly resembles (Yr kap ta Zwakie ozgieſa tap tegol ty wysoy ont kuna Yr on dusies ozgies), was entered after 1690, although this is certainly possible. From all that has been said, it is clear that 1636 should be considered the earliest possible date for the text, or its source, to have come into being. At the latest, it could have been entered shortly after 170512. Thus, the dating spans approximately 70 years. Accordingly, the manuscript text published here is at least two and a half centuries old. A few words about the other parts of the entry and the circumstances in which they came into being. At the time the Lithuanian text under consideration was entered, a printed Lithuanian translation of the Gospel appointed for All Souls’ Day (November 2) did not yet exist13. The priests of the Samogitian diocese must have felt its absence14, as they sought to Christianize the hea- 10 The fact that the bull was no longer relevant at that time may be indicated by its placement at the very end of the entire Lithuanian text. 11 Lines 136–139, where the people who impose new customs duties (taxes) or increase them are cursed, prompt this interpretation. The explanatory notes to the 1647 translation state unambiguously that this curse concerns Italy alone (the Valakian land), whereas in other countries kings and diets may impose “customs duties” when necessary, without any curse. At first, the scribe acted as though unaware of this explanation (cursing the specified people), but then caught himself and added a qualification (those who do this): „nepryguliedamy yr netoriedamy tykros macys“. 12 The convolute was most likely bound shortly after the books appeared, since new editions of both were published soon afterward (the Gospels in 1711, Rituale Sacramentorum in 1715), and thus the old editions must have become outdated and lost their relevance. 13 J. Jaknavičius’s collection contains only those Gospels that are read on Sundays and feast days. All Souls’ Day was apparently a working day then, too. 14 Its relevance is indicated, among other things, by the Lithuanian text’s having been entered right at the beginning. 173 … funeral customs associated with ancestor worship, which here, more than elsewhere, must have been popular. For, according to M. Valančius, many Samogitians, who at the time were formally considered Christians, had become entirely pagan during the Reformation15. It is difficult to say whether the scribe himself translated the text of this Gospel (lines 1–18), or copied it from an older Lithuanian manuscript (perhaps merely using it?)16. The latter assumption might be supported by the archaic forms that occur, for example, d. pl. mumos 1 ‘to us’ (from mumus), ad. sg. m. Jawimp 9, 10–11 ‘at his place’. Regarding the inclusion of the prayers and other elements of the catechism (lines 19–107), it should be noted that as early as 1636 the aforementioned Bishop of Samogitia, Jurgis Tiškevičius, had ordered the priests, as M. Valančius writes, “on Sundays throughout the year, and also on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent, to explain each article of the faith, or to teach what is called the catechism”17. The prayers were transcribed following the text of the Polish prayers and other catechetical material found among the manuscripts in the composite volume (pp. 36–39; only the sign of the cross and the profession of faith, corresponding to lines 96–107 of the extant Lithuanian text, are missing), which was probably also written in the same hand. The Lithuanian text corresponds to it entirely; the two agree almost word for word, differing more noticeably only in “the five commandments of the Church” and “the seven sacraments.” It has not been possible to determine who transcribed the various parts of the Lithuanian text discussed here. It is clear only that the person must have been a Catholic clergyman, an educated man who knew Latin and Polish at least well. On the reverse side of the composite volume’s flyleaf there is a barely legible inscription in another hand: Ex Libris Patris Benedicti Grygiewicz Parochi Gulis. It should probably be understood as: “From the books of Father Benediktas Grigevičius, parish priest of Kuliai”18. There are also other inscriptions by this person, not only among the manuscript bundle but on the composite volume’s endpaper as well. The latter circumstance suggests that this person probably arranged for the composite volume to be compiled and bound. He must have assembled the books most useful to priests at the time, along with a bundle of manuscripts—his own and those of several others—that supplemented their contents, and which he had acquired or inherited. The composite volume was apparently in constant use. This is indicated both by the numerous underlinings in the text of “Rituale Sacramentorum” and by the contents of the manuscript bundle. It contains various ecclesiastical regulations, synodal decrees, theological explanations, descriptions of rites, prayers, and other Latin, Polish, and Lithuanian texts related to a priest’s daily work. The collection seems to have been arranged according to relevance: the most necessary texts were placed at the beginning, the least necessary at the end. It was written at different times and by at least several people. The handwriting and spelling conventions are generally characteristic of the seventeenth century. The paper is yellowed in places; no watermarks have been observed. The composite volume later came into the library of the Kretinga monastery, from where it was acquired by the Kaunas University Library (1941. VI. 16); in 1952 it was transferred to Vilnius University Library. 15 See M. Valančius, op. cit., II, pp. 86–87. 16 In any case, my earlier conjecture (see Baltistica, VIII (1), p. 97104) that the scribe translated J. Jaknavičius’s Eastern Lithuanian text into the Samogitian dialect needs to be revised. 17 M. Valančius, op. cit., II, p. 325. 18 Regarding the spelling Gulis instead of Kulis, cf. the confusion of the letters G- and K- in written documents in the chancery Slavic language of that period. 174 The Lithuanian text is not easy to read throughout; in some places it can be deciphered only by comparing different passages, especially those written by the same person in Latin and Polish. Uppercase and lowercase letters are not always clearly distinguishable, especially d, k, s, z. Reading is hindered by ink that has faded here and there, letters cut off at the page edges, and inconsistent punctuation. The transcriber of the text generally followed the considerably variable Polish spelling of the period. As a result, inconsistencies and variations occur. The affricate ć is sometimes marked with the letter c bearing a grave-shaped (not acute) diacritic. In the deciphered text it is rendered as the letter ć. Here and there the letter e is written with a peculiar loop-like extension upwards. It is deciphered as the simple letter e. In some places the dot is omitted over i (also in the text in other languages), or it may have faded. The writing of the letters s and z varies most of all. The former has frequent transitional forms between s and f. In the deciphered text it is rendered as f only when the loop at the top or at least a bend to the right is sufficiently distinct; the size of the letter is disregarded. The letter z varies between z and ʒ. A clearly formed ʒ is more common in the Polish text. In the Lithuanian text, z with an ending extended considerably downwards at an angle predominates. In that case it is rendered as a simple z, regardless of the letter's size. A z with a crossbar also occurs. This too is rendered as a simple z. When the letter z denotes the consonant ž, a dot, an acute accent, or a mark somewhat resembling an inverted caret is sometimes placed above it. In the first case it is rendered as ž; in the other two, as ž. At the end of a word, some letters sometimes end in an artificially extended horizontal line (also in the text in other languages), reaching into the following word and thereby formally joining the two into one. This joining is disregarded in the deciphered text. To illustrate the spelling, a photocopy of page 45 is included; its text is the least faded and the easiest to read. The complete deciphered text is presented below19: 1 ont [denos]20 maldu oz duszes f̦kạyta mumos Baznic̦ia S. Ewang: parasita nu Jona S. pa-[d]jeimy 5. Anu metu; kalbeie Jezus mokitynems21 5 Sawa, Yr minioms Židu: užtysa, uzțysa, fa-[k]law jomf, iog eyn adina, yr dabar ir22, kado numyrele iſzg̦iers balſa funaws Dy23wa, o kury iſzg̦iers, atgis. Nei24 kaypo Tiews25 tur Zywata patſ fawimp; tap dawe 10 Yr ſumuy, idant26 turetu Zywata patſ fa- 19 The original lineation is retained; the lines are numbered consecutively throughout the text, namely, 1–18 are on page 44, 19–38 on p. 45, 39–50 on p. 46, 61–83 on p. 47, 84–103 on p. 48, 104–107 on p. 49, 108–128 on p. 53, 129–149 on p. 54, and 150–162 on p. 55. Letters wholly or substantially cut off at the line edges are given in square brackets if their reading is uncertain. 20 The tops of the letters in the first line are cut off, making it difficult to read. It was compared with the current text of the Gospel (John V, verses 25–29). The word that gives rise to the greatest doubt is given in square brackets. It may be dzenos (?). 21 The letter e was corrected from i. 22 i.e. and is now 23 Corrected from Die 24 Instead of Nes 25 The letters ie are fused; i may have been inserted later. 26 It may be Jidant, since the stroke after ſumuy resembles the lower part of the letter i, while the caret over i resembles its upper part. 175 Photocopy of page 45 of the Lithuanian manuscript wimp; There are two kinds of people who do evil, for they do not live according to God’s commandment: those who do so from childhood27, all who steal and rob, and those who speak an evil word against God’s name; and those who do good for salvation and life, and those who do evil for damnation and death28. Our Father God, and his Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Our Father, who art in heaven29, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven 25 so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen30 Hail, Holy Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou31 among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. 35 Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. I believe in God the Father Almighty32, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the pure Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified and buried. He descended into hell; on the third day 45 he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God 27 The lower part of the final letter is smudged and corrected. 28 After the period there is a sign resembling an i or S, apparently marking the end. 29-oſie could also be -uſie; see the photocopy. 30 The letter n is extended by an “end” mark. This word has the same mark again in lines 37, 53, and 162. 31 The letter u is smudged (perhaps o?). 32 The letter i after l is crossed out by an extension of the “end” mark in Amen from the previous line; it is faint and may also be e. 12. 520 177 The Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church33, the communion of saints34. The forgiveness of sins. The resurrection of the body. [And after death]35. And life everlasting. Amen. The Ten Commandments of God. 50 1. I am the Son of God the Father. I have no other God besides me.36 2. Do not take the name of the Lord your God37 in vain. 3. Remember the holy day. 55 4. Honor your father and your mother38, if you wish to live long on earth. 5. Do not murder. 6. Do not commit adultery with your neighbor’s wife 7. Do not steal. 8. Do not speak falsely against your neighbor. 9. Do not covet39 your neighbor’s wife. 10. Neither house, nor fields, nor servants, nor cattle40, nor anything else belonging to your neighbor. 60 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself. 70 75 The five commandments of the Holy Church. 1. Keep the holy days of the Holy Church as prescribed. 2. Hear Holy Mass on holy days. 80 3. Observe the prescribed fasts of the Holy Church. 33The letter o is corrected from u. 34The letter a- may be corrected from e-. 35The words in square brackets are crossed out. The crossing-out affects only the lower parts of the letters, so formally it could also be taken for underlining. The scribe crosses out in this way in other instances as well, namely, in lines 109, 145, 146, and 153. 36The beginning of the letter n is indistinct; it may also be m, hence esmmio. 37Abbreviated Tawa ‘your’. 38The letter i may be corrected from y. The long vertical stroke after the beginning of the following letter n suggests this interpretation. Below this word is the catchword of the following page, Tawa. 39The letter y is joined and washed out. 40Polish śłużebnica ‘maidservant’ (an archaic word). 178 4. Confess the sins for how many years he has not received Communion41, or how he has failed to receive it.42. 85 [5] Receive the Holy Sacrament at least once a year43. And this concerns the Holy Communion. The Seven Sacraments of the Church St. No. The same Christ44, the Lord, is truly present. 90 1. Baptism. 2. Confirmation. 3. The Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ45. 4. Penance, 5. Extreme Unction. 6. Ordination. 7. Matrimony. here let it be added46: I am a sinner 95 Then47 Tykio jog Pons Dywſ ir Trayce SS. Dywſ Tiewſ, Dywſ ſumus, Dywſ Dwa ſe S. Triſ48 Aſabas, Wyns Pons Dyws. Tykui jog Chrystus49 P. ir Jezus ſumus Dywa, Jzganitos musa Tykruſ Dywſ, Tykruſ Zmogus, Wyns Chrystus. Tykui jog SS. Sakramentſ ir Ty kras Kuns Yr Tykras Krawſ Chry ſtusa. Jezusa ſunawſ Dywa. Tykio 100 our God, our Creator is the true God, true Man, one Christ. I believe that the Holy Sacrament is the true Body and true Blood of Christ Jesus, the Son of God. I believe 105 Everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. Let it be received, etc.50 The old custom is that the eldest among the household is the first and head [and father]51 of the Holy Church on earth, among all heretics and wicked Catholics; therefore it is enjoined that they all be in the Church, so that they may learn to live prudently and not fall into such error, or, if they have fallen, recognize that they have strayed from the Holy Church. And so, how 41The final letter is written unclearly; it may be u. 42It may be Jo; the top of the letter is cut off. 43The letter u is unclear; it may be a. 44Instead of Christuſa. 45Instead of Christuſa Pona. 46The letter t is omitted; the word is abbreviated. Latin: it should be added here. 47 Lat. afterwards. This word is underlined, and a horizontal line has been drawn above it across the entire page. 48The letters is are crossed out; Triſ has been written in, apparently with the intention of correcting it to Triſe (?). 49The letter Ch was corrected to K, or vice versa, K to Ch. 50Lat. etc. A horizontal line has been drawn through the text below, across the entire page. 51The words in square brackets are crossed out; the word given below, Baznicies S., is written indistinctly above them. 12⁶ 179 ćiawſ gaylietumes, ſpawiedotumes yr pakutawotu52 [1. Pyrmiawſ tada Bažnicie Swieta 120 kiek Wysus Heretykus, ta ir, Lutherus, Kalwinus, Sysmatykus yr kietus korius nepažinſtatie. 2. Tapag kiek Bažnicie S.]53 1. Pyrmiawſ kie[n]k54 Bažnicie S. Wy- 125 jus Heretykus, ta ir Lutrus, Kalwinus, Syzmatykus Yr kietus korie no Ba-znicies S. kokio noris ſpaſabo ir atſyada lieje. Tap kiek Yr pacius Kathalie-kus, kurie knigas ſkayta Heretyku be 130 pazwaliejyma Wyresniuiu Bažnicies S. Tapag kiek Tus Kathaliekus korie Here-tykus [etc]55, gien aba tor ſzalipi Yr kokie Nor pamacie dod. Tapag kiek56 tus ko57 korie nenor klawſitie58 awkſciawſioſes ſta 135 licies S. Apaſtalu. Galwos Wiresmioſes. Tapag kiek Wysus tus59 korie nawius muy tus yszmyslie, ſtanawy60 aba padydyn, nepryguliedamy yr netoriedamy tykros macys. Tapag kiek 140 Wysus Tus korie duchaw nas Aſabas kaliecze, musz aba kalienie layka ſpaſabo neprietelaws, aba Ysz giwe61-nyma gien Yr tus korie tokiems paded, rodie62 Yr pazbawo63. Tapag kiek 145 Tus, korie dwasyszkas aſabas [be pa]64 [Y ſud]65 ont ſuda ſawa pazyiwo66 aba pazyiwot[y]67 Zwalie, Yr korie walnaſty Bažnicie[s] 52The mark after - resembles a z or ſ and most likely indicates an abbreviation of the word. 53In the original, the entire text in square brackets (lines 119–123) is enclosed by a line on three sides. This section of text was subsequently written or translated anew. 54The letter in square brackets was written above ek. 55The etc in square brackets (=Lat. etc.) was written above the line (on the cable). 56The letter y is inserted. 57An unfinished word, repeated on the next line. 58The letter k is written over a crossed-out n; apparently the initial intention was to write “neklauso”. 59The letter s is indistinct; a heavy f is written over it (the upper part is blurred). 60It may also be -ij, with faded dots. 61The letter i resembles r, and the dot is rather far away. The reading is uncertain. 62 i.e., rodija ‘advises’ (?). 63 Cf. Polish pozbawiać ‘to deprive’. 64 The words in square brackets are crossed out. The last letter was damaged during binding, so it may not be a (perhaps o or u?). 65 The words in square brackets are crossed out. The word given below is written above it: ont. 66 The last letter is uncertain (it resembles i). 67 The letter o is uncertain (perhaps i?). 180 S. if anyone has found something new, then all who have any things, livestock, fields, buildings68, crops, five [pl] pieces, plots beside the church69 or beside the spiritual possessions of the church70, such as foundations, legacies71 [all such72 things and all others73 that are not duly registered, like those held by the church’s stewards. This holy church gives alms every year throughout the whole world and distributes them to the needy according to the custom of the deceased74 (...)75 And just as the candle76 burns77, so may it burn upon the body and upon the soul. Amen There is no doubt that the text was written in the Samogitian dialect. This is shown by Samogitian forms without affrication, e.g., 1st pl. atleydam 28 ‘we forgive’, acc. sg. trety dyna 44 ‘on the third day’, the vowel ė changing to ie (the corresponding uo from o is written with the letter o), e.g., Tiews 8 ‘father’, 2nd imperative Nekalbiek 65 ‘do not speak’, adverb dielto 113 ‘therefore’; monophthongization of ai, ei, e.g., acc. pl. daktus 149 ‘things’, nom. pl. prysakima 76 ‘commandments’, numyrele 7 ‘the deceased’; Samogitian treatment of nasal vowels, cf. infinitive ſwieſty 59 ‘to celebrate’, 2nd pl. nepazinſtatie 122 ‘you do not know’, acc. sg. ką 105 alongside the unstressed acc. sg. ending -a ‘-ą’ (all 35 examples); Samogitian reduction of endings, e.g., ſied 46 ‘sits’, tyk ‘believes’, nom. sg. Jėganitos 100 ‘saviour’, Kraws 103 ‘blood’; various Samogitian morphological forms, e.g., loc. sg. kalienie 141 (from kalinys or kalinė ‘prison’), loc. pl. grabusy 14 ‘in graves, coffins’, acc. sg. muni 56 ‘thought’, acc. pl. m. tus 133 ‘those’, gen. pl. muſa 22 ‘our’, 3rd person lub kieykty 110 ‘Polish zwykł wyklinać’, Ontžiegie 45 ‘entered’ and so on. The person who inscribed the text most likely spoke the Samogitian subdialect in which the standard language’s merged diphthongs uo, ie are rendered in the “Dūnininkai” manner (written u, y), e.g., ypules 115 ‘having fallen into’, dat. sg. Konego or Konegu 83 ‘to the priest’ (cf. the entry in the Book of the Gospels Garbie Dywų etc.), instr. sg. m. Anu 4 ‘with that’, nom. sg. Dywſ 32, 55, 96, 97 (3X), 98, 101 ‘God’, gen. sg. Dywa 68 The tops of the letters B, d, ſ, and t were clipped when the text was entered, so this word is difficult to read. It was most likely written erroneously instead of Bondiſtie ‘livestock’. Cf. bandystis LKŽ I² 641 (cited only from the Samogitian 1787 “Žiwatas”) instead of the word bandykštis ‘livestock’, customary in older writings. Apparently, this word was not familiar to the person who entered the text, and therefore they distorted it when writing it (perhaps copying it from an older text?): they omitted the letter n and, instead of the expected ending -i ‘-j’, wrote -ie ‘-ę’ (or perhaps it was the variant bandystė?). 69 i.e., Baz[ni]cies. 70 The letter i is omitted; only a dot is placed above u, and c resembles e. 71 The sentence has no predicate. 72 The words in square brackets are crossed out. 73 The letter u was corrected from e. 74 The final letter is merged and difficult to read. 75 An unreadable word, placed in parentheses by the scribe himself, apparently written incorrectly. 76 The letter Z has apparently been corrected from ſ. 77 The letter z has been corrected; it is unclear. 181 38, 71, g. pl. Dymu 56, a. sg. dyna 44, 79, Dyna 59 ‘day’, Jiendyna 108, 157 ‘daytime’, a. pl. dynas 77, n. sg. m. Wyns 98, 101 ‘one’, g. sg. m. Wyna 69, a. sg. wyna 85, Wynatyi 40 ‘the only one’, ‘sole’, a. pl. pywas 150 ‘meadows’, adv. užtysa, užtysa 5 ‘indeed’, g. sg. Patys 88 ‘of oneself’, Moterys 67 ‘of a woman’, ʃi[r]dys 72 ‘of the heart’, ʃmertys 37 ‘of death’, n. pl. m. ty 160 ‘those’. In the diagram, the boundaries of this subdialect (Southern Samogitian) are indicated by line 1. We now divide this subdialect into two parts according to the standard language equivalents of an, am, en, em: in the southeast these are retained unchanged (the so-called Raseiniai dialect speakers), while in the northwest they are narrowed (Varniškiai dialect speakers). The author of the text must have come from the latter part (the Varniškiai area), since he pronounces on, om, en, em (writing on, om, ę or yn), e.g., g. sg. dongaw/ 39 ‘of heaven’, a. sg. Dongu 46, loc. pl. Dongoʃie (Donguʃie?) 22, loc. sg. walondo 37 ‘in an hour’, a. sg. f. aʃonte 50 ‘being’, praep. ont 1, 25, 61, 86, 109, 146, 151 (2X), 160, on 161 ‘on’, a. sg. omžiena 53 ‘eternal’, n. sg. f. Swięta 35, 119 ‘holy’, g. sg. f. Swiętos 20, g. pl. ʃwiętujų 50, a. sg. Swięte 86 ‘feast’, 3. praet. Nužiegie 44 ‘descended’, Ontžiegie 45 ‘ascended’ (i.e. stepped onto), n. pl. m. Pynkie 76 ‘five’, adv. tyn 47 ‘there’⁷⁸. Line 2 in the diagram indicates the boundary between the Raseiniai and Varniškiai dialect areas. In the northeast of the Varniškiai area (Karklėnai, Užventis, Šaukėnai, Kuršėnai), on, om (and in some places en, em) are now pronounced un, um (respectively in, im) instead. The author of the text wrote unt ‘on’ as many as four times (twice each in lines 16 and 17). This points us to the part of the on area that lies close to the un boundary, i.e. somewhat west of the Užventis–Karklėnai line. Varniškiai speakers today treat the short vowels u, i differently. In most of the area these vowels are broadened and pronounced ọ, ẹ, in some places only before a broad vowel in a following syllable. In the northeastern part (Karklėnai, Užventis, Šaukėnai, Kuršėnai), u, i are now retained unchanged in all cases, although they are pronounced more openly than their standard-language equivalents. However, it has been suggested that ọ, ẹ were also found in this area earlier⁷⁹. The isophone that now separates Varniškiai speakers who do not turn u, i into ọ, ẹ is marked by line 3 in the diagram. In the scribe’s dialect, u and i underwent the changes to ọ and ẹ (written o, y, sometimes e⁸⁰), but only when the following syllable did not contain the close vowels u, ū, wo (after a hard consonant, these do not prevent i from changing to e), i, ī, ie, e.g., d. sg. Konego (or Konegu) 82—83 ‘to the priest’, g. sg. [ʃ]otwertoja 39 ‘of the creator’, 2. sg. praet. neys[z]goldziau 154—155 ‘I did not expound, i.e., explain’, 2. sg. imper. Ne ozmoʃk 62 ‘do not kill’, n. sg. m. korʃ 41, 70 ‘who’, 3. praes. tor 47, 132 ‘has’, prt. tegol 160 ‘let’; n. sg. f. pylna 32 ‘full’, g. sg. m. pyktą 30 ‘of evil’, a. sg. atleydyma 51 ‘forgiveness’, artyma 65, 74 ‘neighbor’, Wysa 157 ‘all’, a. pl. dyrwas 150 ‘fields’, dwaʃyszłas 145 ‘twa-’ 78 Unclear a. sg. form pagandymą 29 ‘temptation’. Perhaps an (= on) was introduced here from gaṇdinti ‘to frighten’, or is this an Aukštaitian hypercorrection? J. Kazlauskas, Dėl baltų *ei ir *ō raidos lietuvių žemaičių tarmėse, — „Baltistica“, V (1), p. 32—33.79 80 Usually e occurs only after k, g, (š), ž, l. Apparently these consonants were pronounced softer before e < i than the others: the spellings are kie, gie, Jie (= šie), žie (= žie), lie. After other consonants, such spelling is more characteristic of word-final position (perhaps the degree of openness differed here?), e.g., n. pl. m. Septinie 87 ‘seven’, pa-łanawitie 88—89 ‘established’ (alongside Wysu 13, 153 ‘all’, neprygulėdami 138 ‘not belonging’), inf. butie 61 ‘to be, to live’, klawʃitie 134 ‘to listen’, juditie 48 ‘to salt, to judge’ (alongside Ateity 48 ‘to come’, darity 11 ‘to do’, etc.), 2. pl. imper. refl. Nedivikiete/ʃlie 12—13 ‘do not be amazed’ (alongside 2. sg. imper. refl. mel/kiesy 35—36 ‘pray’). 182 Map of the possible localization of the text scribe’s dialect in the Southern Samogitian area 1 — the “dūnininkai” isophone of the Southern Samogitians 2 — the boundary between the Varniai and Raseiniai dialects (the isophone of the narrowing of an, am, en, em) 3 — the isophone of u, i > o, ę 4 — the boundary of narrowing of the loc. sg. ending -e (-ę) 5 — the boundary of replacement of the nom. sg. ending -as by -us > -os 6 — the approximate area in which the text scribe’s dialect can be localized 7 — the dialect of the translator of S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnbook siškas’, adv. ylga 61 ‘for a long time’, pyktay 17 ‘badly’, Pyrmiau/ 119, 124 ‘earlier (first)’, Wyfor 49—50 ‘everywhere’, n. sg. f. pagierta 33 ‘praised’, d. sg. m. kietam 83 ‘to another’, a. sg. yszkieyk iema 114 ‘cursing’, omžiena 53 ‘eternal’, n. pl. m. at/jdalieje 127—128 ‘having separated, parted’, n. sg. Kryk[fztf 90 ‘baptism’, n.-a. n. Wys 105 ‘the whole’, 3. praes. tyk 106 ‘believes’, inf. Ateyty 48 ‘to come’, conj. yr 5, 6, 11 … (as many as 39 examples!) ‘and’, also g. sg. f. tykros 139 ‘true’, wysos 71, 72, 73 ‘of all’, g. pl. wysu 73 ‘of all’, kietu 56 ‘of others’, l. pl. f. Wyfofie 111—112 ‘in all’. Before syllables with the indicated vocalism, as well as in tautosyllabic clusters with nasal consonants, the narrow pronunciation of vowels u, i is retained, e.g., n. sg. m. Pafkutinis 92 ‘last’, a. sg. mumi 56 ‘me’, g. sg. fi[r]dys 71—72 ‘of the heart’, and d. pl. minioms 5, as well as n. sg. Desimtys 54 ‘ten’, a. sg. furink iema 50 ‘gathering’, 2. sg. imper. Atmink 59, 3. cond. pazintu 115 ‘would know’, but d. pl. jom[f 6 ‘to you’, 183 n. sg. patepyms 93 ‘anointing’, 3. praes. padyvyn 138 ‘increases’, naykien 148 ‘destroys’ (secondary-origin formations). The same treatment of u, i is found nowadays in the northern Samogitian Telšiai subdialect, where the same regressive assimilation of the indicated vowels occurs. In the Varniškiai area, this phenomenon is more characteristic only of the northwestern outskirts near Var­niais, but even here it is less pronounced; elsewhere the assimilation is slight and harder to notice, in some places amounting only to a different degree of softness in the consonant before > ę, or else there is no assimilation at all. The speech of the person who recorded the text had two types of u, i (broadened and preserved as narrow) also in word endings. The broadened vowels (i.e., ɔ, ę) had the -(i)u-stem nom. sg. ending -us, e.g., waysios 34 ‘fruit’; the i-stem nom. sg. ending -is, e.g., Desimtys 54 ‘tithe’; the pronominal-origin nom. sg. m. ending -i, e.g., nepryguliedamy 138 ‘not belonging, i.e., not being dependent’, Pynkie 76 ‘five’; the instr. sg. m. ending -u, e.g., kokio... špašabo 127 ‘in what way’; and the l. sg. ending -u, e.g., Tiekio 38 ‘I believe’. Narrow vowels were preserved in the acc. pl. ending -us, e.g., jawus 150, nawius 136 ‘new’, pacius 128 ‘themselves’, tus 133 ‘those’, mus 29 (all 48 examples of this ending are written with u); in instr. sg. endings ending in -mi, e.g., šunumi 12 ‘with a dog’, tawymi 32 ‘with you’; in the nom. sg. f. ending -i, e.g., pati 156; in the 2. sg. ending -i, e.g., eši 22 ‘you are’, nori 61, Miliesi 71 ‘you will love’; in the iā-stem nom. sg. ending -is, e.g., Wiriausėlis 108–109 ‘the supreme one’; and also in all endings shortened in the dialect and containing u, i, e.g., g. pl. moteru 33 ‘of women’, 3. cond. mokietu 113 ‘would learn’, acc. sg. šunu 40 ‘dog’, toki 114 ‘such’⁸¹. The forms acc. sg. fawi 74–75 ‘oneself’ and prt. noris 127, 149 ‘although’ probably belong here as well. Word-medial u, i were also adjusted to these endings, e.g., l. sg. Tykio 96, 104 ‘I believe’, n. pl. m. Wysy 13, 153 ‘all’, and a. pl. m. wysus 110, 120, 124–125, 136, 140, 154 ‘all’, pyktu[s] 110 ‘angry’, pyn[y]gus 150 ‘money’, kietus 121, 126, 154 ‘other’, Kathaliekus 111, 128–129, 131 ‘Catholics’; b) n. sg. m. Pafkutinis 92 ‘last’, a. sg. muni 56 ‘me’, i. sg. šunumi 12 ‘with a dog’. Nowadays the Varniškiai have considerably leveled the distinction between u, i and ɔ, ę in endings, and most speakers in practice pronounce almost ɔ, ę. Perhaps the clearest distinction has survived in the northwest near Var­niais, where it must have been much more evident until recently, as shown by the alternation of u, i || ɔ, ę word-medially before these endings. Deviations from the described system of narrow and broadened u, i in the text under examination are few and, in almost every case, easily explained⁸². This shows that u, i and ɔ, ę were strictly distinguished in the recorder’s speech. This circumstance helps us orient ourselves most of all- 81 However, a. sg. Wysagalintwiy 38 ‘almighty’, Wynatyriy 40 ‘only-begotten, the only one’ are written (why?). The u in stressed endings is also marked by the letter u (there are no examples with i). 82 The greater part of them consists of loanwords, Aukštaitian forms, and words or forms from written language, e.g., a) g. sg. Jezusa 104 ‘of Jesus’, a. sg. Chrystusa 40 ‘Christ’, Kalvinus 121, 125; b) d. sg. šunu 10 ‘to the dog’, conj. įdant 10, idant 111, 113, probably also g. sg. Welina 158 ‘of the devil’, d. pl. mumos 1 ‘to us’, l. sg. Tykiu 49, 99, 102 ‘I believe’. Variation in the vocalism of the prefixes iš-, už-, cf. 3. fut. įžgiers 7, 8, 14 ‘will hear’, 2. sg. imper. Užlaykik 80 ‘keep, carry out’, alongside 3. praes. Yszmana 106 ‘understands’, 3. fut. o fzeys 15 ‘will sit’, may reflect the actual situation in the dialect of that period, since the pronunciation of these prefixes is now uniform: the Telšiškiai pronounce iš, už in all positions (and even iš, už!), while the Varniškiai pronounce eš, ož. The reflexive particle -si-, too, was apparently already pronounced as -se- everywhere in the recorder’s speech, e.g., 3. praet. prafydie 41 ‘began’, g. sg. atfykielima 16 ‘of getting up’. However, there are also some mistakes, alongside which correct spellings occur, e.g., Ne ymsi 57 ‘you will not take’ (cf. Prymik 85), g. sg. giwenima 16 ‘of life’ (cf. giwenyma 142–143), i. sg. tawymi 32 ‘with you’ (cf. šunumi 12), 3. praes. tur 9 ‘has’ (cf. tor 47, 132). The spellings loc. sg. kalienie 141 ‘in prison’ (instead of kalinie), 3. praes. musz 141 ‘hits’ (instead of mosz), and po dejenies 46 ‘on the right’ (instead of po deśinies) are probably best explained as errors. 184 Thus it reaches the northwestern edge of the Varniai area near Varņiai. Of course, at that time the sharper distinction may have been characteristic of a much larger area than today, perhaps even of most of the Varniai dialect area. However, other linguistic features of the text also point us toward that edge. The final vowel -e of the inessive forms, from *-ė, has narrowed in the northwestern part of the Varniai area and is pronounced -e (in the eastern part, around Užventis, Šaukėnai, and Kuršėnai, speakers now use the open -i). This isophone is indicated by line 4 on the map. The scribe’s dialect also had -e; cf. loc. sg. pa[d]eimny 3 ‘in the arrangement, i.e. division’, loc. pl. grabusy 14 ‘in graves, coffins’, loc. pl. Dongoje 22, wyfojie Baznicžiojie 112 (on the twofold marking of dialectal ę in endings, see footnote 80). Many Varniai speakers preserve intact the vowel of the Nom. sg. ending -as in cases where it is not dropped. However, at the northwestern edges, it is replaced by u >o, that is, the ending -as is replaced by -us. The same occurs in the text under examination, e.g., griefznus 94 ‘sinful, sinful’, Tykrus 100, 101 ‘true’⁸³. Yet Tykras (102–103) is also written twice. This means that the scribe must have come from an area where the ending -as had been replaced by the ending -us, or from near the boundary of that area. The isophone is indicated by line 5 on the map. It is not sharply defined: in the -ęs area there seem to be occasional -as enclaves. Its southwestern part near Švėkšna is irrelevant to our purpose, since other linguistic features do not point to this area. The northeastern part of the isophone around Varniai is most relevant to us. This isophone is also important because, as it marks a linguistic innovation (the replacement of the ending -as by -us), it could not previously have extended farther southeast. On the contrary, the Varniai area it demarcates may have been even smaller at the time of writing. Other linguistic features of the text also make us look for the scribe’s dialect somewhat north or northeast of Varniai, namely, a. sg. f. afonte 50 ‘being’ (the e- > a- isophone passes just to the east here), i. sg. f. Jo Jwety mo Moteri[o] 63 ‘with a strange woman’, or adv. kado 7 ‘when’ (alongside tada 106–107, 119; points toward the northwest), 3. praet. Ontžiegie 45 ‘entered’ (ant- ‘in-’ with verbs has apparently been observed only in this corner). On the map, the approximate area where the scribe’s dialect is most likely to be sought is covered with solid lines. This area lies near the administrative center of the Samogitian diocese of that time, known in antiquity as Medininkai and later as Varņiai, where Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania had built a cathedral. At that time this locality was one of the most important centers of the diocese’s cultural life, attracting residents of nearby districts and encouraging them to pursue learning and education. It is therefore entirely natural that the scribe of the text should have come from precisely these places. The proposed localization is valid only if the scribe was in fact a southern Samogitian, that is, if in his dialect the standard language’s uo, ie were reflected in a “dūnininkai” manner. Yet there is evidence indicating that he may also have been a northern Samogitian (this will be discussed further). Although the text is written in a single Samogitian dialect, it also contains certain Aukštaitian elements. These are relatively few, and not all are equally clear. Aukštaitian phonetics is evident in the following examples from the text: g. sg. Donas 25 ‘of bread’, 3. praes. dod 133 ‘gives’, padod 158 ‘hands over’, 2. sg. imper. dok 26 ‘give’, n. sg. Piemo 109 ‘herdsman’, g. sg. deewa 15 ‘of God’(?), [denos] 1 ‘of the day’, g. pl. die- 83 In the text, the u-stem Nom. sg. ending -us is generally written with an intact u, since almost all the examples are foreign words or words from ecclesiastical language, e.g., Jezus 4, 99, JEZVŠ 34, Chrystus 99, 101, junus 97, 99–100, Žmogus 101, zwycǫius 108 ‘custom’, but waysios 34 ‘fruit’. 185 nu 26, adv. Siendiena 26 ‘today’, kiek 82⁸⁴, conj. idant 10, idant 111, 113⁸⁵. High Lithuanian features may also be suspected in praep. no 30, 88, 116, 126 ‘from’ (alongside the undoubtedly Samogitian variant nu 2, 77, 80), and, in individual instances, in spellings with u instead of the expected o (i.e., o; see footnotes 82 and 83). The following are to be regarded as High Lithuanian morphological forms: n. sg. Baznica 2 ‘church’ (because of -ia!), d. sg. sunuy 10 ‘to the son’ (-ui!), a. sg. f. afonte 50 (because of -ę; but with Samogitian on, t instead of an, č). Some High Lithuanian forms have corresponding Samogitian variants, which are moreover more numerous than the High Lithuanian ones. For instance, the word dievas ‘god’, with a possibly High Lithuanian (?) stem, occurs only once (g. sg. deewa 15, if ee represents High Lithuanian ie), whereas its Samogitian counterpart (Dyw-) occurs 19 times; the word diena ‘day’ is written in the High Lithuanian form twice and in the Samogitian form 4 times (the adverb šiandien ‘today’ correspondingly 1: 2); the n. sg. ending (-ia) of the ja-stem is written in the High Lithuanian form once, and in the Samogitian form (-ie) 7 times. At least some of the High Lithuanian forms should be considered bookish words, widely used at the time by speakers of various dialects. For instance, the conjunction idant (with intact an) is found even in the eastern Lithuanian writings of K. Sirvydas, in the 1605 and Belarmin catechisms (everywhere alongside adunt). The text’s adverb grayčiaw/ 116—117 ‘more quickly’ (with rai instead of rei) could also be bookish. The scribe tried to Samogitianize High Lithuanian words in the text. For example, the 3. praes. form (pa)dod 133, 158 ‘(gives)’ is written without an ending; the g. sg. form Dywa 7—8 ‘of God’ was initially written Diewa, after which ie was corrected to y. The text under examination contains considerable important data that make it possible to shed light on certain problems in the history of our language and in the development of the Samogitian dialect. First, the textual data that allow us to judge how Standard Lithuanian uo and ie are reflected in the scribe’s speech variety are highly significant. These were most probably not pure monophthongs ū, ī, but diphthongoids uų, iį or ū, ī⁸⁶. Analysis of the text’s orthography prompts this view. The equivalent of Standard Lithuanian ie is consistently marked with a different letter from that used for ancient long ī. In the former case y is written, in the latter i; for example, Dywƒ 32 ‘god’, Wyns 98 ‘one’, a. pl. pywas 150 ‘meadows’, g. sg. Patys 88 ‘of himself’… (all 38 unambiguous examples have y), but Trij 98 ‘three’, g. pl. Židu 5 ‘of the Jews’, a. pl. knigas 129 ‘books’, inf. darity 11 ‘to do’, 3. praes. ir 70 ‘is’, 2. sg. imper. Kławƒik 79 ‘listen’ (all 77 examples have i)⁸⁷. Apparently, the person who copied the text paid more attention to vowel openness and closeness than to length and shortness⁸⁸. The Standard Lithuanian ie equi- ⁸⁴ Words of non-Lithuanian origin containing ie, for example, g. pl. grieku 51, 82 ‘of sins’, n. sg. m. grieƒznus 94 ‘sinful’, a. pl. m. grieƒznus 36, g. sg. ƒwieta ‘of the world’, a. sg. ƒwieta 157, g. sg. neprietelaws 142 ‘of an adversary, enemy’, 2. sg. imper. Nepriełauk 63 ‘do not fornicate’, Spawiedo-kies 82 ‘go to confession’, are, of course, not to be regarded as High Lithuanian features. ⁸⁵ Nasal tautosyllabic clusters are preserved intact in church terms, such as Amen 21, 30, 37, 53, 162, Ewang: 2 (abbreviated evangelija ‘Gospel’), Sakramentƒ 91, 102, a. sg. Sakramen[t]a 85, n. pl. Sakramenta 87, but these too should not be regarded as High Lithuanian features. The same applies to the Lithuanian infinitive giwe[n]ty 113—114 ‘to live’, since Samogitians generally preserve en intact, as they do in shortened word forms; cf. n. sg. m. Sens 108 ‘old’, d. sg. m. tam 13, 1. pl. atleydam 28 ‘we forgive’. The particle ben 85 ‘at least’ may be written with e by analogy with bene. ⁸⁶ According to A. Girdenis, diphthongoids are still pronounced today; see “Baltistica”, VI (2), 143—145. ⁸⁷ Once we find i: n. sg. f. parasitą 2 ‘written’. The loanword žyvatas ‘life, womb’ is written in both ways: with i (g. sg. žiwata 34, a. sg. Žiwata 53) and with y (a. sg. Žywata 9, 10), but in the latter case the Polish spelling żywot is being imitated. The scribe’s speech variety had the forms motyna, mokytinis ‘pupil’, 3. fut. gys ‘will heal’; cf. Motina 35, a. sg. Motina 60, d. pl. mokitynems 4, atgis 8. ⁸⁸ Cf. the strict distinction between the conjunction ir (all 39 examples are written yr) and 3. praes. yr < yra (all 13 examples are written ir), but the identical spelling of i that has not been expanded in assimilation position and ancient long ī. 186 The reflex, like the dialect’s ę < i, must have been pronounced more openly than the unexpanded short i and the ancient long ī; most importantly, before the reflex of ie, as before the dialect’s ę < i, many consonants⁸⁹ had apparently remained unpalatalized (or had undergone only very slight palatalization)⁹⁰, and therefore more closely resembled the Polish “hard” vowel y than i. For this reason, the scribe represented ji and ę < i with the letter y, and i and ī with the letter i. Since in older texts written on the basis of the North Samogitian dialect (e.g., the 1787 “Živatė”), the letter y often denotes the “dounininkai” reflex ei, it cannot be ruled out that the scribe too may have pronounced ei or ẹi (with a weak second component, as North Samogitians closer to Latvia and the former Klaipėda region pronounce it today); thus, he may also have come from the North Samogitian area⁹¹. Cf. the writing g. sg. deewa 15 ‘of God’ (perhaps ee instead of ẹi?). On the other hand, the text’s scribe tended to denote the Common Lithuanian uo reflex with the letter u (cf. n. sg. m. ypules 115 ‘having fallen in’, i. sg. m. Anu 4 ‘with that’), as well as the ancient long vowel ū⁹². This reflex is denoted once only by the doubtful letter o, namely in d. sg. Konego 82–83 ‘to the priest’ (the -o is unclear and resembles -u; moreover, the entry on the last page of the 1705 “Gospels” has a clearly written u in the d. sg. ending: Garbie Dywų). Other linguistic features of the text do not essentially contradict the search for the scribe’s dialect in the North Samogitian (“dounininkai”) area, and some might even support it, e.g., i. sg. f. Jo Jwetywno Mot eri[o] 63 ‘with a foreign woman’, adv. kado 7 ‘when’, a. pl. poJnikus 80 ‘those observing a fast’. Also cf. the entry into the Kretinga monastery library of the Kulių parish priest’s “ex libri” and the convolute (both localities lie in the North Samogitian subdialect area). Thus, locating the scribe’s dialect in the South Samogitian Varniškiai area must still be regarded as provisional. It is to be hoped that in the future, after the representation of the “duonininkai” reflexes of Common Lithuanian uo and ie has been carefully examined and established in unquestionably contemporary North Samogitian texts, it will be possible to resolve this problem definitively, one way or another. The text shows that at the time the scribe’s dialect still pronounced the word ‘God’ in the Samogitian way (Dyw-). Nowadays, it seems, all Samogitians generally pronounce this word’s root in the Aukštaitian way (with ie); the Samogitian pronunciation has survived only in specific expressions such as pōndēys Tirkšliai ‘Lord God’. The prepositions and prefixes nuo, prie (nu-, pri-) may still have had full vocalism in the scribe’s dialect (i.e., nuu, prii, or nū⁹⁴, prī⁹⁴, or nǭ⁴, prē⁴), since they are represented by the same letters u, y, e.g., nu 2, 77, 80 ‘from’, 3. praet. numyrie 43 ‘died’, Nužiegie 44 ‘descended’, n. sg. m. Numucit r 42 ‘tortured’, n. pl. numyrele 7 ‘the deceased’, g. pl. numyrusių 45, 48, 51–52 ‘of the deceased’, 3. praes. prysaka 111 ‘proclaims’, 2. sg. imper. Prymik 85 ‘accept’, a. sg. prykielyma 52 ‘resurrection’, n. pl. prysakima 76 ‘commandments’, nepryguliedamy 138 ‘not belonging’, g. pl. prysakimu 54 ‘of the commandments’⁹³. However, because of the polysemy of the letters u, y⁹⁴, it is strictly 89 Probably except for k, g, š, ž, l (see footnote 80), though the text contains no examples with these. 90 Even today, in a large part of the Samogitian dialect (especially in the west and north), consonants are not palatalized before ę < i, except for k, g, š, ž, l, č, dž; see Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966, pp. 156–157. 91 This idea was first put forward to the author by Associate Professor A. Girdenis. 92 All 35 examples are written with u. In one instance, u has a line above it: g. sg. Jūnaws 7 ‘of the son’. 93 A. pl. m. priegolincius 151 ‘belonging’ could be an Aukštaitian hypernormalism, whereas no 30, 88, 116, 126 ‘from’ may be an Aukštaitianism (?). 94 The former is also used to denote ū and the unexpanded short u, while the latter is also used to denote the dialect’s ę. 197 This cannot be asserted. Moreover, the preposition, or prefix, prieš is written twice with v (prysz 56, a. pl. przysztarawnikus 155 ‘opponents’—a Polonized form) and once with i (prifz 65). In the scribe’s presumed dialect today, variants of all three prepositions/prefixes with a short, broadened vowel have become established (regardless of the narrowness of the following syllable), e.g., no vī·ra ‘from the man’, npū·le ‘poured down’, prē vī·ra ‘by the man’, prēpī·le ‘poured in’, prēš vākara ‘before evening’, prēšākīs ‘foremost’ (but adv. prī·šprī·ša·s ‘opposite’)⁹⁵. The text under discussion is significant for illuminating the history of the broadening of short u and i in the Samogitian dialect. It is the oldest Samogitian manuscript monument in which o, e are clearly distinguished from u, i. The evidence from this text, if the scribe was indeed a South Samogitian, would essentially confirm the idea put forward by K. Būga fifty years ago that o, e were introduced later in part of the Samogitian dialect area before endings with an open vowel⁹⁶. The text also shows that the vowels o, e had already been diphthongized at that time (uo, ie), but this feature is poorly reflected because of the shortcomings of the orthography. The mixed diphthongs an, am, en, em had already become narrowed by then. The distribution of nasal and denasalized vowels was already approximately as it is today, except that in the ending of the genitive plural of oxytone words, there may not yet have been a variant with -n (or it may simply not have happened to occur in the text): -u is written everywhere (giwu 48 ‘of the living’, Nomu 68 ‘of houses’…). The same applies to the inflection of verbs in the 3rd conditional (butu 112 ‘would be’, turetu 10 ‘would have’…) and past active participles (n. pl. m. at]ydalieje 127—128 ‘having separated, having parted’). In the scribe’s presumed dialect today, variants with -n have become established in all these cases (-m in the 3rd conditional), although some forms also have doublets without -n, e.g., gī·vū·n ‘of the living’ (|| gī·vū·), bū·tō·m ‘would be’ (|| bū·t), n. pl. m. mātēn ‘having seen’ (but n. sg. m. mātes ‘having seen’). The preposition/prefix į had by then already been denasalized, shortened, and broadened (at least in an assimilatory position), e.g., y 29, 38, 39, 44, 49, 114, 146 ‘into’, n. sg. m. ypules 115 ‘having entered’, 3rd conditional neypultu 114 ‘would not enter’. Cf. the dialect’s present-day ę ‘into’, ę- ę-. Word-final reduction was already roughly as it is today, cf. n. sg. Kryk/fts 90 ‘baptism’, Kuns 103 ‘body’, Pons 32 ‘lord’, Tiews 8 ‘father’ (all 29 examples), and Jžganitos 100 ‘savior’, Krawf 103 ‘blood’, alongside Tykras 103, Tykrus 100, 101 ‘true’; n.-a. n. Wys 105 ‘all’, 3rd praes. eyn 6 ‘goes’, gien 132 ‘drives’, paded 143—144 ‘helps’ (all 21 examples); g. sg. Jona 2 ‘of Jonas’, Tiewa 19 ‘of the father’ (all 53 examples), 3rd praes. [skayta 1 ‘reads’, moka 106 ‘teaches’ (6 examples), alongside g. sg. m. jo 84 ‘his’; g. sg. dyrwas 68 ‘of the field’, milestas 31 ‘of love, grace’ (4 examples), alongside wysos 71 ‘of all’; a. sg. bal/sa 7 ‘voice’, dyna 44 ‘day’ (35 examples), alongside ką 105. Diphthongs ai, ei had already undergone intensive monophthongization, e.g., g. sg. dakt[a] 69 ‘of the thing’, n. sg. m. paladotf 43—44 ‘buried’, 3rd praes. kiek 123, 131, 136, 149 ‘curses’, atet 13 ‘comes’ (< to come), d. sg. dowana 58 ‘as a gift’, n. pl. Sakramenta 87 ‘sacraments’, numyrele 7 ‘the deceased’, adv. ylga 61 ‘for a long time’, neteyse 65 ‘unjustly’, kap 24, 27, 116, 152, 155, 159 ‘how’, kapo 74 ‘as’, tap 9, 25, 116, 128, 160 ‘so’, tapag 111, 123, 131, 133, 136, 139, 144, 148—149 ‘also’, conj. je 61 ‘if’, ne 68 (3x), 69, nie 69 ‘nor’. ⁹⁵ Farther to the northwest (in the North Samogitian area), narrowness is retained, but also before a broad syllable. ⁹⁶ K. Būga, Ylakių apylinkės šnekta, — „Tauta ir žodis“, I, Kaunas, 1923, 375 (= Rinktiniai raštai, III, 606). 188 The words daiktas (2 examples), palaidotas (1 example), kaip (6 examples), taip (5 examples), taipag (8 examples), jei (1 example), and nei (4 examples) occur only in monophthongized forms, while o leisti (3 examples), vaisius, geisti, skaityti, laikyti, naikinti, gailėti, adv. neteisiai, and the borrowing traicė ‘trinity’ (one example each) are written with intact diphthongs. The verb keikti and its derivatives are written in two ways (4 examples with e, 12 with ey), as are forms of the verb eiti (1 with e, 3 with ey) and the adverb kaipo (1 with a and 1 with ay). The endings of masculine nouns and adjectives in the nominative plural (3 examples) and feminine nouns and adjectives in the dative singular (1 example) have monophthongized diphthongs (there are no examples with diphthongs retained). The adverbs, however, are written both ways: 3 examples each with monophthongized and intact diphthongs. Apparently, when choosing between forms with monophthongized and intact ai, ei, the scribe preferred the latter (influence of the written language?). This is indicated by as many as three instances in which he corrected a monophthongized form to a diphthongal one (geisti, and keikti twice). There are no counterexamples in which a diphthong was corrected to a monophthong. At that time, in the eastern part of the Southern Samogitian dialect area, apparently near the subdialect presumably spoken by the text’s scribe, word-initial e- had already become a-; cf. a. sg. f. afontę 50 ‘existing’ (a- may be a correction of e-). However, some phonetic features of that subdialect as spoken today were probably still absent at the time. For instance, in the subdialect today, in unstressed endings, o of the standard language is pronounced ė after a palatalized consonant, e.g., g. sg. kė'lė ‘of the road’, 3. praet. žadėje ‘he promised’, g. sg. sâ'ujes ‘of a handful’. The text, however, suggests that at that time the vowel here was probably still not close but open e (i.e., æ or even 'a), since the text has: g. sg. jawcia 69 ‘of an ox’, krawja 91 ‘of blood’, Wysagalinčioja 47 ‘of the Almighty’, 3. praet. kalbeie 4 ‘he spoke’, pra/sydie 41 ‘began’, g. sg. Dwales 20 ‘of the spirit’ (but Dwasys 41; perhaps ē is a stem ending?), Bažničies 76 ‘of the church’, Wiresniofes 135 ‘of the elder woman’, awkščiaw fiofes 134 ‘of the highest’. The text indicates that an open vowel also occurred in equivalents of standard-language unstressed endings acc. sg. -ę, -ią, participles -ęs, -ę, n. sg. -ia, and acc. pl. -ias; cf. acc. sg. Swietę 86 ‘a feast’, [s]otwertoja 39 ‘the creator’, Dwaſę 49 ‘spirit’, Bažničie 49 ‘church’ (but trety 44 ‘third’!), n. sg. m. ypules 115 ‘having fallen’, n. pl. m. atſydalieje 127—128 ‘having separated, split off’, n. sg. bažnicie 105 ‘church’, a. pl. dushes 1 ‘souls’. Today, all these cases have ę, cf. a. sg. kâtę ‘a cat’, sâ'uje ‘a handful’, n. sg. m. mâtęs ‘having seen’, n. sg. sâ'uje ‘a handful’, a. pl. sâ'ujes ‘handfuls’. The reflex of unstressed endings -ę, -ęs, however, was probably close, e.g., 3. praet. dary 15, 17 ‘he did’, Giemų 41—42 ‘he was born’, dawy 11 ‘he gave’, but also dawe 9 ‘he gave’ (the spelling of other examples is ambiguous), g. sg. Žiemys 25, Žiemys 39, žiemys 109 ‘of the earth’. The data presented above suggest that one should suspect that, in this subdialect, ę in unstressed endings has not preserved its original closeness in every case (i.e., has not descended from an earlier close vowel), but may in some places have been affected by later secondary closing. In nouns, this may have occurred through the merging of forms with ja- and ę-stems. The scarcity of examples, however, does not allow this process to be demonstrated clearly. In the consonant system, attention should first be drawn to consonant palatalization, which appears to have been somewhat more archaic than that found in the subdialect today. The spelling permits conclusions only about consonant palatalization or hardness before the subdialect’s ę < i (already discussed) and e, ei. In the latter case (i.e., before e, ei), the palatalizing letter i is systematically written only after k, g, š, ž, e.g., inf. kiekyty 110 ‘to curse’, 3. praes. kieyk 120, 128, 133, 139, 144, 157, kie[n]k 124, kiek 123, 131, 136, 149 ‘he curses’, n. sg. m. 189 ysz[k]iekvts 115—116 ‘cursed’, gen. sg. m. prakiekvta 158 ‘of the cursed’, nom. pl. m. kieky 112 ‘to curse’, acc. sg. yszkiekvema 114 ‘cursing’, 3rd person present gen 143 ‘drives’, ozgies 161 ‘goes out’, 3rd person preterite ozgieſa 160 ‘went out’, 2nd sg. imperative gielbiek 29—30 ‘save’, Negieysk 67 ‘do not desire’, adv. gieray 15 ‘well’, Sienawok 60 ‘honor’, gen. sg. Žiemys 25, Žiemys 39, ziemys 109 ‘of the earth’. Of the 33 examples attested, only these two are written without i: gen. sg. ſužebničies 68 ‘maidservant’, 3rd person future oſezys 15 ‘will come’. The first is a Polish word and is therefore written in Polish fashion (without i); the second has the prefix už-, whose ž may have retained its pronunciation before a pause, cf. the preposition už ‘behind’. l too must have been pronounced palatally, since, following the Polish orthographic model, it is written with the letter l in this position (hard l is marked ł), e.g., 2nd pl. present atleydam 28 ‘we forgive’, 2nd sg. imperative atle[łk] 26 ‘forgive’, acc. sg. atleydyma 51 ‘forgiveness’, gen. sg. milestas 31 ‘beloved’ (Samogitian mylesta), but 3rd person present layka 141 ‘keeps’, 1st sg. walondo 36—37 ‘at the hour’, 2nd sg. imperative Klawſik 79 ‘listen’, acc. sg. balſa 7 ‘voice’. After other consonants, the softening letter i is generally not written in the indicated position in the text, e.g., acc. pl. pektas 44, conj. bet 29, adv. neteyse 65 ‘unjustly’, nom. sg. Dešimtys 54 ‘ten’, Sens 108 ‘old’, nom. pl. mes 27, acc. sg. f. trety 44 ‘third’, 2nd sg. imperative newesk 28—29 ‘do not lead’, etc. (as many as 94 examples in all). The ending -se in the locative plural is occasionally written with i, but in this case the spelling is ambiguous, since, as already noted, the Samogitian ending -sę may be concealed here. The spellings nie 69 ‘nor’, 2nd pl. nepazinfatie 122 ‘you do not know’ should be considered erroneous (cf. ne 68, 69 ‘nor’, Nediwikiete 12 ‘do not be amazed’), as should the distorted word acc. sg. Bodijfie 150 ‘animal’. Today, in most of the Varniai dialect area, all consonants are softened to a greater or lesser degree before e-type vocalism, just as before ę < i. Only in places along the borders of the northern Samogitian Telšiai dialect does the softening resemble that found in the text, but even here one can generally speak only of different degrees of palatalization. Among other consonantal features, the text should be noted for the absence of an added v- before the dialectal uo at the beginning of a word, e.g., conj. o 8, 16, 52, 74, 86, 112, 116 (pronounced uo), instead of the present-day vuo ‘and’. Among the text’s morphological features, the illative and adessive forms are particularly striking, namely, ill. sg. Wardon 19, ad. sg. ſzalipi 132, ſawimp 9, 10—11. However, it would be rash to conclude from these that these cases were then in use in the dialect. The examples cited may be archaisms of ecclesiastical language. The illative form is clearly Samogitian; cf. wardon wieſzpatie in the 1787 „Živatas“ 113₂, adv. laūkon in Tirkšliai (pronounced -uon) ‘outdoors, away’. Apparently, Samogitians adopted the ending -on from the ā-stem, cf. pievon ‘to the meadow’. The text shows that shortened singular locative forms were already present in the scribe’s dialect at the time, e.g., walondo 36—37 ‘at the hour’, kalienie 141 ‘in prison’. The plural, however, had apparently not yet been shortened; cf. grabusy 14 ‘in coffins’, Wyſofie Baznicžioſie 112 ‘in all churches’. By then, short variants of the dative forms had probably become established in the dialect, e.g., dat. sg. m. iem 11 ‘to him’, tam 13, kietam 83 ‘to another’, dat. pl. mokitynems ‘to the pupils’, minioms 5, ſaw yms kaltyms 28 ‘to their own guilty ones’, iomſ 6 ‘to you’. The sole long dat. pl. form mumos 1 ‘to us’ should be considered an archaism of ecclesiastical language. However, the full ending -mi in the singular instrumental forms used in the text probably reflects the actual state of the dialect, since it is generally still preserved in this region. Even then its vowel was close (i.e., pronounced -mi, not *-mę!), e.g., ſunumi 12 ‘with the son’. It should be noted that the vowel in the ending of the u-stem acc. sg. was also close (e.g., ſunu 40 ‘son’, although many Samogitians today have the widespread form pronounced sū’no ‘son’). 190 The neuter gender of pronominal words (and, apparently, adjectives too) must still have been in fairly lively use; cf. Wys 105 ‘all’. The acc. pl. m. ending -us, adapted to nominal forms, was already present, e.g., Tus 131 ‘those’ (all 8 examples are written this way). The pronominal dat. pl. m. ending -iems was probably pronounced -ėms; cf. the spelling faywms kaltyms 28 ‘to their own guilty ones’, alongside tokiems 143 (after k). The dialect today has -ims; cf. tį’ms baltį’ms ‘to those white ones’. The spelling of the pronouns kuris and toks indicates that the scribe’s dialect may have used the nom. pl. m. forms kuri ‘who’, toki ‘such’ (cf. kiti, visi), possibly as variants alongside the Samogitian pronunciations kurie, tokie; cf. kury 8, 13, 15, 16, korie⁹⁷ 126, 131, 134, 136, 140, 143, 145, 147, 149, Tokie 153. The nominative plural form of the personal pronouns mes had probably not yet been replaced by mas, the form found in the dialect today; cf. mes 27. Perhaps the old forms mus, jus were also still in use instead of the dialect’s present-day accusative plural forms mumīs ‘us’, jumīs ‘you’ (cf. mus 29, 30, 36), unless these are archaisms of ecclesiastical language, since they occur only in prayers. However, the genitive plural forms mūso ‘our’, jūso ‘your’ were already in use then, e.g., muja 22, 25, 27, 37, 100; the pronominal stem man- was already pronounced mun- (mən-), e.g., acc. sg. muni 56 ‘me’ (cf. gen. pl. Nomu 68 ‘of the houses’). The text contains one athematic verb form, namely, 3rd person present atet 13 < ateiti ‘comes’, and one remodeled athematic form: 1st sg. present esmīu (unclearly written as esm̄nio or esmmio 55) ‘I am’. Both forms are phonologically Samogitian. The second form is not characteristic of this dialect and may have been imported. The dialect’s verbs already had the prefix ant- at that time, e.g., 3rd person preterite Ontžiege 45 ‘entered’. Prefixed verbs could take the reflexive particle at the end of the word, e.g., 2nd pl. imperative Nedīwikiete[ʃ]ie 12—13 (i.e., nedįvykytas, Samogitian nedīvīketiese) ‘do not be amazed’. However, the preservation of the particle’s vowel (cf. also 2nd sg. reflexive imperative świeʃkiesy 22—23 ‘get clean’, melʃkiesy 35—36 ‘pray’) may be an archaism of ecclesiastical language rather than a feature of the scribe’s dialect. The construction liuobt + infinitivus was already present in the dialect at that time, though it is uncertain whether it was then used to express the past frequentative tense; cf. Piemo […] lub kiekty wysus hieretykus 109—110= Polish Paftarʒ[…] zwykł Wyklinać wʃzʃytkie Heretyki. The imperative forms probably had the Samogitian formative -kia-, but the imperfect orthography makes it difficult to prove this (-kia- and -kė- < -ki- would be written identically). However, instead of the 3rd person preterite form dėvė characteristic of the older generation today, the text has only dāvė (dawe 9). It is difficult to say whether this is a dialectal feature or the result of the influence of written language. Among the uninflected words, note the preposition be 129, 145; particle tegol 160 ‘let’ (in the dialect conjectured here, now pronounced bà, tàgò); ne-, e.g., nemor 134 ‘does not want’, 2nd sg. imperative newesk 28—29… all 15 examples with ne- (modern nə-); preposition ape 86 ‘about’ (modern àplė, rarely àpe); particle nor(is) with indefinite pronouns, e.g., kokius noris daktus 149 ‘some things’, kokie Nor pamacie 132—133 ‘some help’ (modern kasnūors, kas nūorent ‘something’); conjunction aba 83, 115, 132, 137, 141, 142, 146, 151 ‘or’; adverb kaypo 8 ‘how’ (both latter variants are still used today); fien-dyna 157 ‘today’ (now only the short variant without -a remains). Among the lexical features, typical Samogitian word variants are noteworthy: kunegas (82–83) ‘priest’, kunegystė (93) ‘priesthood’, mylesta (31) ‘is loved, grace’, and posnykas 97 With stem o < u, even the genitive plural form koriu (121–122) and the accusative plural masculine korius (154) are written with g. On the other hand, alongside korie, there is also, once, the nominative plural masculine form kurie (129). 191 (80) ‘fasting’, the first three of which are also used nowadays in the presumed dialect, whereas the last is attested only in the northern Samogitian area (su-ininkas); cf. põsninkas (pūosnfnks), Tirkšliai. * * * The linguistic data brought to light in the text under examination, considered alongside the Raseniškiai dialect facts recorded in S. M. Slavočinskis’s hymnal98, will, it is to be hoped, prove highly useful in reconstructing the development of Samogitian dialect sounds and forms over the past 3–4 centuries, and will at the same time contribute to the creation of Lithuanian historical dialectology. These data also show that many minor dialectal features, like the dialects themselves, arose much earlier than we are often inclined to think. Postscript. To determine whether the Latin and Polish entries mentioned on pp. 172–173 were in fact written by the same person who entered the Lithuanian text, photocopies of all these manuscripts were, through the efforts of J. Tornau, Director of the Vilnius University Library,99 submitted for examination to the Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of the Lithuanian SSR. During preparation of this publication for printing, a certificate from the said institute, No. 427, dated 1973. V. 10, was received; in it, expert J. Ignatjeva, Candidate of Legal Sciences, confirms that all the texts submitted for examination, except for the entry “Garbie dywu etc.,” were indeed written by one person. Regarding the latter two-word entry, the certificate states that, given the very small amount of graphic material available for examination, it is impossible to determine whether these words were written by the same person or by someone else. Thus, the forensic examination’s conclusion essentially confirms the dating of the Lithuanian text given on p. 173. The aforementioned certificate states that “the manuscripts examined were written in a highly educated hand, with coordinated movements.” This confirms the supposition that the person who entered the Lithuanian text was educated. Gauta 1973.III.23. 3. ZINKJAVIČIUS IMPORTANT SAMOGITIAN MANUSCRIPT TEXT S u m m a r y The article publishes and examines a manuscript text found by the author in the library of Vilnius University (in convolute LR 881–882, held in the Rare Books Department). It is established that the text was written by an unknown Catholic clergyman in the late seventeenth or very early eighteenth century. Perhaps it is an adaptation, or even a copy, of an older text that has not survived. The text under study is written in the Samogitian dialect. The person in question may have come from the vicinity of Varniai. Features of the Aukštaitian dialect or the written language of that period are comparatively rare. 98 See pp. 137–168. 99 The author of the article sincerely thanks Dr. J. Tornau for his assistance. 192 A detailed comparison of the text’s linguistic features with data from the modern Samogitian dialect reveals important facts that help clarify the development of the dialect’s sounds and forms over the past 300 years. It has been established that by the time the text was written, the long vowels o, ē in Samogitian had already become diphthongized; the first component of tautosyllabic sequences an, am, en, em had become narrowed; and the diphthongs ai, ei had, in certain cases, become monophthongized. Many other phonetic and morphological phenomena characteristic of the modern Samogitian dialect have also been identified. On the other hand, the text provides data that help reveal certain features of an earlier period of the Samogitian dialect. Thus, the text shows that in the scribe’s native speech, the Samogitian sounds corresponding to uo, ie in the literary language had a distinctly diphthongal character. Two sets (open and closed) of short vowels u, i were clearly distinguished; moreover, they underwent consistent assimilation to the vocalism of the following word. Many other phenomena that shed light on the history of Lithuanian or, respectively, Samogitian sounds and forms are also discussed. Received 23.III.1973 Z. ZINKEVIČIUS. AN IMPORTANT SAMOGITIAN MANUSCRIPT Summary The article presents an analysis of a Samogitian MS. found by the author in the Vilnius University Library (LR 881—882). The text of the MS. itself is given in the article as well. It has been established that the MS. was written by an unknown Roman Catholic clergyman in the late 17th or early 18th century. It might be a paraphrase or even a copy of some older text. The dialect of the text is Samogitian, probably the northern or north-eastern subdialect of Varniai. Peculiarities of High Lithuanian dialects or writings are relatively few. A detailed comparison of the text features with those of the corresponding modern dialect is carried out in an attempt to determine the 300—year—old development of the phonetic system and grammatical structure. The analysis has shown that at the time of the appearance of the MS. (1) the vowels o, ē had been diphthongized, (2) the first component of the tautosyllabic clusters an, am, en, em had become close, (3) the diphtongs ai, ei had been monophthongized in certain cases, and (4) many phonetic and grammatical features peculiar to the modern dialect had already been in existence at that time. 13. 520 193 On the other hand, the text contains linguistic data typical of an earlier stage of the dialectal development and resp. presenting valuable material for the interpretation of some problems of the history of Lithuanian and historical dialectology. Of particular interest are the following phenomena found in the MS. as being peculiar to its writer’s native dialect: diphthongal character of the equivalents of Standard Lith. uo, ie, strict differentiation of two types of u, i (open and close) and their consecutive assimilation depending on the nature of the vowel in the following syllable. Received March 23, 1973