Prelude to Baltic Linguistics : Earliest Theories about Baltic Languages (16th Century) [1 ed.] 9789401210461, 9789042037984

Citation preview

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics 36

Founding Editor

Leonidas Donskis, Member of the European Parliament, and previously

Professor and Dean of Vytautas Magnus University School of Political Science and Diplomacy in Kaunas, Lithuania. Associate Editor

Martyn Housden, University of Bradford, UK

Editorial and Advisory Board Timo Airaksinen, University of Helsinki, Finland Egidijus Aleksandravicius, Lithuanian Emigration Institute, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Aukse Balcytiene, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Stefano Bianchini, University of Bologna, Forlì Campus, Italy Endre Bojtar, Institute of Literary Studies, Budapest, Hungary Ineta Dabasinskiene, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Pietro U. Dini, University of Pisa, Italy Robert Ginsberg, Pennsylvania State University, USA Andres Kasekamp, University of Tartu, Estonia Andreas Lawaty, Nordost-Institute, Lüneburg, Germany Olli Loukola, University of Helsinki, Finland Bernard Marchadier, Institut d’études slaves, Paris, France Silviu Miloiu, Valahia University, Targoviste, Romania Valdis Muktupavels, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia Hannu Niemi, University of Helsinki, Finland Irina Novikova, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia Yves Plasseraud, Paris, France Rein Raud, Tallinn University, Estonia Alfred Erich Senn, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, and Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania André Skogström-Filler, University Paris VIII-Saint-Denis, France David Smith, University of Glasgow, UK Saulius Suziedelis, Millersville University, USA Joachim Tauber, Nordost-Institut, Lüneburg, Germany Tomas Venclova, Yale University, USA Tonu Viik, Tallinn University, Estonia

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics Earliest Theories about Baltic Languages (16th century)

Pietro U. Dini

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2014

Cover image: Europa regina; Map of Europe as a queen (woodcut), in Sebastian Münsters Cosmographia (Basel 1570). The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3798-4 E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-1046-1 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2014 Printed in the Netherlands

Table of Contents Foreword Acknowledgements

9 11

1. Palaeocomparativism and Earliest Baltic Linguistics

13

1.1. Investigation 1.1.1. Bartholomew Anglicus 1.1.2. Classification of Languages 1.1.3. Marcin Bielski’s Classification 1.2. Metalinguistics 1.3. Baltic Linguistic Historiography 1.3.1. Periodization 1.3.2. Methodology 1.4. Main linguistic theories on the eve of Palaeocomparativism 2. The Slav Theory and Polyglossia in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 2.1. Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini 2.2. Johannes Stobnica’s Epitoma Europe (1512) 2.2.1. Views on Ruthenian(s) and Muscovite(s) 2.2.2. Views on multilingual variety 2.2.3. Conclusion 2.3. Crassinius’s Polonia (1574) 3. An Illyrian Theory of the Baltic Languages

13 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 23 23 24 25 27 28 29 31

3.1. The Philoglots’s linguistic ideas 3.2. Conrad Gessner’s Mithridates (1555) 3.2.1. Loci baltici 3.2.2. Gessner vs. Bibliander 3.2.3. Conceptual Variety 3.2.4. Prussian and Curonian 3.2.5. Attempt at a conclusion 3.3. Megiser (and Alsted) overtaking Gessner 3.4. Conclusion

32 34 35 37 37 38 40 42 44

4. The Latin Theory and the Vilnius Latinizers

45

4.1. Jan Dugosz on Lithuanian and Prussian 4.1.1. Reaction to Dugosz 4.1.2. Marcin Cromerus 4.2. The Imposition of Latin in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

46 49 51 53

6

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics 4.2.1. Michalo Lituanus and Latin/Lithuanian 4.2.2. Augustinus Rotundus 4.2.3. Latinizers and ruski 4.2.4. The Ruski and the Latin/Lithuanian 4.2.5. Contacts with the question of the Ruthenian language? 4.2.6. Further developments: Pierre D’Avity 4.2.7. Further developments: Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro 4.3. The Idea that Lithuanian is a Neo–Latin language 4.3.1. Agrippa’s ideas and Argumentation 4.3.2. The Significance of Agrippa’s linguistic Ideas 4.4. The Wallachian Connection: A Lesser known Variant within the Latin Theory 4.4.1. The Connection with Wallachia 4.4.2. The Chronica Carionis and Caspar Peucer 4.4.3. Continuations of the Wallachian Connection 4.4.4. A 17th century follower: Fridericus Menius 4.5. Evaluating the Variants of the Latin Theory

53 56 58 61 63 65 66 67 67 73 74 75 76 78 80 81

5. Polyglossia and Linguistic Variations in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Quadripartite Theory

83

5.1. Miechovita’s linguistic ideas about Baltic 5.2. Multilingual variety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 5.3. The Reception of the Quadripartite Theory 5.3.1. Sebastian Münster 5.3.2. Ludwik Decius

83 86 91 91 93

6. The Idea that Prussian derives from Greek 6.1. Willichius and the Appraisal of a Greek Theory on Prussian 6.2. Minor Reception of and/or Reaction to the Greek Theory 6.2.1. Hartknoch and the 17th - century Reaction against the Greek Theory 6.2.2. Prätorius: A lesser known Case of 17th -century Reaction 6.2.3. Palaeocomparativistic Prussian–Greek Comparisons 6.2.4. Later Echoes of the Greek Theory in Pisanski’s works 6.3. Evaluating the Greek Theory on Prussian within Baltic Palaeocomparativism 7. The Emergence of a Hebrew Theory 7.1. Early ideas: Funck, Göbel, Loewenklau 7.2. Other interpretations (after the 16th century) 7.3. New interpretation

95 96 97 97 99 101 103 104 105 105 109 110

Pietro U. Dini 8. Marcin Bielski’s ideas on the Lithuanian 8.1. Diachrony 8.2. Synchrony 8.3. Conclusion 9. The Disappearance of the Baltic languages in Edward Brerewood’s Enqvireies (1614) 9.1. Description of the languages 9.2. Comment 9.3. Conclusion 10. Concluding Remarks: Was there a Baltistics before Baltistics? 10.1. Synopsis of the Slav Theory and of the Illyrian Theory 10.2. Synopsis of the Latin Theory and its Variants 10.3. Synopsis of the Quadripartite Theory 10.4. Mutual dynamic among the linguistic theories 10.5. Attempt at a Generalization 10.5.1. Nations–languages 10.5.2. Hypernyms

7 113 113 115 117

119 119 121 122

123 124 126 130 131 133 135 136

Notes

139

Sources

145

References

163

Foreword Baltic linguistic historiography is a still rarely investigated field, and this short book is, indeed, an invitation to this domain of research. Baltic linguistic historiography is obviously only a part of the general study of linguistic historiography. This specific area of Baltic linguistics is concerned with historiographic (and not with historical) research. It is probably appropriate to repeat the well known formula that linguistic historiography is not directly concerned with the history of a language, but rather with theories about that language. I am going to present and comment on the mutual relationships among the different ideas on the languages which we, with Georg H. F. Nesselmann, started to call “Baltic” only after 1845. These ideas concern first of all the genealogical relations among the languages and were widespread during the Cinquecento (16th century). This book is a kind of report on the earliest known Baltic linguistics from an historiographical point of view. The reason for taking up this field of inquiry springs from a simple realization: if one leafs through the more than seventy issues of the highly respected journal Historiographia Linguistica, one finds there only one contribution and a couple of reviews on the historiography of Baltic linguistics either of the so–called pre–scientific era, or of the following so– called scientific period. In addition, it is worthwhile to remember that the maturity of a discipline is shown by its ability to reflect on its own past. Now, since it is undeniable that such maturity has been achieved by Baltic studies, it is therefore time that we take an interest in Baltic linguistic historiography even if the current state of the art is rather unsatisfactory. Until very recent times it was not possible to point to even a single general work on the earliest theories of the Baltic linguistic domain. If one reviews the existing literature, one can see that something has been done only for the most recent period (Subaius 1998; Kavia 2010). Recently I myself had the opportunity to publish in Italian the book Aliletoescvr. Linguistica baltica delle origini. Teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecento (Leghorn, Books & Company, 2010, p. 844) of which this Prelude to Baltic Linguistics contains just some preliminary works originally written in English and a few other later translated into English. I apologize for some possible repetitions.

Acknowledgements I am much indebted to William R. Schmalstieg (University Park), who read and corrected many parts of this book; beyond that, he himself along with Aaron D. Rubin, Paul Harvey and Philip Baldi provided me detailed and helpful suggestions on how best to render into English some Latin passages. Equally, I thank Katherine Isaacs (Pisa University, doctor h.c. University of Latvia) very much for having read the final version. I render especial gratitude to Eric van Broekhuizen (Editions Rodopi) who aided me considerably in preparing the manuscript. In this volume the (extensively revised) texts of lectures and conferences held on many occasions during the last decades are recollected: The Institute for the Humanities at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 14 September 1998. CAMS Lecture series, State Park University, 16 September 1998. International Aleksandras Vanagas Conference on Baltic Onomastics, Vilnius, 2004. Jazyki v Velikom knjažestve Litovskom i stranax sovremennoj Central’noj i Vostonoj Evropy: migracija slov, vyraženij i idej, Budapest, 5–7 April 2000. Baltistica IX. The International Congress of Balticists, Riga 3–6 October 2000. The UCLA Program in Indo-European Studies and the UCLA Center for Medieval & Renaissance Studies, 02 March 2000. Language and Identity: Linguistic Reality and Linguistic Consciousness in Eastern/Central Europe (14–17th Centuries) at the University of California, Los Angeles, 22–24 February 2002. CLIOHnet Student Conference (Clioh’s Workshop III), Pisa, 16 June 2005. Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies Conference. The global Baltics: The Next Twenty Years, 23rd Conference on Baltic Studies. Key-Note Speaker, Chicago, April 26-28, 2012.

Some papers have been redacted during scientific stages at the Georg–August–University in Göttingen in connection with a project made possible by the Alexander von Humboldt–Foundation (Bonn). I want to express my gratitude to Prof. †Wolfgang P. Schmid who took officially care of that project and to Prof. Werner Lehfeldt who equally supported it. P.U.D.

Chapter One Palaeocomparativism and Earliest Baltic Linguistics The Lithuanians, Latvians and many other historical and prehistorical stocks such as Prussians, Jatvingians, Curonians, and many more, are known as Balts. The name Baltic for this Indo–European family of languages was given by the scholar Georg F.H. Nesselmann only after 1845. The Baltic languages belong to the Indo–European language family (i.e. the group including Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Italic, Celtic and so on). On the basis of intensified hydronimical investigation carried out during the last half century and still at present, we are able to attribute to the Balts a huge prehistorical area of expansion and to put two other Baltic subgroups, the so–called Dnepr–Balts at the very East, and the so–called Pomerania–Balts at the very West of the prehistorical Baltic area. The Baltic languages are traditionally divided into West Baltic (essentially Prussian) and East Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian and Curonian and other). With a few exceptions, the first texts written in Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian date from the mid–16th century when some (more often Lutheran) Catechisms were translated into these languages. The Baltic languages as whole are an interesting group within the Indo–European family of languages. As a matter of fact, in spite of their relatively recent attestation these languages are very archaic, i.e. they preserve old linguistic forms, and therefore deserve the attention of historical linguists1. This is the very general background one has to keep in mind by reading this book which focusses on some case–studies at the very beginning of Baltic Linguistics. It is interesting to see which theories on these languages were generally known and circulating in Europe even before the first printed texts in a Baltic language existed. 1.1. Investigation Which kind of investigation are we going to carry out? This is a methodlogical question. Baltic linguistic historiography is obviously only a part of the general inquiry on the theme of linguistic historiography. This specific field of linguistics devotes itself, within Baltic linguistics, to historiographic (and not to historical) research. It is probably appropriate to repeat the notorious formula that linguistic historiography does not write the history of a language but the history of the linguistic ideas. Therefore it is necessary first to distinguish between linguistic historiography and history of languages, whose difference is based on the distinction that exists between

14

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

historiography and history. The main interest of linguistic historiography is the theories on languages. During the last fifty years or so, much progress has been made in the study of the history of the so–called pre–scientific linguistics, including also Renaissance paleocomparativism. There is a clear and useful tendency to broadening research in this sector. But the Baltic field has continued to be neglected. As Giuliano Bonfante (1954:682) said: Both Dante and Rodericus distinguish themselves for their almost total ignorance concerning eastern Europe – neither seems to know anything about any of the three Russian languages, not to speak of Baltic or of many others to the East of these. This statement is, at least partly, still valid today for within Baltic studies inquiry on conceptions and linguistic theories (particularly on those of the most ancient periods) is still not of primary interest.

From Bielskis 1564, p. 7b The construction of the Tower of Babel

Pietro U. Dini

15

1.1.1. Bartholomew Anglicus. An important representative of the so-called encyclopaedism of the Middle Ages is the well-known Franciscan Minorite Bartholomew Anglicus [pre 1203-1272] who wrote a compendium of nineteen books encompassing various domains of human knowledge. This famous compendium is entitled De Proprietatibus Rerum. Some books in this work, which was the source of general information throughout the Middle Ages, deal with geographical matters.2 The Latin text (first printed in Basel about 1470) long remained a classic in universities and went through many editions and had a great popularity between 15th and 17th centuries (about seventy editions, cf. Voigt 1910:340, 347-358). The 15th book De provinciis deals with the East Baltic region. Along with geographic and ethnographic information there are some onomastic data as well, which (according to the 1481 Latin edition) may be outlined in the following table: Latin ed. 1481 De lectonia cap. 87 De liuonia cap. 88 De riualia cap. 126

Toponym

Idronym

Ethnica

Etyma

lectonia, LEctonia liuonia, LIuonia riualia, RIualia

—

lectimi

—

—

liuones

—

Narua

—

De ambia cap. 134

Ēambia,

—

—

pratenes eĒtenes oĒilianes liuones et turones Ēemigalli

a) [...] a virore b) a norvego et irregardo regionib’ —

Narue

—

vironia

SAmbia

De Āemigallia Ēemigallia, SEmigallia cap. 144

De vironia cap. 171

vironia, VIronia

Ēic vocata quaĒi a galatis... qui ex gallis Ēiue galatis pceĒĒert. [...] a virore dicta

Some linguistic ideas may be found in Bartholomew Anglicus’s De Proprietatibus Rerum as well. I cite the example of genealogical information, which was frequently given at that time. Thus, the English edition of the book (translated from Latin by John of Trevisa in 1398) says that Beemes, Poloni, Mechani, Wandani, Ruten, Dalmate, and Carinthi but no other peoples acorden in tonge and in maners with the Slavs. One notices that Bartholomew Anglicus does not count the Baltic languages among the Slavic, i.e. his view is different from the common opinion held by the early humanists as for instance Ænea Sylvius Piccolomini (see Chapter One).

16

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

1.1.2. Classifications of languages. To illustrate better the knowledge or rather the lack of knowledge of and about the Baltic languages in the early Renaissance it is useful to start by examining the classifications of languages that were current at that time. There have been some, more or less famous, linguistic classifications in the past, before the so–called scientific linguistics emerged. The first attempt to provide a reasoned classification of the European languages is contained in the two well known descriptions of the 13th century attributed to Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada [1170–1247] in the first book of the De rebus Hispaniae (ca. 1243) and to Dante Alighieri [1265– 1321] in De vulgari eloquentia (ca. 1304; cf. Tavoni 2012). The point of departure was the “babelic confusion” from which it was widely believed that 72 languages had originated. These classifications are not however of great importance for which concerns the Baltic languages and one may repeat Bonfante’s opinion.

G.Genebrardus’s Title page, 1580 Besides Rodrigo’s and Dante’s classifications, there is a series of authors who are known to have dealt with the representations of the lan-

Pietro U. Dini

17

guages of Europe. Thus André de Poza [?–1595] in his book De la antigua lengua, poblaciones, y comarcas de las Españas (Bilbao, 1587) recognized for the whole European continent only four linguistic families: Roman, Greek, Germanic, Slav, but he recorded nothing about the Baltic languages. Also Genebrardus (real name Gilbert Genebrard) [1535–1597], a Benedictine scholar of the French Auvergne, wrote a Chronographie (Paris, 1580) in which he expounded his ideas on the origin of and the difference between languages; his classification foresaw five main linguistic groups: Hebrew (originary language of humanity), Latin, Greek, Slav and Germanic. Not even in this work does one come upon the least mention of the Baltic languages. The other author that must be quoted at this point is Justus Scaligerus [1484–1558], author of the Diatriba of the languages of Europe (Paris, 1610). In this work the languages are subdivided according to the word for ‘God’, so that one obtains the languages DEUS,  , GODT and BOGE, i.e. four linguae matrices with many other linguae propagines. Because of this particular criterion of linguistic subdivision, this is the most known work among those here examined. Concerning the Baltic languages, however, it is also disappointing, for no reference to them can be found in it.

J.Scaligerus’s Title page, 1599 1.1.2. Marcin Bielski’s Classification. In his Kronika of 1564 (see Chapter Seven) Marcin Bielski [1495–1575] deals in a traditional way with the

18

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Myth of Babel. He gives the word for ‘bread’ to exemplify the difference among the languages3. Interestingly enough, this is probably the first list of languages of this kind in which also the Latvian and the Lithuanian languages are mentioned. At a certain point Bielski wrote: Liflani meyĀĀe... Litwa donos / y drud i takie  inych narodow inac ey ká da r ec  wali. [The Livonians meyĒĒe, the Lithuanians donos and other peoples called it each one by a different name]. The word is the contemporary Latvian maize. The word presents, however, some problematic features. The lexical morpheme recalls the Samogitian doninink dialect but no sure phonetic conclusions may be drawn on the base of this unique writing. If it is not a mistake, the ending may be interpreted as a partitive gen. sg. f. duonos (rather than the nom. pl. f.). 1.2. Metalinguistics How did the linguists of the 16th century reflect on languages? This second question is a metalinguistic one. To accomplish such an undertaking it is necessary to keep in mind that an inquiry that intends to move in this direction must face some problems of a different kind. For instance, one frequently finds oneself working with little informative material, if not with phantasies (not to speak of ‘errors’), that were transmitted by authors of past centuries, which could not have a clear knowledge of the ethno–linguistic peculiarity of the Balts. But also the errors and the phantasies constitute a part of knowledge and science and hence should not remain foreign to our inquiry. Moreover, because of the lack of literature it is often necessary to use directly the sources that are written in Latin, German, ruski–Ruthenian (otherwise @CAȝ9788/HG9), Polish, Italian and sometimes other languages as well. These ideas concerned first of all the genealogical relations among the languages and were widespread during the Cinquecento. 1.3. Baltic Linguistic Historiography Here I should like to illustrate some methodological aspects important for a Historiographia linguistica baltica (i.e. Baltic linguistic historiography) and define its place within the field of Baltic studies. Baltic linguistic historiography is obviously only a part of a general inquiry into the theme of linguistic historiography which is, in its turn, a well established sector of linguistics. There is a clear tendency to broaden

Pietro U. Dini

19

research in this sector. But the Baltic field has remained neglected, a fact which is not unusual in the history of linguistics. We must remember that the maturity of a discipline is shown by its ability to reflect on its own past (Simone 1975). Now, since it is undeniable that such maturity has been achieved by Baltic studies, it is therefore time that we take an interest in Baltic linguistic historiography even if the current state of the art is rather unsatisfactory. As a consequence of this situation, it should not be suprising to learn that in the voluminous histories of linguistic thought recently published, there is no reference to the Baltic linguistic domain4. 1.3.1. Periodization. In a scientific undertaking like that of Baltic linguistic historiography one frequently finds oneself working with little information, and even sometimes with fantasies (not to speak of ‘errors’), that were transmitted by authors of past centuries, who could not have had a clear knowledge of the ethno–linguistic characteristics of the Balts. Surprisingly enough, these linguistic issues of the past are given short shrift even by competent Baltic scholars; some authors consider them simply as fables and ipso facto not only pre–scientific but even anti–scientific. But the so–called errors and fantasies also constitute a part of knowledge and science and hence should not remain foreign to our inquiry (cf. Romashko 1993). Especially at the beginning these theories and ideas concerned the genealogical relations among the languages and were widespread in many different chronicles and other sources beginning with the 13th century and continuing later. It is of course necessary (and not only because of the lack of literature) to use directly the sources that are written in Latin, German, ruski–Ruthenian, Polish, Italian and some more languages as well. Within Baltic linguistic historiography, I propose (cf. Lepschy 1990) a tentative classification with at least three main periods: a) Linguistics on the eve of Palaeocomparativism. A long first period might begin with the initial fragmentary information on the Baltic peoples in the most ancient descriptions of Eastern Europe (13th century) and continue until the explosion of theories characteristic of humanism and Renaissance (in the 16th and 17th centuries). b) Linguistics on the eve of the Pre–comparativism. This second period covers the subsequent era and includes part of the 17th and the 18th centuries. Then the first grammars of the Baltic languages were published: Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et certa [An Easy and Certain Introduction to the Latvian Language] (1644) by J. Rehehusen [pre 1650] and the Grammatica Litvanica [Lithuanian Grammar] (1653) of Daniel Klein [1609–1666]; old theories were elaborated or rejected and new ones were proposed. c) Linguistics on the eve of Comparative Linguistics. This period is characterized by the presence of Comparative Linguistics whose beginning

20

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

is conventionally associated with the work of Franz Bopp (1816) and which continues to this day. To this time belong first of all issues concerning the position of the Baltic group of languages within the Indo–European family (e.g. Balto–[German–]Slavic theories and the like). 1.3.2. Methodology. Baltic linguistic historiography is obviously only a part of the general inquiry into linguistic historiography. This specific field of linguistics is devoted, within Baltic linguistics, to historiographic (and not to historical) research. It is probably appropriate to repeat the formula that linguistic historiography does not write the history of a language. It is necessary to first distinguish between linguistic historiography and the history of languages (Koerner 1995). According to the general rule of linguistic historiography, the main interest of Baltic linguistic historiography concerns the theories and ideas about the Baltic languages and not data on the Baltic languages themselves (Robins 1973). In this regard, I would like to add one more observation. Since the field of Baltic linguistic historiography is still relatively new, it could also be appropriate to introduce an ad hoc condition. Once we have accepted the concept that Baltic linguistic historiography is and should be intrinsically ‘theory–oriented’ (whereas the history of the Baltic languages is rather ‘data–oriented’), for Baltic linguistic historiography of Paleocomparativism and Pre–comparativism we might relax somewhat the strict separation of ‘data’ (the real knowledge of the languages) and ‘theory’ (the ideas about those languages). It would be good if (at least initially) the research for those periods were ‘theory & data–oriented’, so that it could serve both the history of the language and Baltic linguistic historiography. This demand springs from the fact that the linguistic theories of the time were based on certain knowledge of the languages, that for the theory itself were shown decisive and that often it is not possible to understand the linguistic theory of an author if we do not consider also the degree of his knowledge of the languages. Not infrequently those data are still unknown and unpublished so that one can sometimes achieve a good synergy between the two aspects of the investigation. Besides, one has always to consider that during a long period (between the 13th and the 21th centuries) the exchange between the Eastern and Western scientific tradition could begin and develop, but also decrease and sometimes could even cease completely. I would consider it a noteworthy achievement just to succeed in identifying, for each period, those main lines of circulation and exchange of ideas (and possibly data, too) about the Baltic languages which connect many European authors. In this way it will be possible to give a comprehensive account of the real state of knowledge about the Baltic languages in all of Europe at any specific period and at last recognize the

Pietro U. Dini

21

reciprocal relations and the mutual interferences between the different linguistic theories and ideas. This would also allow us: a) to establish the premises for drawing a possibly complete and precise picture of the theories and ideas about the Baltic languages at the time when these were not recognized as an autonomous linguistic group; b) to reach a better definition of the cultural situation in which Franz Bopp (and later the other linguists of the comparative period) introduced the Baltic languages into the linguistic inquiry; c) to trace the successive variations that occurred in the theories about this linguistic group within the Indoeuropean language family. 1.4. Main linguistic theories in the eve of Palaeocomparativism We should ask: Were the Baltic languages really ignored as one would judge from the classifications of languages? This third question may be answered very differently. In fact, already during the Cinquecento the Baltic languages became an object of interest not only in the Eastern, but also in the Western part of Europe and were catalogued in a different way. To understand better this point I shall discuss the most popular theories in circulation at that time. So, for purely practical purposes, and for a first glance to the whole of the question, it is also didactically useful to distinguish between the ideas in circulation in the intellectual circles of Eastern and Western Europe. The synoptic juxtaposition of the different theories which were circulating in the same epoch and often in the same intellectual milieus, shows very well the state of knowledge in Europe about those languages which later would be called Baltic. Some linguistic ideas originating in the previous centuries were developed, sometimes to extremes, during the following centuries; some other ideas appear just now for the first time. Generally, I would state that there were at least three main centers of theories between the 15th and the 17th centuries. Topographically, one can illustrate the situation in the following way:

European Context Western Central Central Eastern Central ———————————————————————————— Slav Theory & Quadripartite Latin Theory & Illyrian Theory Theory its variants

22

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

The common feature to all these theories was the affirmation of a genealogical relationship among the languages. Some of them combined it with other sociological and historical trends. Even the mutual permeability among the theories, that is to say, the transmission or lack thereof of some features, was differently composed. The Slav and the Latin theories prevailed respectively in Western Central and Eastern Central Europe. The first theory prevailed in those areas where the second theory was not known. Actually, the Latin Theory had no supporters in the West and in the East the Slav Theory was judged rather critically. In their respective spheres of influence both theories caused a maximum of theoretical elaboration and reinterpretation (as shown, for instance, by the relation between the Slav and the Illyrian theories on the one hand, or by the many variants of the Latin Theory on the other hand). Beyond that, because of its specific conception, the Quadripartite Theory represented for the Baltic languages a significant fruit of the 16th century, even if many authors tried to reshape it according to the terms of the two dominant theories. A real linguistic idea which would have considered the Baltic languages as an autonomous group (i.e. a sort of Baltic Theory) was not expressed as such during the 16th century, but it is possible to find traces of important premises in the works of different authors. Such a theory remained ‘concealed’ within the Quadripartite Theory by Miechovita. There were also attempts to coin a specific common name (hypernym) to designate the Baltic linguistic group as a whole.

Chapter Two The Slav Theory and Polyglossia in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania It is expedient to start with the linguistic theory which I call the Slav Theory. This theory of the Baltic languages was very popular in Western Europe during all this century and even later. It found its first and major theoretician in Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini [1405–1464], before he became pope Pius II. Although Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini was not mainly interested in linguistic description, the importance of his work for the diffusion of ethnic, geografic also linguistic information on the Eastern Baltic area in Italy (and in the whole of Europe during the Renaissance) was remarkable and lasting. 2.1. Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini What is to be understood by the expression: the Slavic Theory? According to its first theoretician and most prominent supporter, Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, those languages (which we nowadays call Slavic and Baltic) were conceived of as a whole belonging to one and the same linguistic family called lingua slauonica, sermo sclauonicus or the like. Among the relatively numerous theories concerning the languages of Central–Eastern Europe which were quite popular during the Renaissance and circulated throughout all of Europe there was the so–called Slavic Theory. This conception was represented starting with Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini’s book De Europa (Basel, 1458). This theory was widely known especially in Western Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, and even after that, but, already during the first half of the 16th century, one can find the first reactions against this idea. Concerning the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Æneas Sylvius defined the language of its population as follows: Sermo gentis Sclavonicus est; latissima est enim haec lingua et in varias divisa sectas. [The language of the people is Slavic; this language is widespread and is divided into various sections]. He did not mention either the Lithuanians or the Lithuanian language, but spoke of Lithuania as a territory and perhaps as a state. This fairly laconic description of the linguistic situation in the Grand Duchy deserves, however, at least a short comment. This sentence contains at least three important bits of information: first, the language is conceived of as a Slavic language (Sermo... Sclavonicus); second, this language is

24

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

spoken over a wide area (latissima... lingua); third, this language is divided up in various ways, or rather it is linguistically heterogeneous (lingua... in varias divisa sectas). With this last remark Æneas Sylvius wanted very probably to stress the large number of languages and polyglossy existing in the Grand Duchy. Nevertheless, according to his ideas, all those languages belonged to the Slavic family. The ideas of Piccolomini exercised a great influence on several other contemporary and later authors. Some of them accepted in toto Piccolomini’s point of view. Among these were Jacopo Filippo da Bergamo [1434–?1520], who repeated that: horum sermo Sclauonicus per majorem partem eĒt and in another place that: Eorum sermo Sclauonicus eĒt. Another was the German author Johannes Cochlaeus [1479–1552], who accepted this view and wrote that in Lithuania lingua utuntur Sclavonica. Some other authors shared this idea as well, but provided several original variations. Thus, one can find some essential changes in the Slavic Theory as registered by different authors. For example the most popular variation, shared by Johannes Boemus [ca. 1485–1533/1435], Sebastian Münster (see 5.3.1.), Abrahm Ortelius [1527–1598] and still others, was: Sermo gentis ut Polonis sclauonicus [The language of the people is Slavic like the Poles] Volaterranus’s [1451–1522] isolated variant was: Sermo semidalmaticus. [A Semi–Dalmatian language]. Such a ‘panslavic attitude’ was, however, criticized early in Eastern Europe. Chronologically the first scholar who opposed an interpretation of the linguistic variety of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania according to the so– called Slavic Theory was Johannes Stobnica. 2.2. Johannes Stobnica’s Epitoma Europe (1512) The focus will be on the Epitoma Europe Enee Sylvii paucis aliunde [Æeneas Sylvius’s Epitoma of Europe with a few additions] (Cracow, 1512; 2nd ed. 1517; 3rd ed. 1519) by Johannes Stobnica [ca. 1470–1530] (cf. Tarnowska 1962–1964; Pollak 1965:289–291), a minor, but not insignificant work with which the author wanted to correct some of Piccolomini’s erroneous opinions about the peoples and languages in the Lithuanian polity. I shall, first, investigate thoroughly Stobnica’s knowledge of the languages used in the territory of the Grand Duchy (in particular concerning the Slavic Theory) and, second, present and comment on Stobnica’s view

Pietro U. Dini

25

on polyglossia and multilingual communication in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 2.2.1. Views on Ruthenian(s), Lithuanian(s) and Muscovite(s). In 1512 this Cracovian academician published a book entitled Introductio in Ptolomei cosmographiam [Introduction to Ptolomaeus’s Cosmography] (further editions in 1517 and 1519). This book was a rather slavish remake of Martin Waldseemüller’s CoĒmographiae Introdvctio [Introduction to Cosmography] (St. Dié, 1507). Stobnica inserted in his book also parts extracted from works of other authors such as Isidoro de Sevilla, Paulus Orosius and also Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini. This explains the origin of the above mentioned Epitoma Europe in which the professor of the University of Cracow rejected and corrected the untenable linguistic statement made by the future Pope Pius the Second. Sometimes Stobnica significantly distanced himself from Piccolomini in the description of the ethno–linguistic composition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There is an important passage dealing with the relationship between Ruthenians and Lithuanians which deserves comment (all the quotations are from the chapter on Lithuania and on Rutheni, cf. Stobnica 1512:xviij–b). Stobnica writes that in the Grand Duchy some Ruthenians are mixed in with the Lithuanians (Ruteni qui etiam Lituanis nõ in parua multitudine inmixti Ēunt), but the two peoples are different with respect to language and religious rites (Ēermone ac religione ab ipis Ēint diuerĒi). More precisely: Ruthenians speak a language which is comprehensible to the other Slavs (Ruteni enim Ēermon Ēclauis intelligibil loquitur) while Lithuanians use their own, different language (Lituani proprio vttur Ēermone). But Stobnica did not suggest its position among other languages or suggest congeners. The other major difference between these two peoples concerns religion: Lithuanians worshipped pagan idols until Ladislao (that is the Lithuanian Jogaila) became their sovereign (Lituani... et idolis Ēeruierunt) while Ruthenians followed the Greek rites (rittuus grecor rem diuinã (hoc eĒt miĒĒas et cetera officia eccleĒiaĒtica) agunt). Stobnica focuses especially on the language of the Ruthenians. It is exactly with regard to this that he almost literally repeats the well known formula: Ēermo gentis eĒt Ēclauonic9 [...] LatiĒĒa enim eĒt lingua Ēclauonica et in varias Ēectas diuiĒa. Nonetheless it is easy to appreciate Stobnica’s rather striking differences from Æneas Sylvius’s text: according to Stobnica the Ēermo Ēclauonicus is the language of the Ruthenians; according to Æneas Sylvius the Ēermo Ēclauonicus was the language of the whole Lithuanian polity. Beyond that Stobnica states that the Ēermo Ēclauonicus possesses its own letters different from those of the Greeks, Latins and Hebrews (Nam et literas proprias alias a grecis et latinis ac ebraicis [Ruteni] habt). This

26

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

passage discloses another difference between Ruthenians and Lithuanians, because the literae belong only to Ruthenians (but not to Lithuanians). In fact, even if the direct reference is here to the alphabets, the term literae was probably meant to denote not only the writing systems but also scripts and literature in general, that is to say, something that the Lithuanians had not yet developed at that time (cf. Ulinait 2000:51). Also in this case it is not difficult to appreciate Stobnica’s rather significant deviation from Æneas Sylvio’s sharp and laconic judgment (Piccolomini 1458:419 = 1531:366): Rutheni... gens barbara, incompta (cf. Guida 1979:67). Concerning this point I would like to recall that it was not by chance that Michalo Lituanus (see 4.2.1.) lamented this situation in Epitome fragminis quinti [Epitome of the fifth fragment] when he wrote (Jurginis 1966:95) that: Gymnasijs literariis, dolendum, caremus. literas Moscoviticas nihil antiquitatis complectentes, nullam ad virtutem efficaciam habentes ediscimus. [Unfortunately we are lacking of literary gymnasiums. We learn the Muscovite letters which do not have any antiquity and are of no avail for attaining virtue]. Stobnica goes on to explain which actually are the variae sectae by dividing the Slavic peoples according to their religious credos (Stobnica 1512:xviij–b): Nam ex Āclauis alij romanam eccleĀiam Āequtur vt dalmate Croatini Carni Poloni Alij grecorum Āequtur errores vt Bulgari Ruteni et MoĀkouite. Alij proprias hereĀes inuenert vt Bohemi Moraui et BoĀnĀes. [In fact among the Slavs as Dalmats, Croats, Carni and Poles belong to the Roman Church; Bulgarians, Ruthenians and Muscovites to the Greek Church; while Bohemians, Moravians and Bosnians have developed peculiar heretical credos]. In the list of the peoples who follow the orthodox religion one can observe another significant difference with respect to Piccolomini’s text (Piccolomini 1458 = 1531:362; cf. SRP IV:231): Ex Schlauis enim alij Romanam eccleĀiã Āequuntur, vt Dalmatæ, Croatini, Carni ac Poloni. Alij Græcorum Āequtur errores, vt Bulgari, Rhuteni, & multi ex Lituanis. Alij proprias hreĀes inuenere, vt Bohemi, Moraui, & BoĀnenĀes, quorum magna pars Manichæorum imitatur inĀaniam.

Pietro U. Dini

27

Thus, where Piccolomini wrote: Alij Græcorum Ēequtur errores, vt Bulgari, Rhuteni, & multi ex Lituanis, there Stobnica correctly did not mention the Lithuanians but the Muscovites: Alij grecorum Ēequtur errores vt Bulgari Ruteni et MoĒkouite. It is also interesting to observe how Stobnica deals with the terms Ruthenians and Muscovites. According to Stobnica’s text, Ruthenians occupy a broad region divided into three parts: the first lies in Poland, the second is the Podolia and the third is called Alba Russia. This last one is described as a very wide subregion reaching the Livonians to the North and the river Tanais (Don) to the East; on the shores of the river are located the Muscovites. Another interesting passage shows that in Stobnica’s Epitome Europe there is an alternative use of Rutheni and Russi such as Ruthenia and Russia. This fact reveals that regarding Ruthenians and Muscovites Stobnica did not conceive of a substantial difference, but rather of a superficial and formal one, as one can read (Stobnica 1512:xix–a): iuxta cuius (Tanais) rippas habitant MaĀkouite qui licet rutenis ceteris lgua et Āecta Āimiles omio Āint... [on the shore of this (the Don river) live the Muscovites, who, as it is assumed, are completely similar to the other Ruthenians with respect both to language and religion...]. 2.2.2. Views on multilingual variety. The other linguistic information about the Slavic and Baltic languages in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and as well in the neighboring countries) which one can find in the Epitoma Europe is not very reliable. Generally Stobnica follows Æneas Sylvius without important differrences. This is the case when Stobnica just writes about Poland’s, Masovia’s and Livland’s geographic position and borders; following Æneas Sylvius he also adds, that much more to the north, after this criĒtianarum vltima prouinciarum, live only wild men with whom it is impossible to communicate (cum quibus nullum lingue conmercium; cf. the same passage in Piccolomini 1458 = 1531:367: cum quibus nullum linguæ commercium nauigantes habent). Prussia and its history is well presented but the only bit of linguistic information is that together with Christianity the German language was also introduced into the country (cf. Stobnica 1512:xix–b: ex illo te lingua theutonica introducta eĒt et cultus xpi gentibus imperatus). More attention should be given to the description of Samogitia (cf. Stobnica 1512:xix–b). This region is introduced as a little land (parua terra) located between Livland and Prussia. Both Piccolomini and Stobnica state that the inhabitants are the MaĒĒagetae, vassals of Poland.

28

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

The name of the MaĒĒagetae is of course derived from the classical tradition according to which such a Scythian stock lived next to the Caspian Sea (cf. Herrmann 1930). Thus the idea that this stock now lives in Samogitia has to be considered an invention of Æneas Sylvius which was shared by Stobnica. Nonetheless there is a difference between the two authors. My impression is that Stobnica realized the fallacy in Æneas Sylvius’s text on this point, but he himself was unable to correct it adequately. As a matter of fact Stobnica adds that the Massagetae are called S moc by the common people (cf. Stobnica 1512:xix–b: maĒĒagete qui vulgo S moc vocantur) which shows that he knew that the Samogitians live in this land and he mentioned their Polish name ( mud). I would like to suggest the following hypothesis: in the name MaĒĒagetae one should see the result of a so–called obscura per obscuriora explicatio. I assume that Æneas Sylvius probably got from his sources the right form of the ethnonym, that is * or the like, but he did not understand it and tried to explain it; through metathesis he easily obtained another ethnonym which was well known to him beginning with Herodotus, namely the and used it, even if completely out of context. 2.2.3. Conclusion. It is probably useful to evaluate the specific contribution made by Stobnica’s Epitoma Europe in the linguistic description of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, even if it is already clear that the main interest of Stobnica’s book was focused not on languages but rather on geography. Stobnica’s main contribution concerned the conception of the lingua Ēclauonica. Differently from Piccolomini, Stobnica was capable of distinguishing the main ethnic differences inside the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and their corresponding linguistic varieties. He correctly differentiated between Ruthenian and Lithuanian, but he did not see a big contrast between Ruthenian and Muscovite. On the whole Stobnica shows an independent and, for that time, more precise linguistic knowledge than for instance his model Æneas Sylvius. Because of his rejection of the Slavic Theory Stobnica may be considered a forerunner of Crassinius (see 2.3.). Oddly enough in the Epitoma Europe there is no mention of the contemporary ideas of Stobnica’s Cracovian colleague Miechovita (see Chapter Five), viz., the so–called Quadripartite Theory (nor did he write anything about other linguistic views circulating in the same period, such as the Semi–Latin or the Neo–Latin Theory; see Chapter Four). On the other hand one should say also that Miechovita’s own description of the linguistic situation of the Lithuanian polity, contained in De duabus Sarmatiis (Cracow, 1517), did not take into consideration to any great degree Stobnica’s Epitome Europe. Thus the two descriptions of the Grand Duchy both written by Polish scholars at the beginning of the 16th century somehow complement each other reciprocally.

Pietro U. Dini

29

2.3. Crassinius’s Polonia (1574) To complete the picture, I note that a reaction against the linguistic ideas, inaugurated by Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, which always considered the Baltic languages as belonging to the Slav group, is found for the first time in Western Europe at the end of the Cinquecento in the work by Crassinius (his real name was Jan Andrzej Krasiski, 1550–1612), a Polish scholar, active in Italy at the end of the 16th century. In this book Polonia [Poland] (Bologna, 1574) he stated quite clearly: (Crassinius 1574:97b:) valdè mihi erraĀĀe videntur illi, qui Lithuanos omnes Slauonica lingua vti ĀcripĀerunt.

Title page of Crassinius 1574

30

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

(Krasiski 1852:98:) Mylnie niektórzy twierdz, e wszyscy Litwini uywaj sawiaskiéj mówy. [It seems to me that those who wrote that all the Lithuanians use the Slavonic language were very much mistaken]. And some lines after that: (Crassinius 1574:97b:) Verùm quidem eĀt nobiliores viros Polonicum, & Roxolanicum Āermonem vĀurpare; Āed plebs peculiare Lithuanicum idioma habet. (Krasiski 1852:98:) Wprawdzie szlachta polskim i ruskim jzykiem mówi, ale lud ma waciwy sobie jzyk litewski. [It is indeed true that the noble men make use of the language of the Poles and of the Roxolanians; but the common people have the peculiar language of the Lithuanians]. So Crassinius accepted a sort of sociolinguistic division: the aristocracy speaks a Slav language (Polish or ruski), but the common people has a peculiar Lithuanian language. It is worth to note that this conception that one must listen to the language spoken by common people in order to get an idea of the peculiar Lithuanian language had success during this century and even later. I must just add here a few more lines to the topic of the Slav Theory to stress that the reaction against this Theory promoted by Crassinius was not successful. On the contrary, the Slav Theory remained quite strong and spread in Western Europe still for a long period although variously mixed and contaminated with the so–called Illyric Theory. Here one can probably make out the remote embryo of the so–called Baltic–Slav problem. But this a different matter. The Slav Theory was the most widespread linguistic idea in the intellectual circles of Western Europe concerning the Baltic languages. A completely different situation will be seen instead in Eastern Europe, where other theories were very widespread and associated with linguistic considerations (see Chapter Four).

Chapter Three An Illyrian Theory of the Baltic Languages The Illyrian Theory of the Baltic languages is especially associated with the name of Conrad Gessner and Hieronymus Megiser. In the following, I shall illustrate the characteristics of this theory and its place in the general context of Renaissance linguistic theories on the Baltic Languages. It is hard to determine who first used the term Illyrian to refer to Baltic languages. A special investigation should be devoted to this task. Up to now I can mention two significant cases: that of Raffael Maffeius Volaterranus and that of Paulus Jovius. Chronologically, one sees how a convergence between the concepts of Illyrian and Slav was performed already at the beginning of the 16th century. Among the followers of Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, the most enigmatic remained Rafael Maffeius Volaterranus [1451–1522]. In the 7th book of the Commentariorum rerum Urbanorum libri XXXVIII [The thirtyeight books of commentaries on city matters] he wrote about the language of Lithuania: Sermone vtuntur emidalmatico, vt ferè Sarmatia omnis Europea. It is pretty obscure why Volaterranus used exactly the term semidalmaticus to define this language. Nevertheless there is a possible explanation: in his 8th book of the same work the Dalmatians are presented as an Illyrian people and the Illyrians are identified with the Slavs: In equentibus vero temporibus Sclaui dicti unt… Sclaueni gens Scythica Iu tiniani tempore in illyricum irruere. Paulus Jovius [1483–1552] was a bishop from Como in Italy and the author of many books on different topics. In some of them he also dealt with Baltic matters and expressed his opinion on the languages. Jovius knew the Quadripartite Theory of Miechovita and referred to it, but in the Historiarum sui temporis libri XLV [The forty-five books of the history of his time] (Florence, 1550–1552) he expounded another point of view. Jovius noticed that Poles, Muscovites, Lithuanians and Ruthenians (Roxolani) do not especially differ among themselves in language (Jovius 1560:520-521): Lingua Illyrica vtuntur omnes, corrupta tamen, vtpote quàm diueri inter e populi, diueris vocum inflexionibus inuerterint. [They all use the Illyrian language, although corrupted, insofar as people (who were) different among themselves have altered (it) through different modifications of the words]. It is known that Jovius did not travel anywhere, although he wrote on countries and peoples very far from Italy. Thus he surely got his Lingua

32

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Illyrica from the many sources he consulted or perhaps from informers he had the opportunity to ask. These are two good examples, and probably among the first, of the usage of the term Illyrian referred at least to one Baltic language. The cases of Volaterranus and Jovius are interesting because both preceded the activity of Conrad Gessner. They show that the Lingua Illyrica was a concept already known among the humanists. 3.1. The Philoglots’s linguistic ideas During the second half of the 16th century a group of scholars, with Conrad Gessner as the best known, had as center of irradiation the German countries and flourished in particular in German Switzerland. They were called Philoglots: Who where they and what did they do? Besides Gessner, Siegmund Gelens and Theodor Biblianders are also included among the Philoglots (cf. Riedl-Dorn 1989:21–26; in general Tavoni 1990). To these names can be added those of Angelo Rocca, follower of Gessner in Italy, and those of the German Hieronymus Megiser and Johann Heinrich Alsted (see 3.3.). The activity of the Philoglots had as its principal aim precisely the diffusion of the multilingual Verbum in and for itself. Not by chance, this was characterized by the production and publication of relatively many different catalogs of languages, specimina, collections of Lord’s Prayers (Orationes Dominicae). This activity and production was perceived and understood within the frame of the typical “radical culture of poliglotism”. Such a view of the linguistic phenomenon was based notoriously on practical assumptions, but also on religious and ecumenic ones, that placed in the center the esprit de la Pentecôte, with a clear reference to the day of Pentecost when God appeared to the Apostles in the form of the Holy Ghost and conferred upon them the gift of tongues. Today there is agreement on the fact that this culture of poliglotism set the most important premise for the rise of Comparative Linguistics at the beginning of the 19th century. Many of the Philoglots dealt also with the Baltic languages and it is worth giving special attention to their ideas. Bibliander [1504–1564] (his real name was Theodor Buchmann) is considered the first to have pointed out and investigated the reciprocal relations among the languages of Europe in his famous book De ratione commune omnium linguarum commentarius [Commentary on the common principle of all languages] (Zürich, 1548). It has already been stressed how he got close to the concept of the Indoeuropean community. Concerning the Baltic languages Bibliander followed the ideas of Miechovita (i.e. he accepted the so–called Quadripartite Theory; see Chapter Five). Conrad Gessner was the pupil of Bibliander, but in general the following can be observed: just as much as the master Bibliander had limi-

Pietro U. Dini

33

ted himself to Miechovita’s theory, without mixing it with other theories, so did his student Gessner eclectically gather several other theories and expounded them in his linguistic treatise. Let us now see how this term Lingua Illyrica was understood by Gessner in connection with his ideas on the Baltic languages. With his work Gessner pursued an ambitious aim: to include as much information as was available about as many languages as possible. So Gessner listed all known languages of the world and commented the different families of languages.

Title page of Gessner 1555

34

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics 3.2. Conrad Gessner’s Mithridates (1555)

In his major linguistic work Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum ueterum tum quae hodie apud diuersas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt [Mithridates. On the differences of languages both old and those which are spoken nowadays all over the world] (Zürich, 1555), Gessner pursued an ambitious goal (Metcalf 1963a:15): “to include as much information as was available about as many languages as possible”, and for this purpose he [Gessner] listed all known languages of the world and discussed each individual group imparting much factual information about each one. It also has to be pointed out that Gessner had hoped with his language catalogue to attract other scientists to similar research. In his study Gessner used several, sometimes even sharply diverging sources. Metcalf (1963a:17) has written: “Ges[s]ner will further present opposing statements without attempting to resolve them or even to state his own indecision”. This fact has rightfully given him the reputation of being open–minded, without however denying that such open–mindedness in many cases created the impression of a certain chaos in his conceptions1. This can be seen at least in relation to the Baltic languages. Differently from the work of his teacher Bibliander where all the information about the Baltic language family is concentrated in one place Gessner’s information is very dispersed. It could be generally presumed that the more Gessner’s teacher adopted the opinion of Miechovita the more his pupil Gessner took into consideration all conceptions of the Baltic languages known to him. Thus Gessner followed his teacher only up to a certain extent. In fact, whereas Bibliander restricted himself to the notion of Miechovita without combining it with the concept of the Slavic languages, Gessner collected eclectically and at times with contradictions various other concepts in his work. In one place he considered all Baltic languages as a “fourfold” language (according to the concept of Miechovita – see Chapter Five) and therefore like an “Illyrian” one. Here, however, he treats the individual languages (especially Prussian and Curonian) very differently: they are considered here as “Illyrian” and in another place as “Britannic” (after Tacitus) or even as “Germanic”. At this point the variety of concepts of the Baltic languages found in Gessner’s book should be emphasized and analyzed with the help of textual excerpts: First the role of Gessner as a purveyor of the Miechovitan concept; then his very characteristic use of the term “Illyrian”, then the confusion with regard to the individual Baltic languages and the presentation of the linguistic situation within the Baltic languages. His follower in Italy Angelo Rocca [1545–1620] used very little of Gessner’s work in this respect in his Appendix de dialectis (Rome, 1591).

Pietro U. Dini

35

3.2.1. Loci baltici. Gessner’s work Mithridates contains an extensive citation of the text by Miechovita (Gessner 1555:59ab; the same in Gessner 1610:66): Lithuanorum (alij per t. ine apiratione cribunt) lingua (inquit Matthias à Michou) et quadripartita. Prima et Iaczuingorum, ut horum qui circa catrum Drohicin habitarunt, quorum pauci uperunt. Altera Lithuanorum & Samagitharum. Tertia Prutenica. Quarta in Lothua eu Lothihola, id et Liuonia, circa fluium Dzuina & Rigam ciuitatem. Et horum quanquam eadem it lingua (uidetur entire linguam unam e e, linguagium ip e uocat, ed quatuor dialectis di tinctam) unus tamen non atis alter intelligit, nii peregrinatus & uagatus per illas terras. Habuit hæc lingua quadripartita tpore idolatriæ pontificem maximum unum, quem Crine [sic] appellabant, morantem in ciuitate Romoue à Roma dicta. quoniã hc lingua de Italia iactat e aduenie, & habet nonnulla uocabula Italica in uo ermone. Porrò in Prusia iã pauci proferunt Rhutenicum ermonem. ubintrauit enim lingua Polonorum & Almannorum. Sic & in Lothua pauci rutici profitentur hanc linguam, q; Almannica ubintrârit. In Samogithia autem, quæ et longitudinis quinquaginta miliariorum: & in Lithuania, quæ in longum triginta miliaria continet, in pagis Lithuanicè loquuntur, & in magna parte Polonicè. Nam & ermone Polonico acerdotes in eccleijs concionantur. Cæterum harum regionum incolæ omnes eccleiam Romanam agnoct. in alijs autem circuniactibus, ut in Nouigrod, in Plecouia, in Polocko, in Smolenco, & in meridiem uq; pot Kion [sic] Ruteni unt omnes, et Rutenicè eu Sclauonicè loquuntur, ritumq; Græcorum oberuant: & obedientiam Contantinopolitano patriarchæ prætant. Sunt etiã Tartari in ducatu Lithuaniæ circa Vilnam, qui duci parent: loquuntur uerò Tartaricè & Mahumet colunt, Hactenus Matthias à Michou. ¶ Alij Lituanos impliciter Illyricè loqui cribunt. [The language of the Lithuanians (some write t without aspiration) is fourfold (said Matthias Miechovita). The first is Yatvingian, the language of those who live next to the village Drohicin, of which there remain just a few. The second (language is) of the Lithuanians and of the Samogitians. The third (is) the Prussian (language). The fourth (is spoken) in Latvia or Latgale, that is Livonia, next to the Daugava river and to the city of Riga. And although the language of those is the same (one seems to feel that the language is one, that which one names the language, but separated into four dialects), nevertheless one person could not sufficiently understand another person, if he had not travelled and wandered through those lands. At the time of idolatry this fourfold language had one maximum pontiff who was named Crive, and who lived in a town called Romove,

36

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics named after Rome, for it is reported that this language came from Italy, and that it has some Italian words in its speech. Beyond that in Prussia already few (people) speak the Ruthenian (sic!) language. In fact the language of the Poles and of the Germans made inroads. Similarly also in Latvia few countrymen use that language, because the German language has made inroads. In Samogitia, however, whose length is fifty (Roman) miles, and in Lithuania, whose length is thirty [Roman] miles, in the villages people speak Lithuanian, and for a large part the Polish language. In fact the priests preach to them in the Polish language in the churches. The inhabitants of the remaining regions all recognize the Roman church. In the neighbouring regions, however, such as Novgorod, Pskov, Polock, Smolensk and in the south beyond Kiev, all are Ruthenians, and speak Ruthenian or Slavonian, and observe the rites of the Greeks, and obey the patriarch of Constantinople. In the Duchy of Lithuania there are also Tatars near to Vilnius who obey the Duke. They speak Tatar and worship Mohammed until now according to Matthias Miechovita. Still others simply write that Lithuanians speak Illyrian].

This reproduction of the Miechovitan text in Gessner shows some pecularities. At first one notes that – differently from his usual procedure – Gessner wants to evaluate his source critically. He refers to the central issue of the concept of a “fourfold” language with the following words in parentheses: uidetur entire linguam unam e e, linguagium ip e uocat, ed quatuor dialectis di tinctam, that is: “he (= Miechovita) seems to feel that the language is one, which he himself calls linguagium, but differentiated into four dialects”. Why Gessner finds it opportune at this point to give an explanation of Miechovita’s concept is not completely clear. Metcalf has interpreted the sentence in parentheses to mean that Gessner wanted to justify the use of the term linguagium for a less differentiated language family; he has written (Metcalf 1963a:22): “Ges[s]ner also explicitly justifies the use of a common designation for speech communities which show variations”. This may be true, but when one reads the entire text other interprettations appear possible in my opinion: Gessner had wanted to add at this point an explanation in parentheses, either because this passage was obviously not clear to him (nor to his readers) or because his point of view was different. One is inclined to suppose that Gessner had a different opinion also because of the last sentence of the passage, where one sees a critical position with regard to Miechovita’s entire concept. By the concluding remark that unspecified other writers say that the Lithuanians simply ( impliciter) speak Illyrian (Illiricè loqui), Gessner once more seems to distance himself from Miechovita’s concept (and that in favour of the Illyrian) and here, even with a small touch of irony, hinting

Pietro U. Dini

37

that such a concept would be extremely complicated. At this point one should also emphasize that Gessner’s main concept – in the sense that it is most usual – is to classify the Baltic languages as Illyrian (i.e. Slavic), a view which is obviously inconsistent with Miechovita’s view. 3.2.2. Gessner vs. Bibliander. In the reproduction of the passage concerning the Linguagium Quadripartitum by Miechovita, Gessner corrected the factual error found in the quotation from Bibliander. In the cited passage of Gessner: Sic & in Lothua pauci rustici profitentur hanc linguam, one finds correctly Lothua (as in Miechovita) and not Lithuania (as in Bibliander). However, similarly, he himself added minor errors – such as Crine (instead of Criue) or Kion (instead of Kiou) – and also more significant errors; thus one notes that according to Gessner in Prussia even the Ruthenian language was spoken (Gessner 1555:59b, 1610:66b): Porrò in Prusia iã pauci proferunt Rhutenicum ermonen… [Beyond that in Prussia already a few (people) speak the Ruthenian language…]. But the text in Bibliander and Miechovita reads in Pru ia iam pauci proferunt Pruthenicum; compare also the Italian translation of Miechovita (1561:114): che nella Prutenia pochi ono che parlino Prutenico. It results in quite a confusing situation: here Gessner corrects Bibliander and there he follows his teacher – and because one finds Rhutenicum instead of Pruthenicum in his writings it seems that Gessner does not know what he is writing about. The author of a similar work, the Appendix de dialectis. Hoc est de variis linguarum generibus [Appendix on the dialects. This is about the various kinds of languages] (Rome, 1591), Angelo Rocca, neglected both parts. 3.2.3. Conceptual Variety. At this point the variety of concepts about the Baltic languages must be first discussed as they are reflected in Mithridates. Most characteristic for the concept of the Baltic languages is the classification under the heading of Illyrian. Evidence of this is the following textual excerpt (Gessner 1555:52ab): DE ILLYRICA SIVE Sarmatica lingua. MOSCHOVITAE Illyrica lingua Illyricisq; literis utuntur, icuti & Sclaui, Dalmatæ, Bohemi, Poloni & Lithuani. ea lingua longè omnium latisima ee perhibetur... [The Muscovites use the Illyrian language and the Illyrian letters, as well as Slavs, Dalmatians, Bohemians, Polish and Lithuanians. It is thought that this language is the most widespread of all...].

38

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Shortly thereafter Gessner registers in his work a list of all peoples speaking Illyrian, this is the Enumeratio alphabetica populorum qui Illyrica lingua utuntur, partim ex authorum uerbis iam recitatis, partim ex SigiĒmundi Gelenij felicis memoriæ ad nos epiĒtola; among the Slavic ones we also find some Baltic populations in this list (cf. Gessner 1555:54b–55a, 1610:60a–61b): Boruij... Curi... [Iazyges?] Lituani... Liui... Samogitæ... [Prussians (Borussians)… Curonians... [Iazyges?] Lithuanians... Livians... Samogitians…]. The other textual excerpts referring also to the Illyrian concept and the Baltic languages are (Gessner 1555:6a and 66a): AESTVI Illyricè loquuntur. [The Aesthians speak Illyrian]. SAMOGITÆ Illyricè loquuntur, uide in Lithuanorum lingua. [The Samogitians speak Illyrian, see under Lithuanian Language]. After reading the text one should try to interpret the data obtained. In the first excerpt from the text Gessner uses the terms ILLYRICA SIVE Sarmatica lingua to refer to the Slavic language(s), but here he also includes Lithuanian. He understands, however, that among the people speaking Illyrian there are many more than just the Slavic (people or languages), because now we encounter also the specific Baltic languages (Prussian, Curonian, Lithuanian, Latvian (Livi), Samogitian; the case of the Jatvingians remains unclear (cf. Coseriu 1995:180). In addition it is remarkable that the Aestians (after Tacitus) are also included. 3.2.4. Prussian and Curonian. The concept of Prussian and Curonian seems especially distorted. First the textual excerpts relating to these language communities are presented as they occur in Gessner’s work. Only thereafter will a systematisation of the data be tried. Under the chapter De BITHYNICA Lingua Gessner (1555:12a) writes: BOHEMI & Boruij Illyricè loqutur. [The Bohemians and the Prussians (Borussians) speak Illyrian]. Under chapter DE BRITANNICA lingua uetere he notes (Gessner 1555:13a):

Pietro U. Dini

39

¶ Lingua uetus Prusica ferè eadem et quæ Curorum, Liuonum et Lituanorum, ut audio: dialectis uariant, & nihil habent commune neq; cum Germanica, neq; c Sarmatica uel Illyrica. Sunt tamen qui Curos Illyricè loqui dicant. [The Old Prussian language is almost the same as that of the Curonians, the Livonians and the Lithuanians, as I hear, and they vary only like dialects having nothing in common with the German or with the Sarmatian or with the Illyrian languages. There are nevertheless those who say that the Curonians speak Illyrian]. Referring to Curonian one finds the following excerpt (Gessner 1555:15b): CVRORVM lingua, uide upra in Britannica uetere. [The language of the Curonians, see above under Old Britannian]. Further one finds under chapter De lingva germanica (in the margin: Teutones) the following information (Gessner 1555:30b–31a): Teutones à Celtis Alemani... Teutones olim propriè dicti. Boruci, Gotones, & Gutones: Leuonij iue Hilleuiones acratis Teutonum parent Equitibus... Curij. [The Teutons (where known) to the Celts (as) Alemani... Formerly correctly called Teutons. Prussians (Borussians), Gotones, and Gutones, Levonians or Hilleuiones obey the sacred Teutonic Knights... The Curonians]. Then the Boru ij and Curi are classed together with other Illyrian speaking people in one list (Gessner 1555:54b–55a). Finally there is also a sort of summary with references to all mentions of the Prussians (Gessner 1555:64b): PRVSSICA lingua uetus, uide upra in Britannica uetere. & in Lithuanor lingua, de Prutenica. nam Prusiæ incolæ & Pruteni dicuntur: & lingua olim diuera ui unt: potquam uerò Teutonicorum fratrum iugum ubiêre, lingua Teuthonica introducta et, et religio Chritiana accepta Frederici imperatoris ecundi temporibus. [The Old Prussian language, see above under Old Britannian and under the Lithuanian language, about Pruthenian. In fact the inhabitants of Prussia are also called Prutheni, and at one time they used a different language; after that they suffered under the yoke of the Teutonic Order, and the Teutonic language was introduced, and the Christian religion was adopted at the time of the emperor Friederich the Second].

40

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Gessner advocates at the same time here different conceptions (and by chance he uses occasionally a different type of name and spelling for the Prussian): Illyrian origin Boruij Curi

Greek origin Veteres Prusi Curi

Germanic origin Boruci Curij

3.2.5. Attempt at an Evaluation. We should finally discuss what idea of the linguistic relationships within the Baltic spectrum results from the work of Gessner. In this respect some other excerpts can also be helpful (Gessner 1555:12b–13a, 60a, and 52b): ¶ Lingua uetus Prusica ferè eadem et quæ Curorum, Liuonum et Lituanorum: ut audio dialectis uariant, & nihil habent commune neq; cum Germanica, neq; c Sarmatica uel Illyrica. [The Old Prussian language is almost the same as that of the Curonians and of the Lithuanians, as I hear they vary as dialects, and have nothing in common either with the German or with the Sarmatian or Illyrian language]. LIVONUM uel Liuorum & Lituanorum & Curorum lingua, eadem et quæ uetus Prusica. dialectis tantum uariant. Vide upra in Britannica uetere, & in Lithuanorum lingua. Alij Liuos & LVSATIOS Illyricè loqui aiunt. [The language of the Livonians or Livs, and of the Lithuanians, and of the Curonians is the same as the Old Prussian. They only vary as dialects. See above under Old British, and in Lithuanian language. Others say that the Livs and the Lusatians speak Illyrian]. Sed & Lituani iam clauonizant. [But also the Lithuanians already begin to speak Slavic]. On the basis of these three textual excerpts the following has to be considered: The repeated definition in Gessner reads: dialectis uariant; thereby the relationship between the Prussian, the Curonian, the Latvian (Liuonum lingua) and the Lithuanian languages is conceived as dialectal. Gessner himself was aware of the ambiguity of the nature of the term dialectus, compare (Gessner 1555:1b): E t autem dialectus dictio peculiarem alicuius loci notam eu characterem pr e ferens: uel dictio quae propriam communémue gentis character o tendit (cf. Metcalf

Pietro U. Dini

41

1963a:21). At this point Gessner used this term obviously in its first meaning, i.e. as a definite, from other similar distinguishing language. None of these languages have anything in common either with Germanic or with Slavic (= Sarmatian or Illyrian). Nevertheless one also encounters a so–called Slavic passage (Lituani iam clavonizant) in his work, although it deals rather with a synchronic observation rather than with the origin of the language of the Lithuanians. It cannot be ascertained by analysing the text if the interpretations are Gessner’s own or if they come from a particular source. In fact the statement ut audio in the first passage is very ambiguous. Gessner may have learned it all either from an undisclosed source or from what he himself heard. But it is hardly thinkable that Gessner had direct contacts with the languages of the Eastern Baltic area; at least one finds no support for such a hypothesis in his biography (cf. Fischer et al. 1967). I therefore assume it is more likely that he also used in this case an unknown source.

The Tabula quinta from Megiser 1603, p. 9b

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

42

Based on what has been said one can come to the following conclusions: a) there is no doubt that according to the interpretation by Gessner Slavic as well as Baltic can be understood as Illyrian. b) Gessner uses the heading “Illyrian” in his work very unsystematically: in general he means Slavic and Baltic, but sometimes only Slavic (or Sarmatian). c) it becomes clear that one cannot attribute to him a certain concept of the Baltic languages based upon the variety of concepts which crisscross and mingle in his work; one must be content with the fact that Gessner represents and mostly supports an Illyrian concept, which also includes the Baltic language group. 3.3. H. Megiser and J. Alsted overtaking Gessner To the Philoglots belonged also the German historian and lexicographer Hieronymus Megiser [1554/5–1619]. Megiser is already known especially to the Latvian scholars for having published some Old Latvian texts.4 Beyond that, we owe to Megiser also a classification of the world’s languages that is found published in the introduction of his Thesaurus polyglottus [Multilingual Vocabulary] (Frankfurt am Main, 1603). Of particular importance is the Tabula Quinta, where the Lingua sclavonica is examined with its numerous ramifications. There, in the Tabula Quinta, Megiser listed many Slavonic languages but also many Baltic ones. A comparison of the linguistic conception of Megiser with that of Gessner is very helpful: Gessner, 1555: qui Illyrica utuntur lingua

Rocca, 1591: qui Illyrica loquuntur lingua

Ae tui Boru ij Curi

Ae tiui Borussi Curi

Ø

Ø

Lituani Liui Samogitae

Lithuani Liui Samogitæ

Megiser, 1603: Sclavonica eu Illyrica lingua Ø

Pru ica eu Prutenica Curorum Iaczvingerorum Lithuanica Livonica Samogitarum

The comparison shows that all that which Gessner calls populi qui Illyrica lingua utuntur, by Megiser is instead described as Sclavonica eu Illyrica lingua... For Gessner the populi qui Illyrica lingua utuntur were: Boru i, Curi, Lituani, Livi, Samogitae; for Megiser the languages of the Sclavonica

Pietro U. Dini

43

eu Illyrica lingua... were: Pru ica eu Prutenica (Boru ), Curorum, Iaczvingerorum, Lithuanica, Livonica, Samogitarum. It is timely to emphasize that Megiser used the concepts of Illyrian and Slav as synonyms in a clearer and more systematic way than did Gessner. The same situation can also be observed in the work of Johann Alsted [1588–1638], a follower of Megiser. In his work Thesaurus chronologiæ (Herborn, 1624), Alsted shared the ideas of Megiser, and he also identified Slav and Illyrian. At one point Alsted quoted Gessner and wrote: Ge nerus in Mithridate recitat (quadraginta) LX populos, qui hodie utuntur linguâ Slavonicâ, but Gessner actuallly wrote: qui illyrica lingua utuntur. This is apparently an erroneous quotation, but interesting enough because it shows to us how freely Alsted identified and exchanged the two terms (illyricus and slavonicus).

Title page of Megiser 1603

44

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics 3.4. Conclusion

Summing up what I have discussed in during this chapter till now, one arrives at the following result: a) Although in the works of Volaterranus and Jovius a convergence between Illyrian and Slav was already happening, they did not develop a linguistic theory and remained chronologically “prior” to the evolution which clearly took off in the second half of the century. b) The Illyrian idea was clearly grasped by Gessner and developed into a kind of linguistic theory, the so–called Illyrian Theory of the Baltic languages, in which a rather autonomous place was attributed to the Baltic languages. c) Gessner’s intuition remained, however, without real followers. Rocca only accessorily differentiated himself from Gessner, and Megiser rather overtook Gessner instead of following him. d) In Megiser’s and Alsted’s classifications of languages the Slav Theory and the Illyrian Theory already collide. The linguistic ideas represented by Megiser and Alsted did not distance themselves from those already expressed by Æneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini; like them, they also classified the Baltic languages in the Slav family. All that makes clear that during the second half of the 16th century an Illyrian Theory of the Baltic languages was conceived and got some prestige in the works of Gessner and Rocca, but soon was assimilated by the stronger Slav Theory (as it is shown by Megiser and Alsted). As a matter of fact, the weak Illyrian Theory may be also considered as an eccentric continuation of the strong Slav Theory, which was much more popular. Nevertheless the Illyrian Theory remains a peculiar development of the Renaissance theories concerning the interpretation and the understanding of the Baltic languages. However, because of this hesitation between attributing the Baltic languages to the Slav languages, and grouping them into a bigger, so–called “Illyrian” linguistic unity, together with the Slav and still other languages, one should consider the Illyrian Theory a pretty weak theory. The conclusion I come to is double–sided. From one side in the panorama of the main Renaissance theories on the Baltic languages we finally got a kind of “ring composition” which begins and finishes by classifying them in the Slav family of languages. From the other side, the success of the Slav Theory marked a step back in the understanding of Baltic languages as an independent linguistic group, that is, following the path which Conrad Gessner had glimpsed. The Illyrian Theory represents a untill now little explored but by no means insignificant corner of the history of Baltic linguistics.

Chapter Four The Latin Theory and Vilnius Latinizers It is generally little known that the Lithuanians should also be included within the multitude of peoples that during the Renaissance traced themselves back to Rome to give lustre to their origins. Better known is the typology of the cultural operation underlying such an appeal: typical of the 16th century, in Western as well as in Eastern Europe, it answered the demand, differently perceived, of emancipation and ennoblement of languages and nations. The events of the mythical episode are known in features common to all versions: a group of Romans guided by a leader, variously named in the sources, left Italy to escape persecution by the government. Those Romans found themselves, in their maritime wandering, on the waters of the Baltic sea. They then entered the mouth of the river Nemunas and went up the river up to a place that they liked and in which they decided to stay. From that group of Romans originated the stocks of Prussians and Lithuanians. Based on this myth spread among Lithuanian humanists the so– called Palemon Legend, i.e. the Roman origin of Lithuanians and Prussians. The sources of the myth, however, recur as well among Polish historians (like: Dugosz, Miechovita, Guagninus [1534–1614], Stryjkowski), but the legend played a major role above all in the theorization of the Vilnius Latinizers. I want to introduce some general considerations about the theory of the Roman origin of Lithuanian. The mythic sides of this theory have generally been the more investigated, and especially with regard to the legend of Palemon. The linguistic aspect, however, has always been rather neglected. This is not justifiable, because the linguistic element is essential for the entire linguistic Latin Theory. Before I go into the details, it is probably useful to explain what is to be understood, in my mind, by the expression: the linguistic Latin Theory. Briefly put it means a consideration of the Latin Theory from a linguistic point of view. This was a Renaissance theory belonging to the palaeocomparativistic current in prescientific linguistics, which considered the Baltic languages in various ways genealogically derived from and related to Latin. It is well known that this was the most popular linguistic theory in Central–Eastern Europe dealing with Lithuanian. In Central–Western Europe, however, this theory remained unknown, the only exception being the episode I call the Wallachian Connection (especially on this variant see 4.4.). What I would like to stress now is that for its cultural importance, spread and innovational strength, the linguistic Latin Theory belonged to

46

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

the same above mentioned new thinking about linguistics which began in the early Renaissance. In my mind the linguistic Latin Theory played in Central–Eastern Europe a role comparable to that played by the linguistic ideas of Biondo Flavio [1392–1463] in the Central–Western part of Europe. Regardless of whether these proposed conceptions are now considered correct or not, both theoretical positions represented important starting points for a new approach in linguistics, and especially in the consideration of genealogical relationships among languages.

Title page of Dugosz 1615 4.1. Jan Dugosz on Lithuanian and Prussian The first theoretician and most prominent supporter of the Latin Theory was, as is well known, Jan Dugosz [1415/19-1480], starting with his book

Pietro U. Dini

47

Historia Polonica [History of Poland] (first published during the 17th century, but already known and used before in manuscript form), a work which exerted a strong influence upon the other historians of the Polish humanist circle. In Dugosz’ work this theory appears closely related to the so–called Myth of Roman Origin of the Lithuanians and Prussians (which includes references to the Palemon legend). In the second book of his Historia Polonica Jan Dugosz mentioned three peoples and three Baltic languages, namely: Prussian, Jatvingian and Lithuanian together with Samogitian. Dugosz does not consider these languages as being at all related to the Slavic languages, and treated the two groups separately. It will be useful to quote again and comment on the following interesting passage of Dugosz (1873-1878 X:470): Quamvis autem parum constet... verisimilis tamen praesumptio, et idiomatis ac linguae eorum sonus et proportio, ex variis circumstantiis et rerum qualificationibus sumpta, ostendit, Lithuanos et Samagittas Latini generis esse, etsi non a Romanis, saltem ab aliqua gente Latini nominis descendisse... (Polish translation in Dzieje Polski = Dugosz 1873-1878 IV:442– 443): Lubo nie jest rzecz dokadnie wiadom... wszelako z jego mowy, skadu wyrazów i brzmienia, rozmaitych wreszcie okolicznoci wnosi mona, e Litwini i mudzini s pokoleniem Latynów, i jeli nie od Rzymian, przynajmniej od jakiego szczepu Latyskiego pochodz. [Although it is not well known... it is nevertheless a likely supposition, that with regard to idiom and the sounds and the harmony of their language, as it is assumed from various circumstances and characteristics of things, it is evident, that Lithuanians and Samogitians are descended from Latins, and if not from the Romans, at least from another people with the Latin name]. Thus, Dugosz declares that he does not know very much (Quamvis autem parum constet) about the origins of Lithuanians and Samogitians. Nevertheless he considers a verisimilis... praesumptio, that is to say something very likely the truth or close to it, that Lithuanians and Samogitians descended from Romans (Lithuanos et Samagittas Latini generis esse) or at least from another Latin people (saltem ab aliqua gente Latini nominis). To support this idea the Polish historian gives some linguistic arguments. In Dugosz’ own view the genealogical relation is well demonstrated by the sound and the harmony (sonus et proportio) of the idiom and of the languages of these people (idiomatis ac linguae eorum). Only secondarily

48

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Dugosz mentions also some other circumstances and characteristics (ex variis circumstantiis et rerum qualificationibus). Dugosz uses linguistic arguments also in another passage to explain the difference between the Prussian and Lithuanian (whether as peoples or as languages). According to Dugosz’ text, there seems to be a phonetic difference but a lexical agreement: Et quamvis gentes ipsae in prolatione [pronuntiatione] verborum differunt... Nihilominus in multis [verbis] conveniunt... [Those peoples, although in the pronunciation of the words they differ, nevertheless they agree in many (words)]. Although with some uncertainties or incoherence in his thought, the Polish historian was primarily interested in establishing of the reciprocal relations among the three Baltic peoples sub specie linguarum. This other quotation from Dugosz is instructive: Non unius tamen stirpis et linguae fuisse aestimantur: sed Pruthenis alia fertur fuisse, quam Lithuanis et Samagitis, origo. [Nevertheless people judge that they were not of one stock and language: but it is said that the origin of the Prussians was different than that of the Lithuanians and the Samogitians]. On the one hand Dugosz indicates that in the past there was a certain community between Prussians and Lithuanians (excluding the Jatvingians), while on the other hand he adopts the opinion that the ethnic and linguistic origin of the Prussians and of the Lithuanians/Samogitians was different. Specifically on Prussian Dugosz writes: Pruthenorum gens... speciale habens idioma, a Latino tamen aliquantulum derivatum et quod cum Lithuanico habet concordantiam aliquam et paritatem. [The Prussians... they have a special language, nevertheless in some small part derived from Latin and which has with the Lithuanian (language) a certain degree of agreement and similarity]. This point of view of Dugosz is linked to specific historical events (for example, the civil war in ancient Rome) or rather with invented events (like the arrival of Prusias, king of Bithynia, in the Baltic). According to this linguistic idea, Prussian would be distinguished from Lithuanian not only because of the different degree of its Latin component, but rather by the presence of a Greek component, which would be completely foreign to Lithuanian:

Pietro U. Dini

49

Prusias cum Bithyniis gente sua in aquilonarem oram Romanos fugiens venit, et ex suo titulo Prussiae nomen fecit. Bithynici autem populi etiam in hactenus manent vestigia, quoniam nonnulli Prutheni priscae linguae retinentes oracula [verba] ab Aeolicis Doricis, Atticis et Ionicis populis competenter intelliguntur. [The Prussians, fleeing from the Romans, came with their Bithynian people to the northern boundaries and from their name gave the name to Prussia. To this day, however, there remain some vestiges of the Bithynian people, since some Prussians – retaining expressions (words) of the former language from the Aeolian, Dorian, Athenian and Ionian peoples – understand these correctly]. So according to Dugosz the emergence of the Prussians, as a people, is linked to the arrival in the Baltic of Prusias, king of Bithynia, a region in Greece. Consequently the motivation of the difference between the Prussian and Lithuanian languages would consist in the fact that some of the Prussians (nonnulli Prutheni) in contrast with the related peoples would have incorporated and preserved some Greek words (priscae linguae retinentes oracula). In this way a completely ad hoc invented historic event sustained the linguistic argument. Summing up Dugosz’ ideas one might say that Lithuanian and Prussian differ from each other because of the distinct mixture of their Latin and Greek components. It is a difference of degree rather then of substance. There is no doubt that Dugosz reached his conclusions, which influenced a lot of other scholars of that time, with linguistic evidence. As I pointed out at the beginning, this fact is not of minor importance in the early Renaissance, since it was not usual then to derive one language from another language. Dugosz’ text represented a starting point for the diffusion of these linguistic ideas in Eastern–Europe. 4.1.1. Reaction to Dugosz. The ideas concerning the Baltic languages, and especially Lithuanian, inaugurated by Dugosz exerted a great influence on several other contemporary and later authors. Of course, there were also some, who, like Marcin Bielski (see Chapter Eight), were completely sceptical with respect to this conception, but most of the Renaissance writers accepted it. Not everybody, however, paid sufficient attention to the linguistic aspect. Among these was Zaccaria Ferreri [1479–1524], a Vatican nuncio in the Polish–Lithuanian State, author of a Vita beati Casimiri [The Life of the Blessed Casimir] in 1521, who thought that the Lithuanians derive directly from Italians:

50

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics Gaudeat inclyta et speciosa Italia, ex qua et litalianica et lituanica excelsa nobilitas, unde Casimirus oriundus est: primoevam accoepit originem. [Exult, o noble and splendid Italy from which both litalianica and lituanica aristocracy arose, whence came Casimirus, who also had his primeval origin there].

Another who based himself substantially on Dugosz’ arguments, although not uncritically, was the French historian André Thevet [1502–1590] in the 19th book of his Cosmographie Vniverselle [Universal Cosmography] (Paris, 1575).

Title page of Cromerus 1589

Pietro U. Dini

51

4.1.2. Marcin Cromerus. A critical appraisal and an important variant of Jan Dugosz’s linguistic ideas on the Baltic languages can be found in the work of Marcin Cromerus [ca. 1512–1589] De origine et rebvs geAtis Polonorum [On the origin and the history of the Poles] (Basel, 1555). Cromerus considered all the Baltic nations and subsequently also their languages as being very different from those of the Slavs, and almost identical among themselves and mixed up with many corrupted Latin words. The passage in the original form runs as follows (Cromerus 1555 III:61): nunc Liuones, Lituani, Samagitæ, & PruĀsi... Āed eadem penè inter Āe lingua uulgò adhuc utentes, Slauicæ prorĀus diĀsimili, Āed quæ non paucas habeat admixtas Latinas uoces, corruptas ferè, & magis Italica uel HiĀpanica nota Āignatas q; Latina. [Now the Livonians, the Lithuanians, the Samogitians, and the Prussians... But by the same token they use among themselves until now the language of the common people, quite dissimilar from the Slavic, but which has an admixture of not a few Latin words, partially corrupted, and marked more (as) Italian or Spanish than Latin]. The passage in a contemporary German translation is (Cromerus = Pantaleon 1562:lxxij–lxxiij): Jnn diĀen grent en werdenn auff heüttigen tag die Lyflender/ Samagiter/ Lythauwer/ vnd PreüĀĀen... aber gmeinlich alle noch ein praach fuƉrend/ o der Slauichen vat vngleych: dann ie habend vil Lateiniche wörter dareyn vermicht/ welche doch auch verderbt vñ mer mit der Hipanichen vñ Jtalienichen dañ der Lateinichen praach moƉgen verglichen werden. Cromerus considers all these nations/languages (Liuones, Lituani, Samagitæ, & PruĒsi) almost identical among themselves and very different from the Slavic (Slauicæ prorĒus diĒsimili). Their main caracteristic feature is that those languages have mixed in them many corrupted Latin words (Latinas uoces; lateinische Worte). Thus Cromerus adheres to the Renaissance conception of language derivation as ‘corruption’ (corruptas; verfälscht) of the languages; a conception of the Baltic languages which, however, was alien to Dugosz. The global picture of Cromerus’s linguistic ideas concerning the Baltic languages differs in many points from Jan Dugosz’ view. Cromerus’s argumentation is quite interesting because of the introduction of the Roman commander Publio Libone and because he attributes great importance to this figure. According to Cromerus, the linguistic Latin Theory is sufficient to explain the origin of all the nations and languages of

52

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

the Baltic area, so that Dugosz’ Greek Theory is rejected as unnecessary. In Marcin Cromerus’s opinion the crucial role is no longer attributed to the Lithuanians, but to the Livonians (Liuoni). The proof for that was the name of the Roman commander, Libone, from which the name of the Livonian people itself derived. Cromerus prefers to speak about nations and implicitly about languages. With respect to modern linguistic ideas one should then consider Cromerus’s position as a step backwards, since he was not yet able to conceive the derivation of one language from another language without falling back on the Corruption Theory. One has, however, to consider also the last sentence in Cromerus’s passage: & magis Italica uel HiĒpanica nota Ēignatas q; Latina. That is to say that those languages (that is Latvian, Lithuanian and Samogitian, Prussian) seem to be rather Italian or Spanish than Latin; in other words, they should be interpreted as being derived from Latin rather than being Latin itself. This could be understood as an indication that Cromerus tends to classify the Baltic languages within the Neo–Latin ones, i.e. Cromerus knew (and perhaps supported) the linguistic theory which was actually represented by the Lithuanian Venceslaus Agrippa, one of the Vilnius humanists (see Chapter Four). One should add that Cromerus’s linguistic ideas became known far and wide because they were accepted in Abraham Ortelius’s atlas Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1st ed. 1570), which was reprinted several times and translated into many different languages (English, German, French, Spanish and Italian) during the Renaissance.

M. Cromerus’s linguistic ideas

Pietro U. Dini

53

4.2. The Imposition of Latin in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania An important linguistic dispute among Lithuanian humanists began before the Union of Lublin (1569). Interspersed with historical and geographical debates, this linguistic dispute continued with various degrees of intensity throughout the 16th century. On the one hand, the tendency to place emphasis on the use of the native language as the sole base of lithuanitas surfaced (Abraomas Kulvietis, Martynas Mažvydas, Mikalojus Daukša, Merkelis Giedraitis). On the other hand, however, some humanists preferred to emphasize the affinity of Latin and Lithuanian and to present the similarity between the two languages in the wider context of a general ‘latinization’ of culture in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The humanists of the Vilnius court – who earned for themselves the name of ‘Latinizers’ – argued in favour of the second choice: they believed that going back to a classical language like Latin, the dignitas of which was undisputed, would guarantee them a better ability to compete with the other languages of culture used within the Grand Duchy, above all with ruski, i.e. Ruthenian language (Martel 1937: 51–54; Kuolys 1992: 63–70). The objective I will have in this part is: to investigate thoroughly the linguistic debate that was given a peculiar importance in the works of the so–called Latinizers, specially those of Michalo Lituanus (see 4.2.1), Augustinus Rotundus (see 4.2.2), and Vaclovas Agrippa (see 4.3.). 4.2.1. Michalo Lituanus and the Latin/Lithuanian. The mandatory starting point is the work of Michalo Lituanus, which dates back to the middle of the 16th century, but soon other humanists were ready to take part in the dispute he initiated. Michalo Lituanus [ca. 1490–ca. 1560] was an interesting personality among the humanists, author of a memorandum (1550) dedicated to king Sigismond Augustus with the title De moribus Tartarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum [On the customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and Muscovites] (Basel, 1615) of which only some fragments have been published1. This treatise, which became famous mainly for its linguistic arguments supporting the myth that the Lithuanian people came from the Romans, expresses the first reaction from the Lithuanian side against the use of ruski in the Grand Duchy. The linguistic arguments of Michalo Lituanus are based upon two major and logically linked claims: the identity of Latin and Lithuanian, and the future role of Latin/Lithuanian within the administration of the state. It is worthwhile to examine to each claim separately. Concerning the first claim – the assumed identity of Latin/Lithuanian – one has to begin with the observation that in the myth of the origins of the Lithuanians the linguistic aspect is by far the most important argument, to such an extent that all other arguments invoked to prove their Roman origin

54

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

are ancillary to it. Accordingly, the identity of Latin/Lithuanian in the linguistic debate constitutes the principal evidence to support the derivation of the Lithuanians as a people from the Romans. As a matter of fact, Michalo Lituanus also includes in the text of the Tractatus that the linguistic aspect serves to mark the difference between the Lithuanian and the Ruthenian languages (Jurginis 1966:95): cum... idioma Ruthenorum alienum sit a nobis Lituanis, hoc est Italianis, Italico sanguine oriundis. [because... the language of the Ruthenians is alien to us Lithuanians, that is Italians, descended from Italian blood].

From Michalo Lituanus 1615, p. 23 Michalo Lituanus believes that the language of the Ruthenians was alien (idioma... alienum) to the Lithuanians, who were nothing other than Italians (Italico sanguine oriundis). The rest of the discussion is intended to prove the similarity of the two peoples, mainly with respect to their languages, to support the claim of the derivation of the Lithuanians as a people from the Romans. Distinguishing himself from all other authors of such myths of origin, Michalo Lituanus points out the ‘Semi–Latin’ nature (ex sermone nostro semilatino) of this language with evidence from many Latin words which are cited and compared with their Lithuanian counterparts: Etenim & ignis, et vnda, aer, ol, menis, dies, noctis, ros, aurora, deus, vir, deuir i.e. leuir, nepotis, neptis, tu, tuus, meus, uus, leuis,

Pietro U. Dini

55

tenuis, viuus, iuuenis, vetutus, enis, oculus, auris, naus, dentes, gentes, ta, ede, verte, inuerte, peruerte, aratum, occatum, atum, emen, lens, linum, canapum, auena, pecus, ouis, anguis, ana, corbis, axis, rota, iugum, pondus, culeus, callis, cur, nunc, tractus, intractus, pertractus, extractus, merctus, immerctus, utus, inutus, verus, inuerus, peruerus, primus, vnus, duo, tres, quatuor, quinque, ex, eptem, & pleraque alia, idem ignificant Lituano ermone quod & latino. [And indeed ignis “fire”, and unda “wave”, aer “air”, sol “sun”, mensis “month”, dies “day”, noctis “of the night”, ros “dew”, aurora “dawn”, deus “god”, vir “man”, devir i.e. levir “husband’s brother”, nepotis “of the grandson”, neptis “granddaughter”, tu “you”, tuus “your”, meus “my”, suus “one’s own”, levis “light”, tenuis “thin”, vivus “alive”, juvenis “young person”, vetustus “old”, senis “of an old man”, oculus “eye”, auris “ear”, nasus “nose”, dentes “teeth”, gentes “people”, sta “stand”, sede “sit”, verte “turn”, inverte “turn over”, perverte “place first”, aratum “plowed”, occatum “harrowed”, satum “planted”, semen “seed”, lens “lentil”, linum “flax”, canapum “hemp”, avena “wild oats”, pecus “cattle”, ovis “sheep”, anguis “snake”, ansa “handle”, corbis “wicker basket”, axis “axle”, rota “wheel”, jugum “yoke”, pondus “parcel”, culeus “mallet”, callis [= collis] “hill”, cur “where”, nunc “now”, tractus “dragged”, intractus “dragged in”, pertractus “dragged through”, extractus “dragged out”, merctus, immerctus “immersed”, sutus “stitched”, insutus “stitched on”, versus “turned”, inversus “turned about”, perversus “overthrown”, primus “first”, unus “one”, duo “two”, tres “three”, quatuor (sic) “four”, quinque “five”, sex “six”, septem “seven”, and many other words mean the same in the Lithuanian language and in Latin.] The correspondences in modern Lithuanian are: ugnìs “fire”, vanduõ “water”, óras “air”, sául “sun”, mnuõ “month” and “moon”, dienà “day”, naktìs “night”, rasà “dew”, aušrà “dawn”, dìevas “god”, výras “man” and “husband”, dìeveris “husband’s brother”, nept (OLit. nepuotis) “grandson”, tù “you”, tãvas “your”, mãnas “my”, sãvas “one’s own”, leñgvas “light”, t vas (Lith. dial. tenvas) “thin”, gývas “alive”, jáunas “young”, vtušas “old”, snas “old”, akìs “eye”, ausìs “ear”, nósis “nose”, dantìs “tooth”, gentìs “tribe”, stók “stand!”, sdk “sit!”, versk “turn!”, vérsk “turn over!”, pérversk “place first!”, árt “would plow”, akt “harrow”, st “would plant”, smuõ “seed”, l šis “lentil”, lìnas “flax”, kanãp “hemp”, avižà “wild oats”, pkus “cattle”, avìs “sheep”, angìs “snake”, sà “handle”, karbas “wicker

56

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics basket”, ašis “axle”, rãtas “wheel”, jùngas “yoke”, pùndas ~ pdas “parcel”, kùlis ~ kul “mallet”, kálnas “hill”, kur “where”, nu ~ n (-gi) “now”, tráuktas “dragged”, tráuktas “dragged in”, pértráuktas “dragged through”, ištráuktas “dragged out”, (-) merktas “soaked”, sitas “stitched”, sitas “stitched on”, verstas “turned”, verstas “turned about”, pérverstas “overthrown”, pìrmas “first”, vìenas “one”, dù “two”, trs “three”, keturì “four”, penkì “five”, šešì “six”, septynì “seven”.

For the Latinizers the equation Lithuanian = Latin was just as valid diachronically (understood as the derivation ‘Lithuanian  Latin’, cf. the legendary origin of Palemon), as synchronically (understood as the social variety: the language of the aristocracy vs. the language of the people). This very assumption of an identity between the two languages, whichever way it was understood, has probably been a determining factor for the delay in Lithuanian becoming a written language. 4.2.2. Augustinus Rotundus. Another important humanist figure worth mentioning who belonged to the group of the so–called Latinizers is the mayor of Vilnius Augustinus Rotundus [ca. 1520–1582]2, author of some significant works among which the Rozmowa Polaka z Litwinem [Conversation of a Pole with a Lithuanian] (1564) surely stands out. For the matter under discussion here, however, I will refer mainly to the Preface preceding the Latin translation of the second Lithuanian Statute which Rotundus offered on October 20, 1576 to the new sovereign, Stephan Batory. Rotundus too starts by accepting the equation ‘Lithuanian = Latin’ and the legend of the Roman origin of the Lithuanians. He writes to the Grand Duke in the Preface to the second Lithuanian Statute (Rotundus 1900:xviii): Atque vtinam te Latinae linguae peritissimo rege auctore, in iis regionibus Latina lingua, quae hic prorsus exoleuerat, florescere incipiat ac veluti postliminio redeat. Non enim ignorare Maiestatem tuam arbitror, Lituanos gente Latinos esse, ex Italiaque oriundos in has regiones P. Libone, vel, ut vulgus opinatur, Palemone duce migrasse, vti non dubiae fidei scriptores probant et reliquiae Latini sermonis, quo hactenus agrestes vtuntur, argumento sunt. [And would Heaven that because of You, oh, Majesty, who are very skilful in the Latin language, it may start to flourish in these regions, when it was fading into oblivion in another time, and come back to its homeland from exile. In reality my convinction is that Your Majesty does not ignore that the Lithuanians are of Latin race and descent, and migrated from Italy to these regions under the guidance of Publio Libone vulgarly known as Palemone, as it is

Pietro U. Dini

57

shown by credible writers and by the relics of the Latin language which till now are used by the country people]. Rotundus continues his argument by praising the quality of Latin and defending its restoration into public and if possible also into family life in the following terms (Rotundus 1900:xix): Par itaque est, ut ea lingua (latina), quae natiua et primigenia Lituanorum fuit, vna ex tribus, quas Christus Deus noster dignas suo titulo ornando iudicavit, Lituanis restituatur, passimque hic in legibus, in priuilegiis ac diplomatibus, quod ab initio Christianismi factum accepimus, in edictis, in iudiciis, in actionum formulis, in contractibus, in commerciis, in familiaribusque denique, si fieri possit, sermonibus frequentetur potiust quam ascita ista ac barbara cum perpetuo ac hereditario Lituanorum hoste Moscho communis, quae Latinam exulare hactenus coegit. [It is so that this (Latin) language, which was the native and original tongue of the Lithuanians, one of the three that Christ God judged worthy to adorn his title with, will be given back to the Lithuanians, and be accepted in the laws, in the privileges and in the concessions, as it was at the beginning of Christianity, in the edicts, judgments, in the courts, in the contracts, in the trades and finally, if it were possible, also in conversations about family matters, more frequently than this coarse and barbaric (language), used also by the perpetual and hereditary Muscovite enemy of the Lithuanians, which till now has forced Latin into exile]. As one can see, according to Rotundus also, Latin should be utilized more often than ruski, in all circles of social, public and private life, but moreover, also in the written language Latin should be preferred to Ruthenian, and the laws of the state should be published in this language. Rotundus attempted to ask the sovereign again to improve the chances for Latin (Rotundus 1900:xix): Spes itaque nos certissima tenet, si tua Maiestas paululum adniti voluerit, ad idque iuuentutis in Latinae linguae cognitione se in Lituania exercentis studium, auctoritatem suam adhibuerit, fore ut cito Latina lingua, Lituanorum natiua ac propria, Lituanis restituatur. [We firmly hope that, if His Majesty will give a little of His approval so that the young people of Lithuania could study in Latin, and will use His authority to give back to native and original Latin language to the Lithuanians soon].

58

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

In this conception and in that of the other Latinizers there was a feeling of returning to the language of their forefathers and the hope that with this return there would be an improvement in the fortunes of the entire culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the same context, however, Rotundus is also concerned with denigrating the use of ruski, a language labelled as barbaric and in general use by the ‘perpetual and hereditary’ enemy of the Lithuanians as well. The idea of the origin of the Lithuanian language from Latin reaches the Latinizers through a long tradition which reachs its highlights in the Historiae Polonicae of Jan Dugosz (1415–1480) and in Letopisi Velikich Knjazej Litovskich, Knjažstva Litovskogo i Žomoitskogo [Annal of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Samogithia]. Here it is evident how in the Lithuania of the Renaissance period the so–called Latinizers imposed their point of view in this matter, creating a formula of comparative perspective, revealing a linguistic knowledge better articulated than that expressed by the supporters of Lithuanian as a native language without reference to the Latin language. Besides, the comparison made by the Latinizers between a classical language like Latin and vulgar Lithuanian (which up to that point had been the principal means of identification of the last pagans in Europe, and in which they had just begun to print books of Lutheran religious content) reveals a greater sensitivity towards the concept of dignitas, which a language should possess, and corresponds better to the exact requirements of a linguistic debate in the Renaissance period. 4.2.3. Latinizers and ruski. At this point it may be convenient to analyze the negative qualities (often in opposition to Latin) which are ascribed to ruski in the writings of the Latinizers and also to verify the latter’s judgement on the language of the Ruthenians. In the works of the two Latinizers studied here, the strong polemic between ruski and Latin is clearly elucidated on many points. For example, already in the 10th fragment of the Tractatus Michalo Lituanus develops a precise argument against the use of ruski within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in its two variants, written and spoken. In this passage he clearly recommends taking a position against the interference of the idioma Ruthenorum specifically into scholastic organisation and in general into the cultural life of the state. This is how he (Michalo Lituanus 1615:23 = Jurginis 1966:95) expresses himself: Gymnasijs literariis, dolendum, caremus. literas Moscoviticas nihil antiquitatis complectantes, nullam ad virtutem efficaciam habentes ediscimus. [Unfortunately we lack literary gymnasiums. We learn the Muscovite letters which do not have any antiquity and are of no use for attaining virtue].

Pietro U. Dini

59

In his polemical discussion, the Lithuanian humanist introduces three interconnected arguments, which he lines up by importance according to a careful climax, with the intention of capturing the attention of his main conversation partner, that is the descendant of Jogaila, the Grand Duke Sigismond Augustus. These arguments are revealing interestingly enough for what they say clearly, but even more for what they leave to be inferred. Michalo Lituanus begins with an initial, bleak statement about the lack of high schools in which Latin is taught, that is to say the language of the Lithuanians as it had been spoken by their ancient forefathers, and complains about the subsequent wide diffusion of ruski, a result of this system of education (ediscimus). On this subject Michalo Lituanus continues with a second sensational argument: Muscovite letters are defined as nihil antiquitatis complectantes, which means to say that they do not contain any antiquity (i.e. in contrast to the Latin letters). Finally comes the third argument: the Muscovite letters are defined as nullam ad virtutem efficaciam habentes; they do not possess any inherent virtue (also in this case to be understood: in contrast to Latin letters). Thus, if the negative judgement on ruski by Michalo Lituanus still refers to educational problems, the position of Rotundus against the use of ruski in the Grand Duchy is not only better articulated, but possibly even clearer, compared to that of Michalo Lituanus. To be complete one must at least point to the fact that Rotundus’s negative judgement does not spare even those members of the Lithuanian feudal classes who despised their ancient language (which is Latin) and instead began using the language of the Poles. But here we will limit ourselves to the Rotundus’s views concerning the language of the Ruthenians. Thus in the Preface quoted, Rotundus attributes at least five negative qualities of various types to ruski, which range from arbitrary and impresssionistic characteristics like the claim that they are barbaric, to more elaborate ones. Strictly speaking, extralinguistic arguments such as the fact that ruski is also spoken by the Muscovite enemy (cum [...] Lituanorum hoste Moscho communis), and that the Russian script is not very widespread, i.e., it is used only in the territory of the Lithuanian state, in nearby and hostile Moscow and among some other people still under the Turkish yoke (Russice scriptae in sola Lituania et vicina hostili Moscouia legerentur). But Rotundus seems to be also capable of specific judgements more pertinent to the linguistic sphere and observes that (Rotundus 1900:xviii): Ruteni nimis verbosi in scribendo sunt, perisologiis, tautologiis, pleonasmis, ceterisque scribendi vitiis laborant. [Ruthenians are too verbose in writing, they are tormented by redundances, tautologies, pleonasms and others errors].

60

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Title page of Michalo Lituanus 1615 This very matter Rotundus believes to be regrettable, especially in legal questions. In fact the lawyer Rotundus shows himself particularly sensitive to his profession and does not miss the opportunity to complain about the unreliability of ruski in legal matters (Rotundus 1900:xxi): Porro autem postquam leges ab optimo rege Sigismundo primo, non optime, quoniam Russice, editae sunt, semper in iudiciis, in actionum formulis, in contractibus desideratum, nescio quid est, et emendatio legum postulata... audimus rursus quotidie querelas multorum eam incusantium, et iterum atque iterum emendari et corrigi expetentium. Sed figant iterum leges, iterumque refigant, quamdiu Russice scriptae prodibunt, nunquam ita prodibunt, quin aliquid in eis ad perfectum desideretur. [After that the laws of the excellent King Sigismond the First, not excellently, because in ruski, were published, (from that time) always in the judgments, in the courts, in the contracts something, I do not know what, is not satisfying and it is necessary an amendment of the laws... we listen daily again to the complaints of many people,

Pietro U. Dini

61

who blame and many times ask for amendments and for corrections. In any case, whether you determine the laws or you determine them again, as long they are written in ruski, they will be such, in which something has been lost for perfection]. To resolve the deplorable results produced by the leges Russice scriptae, where no stable and valid points of orientation exist anymore to such a point that everybody interprets the laws in the way he likes best, Rotundus (1900:xxi) proposes the following: Aut igitur Latine scribi leges suas curent Lituani, vel huic, quo scriptae hactenus exstant sermoni, regulas certasque loquendi et scribendi rationes praescribant, nam prius, quam constrictus hic ad certum modurn sermo fuerit, licebit vnicuique arbitrio suo verba legis interpretari, et in suum detorquere sensum, quod latine loquentibus ac scribentibus facere multa Grammaticorum praescripta prohibent. [Either the Lithuanian scribes edit in Latin their laws or in that language (i.e. the ruski), in which they are written until now; they prescribe certain rules and norms for speaking and writing; in fact as long as this language (i.e. the ruski) is not established definitely, everyone will be allowed to interpret the words of the laws arbitrarily and to distort the meaning according to his own conception, which is prohibited to those who speak and write in Latin because of the grammarians’s many rules]. Besides the mentioned lack of dignitas, this is clearly the severest attack launched against the language of the Ruthenians by the Latinizer Rotundus, summarized within the concept of norma; that is, the other term used in linguistic debates of the Renaissance period. The further argument put forth by Rotundus to denigrate ruski is the fact that this language is does not have of grammatical norms. To resolve this issue Rotundus proposes two apparently alternative solutions: either the Lithuanians write their own laws in Latin, or they have a Ruthenian norm as stable as that already existing in Latin for speaking and writing. This actually serves no other purpose than to emphasize the indisputable superiority of Latin. 4.2.4. The ruski and the Latin/Lithuanian. Two important aspects in the discussion of the Latinizers remain to be clarified. The first one concerns the relationship between the two attitudes of looking down upon ruski and exalting Latin. The second one refers to the relationship, often evoked, between the idioma Ruthenorum and the litterae Moscoviticae. Concerning the first aspect, one observes that the Latinizers’s linguistic debate is framed within certain boundaries, which lie between the con-

62

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

tempt for ruski and the exaltation of Latin (and its role in the cultural renovation of the state). This is the main issue for the Latinizers, and its best linguistic formulation is to be found in Michalo Lituanus’s work (and its social reference in the Lithuanian bajorija or gentry). Thus Latin and Lithuanian become equivalent and interchangeable terms. This implies a strong defense of the dignitas of Lithuanian vis–à–vis the other major languages of the Grand Duchy and primarily ruski. In fact, whether one looks at the controversy about the litterae, or the attempt to make Latin the official language of the state, they indirectly also question the Lithuanian represented there in its illustrious variant. For that reason, I believe we can solidly affirm that in the linguistic discussion of the Latinizers, contempt for Ruthenian litterae has no other purpose than trying – for the first time – to establish the dignitas of vulgar Lithuanian. Let us remember that the famous defense of the Lithuanian language in the Preface in Postilla Catholicka [Catholic Postilla] (1599) by Daukša [1527/38–1613] was written later in Polish. In such a context some tried to exploit the weakness of ruski with respect to Polish, the emerging language in the court of the Grand Duchy, and to make Latin the new language of state administration, thus making it official also within the state and not only, as had happened until then, solely for external relations. But promoting Latin was equivalent to promoting common Lithuanian in the linguistic discussion of the Latinizers. With reference to the second aspect singled out – the often evoked relationship between the idioma Ruthenorum and the litterae Moscoviticae – we can note that the debate conducted by the Latinizers, although always turned against the Ruthenian population of the state of Lithuania, has Moscow as its ultimate target. As a matter of fact, for Michalo Lituanus the desire of the ruski–speaking territories under Lithuanian and Polish control to come together in one national state under the rule of Moscow (Korsakas 1957:87) is simply not comprehensible because the Ruthenian regions of the Grand Duchy, as it has been noted by Jakubowski (1921), were regarded as integral parts of the polity they belonged to. Therefore, it can not pass without notice that Michalo Lituanus, as cited in the fragments of the Tractatus, puts the language of the Ruthenians of the Grand Duchy (idioma Ruthenorum) and the litterae Moscoviticae together in one and the same discourse. What is surprising is not the alternative use of the names Ruthenians and Muscovites. We encounter this indeed also in the works of contemporary authors of other cultural traditions and in this respect we must mention immediately the case of Conrad Gessner, where in his Mithridates he claims that (Gessner 1555:68): RuĀĀi vel Rutheni, iidê qui MoĀcovit Āunt [The Russians or Ruthenians are the same as the Muscovites]

Pietro U. Dini

63

and also, furthermore, again that (Gessner 1555:73): Rvthenorum vel RuĀĀorum incolarum lingua eadem, quæ MoĀcovitica [The language of the Ruthenian or Russian inhabitants is the same as that of the Muscovites]. In the fragment of the Tractatus quoted, it is rather the litterae that are not an ordinary expression, as Strumins’kyj (1984:21) also notes in another context. In particular we must point out the ad hoc link Michalo Lituanus establishes between idioma Ruthenorum and litterae Moscoviticae and the consequent ambiguous assimilation of the two terms. Thus it can not be excluded that this link corresponded to a specific item of propaganda, and was used by Michalo Lituanus for rhetoric effect. If we accept the results of the study concerning the personality of the author of the Tractatus collected by Ochmaski (1976), we learn that Michalo Lituanus, alias Vaclovas Mikolajeviius (Wencaw Mikoajewicz), possessed good linguistic knowledge. Also due to the years he had spent in diplomatic service for the Grand Duchy, he was probably able to appreciate the differences between the varieties of ancient Russian in use in the region of Moscow where he had lived for some five years (1532–1537) and those in use, for example in the region of Kiev, to which a thorough description was dedicated in the 9th fragment of the Tractatus. It may not be an accident that in his discussion he assimilates the spoken language (with its local varieties) and the written code (which however, was based on the same alphabet in both regions). Thus stating the anti–Ruthenian and pro– Latin position powerfully advocated by Michalo Lituanus, it was also possible to achieve an immediate political effect; in fact such assimilation directly called Moscow, i.e. the great political adversary of Lithuania, to the scene, and posed (again at the forefront) the question of (cultural–)political orientation of the Ruthenian regions of the Grand Duchy between Moscow to the East and Lithuania to the West (cf. Jablonowski 1961). 4.2.5. Contacts with the question of the Ruthenian language? At this point there is another question to be raised, which is to be understood as a simple working hypothesis meant to identify possible implications between the discussion held by the so–called Latinizers and the linguistic debate known as the question of the Ruthenian language. It must be noted that the references to religious themes, which accompanied the linguistic debates on the Ruthenian sector, are uncommon in the Lithuanian area, where they are directed rather to educational and mostly to legal subjects. One can also speculate that linguistic ideas circulated throughout the entire Grand Duchy, just as legal opinions (The Statutes) and historical views (The

64

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Annals) did. Otherwise it is also clear that, due to the absence of preparatory studies in this sector, this hypothesis at the present level of research must be based on mere circumstancial evidence. Thus, it is thought possible to identify one circumstancial piece of evidence of a certain weight in the frequency of the discussion on the litterae alone, which we encounter with a certain frequency in the texts of the Latinizers. Now it is advisable to return again to the specific significance of the use of the term litterae, on the subject of which Strumins’kyj (1984:21) has stated the following: ...many people of the 1500s and 1600s remained faithful to a dominant trend in the Orthodox Slavic tradition. They were more concerned about script (litterae) than ‘language’ – that is, the ritual and symbolic facade rather than the verbal means of communication. One could therefore argue that the particular attention given in the discussion of the Latinizers to the litterae Moscoviticae which recurred in the fragments of Michalo Lituanus – and perhaps the use itself of the term litterae typical in the Slavic orthodox tradition – could be circumstancial evidence of the fact that the Latinizers of Vilnius were well aware of the contemporary linguistic debates then taking place in the Ruthenian circles of the Grand Duchy; the contrary cannot be excluded. Otherwise, the leges Russice scriptae of Rotundus, that is edited in a language judged as without of dignitas and norma, seemed to be reminescent of the linguistic debate of the Renaissance period of the western area. But these are only projections of research currently in progress, of results obtained in a first textual revelation and communicated along with hypotheses for future research. At this point it is worth noting that if these hypotheses are verified in the future, they will imply that the beginning of the question of the Ruthenian language, which in many respects is customarily identified in the polemical work O jednoci Kocioa Boego... [On the unity of God’s Church…] (Vilnius, 1577) by Piotr Skarga [1536–1612], must then be dated earlier back to the first half of the 16th century instead (Frick 1985). The greater popularity of ruski was later gradually replaced by that of the Polish language; the fact that the royal throne, with young Sigismund Augustus [1520–1572], had been returned to Vilnius, contributed considerably to this fact and even after the death of his elderly father, the sovereign often returned to Lithuania. The actual use of Polish at the royal court acted as an element of prestige for the rest of the upper strata of Lithuanian society which little by little began to use the Polish language. This did not hinder the chancellery of the state from using ruski for its requirements, but even there the influence of Polish continued to be felt. But this is a marginal aspect with respect to the subject which is of interest here.

Pietro U. Dini

65

4.2.6. Further developments: Pierre D’Avity. Finally we may ask: what was the ultimate destiny of the linguistic ideas initially promoted by the Vilnius Latinizers? First of all one can observe that in Eastern Europe the theory continued to be limited to the works of Michalo Lituanus, Rotundus and a few other Vilnius humanists, while in Western Europe it found resonance for a long period. It is worth taking a quick glance at how it was accepted and varied by different authors after its original formulation. During the 17th century we have to remember Pierre D’Avity [1573– 1635], a French geographer who was active in Paris and who mentioned the Latin Theory in his main work. Pierre D’Avity referred to the Lithuanian language in the third volume of his big compilation Description generale de l’Evrope qvatriesme partie dv monde avec touvs ses empires, royavmes, estats et repvbliques [General Description of Europe a fourth part of the world with all its empires, kingdoms, states and republics] (1st ed. in Paris, 1615) which was very famous at the time. This is the passage: Quelques–vns [Miechowwi. 3. c. 3.] mettent quatre langues en Lithuanie, l’vne des Iaczuinge, & des habitans d’autour de Drohicin, & ceux–là Āont en fort petit nombre: L’autre des Lithuaniens & Samogites, qui eĀt la plus commune; la 3. celle des PruĀĀiens; & la 4. celle dont on vĀe autour de la Dune, & de Riga en Liuonie. Mais les Lithuaniens [Michalo Frag. 3.] n’en connoiĀĀent qu’vne, qui approche fort de la Latine, & meĀme a pluĀieurs mots Latins, mais corrompus, come Vgnis, au lieu d’Ignis, qui veut dire feu, qui eĀt le nom de leur ancien Dieu, & Deuir, au lieu de Leuir, c’eĀt à dire frere du mary, & Vnda, Aër, Sol, menĀis, dies, noctis, ros, aurora, Deus, vir, nepotis, neptis, tu, tuus, Āuus, vnus, duo, tres, quatuor [sic], Āex, Āeptem, & pluĀieurs autres paroles le témoignent. [Some people [Miechovita 3. c. 3] ascribe four languages to Lithuania, one is that of the Yatvingians and of the inhabitants near to Drohicin, and those are very few. The second is that of the Lithuanians and of the Samogitians and this is the most common language. The third language is that of the Prussians. And the fourth language is that which is used near to the Daugava river and Riga in Livonia. But the Lithuanians [Michalo Frag. 3.] know only one of them, which is very close to Latin, and itself has several Latin words, although corrupted, such as vgnis instead of ignis, which means fire, and which is the name of their ancient God, and deuir, instead of leuir that is the brother of the husband, and vnda, aër, sol, mensis, dies, noctis, ros, aurora, Deus, vir, nepotis, neptis, tu, tuus, suus, vnus, duo, tres, quatuor, sex, septem, and several other words testify to this].

66

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

D’Avity gives the Lithuanian Lord’s Prayer, but it is actually in Latvian. It is not difficult to observe that D’Avity had no ideas of his own on this point. In his passage he quoted Miechovita’s so–called Theory of the Linguagium Lithuanicum Quadripartitum at the beginning, but quoted Michalo Lituanus at the end of the same passage. Actually, in D’Avity’s book, the ideas of the Vilnius Latinizers and those of Miechovita appear somehow mixed together. D’Avity did not understand the core of Miechovita’s particular theory of the Linguagium Quadripartitum (see Chapter Five), and thus operates with four different languages; about one of them, the Lithuanian, he shows that he has more – and perhaps better (Mais les Lithuaniens n’en connoiĒĒent qu’vne [langue]...) – information: those contained in Michalo Lituanus’s Tractatus. After that we observe that D’Avity was able to quote only one real Lithuanian word, it is ugnis ‘fire’ (but he wrongly considered also the Latin deuir to be a Lithuanian word). Anyway there is no doubt that he knew the work of Michalo Lituanus (he even preserved the peculiar spelling for ). 4.2.7. Further developments: Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro. More then one hundred years later, at the end of the 18th century, it is possible to find another mention of the Latin Theory in the work of the Jesuit Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro [1735–1809]; in his Trattato [Treatise] (Cesena, 1785), the Latin Theory is quoted but with the precise purpose to deny it in favour of other linguistic ideas about the genealogical relations among the languages of Europe, which had become more popular at that time3. It was already the eve of scientific Comparative Linguistics. With the development of the comparative method in Historical Linguistics the Latin Theory received its coup de grâce but, surprisingly enough, it did not disappear. Like a Carsic river – which flows many kilometers under the ground and suddenly comes to the surface again – both idea of the Roman origin of the Lithuanians and the Latin Theory of the Lithuanian language survived through the centuries till the beginning of the 20th century, when there was even an attempt to restore Latin as the official language of the young Republic of Lithuania (which was independent from 1916 until 1941). Finally such ideas – the Roman origin of Lithuanians and the close affinity between Latin (or even Italian) and Lithuanian – are pretty popular among not linguistically cultivated Lithuanian people still nowadays. It is one proof more – if needed – that Myths take a long time to die.

Pietro U. Dini

67

4.3. The Idea that Lithuanian is a Neo–Latin Language Another humanist active at the Vilnius court in the second half of the 16th century, and worthy of mention because of his peculiar linguistic ideas, is Venceslaus Agrippa [1525–1597]4. Agrippa’s intellectual activity belonged to the same humanistic movement which was current in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and which favored a general ‘Latinization’ of public and cultural life. As is known these humanists, the so–called Latinizers, preferred to emphasize the affinity of Latin and Lithuanian and to demonstrate the similarity between the two languages. The best known of them were Michalo Lituanus, the father of V. Agrippa, and Augustinus Rotundus (see 4.2.1.–4.). Now I shall discuss V. Agrippa’s conception of the linguistic relationships between Latin and Lithuanian. 4.3.1. Agrippa’s Ideas and Argumentation. Venceslaus Agrippa, who studied at various universities, including Leipzig, Cracow and Wittenberg, surpassed his companions and thought that the Lithuanian language tout court derived from Latin, just like Spanish, Italian, French and the other Neo–Latin languages. This new and more radical formulation of the relationship between Latin and Lithuanian was contemporary but independent with respect to the other ideas circulating at the same time. Agrippa’s linguistic ideas may certainly be considered as a further development of the so–called Latin Theory of the Baltic languages firstly initiated by Jan Dugosz [1415/19–1480]. Agrippa expressed his ideas in some passages of the Oratio fvnebris [Funeral Oration] (Wittenberg 1553), a text composed in Latin on the occasion of Jonas Radvila’s death, and published in Germany. This work is considered the best example of the glorification of Lithuania as a multiethnic state, and of the Lithuanians as a people rich in positive qualities, defending their independence against aggression from their neighbours. With this sort of panegyric Agrippa intended to present his homeland to the other European nations and hoped that it would attain a preeminent position among them. At the beginning of the above mentioned book of 1553 Agrippa addressed himself to a reader completely ignorant of anything about Lithuania and at first described the borders and the extent of the Lithuanian state (Agrippa 1553:A5): EĀt Lithuania regio Septentrionalis vicina Poloniæ, BoruĀĀiæ, Liuoni, RuĀĀiæ, ac fere MoĀcouiorum genti cõtermina, ampliĀĀimus in toto orbe Ducatus, multa enim magna Regna amplitudine loci excedit, Inde etiam nomen magni Ducatus Lithuaniæ habet. [Lithuania is a northern region bordering Poland, Prussia, Livonia,

68

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics Russia, and almost coterminus with the race of the Muscovites. It is the most extensive dukedom in the entire world and occupies more territory than many great kingdoms. Thus it is named “the Grand Duchy of Lithuania”].

Title page of Agrippa 1553 After that Agrippa dealt rather briefly with the origin of the name of Lithuania by connecting it with the Roman myth of the origin of the Lithuanian people: Dicta olim Italia, deinde Litalia, poĀtremo magis creĀcente barbarie Lithuania. Cert. n. eĀt ex annalibus, Lithuanos oriundos eĀĀe ex Italis, quã hiĀtoriam non abs refuerit, paucis hic perĀtringere. [Lithuania was once called Italy, then “Litalia”; finally, after the growth of barbarism, it was called Lithuania. It is certain from the historical record that the Lithuanians arose from Italians – history does not deny this – although few (historians) treat this fact].

Pietro U. Dini

69

Agrippa also made mention of the epoch during which some Roman fugitives might have migrated to the Baltic region. Supposedly this happened under Nero (Agrippa 1553:A5): Anno poĀt natum Dei filium 56. crudeliĀĀimus homo Nero, cum maximã tyrannidem in Āubditos exercuiĀĀet, & nullum non tentaĀĀet Ācelus, ad extremum furens, impias ac ĀceleĀtiĀĀimas manus matri ac Præceptori iniecit... [Fifty–six years after the birth of the son of God, Nero, a most cruel man, ruled his subjects with the greatest tyranny; there was no crime he did not attempt, madly going to the extremes of killing his mother (Agrippina) and advisor (Seneca) with his own impious and criminal hands]. The vicissitudes of the Roman fugitives who sailed away from Rome are reported in detail with the following words (Agrippa 1553:A5): Inter cæteros quoq; Neronis cognatos quidã Iulius, alior periculo admonitus, metuit ne idem Āibi eueniret, quod alijs accidiĀĀe viderat. Congregatis igitur amicis, atq; alijs, qui in Āimili periculo verĀabantur, tota cum familia, ingenti opum copia ac neceĀĀario commeatu inĀtructus, nauibus refertis, patria Āoluit, nauigaturus eo, vbi poĀĀet Āine periculo vitæ, tranquille viuere. Hic venit per Oceanum ac Balticum mare in Lithuaniam, quo c appuliĀĀet naues, vidit in primis Āolitudin. PoĀtea vbi & loci ad habitand amœnitatem, & Āoli fertilitatem, ingent piĀci multitudinem, inauditam ferar copiam, incredibilem mellis abundantiam perĀpexiĀĀet, Āecurus iam a monĀtro illo non Āine magno gaudio ibi conĀedit. [Among the other relatives of Nero was a certain Julius who, warned by the danger (suffered) by others, feared that the same thing he had seen happen to others would happen to him. He therefore gathered together his friends, as well as others facing the same danger; he loaded ships with his entire household, a great amount of wealth, and what was necessary for the journey. He left his fatherland, aiming to sail to a place where it would be possible to live a tranquil life free from deadly danger. He travelled by ocean and the Baltic Sea to Lithuania, where, when the ships had been beached, at first he saw a deserted land. Later, when he had seen that the place would be pleasant for occupation, and had surveyed the fertility of the soil, the enormous schools of fish, an unheard of amount of wild beasts, and an unbelievable abundance of honey, with great delight he settled down there, safe now from that monster]. Agrippa proposed an autonomous version of the Latin Theory with

70

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

some features already known from other versions (Jan Dugosz, Letopisi, et al.), but also with considerable differences from all those other versions (cf. Roka 1967:63ff.). He listed also the most important customs that the Roman fugitives brought with them from their old homeland to their new Baltic homeland. According to the narrator this fact explained the special favour the pagan gods still had in Lithuania for a long time (Agrippa 1553:A5): Ritus Romanorum vetuĀtos retinuerunt. Nam ignem perpetuum, quem Romæ virgines VeĀtales fouebant, ipĀi quoq; aĀĀidue alebant. Penates Āuos quiĀq; habebat, & alios Diabolicos cultus patrio more obĀeruabant. AruĀpicinæ in primis dediti, quod diĀciplin genus olim apud Romanos erat vĀitatiĀĀimum. Sed hæc idololatria iam per pium Principem noĀtrum Vladislaum Iagelonem, SereniĀĀimi Principis noĀtri SigiĀmundi AuguĀti Polonorum Regis proauum, cum a Polonis ad gubernacula Regni vocatus eĀĀet, Āublata eĀt, multi tamen adhuc inter rudem ruĀticorum turbam, clam priĀtinas Āordes retinent, Ita difficile auitus & multis Āeculis confirmatus error mentibus extirpatur. [They retained the old Roman religious rites. For the perpetual flame which at Rome the Vestal Virgins fostered, they also diligently nourished. Some had their own Penates [household gods] and they observed, in the ancestral manner, other rituals of the devil. In particular, they were devoted to taking omens from birds, a type of religious practice once very commonly practiced by the Romans. But this idolatry was removed only by our pious Prince Wladisaw Jagiello, the great–grandfather of Our Most Serene Prince Sigismund Augustus, king of the Poles, when he was summoned from the Poles to take up the direction of the kingdom. Nonetheless, many rural folk even to this day secretly practice the old vulgar habits. Thus, with difficulty, ancient error confirmed by the practice of many ages is removed from the minds of the populace]. Only at this point of his narration did Agrippa insert his linguistic argument (Agrippa 1553:A5): Cæterum & idioma Lithuanorum olim latinum fuiĀĀe, ex plurimis eius Āermonis vocabulis apparet, quod iam Barbarorum conĀuetudine, qui magnas plerunq; linguis offundunt tenebras, mutatum eĀĀe non mirum eĀt, cum & ipĀa Lithuaniæ parens Italia, latinum Āermonem, qui ei vernaculus quondam fuit, præterq; q; corrupta quædam vocabula adhuc etiam retinet, veterem linguam pene amiĀerit. [Furthermore, it is obvious from a significant number of words, that the language of the Lithuanians was once Latin. It is not remarkable that Latin underwent change, as a function of the barba-

Pietro U. Dini

71

rians, who poured out onto the languages very thick darkness, considering that Italy itself, the parent of Lithuania, has almost entirely lost Latin, which was once its common spoken language, even though Italy retains to this day certain corrupted aspects of the ancient language].

On the basis of the observation that many words of the Lithuanian language still retain some Latin elements, it was clear – according to Agrippa – that in the past (olim) the language (idioma) of the Lithuanians had been Latin, and that there is no reason to be surprised if later it changed, because it is the habit of barbarians to pour ‘thick darkness’ on languages. Omitting his very imaginative features, one may organize Agrippa’s notions diachronically into three points or events: a) in the past the language of the Lithuanians was the Latin language, as many words still demonstrate; b) the action of some ‘barbarians’ caused linguistic change in Lithuania; c) nowadays (i.e., the middle of the 16th century) the old language (i.e., Latin) is almost completely lost. It is worthwhile to examine more closely Agrippa’s explanation of the linguistic change in Lithuania. Agrippa used the metaphor that barbarians poured ‘thick darkness’ on the languages. However he did not make clear either who those barbarians were, nor exactly what the ‘thick darkness’ was. Nevertheless he did not doubt that it occurred in this way, and as a confirmation he adduced the case of Italy, that is the parent of Lithuania (ipĒa Lithuaniæ parens Italia), where:

72

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

a) the language in the past had also been the Latin, b) a language derived from Latin (i.e. the Italian language) is still maintained, c) which nowadays has lost the old language except for a few corrupted words. The parallel between Lithuania and Italy could not have been traced more clearly, and Agrippa interpreted in this original way the relationship between Latin and Lithuanian. According to his linguistic ideas, as a result of the action of barbarian peoples, the Lithuanian language originated from the Latin language, which in the past was used among the ancients Lithuanians exactly in the same way as in Italy the Italian language originated from Latin. Besides the arguments deriving from the common customs and the common language, Agrippa added some other arguments for supporting the affinity between Lithuanians and Italians. He wanted even to see a similarity of the (unfortunately not better defined) ‘natural’ order among the two peoples (Agrippa 1553:A5): Naturarum etiam in Lithuanis & Italis, Āimilitudo agnoĀci poteĀt. [A similarity in the natures of Lithuanians and Italians can be recognized]. Beyond that, both peoples love justice and freedom, do not avoid labour, peril and other common things. In their houses they maintain order, they are skilful and curious about the sciences and suited for eloquence (Agrippa 1553:A5): Intelligentes & amantes iuĀticiam vtriq;, Libertatis tuend cauĀa, non laborem, nõ pericula defugientes, non ignaui, nec petulantes, non alijs temere bella inferentes, Āed illata fortiter ĀuĀtinentes & depellentes, domi magna Āeueritate diĀciplinam, & pudiciciam tuentes, capaces & auidi doctrinarum, idonei etiam ad eloquentiam. [Both peoples are intelligent and lovers of justice; to guard their freedom, they do not flee from labor or danger; they are not lazy, they do not complain, they do not rashly declare war on others; but, in war, they are brave, steadfast, and repel it; at home, they maintain discipline and chastity with great severity; they are receptive to and avid for education; they are also capable of eloquence]. And that is not all. Pursuing his intention of making the two nations even more noble, Agrippa further affirmed that the Lithuanians do not cut a poor figure with respect to the Italians in the arts either (Agrippa 1553:A5):

Pietro U. Dini

73

Neque vero in his artibus, etĀi vt parenti, Italiæ cedunt, longe Italis poĀtponendi Āunt. [Indeed, neither in these arts, although they yield to Italy as parent, are they to be ranked far behind the Italians]. Agrippa’s argumentation was aimed at documenting not only the cultural similarity, but also the similarity of character and psychology of the Italians and the Lithuanians. As shown by the above passages he based this similarity on common features of various kinds in order to show that the enlightened class of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an integral part of the cultured European society which read and wrote in Latin. 4.3.2. Evaluating Agrippa’s linguistic Ideas. In modern terms one sees that in Agrippa’s mind Lithuanian, like Italian, belonged to the so–called Neo–Latin or Romance languages. Schematically: Latin | barbarian  |  ‘thick darkness’  disturbing action 䊼 ————————————————————— — — 䊼 䊼 䊼 䊼 䊼 Italian Lithuanian French Spanish etc.

Agrippa’s linguistic passage is quite short and very imaginative, but clear in its theory, structure and logic. In fact he stressed the importance of a diachronic investigation of the linguistic affinity between Lithuanian and Latin whereas his fellow country–men, the already mentioned Latinizers, were inclined rather to accept a synchronic identification between the two languages at the time. Agrippa’s ideas probably were first echoed in the work of the Polish historian Marcin Cromerus [ca. 1512–1589] at least judging by his affirmation that the Lithuanian language has words with a characteristic nota, which one could call Italian or Spanish rather then Latin (Cromerus 1555 III: 61): non paucas habeat admixtas latinas uoces, corruptas ferè, & magis Italica uel HiĀpanica nota Āignatas q=; Latina. [The language has not a few Latin words mixed [in it], but these are largely corrupted and marked more by the Italian or Spanish nota than by Latin].

74

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

This was repeated in the German version by Pantaleon (= Cromerus 1562:lxxij): dann Āie habend vil LateiniĀche wörter dareyn vermiĀcht / welche doch auch verderbt / vñ mer der HiĀpaniĀchen vñ JtalieniĀchen dañ der LateiniĀchen Āpraach mögen verglichen werden. [Then they have mixed many Latin words in it, which are also corrupted and can be compared more to Spanish and Italian than to the Latin language]. .

With this remark Cromerus distinguished himself from his model Jan Dugosz and approached the linguistic ideas of the Vilnius’ Latinizers, especially those of Agrippa. Finally Agrippa’s case is significant also in the wider contemporary European context, inasmuch as the Lithuanian humanist shared linguistic thoughts very similar to those expressed by Biondo Flavio [1392–1463] in Italy or by Bernardo Alderete [1565–1645] in Spain concerning the Romance languages. Agrippa contributed as well to the creation of the idea of the historical linguistics. 4.4. The Wallachian Connection: A lesser known Variant within the Latin Theory I have already stated that among the relatively numerous theories concerning the Baltic languages, and in particular Lithuanian, which were quite popular during the Renaissance and circulated throughout all of Europe, the so–called Latin Theory is by far the best known and most popular until today. During the 16th century and even after that echoes of this theory are to be found not only in Central–Eastern Europe, where the theory was first conceived, but also in Central–Western Europe. Now I want to focus my attention and comments on a lesser known Western variant of the Latin Theory, i.e. the Wallachian Connection. A preliminary remark is probably useful before speaking about the Latin Theory in general and in detail. In the early Renaissance context one should distinguish methodologically between ideas about the origin of a people and ideas about the origin of a language. Ideas and statements of the first kind – i.e. about the origin of a specific people – were usual and often related to other peoples’s names. One looked for etymological, and even more often for quasi–etymological explanations of the ethnonyms (such as Lithuania from L’Ithalia or the like). At that time it was quite popular also to think about the origin of language in general, and often by relating the question to a mythical explanation (the best example of which is surely the Babel Myth).

Pietro U. Dini

75

Ideas and statements of the second kind – i.e. about the origin of a specific language – were, however, not very common (a good but isolated example of this type in Italy was the idea that Latin derived from Greek). Generally speaking, the idea that a language might originate from another language was not obvious at all at that time, and was even very daring. This modern way of thinking is attributed to Biondo Flavio starting with whom one can speak of Vulgar Latin and Neo–Latin or Roman languages in a modern sense, that is to say of languages derived from another language (Latin), and not necessarily by corruption (cf. Renzi 2000). 4.4.1. The Connection with Wallachia. What I call the Wallachian Connection is, to be precise, the relation between Lithuanian and Daco–Danubian romanitas (= Romanic ethno-linguistic sphere) theorized by some authors of the 16th century. This variant undoubtedly belongs to the Renaissance Latin Theory but as far as I have seen in the huge literature on it, it is still unknown to Balticists.5 The first point to be made is that such a conception was accepted in a different way at that time. The situation concerning the Wallachian Connection may be represented in the following synopsis:

Italy France Switzerland

Roman Theory – + +

Wallachian Connection – – –

Germany

+

+

Poland

+

– [+ Sarnicki]

Lithuania

+

–

Livonia

–

+

Authors Rocca et al. Thevet Bibliander Gessner Peucer Cureus Dugosz Cromerus Crassinius et al. Michalo Lit. Rotundus Agrippa et al. Menius

Century 16th

17th

The relation between Rome and Daco–Danubian romanitas (namely the Wallachian Connection) was already known to Italian humanists (the best example is probably that of Poggio Bracciolini; cf. Tavoni 1984:27– 28) whereas no relation between Rome and the alleged Baltic romanitas was admitted (the most significant case is that of Angelo Rocca). The same may be observed among French humanists. A different situation is encountered, however, in the German humanist milieu: here not only both relations

76

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

were known and admitted, but precisely here is to be found the first testimony of the Wallachian Connection. Thus, the notion that some Roman people speaking a sort of Latin language arrived on the shores of the Baltic sea from the Daco–Danubian region somehow took root and thrived in Wittenberg. Starting with Melanchthon [1497–1560] one finds a peculiar explanation of the Baltic romanitas quite different from the autochthonous and more popular variants circulating in Central–Eastern Europe during the same centuries (which I have examined above). There neither the Baltic nor the Rumanian humanists showed any evidence for this relationship, so that the so–called Wallachian Connection remained unknown to the protagonists of the variant and seems to be a German invention. And from a German milieu this idea reached Poland (as shown by the case of the historian Stanisaw Sarnicki). 4.4.2. The Chronica Carionis and Caspar Peucer. Dealing with the Wallachian Connection one should first consider the so–called Chronica of Johann Carion [1499–1537], a short history of the world first published in German in 1532 and later translated e Germanico in Latinum sermonem, and into several other languages. This book served as the basis for Melanchthon’s Chronicon, a work begun but not finished because of the author’s death. It was then continued by Melanchthon’s brother–in–law Caspar Peucer [1525–1602]; although it always remained connected to the name of Carion, and Chronicon Carionis is the title with which the work became famous and remained so. I have chosen the passage of the text concerning the Wallachians and their migration and I shall comment on it (Carionis 1569:cxix–cxx): Die Wallachen aber / Āo lang Āie den ConĀtantinopolitaniĀchen KeyĀern vnterthenig vnd gehoram geweĀen Āind / hat man von jnen nichts Āonderlichs zu Āagen gewuĀt. Als bald Āie aber durch vermiĀchung der Sarmaten zugenommen / Āich vermehret vnd geĀterckt / vnd durch dieĀelben verhetet vnd angehalten worden Āind / den ConĀtantinopolitaniĀchen KeyĀern Āchueldigen gehorĀam zu entiehen / haben Āie einen namen vnd beruff kriegen. The same passage in Latin is (Carionis 1572:458): Latuerunt autem VVallachi, quam diu quieti ConĀtantinopolitanis Imperatoribus paruerunt, & viciĀsim inclaruerunt, cum admixtione Sarmatarum aucti & ab iiĀdem incitati recuĀare Imperium coeperunt. [While the Wallachians were still subjected to the emperor of Constantinople there was very little to say about them, but after they

Pietro U. Dini

77

intermingled with the Sarmatians, they started rejecting the emperor].

Title page of Cureus, 1572 From this moment their interesting migration northward begins: Das auch dieĀelben Wallachen von der Sarmaten aufgefueret / zugleich mit jnen Littauen / Lyffland vn= PreuĀĀen mit newen Colonien beĀett / Āolches zeugen heutiges tags noch die FußĀtapffen jhrer alten Āpraach / welche viel LateiniĀche woƉrter haben. In the Latin translation: Eosdem Sarmatis ductoribus Lituaniam indeque Liuoniam et vicinam Borussiam nouis colonis mixtim compleuisse, testantur veteris linguae vestigia, quod latinitatem referunt. [So it happened that the Wallachians together with the Sarmatians completed a migration, reached the Baltic region, and occupied first Lithuania, and after that Livland and Prussia as new colonies].

78

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Peucer–Carionis refers to the traces of an old, undefined language. So the question arises: Which is the old language (alte Ēpraach; veteris lingua) the passage refers to? It is, of course, the language of the Wallachians spoken in the Baltic region, and its relics (die FußĒtapffen; vestigia), which recall the Latin language (welche viel LateiniĒche woerter haben; quod latinitatem referunt). This is considered the necessary linguistic evidence to demonstrate that the migration really came from the Daco– Danubian romanitas. In such a way Peucer–Carionis reversed the classical assumption of the Latin Theory: for Dugosz, Crassinius, the Latinizers of Vilnius and all their followers there was no doubt that the Romans reached the Baltic lands from the Mediterranean region, but now Peucer affirms that they arrived from the Daco–Danubian shores! This is a quite radical change of perspective, and not of minor significance: thus the Baltic romanitas apparently does not come directly from Rome, but has a close relationship to the Daco–Danubian romanitas represented by the Wallachians. 4.4.3. Continuations of the Wallachian Connection. The further question to be answered is: How many followers did this conception have, and who where they? Determining precisely who were the followers of the Wallachian variant within the Latin Theory is still a task which must be completed. Investigating this special track one encounters two figures, contemporaries of Caspar Peucer, who wrote about the Wallachian Connection: Joachim Cureus and Stanisaw Sarnicki. The Silesian humanist Joachim Cureus [1532–1573] was chronologically the first follower of this peculiar conception. In his book Gentis Silesiæ Annales (Wittenberg, 1571) there is a chapter entitled Prußiæ ueteris incolæ in which he mentions the Prussians with the following words (Cureus 1571:36): Habitabant vero in PruĀsia olim populi, & ibi adhuc Āunt reliquiæ illorum, qui lingua Henetæ vel Sclauonicæ planæ diĀĀimili vtebantur, Āicut & in locis aliquot Liuoniæ, cui erant intermixta vocabula latina. We possess also a contemporary German translation of the same passage (Cureus 1585:64–65): Es wohneten vor eiten VoԌlcker in PreuĀĀen / vñ Āein deren noch vorhanden / welche ein Sprach der HenetiĀchen oder SclauoniĀchen gar vngleich fuhrten (wie auch en etlichen oԌrtern in Liefland) derĀelben Sprach warn etliche LateiniĀche WoԌrter vntermenget. Also in this case the linguistic argument is fundamental in order to recognize the Prussians’s specific characteristics compared to the other

Pietro U. Dini

79

neighboring peoples: until today – says Cureus – there exist some representatives of this Prussian people, who use a language different from Slavic and in which there are intermingled some Latin words; the same observation may be made also with regard to Livland. Further in the same passage, with respect to the origin of this Old Prussian people Cureus (1571:36) referred directly to Peucer: De origine gentis illius, neminem probabilius quid afferre vidi, quam D. Peucerum virum ClariĀs: qui putat eos in illas regiones Arctoas, deĀertas tunc à Sclauis, qui ĀeĀe in Germaniam & Poloniam infuderant, migraĀĀe ex Valachia... The same passage in German (Cureus 1585:65): Von dieĀer VoԌlcker Ankunfft hat niemand glaublichers an tag geben / als D. Peucerus, der helts darfuer / das dieĀelben VoԌlcker aus der Walachey in dieĀe MitternachtiĀche Lender (Āo da umal die Sclauen verlaĀĀen / die Āich in TeudĀchland vnd Polen geĀet t) kommen /... Thus Cureus not only shows his complete agreement with the theory of a migration from the Daco–Danubian region to the Baltic lands, but he clearly affirms that at that time Peucer had been the only one to support this hypothesis. (cf. in Latin: neminem probabilius quid afferre vidi, quam D. Peucerum virum ClariĒs:; in German: hat niemand glaublichers an tag geben / als D. Peucerus). After that Cureus (1571:36) reasons as follows: & fuiĀĀe olim colonos Italicos collocatos in Valachiam ab Imperatoribus Græcis, vt arcerent Sclauos ab imperio CoĀtantinopolitano, Āed Āuperatos tandem multitudine & vi Sclauorum, patriam reliquiĀĀe. In German (Cureus 1585:65): vnd das Āie vor eiten von den GriechiĀchen KeyĀern / die Sclauen von dem ConĀtantinopolitaniĀchen Reich ab utreiben / aus WelĀchland in Walachey geĀchickt. At this point Cureus’s work Gentis Silesiæ Annales stops dealing with Prussians. His later German translation (the Schlesische General Chronica which was published fifteen years later in 1585) gives us some more information on this subject, but not on language. Another, minor follower of the Wallachian Connection was the Polish historian Stanisaw Sarnicki [ca. 1532–1597] who referred to this variant in one passage of his book Annales sive de origine et rebvs gestis

80

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Polonorvm et Litvanorvm (Cracow, 1587). With a bit of surprise he wrote that (Sarnicki 1587:1082): Nec deĀunt, qui eiuĀdem generis Italos hac via in Litvvaniam ab oĀtiis Danubii per Valachiam tranĀivisse affirmant, et tales parui faciunt illam narrationem de Libone, qui in Litvvaniam adveniĀĀe dicitur. [And there is no lack of those who affirm that this same Italic race came by this way to Lithuania crossing from the mouth of the Danube through Wallachia, and those few people, reference the narration of Libo who, they say, arrived in Lithuania]. Thus, Sarnicki’s reference is very short and not particulary original. Interestingly enough, Maciej Strubycz [ca. 1530–ca. 1604], called Livoniensis although he was a Pole, in his work Brevis atque Accurata Livoniæ Ducatus descriptio historico-geographica [A short and accurate historical-geographic description of the Duchy of Livonia] (1st ed. 1577) clearly stated about the Estonian language that: quarum (linguarum) ea, quam Æthonicam vocant... Latinum idioma refert [of those (languages) this, which is called Esthonian… refers to the Latin language]. This is an original development of the Latin Theory within the framework of the Wallachian connection which involves the Estonian language also considered as a derivation of Latin. Another later minor mention of the Wallachian Connection may be found in the book Moscoviae ortus et progressus [Emergence and progress of Moscovia] (1681) by Daniel Prinz von Buchau, a contemporary of Sarnicki; he juxtaposes the story told by Dugosz with the legendary two eponymous brothers by the name Rohman and Vlahata respectively, and notes the proximity between the two accounts (cf. Armbruster 1977:113 f. 127). 4.4.4. A 17th century follower: Fridericus Menius. More than a century after Cureus the case of the historian Fridericus Menius [1593–1659] and his rare book Syntagma de origine Livonorum [Syntagma on the Origin of the Livonians] (Dorpat, 1632) is worthy of mention (cf. Donecker 2012). Menius’s idea of the historic events may be briefly summed up in the following terms. The Wallachians migrated northward in two waves: first during the invasion of the Huns, and second during that of the Slavs (Hoc tempore... facta est illa Wallachiorum cum Slavis et nostris gentibus Livonicis

Pietro U. Dini

81

commixtio, Menius 1632:532–533, sub Anno 594). These migrations had two results: the beginning of a Baltic aristocracy, and the emergence of the above mentioned three Baltic languages starting from the language spoken by the colonists, a language which was very close to Latin. Thus, on the one hand Menius rejected the notion that the Livonians, Lithuanians and Prussians came directly from Rome, but on the other hand he declared their provenience rather de Wallachia, from the strong Roman colony created by Trajan in Dacia. As evidence of a Baltic romanitas Menius gives the following three items: a) the well known onomastic argument according to which the name of Lithuania comes from Italy (primò, quod in memoriam suae patriae Italiae l’Italiam dixerint Lithuaniam), a fact which is corrected, however, a little after: Credibile est, Lithuanis et Lettorum nomen non a Romanis sed Wallachis profectum esse; b) the holy place Romowe in Prussia where pagan sacrifices were performed (secundo, quod in memoriam urbis Romanae vicum quendam in Prussia extruxerint, Romove dictum, ubi sub sacra quercu Diis sacrificarunt); c) a real linguistic argument is finally given: in the languages of the Baltic region there remain not a few traces of the Latin language (Tertio, quod Latinae, in hoc idiomate, linguae non pauca restent vestigia). Thus, there is no doubt that Fridericus Menius believed the so–called Wallachian Connection variant of the Latin Theory. His new contribution is the historically clearer explanation we have just seen. From a linguistic point of view, however, he does not give any new data that his predecessors did not give. 4.5. Evaluating the Variants of the Latin Theory The least common denominator shared by all the variants of the Renaissance linguistic Latin Theory (i.e., the classic version of the Latin Theory exemplified by Dugosz and Cromerus, the Semi–Latin or the Neo–Latin conceived by the Vilnius Latinizers and finally the so–called Wallachian Connection) was the explicitly or implicitly assumed identity of Latin and Lithuanian. The Wallachian Connection introduced, however, a third variable capable of shifting the relationships among already well known elements. If one keeps in mind that the conception of diachronic linguistic change has been a relatively late acquisition in the history of linguistics, it is a fact worth stressing that during the Cinquecento the identity of Latin and Lithuanian was understood as being valid first of all diachronically (a possible, synchronic interpretation of it is perhaps to be found in the texts of the Vilnius’s Latinizers as depending on social status: the language of

82

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

the aristocracy vs. the language of the people). During the following century, however, even the Wallachian Connection gained a historical dimension, as shown by the case of Menius. From a diachronic point of view this identity was differently understood and explained by the different authors: all of them shared a belief in the legendary origin of Palemon but related it to distinct historic figures and events. Linguistically the gap between the two languages was more or less clearly expressed by the Renaissance Corruption Theory. In particular Cromerus usually preferred to refer to the Corruption Theory when he speaks about Lithuanian and when he speaks about Wallachian, but he does not connect the two cases. From all the above mentioned arguments I hope I have made clear enough the big difference there was at that time between stating that a people (for example the Lithuanians) derived from another people (for example the Romans) and stating that a language (for example Lithuanian) derived from another language (for example Latin). Considering the most widespreaded linguistic theories on the Baltic languages circulating during the Renaissance – the Slavic Theory, the Latin Theory, the Quadripartite Theory with their numerous variants – one observes important subcategories. While the Slavic Theory and the Quadripartite Theory, at least in their classic formulations, remained substantially on a synchronic level, it was only within the frame of the Latin Theory that there emerged the embryo of a first model of diachronic explanation known in Baltic Linguistics.

Chapter Five Polyglossia and Linguistic Variations in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Quadripartite Theory Attempts to establish the principles of multilingual communication in ethnically complex and large speech communities is carried on at present by investigating large urban centers such as – I would just mention several – Los Angeles, São Paulo do Brazil and other big multiethnic communities (cf. Ivanov 1998). Today’s large cities have an indisputable advantage in that they allow field work on linguistic phenomena in progress. They constitute a peculiar linguistic laboratory which can be directly observed and which allows linguists to analyze the data in many different ways. Although not based on field work, but rather on written sources, one could nevertheless attempt reconstruction of a dynamic multilingual situation in large speech communities of the past as well. Such an attempt could even include certain ethnically extremely complex groups which were characterized by a high degree of polyglossia. I think one of the best examples in the past is precisely the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its main cosmopolitan cities, first of all the capital Vilnius, during the Renaissance. Luckily enough we have some contemporary information about that. A pretty accurate description of the linguistic situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 16th century was reported by the Polish historian Miechovita [1453/7–1523] (whose real name was Maciej z Miechova)1. Thus, even if it is true – as stressed by Giuliano Bonfante (1954:679) – that for linguists: Linguistic problems of the past, and the problems of kinship of languages in particular, have attracted very little attention. This case should be considered because Miechovita’s book represents a rare case in which data on languages are combined with original linguistic ideas. In this chapter I have two aims: first, to investigate thoroughly Miechovita’s ideas on the languages which from 1845 until the present we usually call ‘Baltic’; second, to present and comment on Miechovita’s knowledge of and views on polyglossia and multilingual communication in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 5.1. Miechovita’s linguistic ideas about Baltic The first edition of Miechovita’s main book, entitled Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis was published in Cracow in 1517, but was reprinted several times

84

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

and translated into many languages. In this book Miechovita expressed his own linguistic theory about the Baltic languages in which he reflected well his preference for synchronic matters and for a diatopic linguistic description, that is, a description linked to territory. Originally enough, Miechovita refers to the Baltic family as a Linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum. He claims literally that in Lithuania there is a predominant Linguagium Lithuanicum that he terms ‘quadripartite’. Thus, he wrote in Latin (Miechovita 1582:146): Praeterea linguagium Lithuanicum est quadripartitum, primum linguagium est Iaczuingorum, ut horum qui circa castrum Drohicin inhabitarunt, & pauci supersunt. Alterum est Lithuanorum & Samagitharum: Tertium Prutenorum. Quartum in Lothua seu Lothihola, id est Livonia, circa fluuium Dzuina, & Riga ciuitatem. Et horum quanquam eadem sit lingua, unus tamen non plene alterum intelligit, nisi cursiuus et qui uagatus est per illas terras. [Beyond that the Lithuanian language is quadripartite. The first language is that of the Jatvingians, i.e., of those, who settled near to the camp Drohicin, and few still survive. The second is that of the Lithuanians and Samogitians; the third is that of the Prussians. The fourth is in Latvia or Latgale, i.e. Livonia, near to river Daugava and the city of Riga. And although those people have the same language, nevertheless one does not completely understand the other if he is not used to wandering about in those lands]. Thus Miechovita recognized one ‘quadripartite’ language: The first is that of the Jatvingians, who were not numerous and lived near Drohicin, the second, that of the Lithuanians and of the Samogitians, the third, that of the Prussians and the fourth and last, that which is spoken in Livonia, near the Daugava (Dvina) river and the city of Riga. After this, Miechovita points out that no one is able to understand any of these languages if he or she has not lived for some time in these lands. In this passage from Miechovita one should consider at least three issues: a) Miechovita does not show any diachronic interest: he simply states that four peoples speak the linguagium Lithuanicum. b) Although there exist circumstantial differences it is the same ‘quadripartite’ language. c) Only after having explored and wandered about (cursivus et vagatus) the whole linguistic territory (per illas terras) where the linguagium Lithuanicum is spoken, only after that, is one able to understand that it is, although ‘quadripartite’ (quadripartitum), the same language. It is appropriate to notice that one has to distinguish clearly between linguagium Lithuanicum and linguagium Lithuanorum & Samagitharum, which is considered at another place in the book. It is possible to assume

Pietro U. Dini

85

that in Miechovita’s own metalanguage the term linguagium Lithuanicum functioned as a ‘terminus technicus’ indicating a general, superordinate category of language, a hypernym. As a matter of fact, this assumption is confirmed by the fact that Miechovita also uses the term linguagium Schlauorum as a general term before listing the single Slavic languages; thus, he wrote in Latin (Miechovita 1582:134): Linguagium Schlauorum ampliĀsimum eĀt, & diffuĀum, plurimas terras, & prouincias poĀsidens, ueluti Āunt Seruij, MyĀij, RaĀci, Āeu Bulgari, BoĀnenĀes..., uelut Āunt Dalmate, Croatae, Pannonij, Sclaui, Carni, Bohemi, Moraui, SleĀite, Poloni maiores, & minores, Mazouitae, Pomerani, CaĀĀubitae, Sarbi, Ruteni, MoĀcouitae: hi omnes Sclaui, & Vindelici Āunt, per ampla regna inhabitantes. Sed & Lithuani iam Āclauonizant. [The language of the Slavs is very broad, and wide–spread, occupying several lands and provinces, such as Servians, Misians, Russians, or Bulgarians, Bosnians... such as Dalmatians, Croatians, Pannonians, Slavs, Carnians, Bohemians, Moravians, Silesians, both Major and Minor Poles, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Cassubians, Serbians, Ruthenians, Muscovites: all these are Slav and Vindians (Wends?) settled in wide kingdoms. But also the Lithuanians already begin to speak Slavic]. I think it is important to point out this peculiar concept of Miechovita and that he used the term linguagium rather consistently. In fact, it is essential, in my view, in order to understand correctly Miechovita’s original linguistic theory. I shall now try to sum up shortly his linguistic ideas: in the Baltics a multilingual speech community is recognized, including at least four languages, understood as four diatopic varieties, which however belong to and constitute the same language. It is not by chance that the need to travel widely in those lands to become aware of the region’s linguistic unity is emphasized. The fundamental characteristic of Miechovita’s linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum is properly that of being at the same time ‘unitarily different’ (where different means precisely ‘the quadripartite aspect’)2. In his very original way Miechovita tried to explain the multilingual variety he had observed within a single linguistic continuum, which more or less overlapped the territory where Baltic languages were (and still are) spoken. Only a traveler, stressed Miechovita, may be able to grasp the ‘unity within differences’ of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum. His reference to mobility is quite interesting because we know nowadays that mobility is the only social force that can eliminate sharp dialect differences in a community (cf. Chambers 1995:250–253). That provides

86

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

further evidence for the modernity of Miechovita’s thought. Beyond that, it should be noted, that Miechovita was clearly one of the first to consider the Baltic languages as an autonomous linguistic group. His own linguistic theory was a clear exception to the points of view represented by all the other authors and to all the linguistic ideas circulating at that time.

Title page of Miechovita 1518 5.2. A picture of multilingual variety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At this point I will came back to the issue of polyglossia and multilingual communication in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania according to Miechovita’s data. The Polish scholar did not limit himself to explaining his ideas on the mutual relationships and origins of the Baltic languages. As a matter of fact Miechovita presents one of the first descriptions we possess at all of the linguistic situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He shows a good knowledge of the extant multilingual variety and polyglossia in the Lithuanian State. Moreover one must also stress, that the ongoing changes in that area were considered by Miechovita in his treatise De duabus

Pietro U. Dini

87

Sarmatiis. At the beginning of the 16th century the Lithuanian State was notoriously a wide and heterogeneous area. Its capital Vilnius was a large city more or less like Cracow (Miechovita 1582:145): Prima autem & capitalis ciuitas in Lithuania eĀt Vilna, eĀt tanta, quanta Cracouia cum Kazimiria Clepardia, et omnibus Āuburbijs. [Thus the first capital town in Lithuania is Vilnius, which is as big as Cracow with Kazimierz Clepard and all the periphery]. That is to say that, for that time and in that part of Europe, Vilnius was what one would have called a large city. The Lithuanian capital shared common features with the main cosmopolitan cities of the time and had a steady cultural and linguistic interaction with them. Therefore one might consider the whole Grand Duchy as being characterized by great diversity of the population, that is, by multiethnicity and polyglossia. All the languages spoken in the land are mentioned, the presence of so many different languages is emphasized and set forth according to two principles: diatopic multilingual variety and diastratic multilingual variety. Diatopic multilingual variety has an important place in Miechovita’s description. As a matter of fact a long passage from the above mentioned treatise De duabus Sarmatiis is devoted to describing the multilingual territory and language variety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. First the situation in Prussia is explained (Miechovita 1582:146): Et Ācias quod in PruĀsia iam pauci proferunt Prutenicum, Āubintrauit Āiquidem lingua Polonorum & Alemannicum. [And it is worth knowing that in Prussia by this time few prefer the Prussian language, the Polish and German languages are rather making inroads]. Only a small number of the inhabitants still speak Prussian, because of the introduction and diffusion of Polish and German. The same characterizes the situation in Latvia (Miechovita 1582:146): sic & in Lothua pauci uillani profitentur hanc linguam, quia subintravit Alemannorum. [similarly also in Latvia few countrymen use that language, because the German language has made inroads]. Here hanc linguam is to be understood as the Latvian language, whose use had been similarly diminished by the introduction of German and was still spoken only in the countryside (pauci uillani profitentur).

88

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

The contrast in dialect between city and countryside is mentioned also in describing the situation in Samogithia and in Lithuania propria (Miechovita 1582:146): In Samagitthia autem, quæ eĀt longitudinis quinquaginta milliariorum, & in Lithuania, quæ in longum triginta milliaria continet, in uillis Lithuanicum loquuntur, & in magna parte Polonicum profitentur. [In Samogithia, however, whose length is fifty (Roman) miles, and in Lithuania, whose length is thirty [Roman] miles, in the countryside people speak Lithuanian, and for the most part understand the Polish language]. At this point Miechovita passes from the description of the linguistic variety existing on the Baltic coast to that characterizing the internal regions of the Grand Duchy. There is the Ruthenian language which is regularly spoken everywhere (Miechovita 1582:146): in alijs autem prouincijs circumiacentibus, ut in Nouigrod, in PleĀcouia, in Poloczko, in SmolenĀco, & in meridem uĀq; poĀt Kiou Ruteni Āunt omnes, & Ruthenicum Āeu Sclauonicum loquuntur... [in the other surrounding provinces, however, as in Novgorod, in Pskov, in Polotsk, in Smolensk, and in the south even beyond Kiev they are all Ruthenians, and speak Ruthenian or Slavonian...]. Actually Miechovita identified Ruthenicum seu Sclauonicum, and refers also to the remnant languages spoken in the Grand Duchy. At first he describes the Tatars, who lived near Vilnius (Miechovita 1582:146): Amplius Āunt in ducatu Lithuaniæ Tartari circum Vilnam, & habent proprias uillas: colunt agros more noĀtro, laborant & uehunt merces, ad mandatûq; magni ducis Lithuaniæ omnes ad bellum aĀĀurgunt, loquuntur Tartaricum... [In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there are many Tatars near Vilnius, and they have own farms: they cultivate the field in our way, work and transport merchandise, under the command of the Grand Duke of Lithuania all go to war, they speak Tatar...]. After them come the Jews, who live in Trakai (Miechovita 1582:146): InĀuper sunt Hebræi in Lithuania, prĀertim in ciuitate Troki, hi laborant & mercantur telonea & officia publica tenent, de uĀuriĀq; non uiuunt.

Pietro U. Dini

89

[Besides in Lithuania there are the Jews, mostly in the town of Trakai, there they work and have duties and exercise public functions, they do not live off of usury]. Thus, the picture of the language varieties and linguistic complexity in the Grand Duchy is completed. Diastratic multilingual variety is the other type of variety discussed in Miechovita’s works. Actually he presents only one special kind of diastratic variety viz., the variety where religion and cult are linked together. Miechovita is aware of the fact that some languages may operate predominantly or exclusively in a specific environment or milieu. It is easy to observe that Miechovita is interested in distinguishing the practice of using different languages in the liturgy or other specific cultural events. Not by chance a frequent confusion of linguistic and religious aspects is noted in his Treatise3. A good example of that is for instance Polish, the language used in the Catholic Church (Miechovita 1582:146): in Lithuania... nam & sermone Polonico sacerdotes eis prædicant in ecclesijs. [In Lithuania... in fact the priests preach to them in the Polish language in the churches]. Another good example is the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum which is based on obedience and faithfulness to the Roman Catholic Church (...hoc linguagium quadripartitum totum eĒt de obedientia & fide Romanæ eccleĒiæ...). On the contrary only Ruthenian is used by those of the Orthodox faith (Rutheni... ritumq; Græcorum obseruant, & obedientiam Constantinopolitano patriarchæ præstant). For the Tatars also their religion is explicitly connected with their language (Miechovita 1582:146): loquuntur Tartaricum & colunt Mahumetem, quia Saracenorum Āectam profitentur. [They speak Tatar and cherish Mohammed, because they are adherents of the sect of the Saracenes]. The link between language and liturgy occurs also in the following passage (Miechovita 1582:142): In eccleĀijs Rutenorum lingua Serviorû, quæ eĀt Sclauonica, diuina celebrât, legunt, & cantant, in eccleĀijs Armenorum Āermone Armeno, in Āynagogis Iudaeorum lingua Hebraea orant. [In the churches of the Ruthenians they celebrate, read and sing the services in the language of the Servians, which is Slavonian, in the

90

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics churches of the Armenians in the Armenian language, in the synagogues of the Jews they preach in the language of the Jews].

But Miechovita says only a little about the pagan rites of the Balts; that also gives him the opportunity to say a few words about the origin of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum; it has some Italian words because it originally came from Italy (a proof of that is the fact that the pontifex maximus of those peoples lives in a place called Romoue whose name derives from Rome). It is the debt that Miechovita paid to other theories circulating at that time, first of all to the so–called Latin Theory (see Chapter Four), which he got from Jan Dugosz. Thus wrote Miechovita (1582:146): Habuit hoc linguagium quadripartitû tempore idolatriæ pontificem maximum unum, quem Criue appellabant, morantem in ciuitate Romoue à Roma dicta, quoniam hoc linguagium de Italia iactat ĀeĀe adueniĀĀe, & habet nonnulla uocabula Italica in Āuo Āermone. De iĀto Criue & ciuitate Romoue in legenda Sancti Adelberti pontificis & martyris legitur. [This Linguagium quadripartitum had at the time of idolatry one soverign pontiff they called Criue, who inhabited in the town Romoue so called from Roma, because this linguagium, they say, came from Italy, and has some Italian words in its speech. About this Criue and about the town Romoue one can read in the legend of pontiff and martyr Saint Adalbert]. The role of the cosmopolitan Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a place where many languages could coexist is emphasized: Hebrew is a sacred language and Yiddish is a conversational one; Ruthenian (ruski) is used in legal proceedings; Lithuanian, Latin, Polish are spoken at court and, along with German, are used for foreign affairs; the Turkic languages of the Tartars and Karaims are used in their respective communities4. Interestingly enough, one notices that, in his quite detailed description of polyglossia and linguistic variety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Miechovita never did explicitly link language and people (that is, language and ethnos). He apparently prefers to use other criteria such as territory and religion for such distinctions. A further division between city and countryside could possibly be made, but no others. One might then even speculate why only concrete links (like territory and cult) have been used by Miechovita. Finally I still wish to stress that the work of Miechovita is a good starting point for the investigation of polyglossia in the Lithuanian polity5.

Pietro U. Dini

91

5.3. The Reception of the Quadripartite Theory The Treatise of Miechovita was very successful and was translated into many languages. Also his linguistic theory, the so–called theory of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum, spread in Western Europe and was frequently repeated, sometimes with partial variations. But the central core of his linguistic idea, that is, the ‘differences within unity’ of the Baltic linguistic domain, was never acknowledged and was always misunderstood by his supporters, so that the differences among the subordinate languages were emphasized more than their unity. It is quite interesting to observe how the passage quoted above was interpreted by other authors. Two examples should suffice. Those of the German Sebastian Münster and of the Pole Ludwik Decius. 5.3.1. Sebastian Münster. In his famous and several times reprinted work CoĒmographia Sebastian Münster reported, among other things, on the linguistic situation in the Baltic region. The consideration of languages however is less intensive in Münster’s work than in other writers as can be already seen in the shortness of the passage dedicated to this subject (Münster 1564 IV:1268): In der Littaw Āeind viererley Āprachen. Die erĀt iĀt der Jatwinger / vnnd Āeind jr wenig. Die ander iĀt der Littawer und Samogetern. Die dritt der PreüĀĀen. Und die vierdt der Lothawer oder Lyfflander bey der Ātatt Riga. Doch hat die PolandiĀche und TeütĀche Āprach faĀt überhand genommen in PreüĀĀen / Littaw und Lyffland. Merck weiter das bey Vilna wohnen etlich Tartern... vnd Āeind auch Juden in der Littaw / beĀundern inn der Ātatt Troki. [In Lithuania there are four languages. The first is that of the Jatvingians and there are not many of them. The second is that of the Lithuanians and Samogitians. The third is that of the Prussians. And the fourth is that of the Latvians near the town of Riga. Yet the Polish and the German languages have increased in Prussia, Lithuania and Livonia. It is to be noted that near to Vilnius there live some Tartars and there are also Jews in Lithuania, especially in the town of Trakai]. Münster contends with the mere descriptive aspect: he refers to the distribution of the four languages in the land Littaw, without going into details to the internal linguistic situation. In spite of the brevity of this passage there is no doubt that the work of Miechovita was the base for Münster’s presentation. Even at first sight it becomes obvious that the essential characteristics of Miechovita’s perception of the linguagium quadripartitum have been lost in Münster’s short German version. In fact,

92

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

especially the passage about the unity of the four (subordinated) languages which are established by the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum, was omitted in Münster’s version. The German passage given above corresponded to parallels in the Latin, Italian, French and Czech translations of the work. Actually these repetitions of the German original are never identical and the linguistic conception of Miechovita is never exactly reproduced. This fact is already shown in the example of the incipit. Miechovita wrote: linguagium Lithuanicum eĒt quadripartit, whereas the following renderings are found in Münster: German: In der Littaw Āeind viererley Āprachen... (1564 IV:1268); Latin: Lithuanis eĀt Āermo quadripartitus (1559 IIII:908); Italian: Hanno i Lithuani il parlare quadripartito (1575a IIII:979); French: les Lithuaniens ont quatre Āortes de langages (1575b IIII:1820); Czech: Národ Litewský C twerýho Ya yku v íjwá (1554:Dxxxv). The hypernym Linguagium is everywhere substituted either by a geographical (In der Littaw) or by an ethnical (Lithuanis, i Lithuani, les Lithuanien, Národ Litewský) reference. Consequently the linguagium Lithuanicum is simply equalized throughout with the Lithuanian language whereas the two conceptions are well differentiated in Miechovita’s text. Nevertheless an echo of the Miechovitian uniformity of the language is rather to be found in the translations than in the German original. Miechovita wrote: Et horum quanquam eadem Ēit lingua, unus tamen non plene alterum intelligit, niĒi curĒiuus et qui uagatus eĒt per illas terras [And although the language of those is the same, nevertheless one person could not sufficiently understand another person, if he had not travelled and wandered through those lands], whereas one finds in Münster the following rendering: German:  (1564). Latin: Et quanquam horum eadem Āit lingua unus tamen nõ ad plenum intelligit alterum, niĀi qui uerĀatus eĀt in omnibus terris (1559 IIII:908). Italian: Et benche di coĀtoro Āia quella medema [sic] lingua, niente dimeno uno no intende perfettamente l’altro, Āe non chi è dimorato in tutte quelle terre (1575a IIII:979). French: Et combien que ce Āoit vn meĀme langage de tous ceux cy, toutesfois l’vn n’entendra pas entierement l’autre, s’il n’a frequenté en toutes ces terres (1575b IIII:1820).

Pietro U. Dini

93

Czech: A a tito wĀĀickni Národowé gednoĀteyného Ya yku v ijwagij / wĀĀak geĀt proto wtom ro díjl takowyý / e kdo  geden

nich vmíj / druhému / Tetíjmu a / té ce Āro umíj (1554: Dxxxv). The Münsterian description of the languages in the Baltic area is another fine example of the diffusion and circulation of Miechovita’s conception of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum, but also of how it was misjudged or poorly understood. 5.3.2. Ludwik Decius. Ludwik Decius [1485–1545], the well known Polish chronicler, presented in his main work on the history of Poland some interesting news about the Baltic languages. Four Baltic peoples are mentioned briefly in this passage. Decius mentions first the Prussians, thereafter he dedicates special attention to the Jatvingians: They are pagan (gentiles) like the Prussians of which, due to the many wars, only a few have survived; they live on the Lithuanian border or dispersed among the Lithuanians, however they speak their own language (proprium linguagium loquentes). Furthermore, the Lithuanians are considered together with the Samogithians who have received their own language as well, one different (aliud) from the language of the Jatvingians (proprium linguagium Ēortiti Ēunt). In like manner the Latvians, inhabitants of Livonia, speak a peculiar language which is differrent from the other previously mentioned languages (appropriatum linguagium loquuntur a præfatis gentibus diĒtinctum). After this brief, commented listing of peoples and languages Decius formulates his own version of the language question (Decius 1521:XL): Quattuor ergo gentes: Pruteni, Iaczwingi: Lithuani c Samagitis: & Lotihali: habent propria linguagia: ualde in paucis conĀonantia & conuenientia (Decius, Ibid.). [There are then four peoples: the Prussians, the Jatvingians, the Lithuanians along with the Samogithians and Latgalians have their own languages; in a few things (they have) agreement and harmony]. This is a variant of the conception of the linguagium quadripartitum, which can be found with Miechovita for the first time. As in the case of Miechovita’s text no trace of the Slavic conception can be found in Decius: however again four people with equivalent four linguagia are listed: Prussians, Jatvingians, Lithuanians with Samogithians and Latgallians (Latvians). Nevertheless Decius’ variant is essentially distant from Miechovita’s linguistic conception. Decius adds at first sight a not very easily understandable sentence whose most probable version is the following: “The four languages [possess] in few [things] (ualde in paucis) consonance

94

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

(conĒonantia) and harmony (conuenentia)”. Thus he claims exactly the contrary of the Miechovitian language conception, insofar as Decius does not recognize the relationship of the four languages to a unitarian linguagium quadripartitum. Decius’ linguistic conception of concerning the Baltic languages represents an intermediate stage between Dugosz and Miechovita wherein the influence of both authors becomes visible. On one hand Decius accepts from Dugosz the Latin Theory for Lithuanian (sse Chapter Four) and the Greek Theory (see Chapter Six) for Prussian; on the other hand he shows a special proximity to the text of Miechovita. Decius however differs sharply from the original characteristics of the linguistic conception of this latter author. Decius, like other writers of that period, rendered Miechovita’s linguistic conception of the linguagium quadripartitum in his own way and manner, however without having understood the excellence (from a modern point of view) of Miechovita’s formulation. All this shows that the essence of Miechovita’s conception of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum remained extraneous or even unintelligible to all its translators.

Chapter Six The Idea that Prussian Derives from Greek It will probably always remain a mystery whether at the beginning of the 13th century William of Modena [Guglielmo Sabaudieti], the apostolic nuncio in the East Baltic lands, really accomplished a translation in illam barbaram linguam (that is to say into a language of the Baltic region) of Donatus’s Ars Grammatica1. In this regard I recall the passage from the Chronicon Alberici (cf. SRP I:241): Zum Jahre 1228. In Prutia vero, quae est ultra Poloniam et ultra Pomeraniam, episcopus Mutinensis Guillelmus, missus a papa legatus, ingenio et sapientia sua, non fortitudine, multos paganos ad fidem attraxit, et linguam eorum ex maxima parte didicit, insuper principem artis grammaticae scilicet Donatum in illam barbaram linguam cum maximo labore transtulit. Erant autem hoc anno in illis partibus quinque tantummodo provinciae paganorum acquirendae, ista videlicet, de qua agitur, Prutia, Curlandia, Lethovia, Withlandia et Sambia. [Concerning the year 1228. In Prussia indeed, which is beyond Poland and beyond Pomerania, the bishop of Modena, William, papal nuncio, with his intelligence and wisdom, not with force, attracted many pagans to the faith, and in great part learned their language; besides he translated with great effort into that language the most important (work) of the grammatical art, i. e., the Latin Grammar (Ars Grammatica) by Donatus. There were, however, in this year in those parts also five provinces of the pagans to be acquired, and those are, to which reference is made: Prussia, Curland, Lithuania, Vitland (?) and Sambia (Samland)]. It may be that the expression barbaram linguam refers to the Prussian language. At the same time Prussian is mentioned in at least two descripttions of Eastern Europe which have survived: Descripciones Terrarum and Descriptio Europa orientalis2. Here Prussian is simply numbered among the Slavic languages, a linguistic idea which was widespread for a long time. As a matter of fact it is with the Renaissance that Prussian became an object of special linguistic (mainly genealogical) interest. At that time more than one theory on the Prussian language was popular and circulated throughout the whole of Europe. One should distinguish, however, between linguistic theories on the Baltic languages, including Prussian among the other languages (the majority), and linguistic theories concerning especially the Prussian language (only a few). The latter represent a less heavily

96

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

investigated topic and concern primarily the idea that Prussian derives from Greek. In this chapter, I will illustrate the characteristics and the testimonies of this peculiar Renaissance linguistic idea on Prussian. I shall focus on the 16th century, although I shall also follow the later developments of this linguistic idea during the 17th and even the 18th centuries. 6.1. Willichius and the Appraisal of a Greek Theory on Prussian Jan Dugosz’s linguistic ideas on the Baltic languages, including the emergence of a Greek Theory on Prussian (see 4.1.), influenced many other scholars of that time and exerted a strong influence not only upon the other historians of the Polish humanist circle. Others did not exactly agree with his views. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate the works of one more author, a native of the Warmia (Ermland), namely Jodocus Willichius [1501–1552], because he took quite different stands about the origin of the Prussian language. After Dugosz the idea that Prussian derives from Greek found its best expression in the thought of Jodocus Willichius. It is worth pointing out that this East Prussian humanist attempted to explain the facts related to the Prussian language by means of the concept of corruption. Thus, the Prussian language directly originated from a corruption of Greek: Prussian was only lingua Græca deprauata. In his comment to Tacitus’s Germania (1551) Willichius explains this fact by introducing a parallel with the relation between Latin and the Romance languages (French and Spanish): Āunt veri in illis partibus (i.e. non longè à Regiomonte) Borußi, quorum lingua non est Vandalica & admodum peregrina Āed Græca deprauata, Āicut Gallica & HiĀpanica ex Latina corrupta ferè nata est. [there are in these regions (not far from Königsberg) the Prussians (Borussians) whose language is not Vandalian and completely foreign, but distorted Greek, just like French or Spanish is derived from a more or less corrupted Latin (language)]. In this passage Willichius gives genealogical information on the Prussian language: a) it is not a Vandalica lingua, by which is to be understood that it is not a Slavic language (according to Albert Krantz [1448–1517] 1575ab); b) it originated from the corruption of the Greek language just as as French (Gallica lingua) or Spanish (HiĒpanica lingua) originated from the corruption of Latin. Willichius does not explain why the Greek language should have suffered such corruption. He completed his report with the following quite surprising sentence:

Pietro U. Dini

97

Āicut ipĀe uĀu comperi, quoties GræciĀĀando illis locutus Āum, ut qui patriæ meæ uicini Āunt. [just as I myself have discovered by use as I have many times when I spoke Greek to them who are close to my homeland]. The author affirms that he himself in his youth was speaking Greek with the Prussians who lived in his neighbourhood! Unfortunately Willichius does not give any further detail about this circumstance, nor any information about other possible sources. Such a mutual understanding between Prussian and Greek around the middle of the 16th century is of course a phantasy of Willichius. Nevertheless this matter was discussed during the following three centuries. 6.2. Minor Reception of and/or Reaction to the Greek Theory To complete the picture one has to say that the Greek Theory on Prussian was sometimes quoted in works of some West European authors of the same century. Among the possible examples, one can mention a quotation in Conradus Gessner’ book Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum ueterum tum quae hodie apud diuersas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt (1555). In this work Gessner intended to show his total encyclopaedic knowledge about the Baltic languages and therefore he intentionally referred to many different linguistic theories (see Chapter Three). For examples, he listed the Prussian language even under the chapter ‘De BITHYNICA Lingua’ (1555:15v). Since this title directly recalls the Greek region of king Prusias mentioned in Jan Dugosz’s text perhaps it may be sufficient evidence that Gessner knew and admitted the Greek Theory as well. The same echo of the Greek Theory can also be observed in the book Appendix De dialectis (1591) by Angelo Rocca, Gessner’s Italian follower. 6.2.1. Hartknoch and the 17th-century Reaction to the Greek Theory. A first, radical reaction against the Greek Theory of the origin of Prussian is to be found only in the following century, especially in the work of Christoph Hartknoch [1644–1687]. In his book Alt– und Neues Preußen the author showed his sceptical attitude toward the idea that Prussian derives from Greek (Hartknoch 1684:60): Aus welchen Worten man alsbald ĀchlieĀĀen kan / was dem DlugoĀĀo zu dieĀer Fabel Anlaß gegeben / nemlich nichts anders / als die Gleichhheit deß Nahmens PruĀia mit dem Lande PreuĀĀen. [From which words one can soon conclude what gave to Dugosz a motivation for this tale, and properly nothing else than the identity of the name of Prusia with that of the region Prussia].

98

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Against Dugosz’ opinion, Hartknoch uses an effective diachronic argument: it is known that the name PreuĒĒen appears for the first time only around the 10th century C.E., so how could PruĒias, who lived so many centuries before, give his name to the country? And in any case how could this name remain unknown for such a long time? Now Hartknoch’s (1684:60) criticism does not save Willichius: Was allhie DlugoĀĀus und Michovius von der ÜbereinĀtimmung der GriechiĀchen und alt= PreuĀĀiĀchen Sprache melden / das beĀtätigt auch / welches mich Āehr wundert / Jodocus Willichius. [All that Dugosz and Miechovite say about the coincidence between the Greek and the Old Prussian languages is confirmed also by Jodocus Willichius, which surprises me very much]. He quotes Willichius’s famous passage in the Latin original and in his own German translation (Hartknoch 1684:60): wie ichs Āelbst erfahren / Āo offt ich mit ihnen GriechiĀch geredet / weil Āie meines Vaterlandes Nachbarn Āind. [as I myself realized it every time I spoke Greek with them, because they are neighbours of my homeland]. After that Hartknoch (1684:61) expresses his great surprise for this statement: Viel Ēchlechter (i.e. than Dugosz) hält Ēich aber noch Willichius. Nevertheless he discusses seriously Willichius’s pretension to have personally spoken Greek to the Prussians and advances two linguistic arguments against this possibility: a) he argues that, even if one is very good in Latin, he is not able to speak and understand French or Italian; b) he doubtingly observes that Willichius must have been really very good in Greek in order not only to speak with the Prussians, but also to distinguish how much of one language remained in the other one. Finally Hartknoch recalls some biographical and cultural data from Willichius’s life which make it simply impossible that he could have spoken with such Graeci in Prussia. Thus Hartknoch concluded with deep skepticism his review of the Greek Theory on Prussian (1684:62): DieĀes alles koԌnte man vielleicht zum Uberfluß wol zugeben / wenn man nur in der alt=PreuĀĀiĀchen Sprach Āolch eine Gleich=heit finden moԌchte. [All this could perhaps be added as superfluous if such an equivalence might be found only in the Old Prussian language]. With these words Hartknoch definitely refuted the linguistic idea that Prussian derives from Greek.

Pietro U. Dini

99

6.2.2. Prätorius: A Less Known Case of 17th-century Reaction. Mattheus Prätorius, a contemporary of Chr. Hartknoch, also dealt with the question of the Greek origin of Prussian in his book Deliciae Prussiace oder Preussischen Schaubühne. As a manuscript this work had a very limited circulation and has not been edited until the present time3. Concerning the idea that Prussian derives from Greek, Prätorius poses at first the problem about the origin of the name Prus and Prussia. He quotes Dugosz (and Miechovita) as supporters of the opinion that this name came to the Baltic together with king Prusias of Bithynia. Nevertheless Prätorius observes that some other authors (like Iustinus Marcus Iunianus, Strabo, Titus Livius) did not agree with this idea and said, on the contrary, that the king of Bithynia never came to Prussia. As for the toponym, Prätorius has his own precise idea. He thinks (cf. Pierson 1871, §11) that the toponym Prussia has its origin in the (alleged) OPr. verb Pruntu and exactly in the future form Prussiu so that its real meaning is ‘I shall understand’. As a matter of fact, this verb is not attested in the OPr. monuments (we just have: issprestun III 113,13 ‘uerĀtehen’, cf. Mažiulis 1981:216); the forms quoted by Prätorius represent rather an East Lithuanian dialect. As for the autority of Jan Dugosz, Prätorius points out how self– contradictory the Polish historian was, since in one passage he supported the idea of the Greek origin of Prussian, but in another passage he stated that (Dugosz 1873–1878:A.D. 997): Unius enim et moris et linguae, cognationis(que) Pruteni, Lithuani et Samagitae fuisse dignoscuntur. Modern Polish (Dugosz 1873–1878:132): Spokrewnieni bowiem midzy sob, podobny mieli jzyk i obyczaje Prusacy, Litwa i mudzini. [Prussians, Lithuanians and Samogitians acknowledge that they are related by the same customs and language]. At this point Prätorius comes to speak about Jodocus Willichius and his alleged linguistic argument. He also (like Hartknoch) is able to advance a good argument against it: it may be that some Prussian word or other is identical to some Greek word or other, but that does not imply that Prussian originally was Greek, or (as Willichius pretends) that Prussian is Greek. Further Prätorius shows that he has correct general ideas about the complexity of a lexicon when he argues that, for any language one could find word similarity with Latin, Greek, Hebrew or other words, both in sounds and in meaning, but this fact does not say anything about the origin of these languages.

100

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Title page of Willichius 1555 In this way Prätorius declares void Willichius’s and other authors’s claim about a Greek origin of the Prussian language based only on the similarity of words (Pierson 1871, §10): Aber diese, sonst Gelahrte Leute, haben mit dieser Meinung an den Tag gegeben, daß Sie nie der Preussischen Sprache sind mächtig gewesen. [But these, otherwise erudite, people have announced the opinion that they never spoke the Prussian language].

Pietro U. Dini

101

6.2.3. Palaeocomparativistic Prussian–Greek Comparisons. Hartknoch and Prätorius are the only two authors who mentioned some concrete comparisons between Prussian and Greek (the examples are given in the same form they have in the original printing, including accents): Hartknoch (1684: 97) Prussian Greek


Prussian

Prätorius (16th book) Greek

Single word
Genna

"#ᄈ


ganna ࿼womenཀྵ


"#ᄈ


Malnicas
Puton ࿼drinkཀྵ
Auklipts
PareyĒey ࿼you will comeཀྵ Manga ࿼prostituteཀྵ


$%'%@ბ\
^_#`
}%'€‚{ ^†‡ˆ‰$‰


Malnicas
Puton – –


$%'%@ბ\
^_#{
– –


Š†%#`#


–


–



mes rikyai aĒmen ჹ$ˆწ\ @‡‰ა‰ ࿼we are lordsཀྵ
჎‹$ˆ#
–
–


–
–


–
–


Mes Rykiei eĒme ࿼we are lordsཀྵ
Stey deĒĒimpts PallapĒœy ࿼theTen Commandmentsཀྵ Stan emnan ࿼The nameཀྵ
Stan lanknan deinan ࿼The holy dayཀྵ

ᄯ$ˆწ\ @‡‰`‰ ჎‹$Œ#
ჾ ‘ˆ@†'``\ ‚ა ᄎ#`$%
‚ᄈ# ჹ$Œ‡%# ‚ხ# ‹%’’†‚{#

Morphological items





Sentences

Ø


Dual Number +

+ Use of Article

–

+

Some general observations are possible. Hartknoch is more interested in lexical items: he gives six Prussian words for the comparison with Greek, while Prätorius gives only three. Prätorius, on the other hand, gives four sentences and Hartknoch only one. Interestingly enough, morphological items have been produced and commented on only by Prätorius. The presence of the dual number both in Prussian and in Greek is admitted by

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

102

Prätorius as a common feature between the two languages, but not the usus articulorum in the Cathechisms. Prätorius considers it rather an AbuĒus performed by the translators (Interpretes) of the Catechisms according to the German model4. Hartknoch (1684: 97) considers also the affinity between Greek and Lithuanian and offers Greek counterparts for those (alleged) Lithuanian words: Pimenos (€`‰$ᄈ#, Œ#`\) ‘shepherd’, eĒtekis (\“@{) [?] ‘roof’, vvieĒzpots (‘ˆ‹€”‚•Dž) ‘lord’, gromata (‡†$$%‚%) ‘letter’. In many cases – according to Hartknoch (1684:102) – it is reasonable to doubt whether the word really derives from Greek and not from another language: Von vielen aber / die man fuԌr GriechiĀch ausgibt / kan man woll mit gutem Fug ŏweiffeln / ob Āie daher oder auß einer andern Sprache kommen. [Concerning many (words) which are assumed to be Greek, it is possible with good reason to doubt if they come from this or from another language]. As a matter of fact Hartknoch is (much more than Prätorius) concerned with invalidating the examples given above and showing the non– affinity between Prussian and Greek; on the contrary he is often inclined to see a possible affinity with Latin (the examples are given in the same form, including accents, they have in the original printing): OPr. item
manga ࿼prostituteཀྵ


Greek Etymon
$†%#`#, i.e. machinamentum "#ᄈ, Л#`$%‰
@‡‰`\


genna, ganna ࿼womenཀྵ
Rykies ࿼lordཀྵ (with variants)
Malnikas ࿼boyཀྵ $%'%@ბ\
(variant Haltnikas at Grunau)
names of numbers, – e.g., ‚Œ‹‹%‡`\
e.g., ketwirtz ࿼4ཀྵ

Hartknoch


Other preferred Etymon –


1684:97–98

Latin geno, genui ‘give birth’ Latin Rex ‘king’
Slav Malenki ࿼littleཀྵ


1679:92; 1684:102
1679:92; 1684:102
1679:99; 1684:104


from Latin, e.g., quatuor [sic] ‘4’

1684:102


A reflection of the linguistic idea that Prussian derives from Greek can also probably be identified in Friedrich Zamelius’ [1590–1647] poem entitled De Galindis ac Sudinis, Carmen, In quo multa de Veteri Lingua Prussica occurrunt. In this Latin text from the beginning of the 17th century, published as additions in the two versions of Chr. Hartknoch’s main works

Pietro U. Dini

103

(cf. Hartknoch 1679:104–108 and 1684:112–114), some Prussian words are written in the Greek alphabet (†##%#, Š%'#ჭ@%#, –‹—, €`ჭ‚`#, ᄑ"@'‰€‚\ / ᄑ"@'‰€˜\, ŠძDž ‡_@"%‰ / ᅶ‰@"%‰ რ‹$ᄇ#; cf. Schaeken 1991). Keeping in mind what I have been saying up to this point, this fact probably represents not merely an affected choice of the author, but Zamelius’s peculiar attempt to join and support the Greek Theory on Prussian. 6.2.4. Later Echoes of the Greek Theory in Pisanski’s works. During the 18th century criticism with respect to the idea that Prussian derives from Greek increased. In his several works G.Ch. Pisanski [1725–1790] considered all previously mentioned authors. Dugosz’s (and Miechovita’s) assumption that Prussians and Greeks spoke two related languages is quickly liquidated by Pisanski (1886:5–6, §2) because, in his view, basing this idea merely on the similarity of some words is not convincing. Beyond that Pisanski observes that such a similarity does not appear in all those cases where one might think it reasonable, and that, where it appears, Russian could also have been the intermediary language (especially in the religious vocabulary). Further, Pisanski (1886:26–27, §20) deals with Willichius’s linguistic ideas and sums up all the possible arguments against the Greek Theory of Prussian (some of them already known from the former scholars): a) Biographic argument. Willichius left Prussia when he was 14 years old and never returned. b) Argument of unlikeliness. Even if the young Willichius was very good in Greek, nevertheless it is doubtful that he could have attained such skill as to be able not only to hold a conversation, but also to judge the relationship between Greek and Prussian. c) Geolinguistic argument. At that time the Prussian speaking community lived near the shores of Baltic Sea (the so–called Sudovian corner; cf. Schmalstieg 1976:14) which is in a place far from that mentioned by Willichius. d) Linguistic argument. If the Prussians really understood the Greek language, then the relationship between the two languages should have been much closer than that between Latin and French, because there is not comprehension between speakers of the two last languages. Further, one finds no similarity (Aehnlichkeit) between Greek and the language attested in the Prussian Catechism. The fact that some isolated Prussian words are similar to the Greek ones may be a recent phenomenon and it does not necessarily demonstrate that in ancient times the Greek language was spoken in Prussia. Finally Pisanski points out that already at the end of the 15th century many young Prussian students attended foreign universities (especially in Italy where the Greek language was much cultivated), and conversely seve-

104

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

ral European scholars visited Prussia. Oddy enough, nobody but Willichius noted the similarity between Prussian and Greek! 6.3. Evaluating the Greek Theory on Prussian within Baltic Palaeocomparativism It is useful to conclude this sketch on the idea that Prussian derives from Greek with an attempt to evaluate the specific place of the Greek Theory on Prussian in the wider context of the history of Baltic linguistics. This is probably the most eccentric theory applied to the Prussian language. Nevertheless it should surprise no one, since the typology of the cultural operation underlying such an appeal is generally known. Thus, during the Renaissance many civilisations traced themselves back to Greece, Rome or to other ancient peoples to give lustre to their origins6. Oddly enough, in this case the operation could not be pursued by the Prussians themselves, but rather by other scholars. Very peculiar is the case of Jodocus Willichius who, considering himself a Prussian, imported and applied the Hellenizing fashion to his own alleged mother–tongue. At that time, however, Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini’s generally negative attitude to the Baltic and especially to the Prussians was very strong in Western Europe (note that the future pope Pius II called them semiferi homines and also Barbara... gens, et idolorum cultrix). As a matter of fact, even if Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini’s works show that he had very little to report about the Prussians and even less about their language, his idea of a Prussia nigra (as one could call it) influenced contemporary scholars about Baltic matters in general and laid heavy on later scholars, too. As a matter of fact the Greek Theory on Prussian had no success. It remained known in the Eastern part of Europe and there too was limited to Prussia. Its echoes for instance in the works of the Swiss Conradus Gessner or of the Italian Angelo Rocca are weak and doubtful. So, one could argue that the Greek Theory on Prussian purported to provide a positive counterweight (without having, however, any real success) to the negative and widespread ideas on Prussia and on the Prussians which had been put into circulation starting with the De situ et origine Pruthenorum (1st ed. about 1450–1456) by Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini. The Greek Theory had no more success during the following centuries. In the 17th century it was annihilated by Hartknoch and Prätorius. Nevertheles s these two authors presented and commented on some specific linguistic comparisons which were not known before. Finally, Pisanskis’s testimony is interesting because it shows the last echo this idea was able to produce. Elaborating the linguistic argument against the Greek Theory on Prussian in an original way, Pisanski himself contributed to its definitive disappearrance.

Chapter Seven The Emergence of a Hebrew Theory The ideas on the Baltic languages during the 16th century concerned first of all their genealogical relations. Some of them deserve here just a rapid mention because they were indeed very limited in space and in time. This is the case of the so–called Hebrew theory on the origin of the Baltic languages, based on a peculiar interpretation of an enigmatic short text. The main supporters of this linguistic idea were three German authors: Johannes Funck, Severin Göbel and Johannes Loewenklau.

Title page of Funck 1552 7.1. Early ideas: Funck, Göbel, Loewenklau Funck [1518-1566] wrote a work reprinted many times, the Chronologia ab orbe condito... [Chronology from the foundation of the world…] whose first part was published in Nürnberg in 1545; the second part in Regio-

106

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

monte Prvssiæ, i.e. Königsberg, in 1552 (the 2nd edition again in Königsberg in 1566, and the 3rd in Wittenberg). In this work Funck did not write directly about languages, but rather about some religious similarities between the Jews and the Sudovians (Prussians) of the Semba (Samland) which gave him reason to affirm that the latter originated from the Jews or Israelites (cf. Funck 1552; facts of the year 1217): quidam putant, huius populi originem a Iudeis, uel ab Israelitis [some think that the origin of this people is from the Jews or from the Israelites]. It is probable (although not sure) that Funck took this idea from Andreas Osiander [1498–1552], the great reformer in Prussia (cf. Seebaß 1994). The opinions of Severin Göbel, both the Young [1530-1612]; the and the Old [1569–1627], are presented in a book on amber, De Succino Libri Duo [The two books on Amber] (Zürich, 1565), and even better in the later translation–rewriting of the same book in German, Einfeltiger Jedoch grundtlicher Bericht vnd Bedencken, Vom vrĀprung des Agadt oder Bornsteins… (Königsberg, 1616) [Simple, nevertheless complete report and thoughts about the origin of Agat or Amber]. In these works Göbel maintains that the Sudovians were of Jewish origin. The following passage is important (Göbel 1616, s.n.): Dann weil ie an der Sehekanten wohnen / vnd den halßtarrigen orth an ich gehabt haben / welche halßtarrigkeit von der Heiligen Schrifft / ont den Juden beygelegt / hat mancher erachtet / es wuerden endtlich die Leutlein / nach der erchrocklichen ertorung Jerualem / da viel Juden auff die Schieff geflogen vnd von den Winden hin vnd wider verchlagen worden / etliche von den vberrbliebenen / an diee orth Landes angetrieben ein / vnd aldo in jhren Ficherbudlein jhre narung geucht / Jn onderheit weil ie noch in jhrem alten Claglied den namen Jeru Jeru / als Jerualem offt widerholen vnd kleglich ingen / aber dß it noch ein vngruntlicher beweis / ... [Then because they lived on the shore of the sea, and they obtained the obstinacy of the place, which obstinacy in the Holy Scripture is attributed to the Jews, otherwise somebody has thought that finally these peoples after the frightening destruction of Jerusalem, when many Jews escaped by ship and were scattered by the wind, several of the survivors arrived at this place, and there looked for food in their little fisherhouses. In particular because in their old lamentation the name Jeru Jeru as in Jerusalem is often repeated and sung in lamentation, although this is not yet a certain proof…].

Pietro U. Dini

107

Thus, Göbel thought – and this idea was widespread at that time – that the Sudovians had reached the shores of the Baltic Sea after the destruction of Jerusalem. From the passage quoted it is clear that Göbel based his concept on two simple arguments: a) the Sudovians like the Jews are a very obstinate people, and b) both of them in their lamentations repeat the refrain . One finds this enigmatic short text for the first time in Göbels’s work. The same author explains it as the beginning of the word ‘Jerusalem’, and as a sort of recolletion of their ancient and lost homeland. More or less in these same years another German author, Johannes Loewenklau [ca. 1541–ca. 1594], had similar ideas. His testimony is important because he offered a larger variant of the text of the lamentation. Loewenklau wrote in Latin a famous work on Turkish history, the Annales Sultanorum Othmanidarum, published in Frankfurt on the Main in 1588. Two years later this work was translated into German and published in the same place with the title Neuwe Chronica Tuerckischer nation (1590). A passage from the third book (Pandecte) is very interesting for the present purpose. Here Loewenklau recalls a personal remembrance from his youth when he traveled to Riga to visit his relatives, and he writes that the periphery of the big city was inhabited by three pagan peoples. This is the passage (Loewenklau 1588:229-230): in huius ergo Rigæ vicinia, nationem quamdam ee barbaram Lettorum, a ceteris Liuoniæ barbaris incolis, Curonibus & Etonibus, lingua plane dicrepantem... [in the vicinity of Riga there is the barbarian people of the Latvians, whose language is different from that of the other barbarian people of Livonia, i.e. the Curonians and the Estonians...] The same passage is given in German (Loewenklau 1590:182): Jn dieer Statt Riga Gegnet hervmb hab ich damals ein vnteutche Nation gespurt / die Letten genañt / so mit andern vnteutchen Einwohnern deß Eifflands / als Curen vnd Eten / gant und gar kein Gemeinchafft der Spraach haben / vnd können auch von jnhen nicht vernomen werden... This is the picture of the language situation in the vicinity of Riga at the end of the 16th century given by Loewenklau. At the centre of the traveler’s attention there was the pagan people of the Latvian (Latin barbara natio, German vnteut che Nation). He showed that the Latvian language was different from the languages used by the other pagan peoples in Livonia (Latin Liuonia, German Eiffland), that is to say different from the language spoken by Curionians and Estonians (Latin ceteres barbarae incolae; German Andere vnteut che Einwohner).

108

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

The linguistic difference is described by Loewenklau in the following way. He says in Latin that the Latvians speak plane di crepantes, and in German that with the other peoples they gant vnd gar kein Gemein chafft der Spraach haben. After this description the traveler Loewenklau tells what he personally saw and heard (Loewenklau 1588:230): [Letti] qui perpetuo in ore quai lamentationem quamdam habent, quam vociferando per agros adiduo repetunt. Ieru Ieru Maco Lon. Quibus verbis Ierualem & Damacum intelligere creduntur, ceterarum in antiqua patria rerum, tota æculis, & in remotiimis ab ea olitudinibus, obliti. [(The Latvians) who always have in their mouth almost a sort of lamentation, which they assiduously repeat while working in the fields. Ieru Ieru Ma co Lon. They believe that they see in these words (the names of) Jerusalem and Damascus, and are oblivious to other things in their ancient homeland since they have been very far from those lands for many centuries.] This is the first time one finds the short enigmatic text . It is helpful to consider also the more detailed German version (Loewenklau 1590:182): Diee Letten haben fur vnd fur / was ie auch jmmer vorhaben vnd verrichten / gleich als ein klaglichs Gechrey im Maul / vnd widerholens bevorab im Feld ohn vnterlaß: Jeru / Jeru / Macolon. Vnnd man halt dafur / sie vertehen durch gemeldte Wort die Statt Jerualem vnd Damaco / deren Namen ie allein von o langer zeit hero behalten / vnd anderer Sachen in jhrem alten Vatterland durchauß vergeen / bevorab in o ferne davon abgelegenen Wildtnuen. It is possible to render the content of this passage in the following way. Basing himself on his personal experience the author indicates that the pagan Latvians, during their work in the fields (Latin per agros, German im Feld) cried out (Lat. vociferando ad iduo) or more contemptuously “had in their beak” (German haben... im Maul) always the same lamentation (Latin lamentatio, German klagichs Ge chrey) which they repeated without ceasing (Latin repetunt, German widerholens... ohn vnterlaß). This enigmatic short text, attested in some different variants (e.g. , ) has not yet been explained in a satisfactory way.

Pietro U. Dini

109

Title page of Loewenklau 1587

7.2. Other Interpretations (after the 16th century) After the 16th century many authors mentioned and commented on the short and enigmatic text. During the 17th century Christian Hartknoch [1644-1687], Johannes Behm [1578-1648] and others with slight variations all shared the Hebrew Theory. In this regard one must also mention several scholars in Livonia: Friederich Menius [1593-1659] accepted the Hebrew origin for Livonia’s ancient inhabitants; Christian Kelch [1657-1710] rejected it, and considered the lamentation an Estonian popular song; also Olaus Hermelin [1658-1709] was rather skeptical with regard to the Hebrew theory and preferred the Latin Theory (see Chapter Four); according to Dionysius Fabricius [17th c.] it was a song of the Livonian peasant to earn the favour of the spirits of the forest. Here I shall limit myself to present the investigations of the three following authors: Mattheus Praetorius [?1635-?1707] in his work Deliciae Prussicae oder Preu i che Schaubühne (about 1690), Philip Ruhig [Rui-

110

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

gys, 1675–1749] in his treatise Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache (Königsberg, 1745; Lith. ed. 1986) and Xavier Bogusz [Bohusz, 1746–1820] in his book O pocztkach narodu i j zyka litewskiego (Warsaw, 1808). These scholars interpreted the text differently, but no one of them related it to Jerusalem or Damascus. It means that they rejected the idea of the Hebrew origin of the singing pagan peoples and a new point of view stood out which linked the text either with drinking or with the Muscovites, or with both of them. Interestingly enough, the interpretation of the first repeated segment determined different explanations of the whole text. Generally speaking, two opinions dominated. According to the first, one read the segment as geriù, geriù “I drink” (inf. gérti “to drink”), or as giriù, giriù “I praise” (inf. gìrti “to praise”). Praetorius attributed the text to the Prussians and rejected any ties with the Jews. He was inclined to explain as geriù, 1st P. Sg. from gérti “to drink” (which is, however, Lithuanian); in his mind the Prussians while working in the fields would have rather thought about drinking than about Jerusalem. Ph. Ruhig proposed two different explanations also based on Lithuanian. In one case he wanted to relate the segment mentioned with drinking (Lith. gérti) like: Giriau, giriau, pa ilink minnojau “I drank, I drank and I had good time»1; in another case he preferred the link with praising (Lith. gìrti), that is: Girriù, girriù Ma kolu “I praise, I praise the Muscovites”, and he gave the text a political connotation (“von einer Liebe zur Rußischen Herrchaft”, cf. Ruhig 1745, p. 9). Now one has to observe that the first explanation is very weak, because the word was inserted into the text by Ruhig himself without any support in the sources. He later perhaps understood the inadequacy of his proposal and therefore suggested reading the last word of the text as i.e. Lith. Gen. Pl. maskoli “(of) the Muscovites”. In such a way the political interpretation of the short enigmatic text probably originated. Still at the beginning of the 19th century X. Bohusz continued in the line of a political interpretation, but explained the text in a original way by inserting a new word: Gieriau, Gieriau, szalin Maskoley “I drank, I drank down with the Muscovites”, which was rendered into Polish as: “Piem, i pii, precz mi Moale na stron”. Besides, it is well known – as demonstrated by Karowiczius (1875) and by Maci™nas (1937) – that Bohusz did not know the Lithuanian language and that he based his interpretation on Ruhig’s data. 7.3. New Interpretation I consider it neither bizarre nor unreasonable to interpret the short enigmatic text using Lithuanian data. As a matter of fact, a) the attempts to

Pietro U. Dini

111

explain the text basd on another language (Latvian, Estonian, Hebrew) did not give any positive result, and b) Lithuanian (among other languages) was really used in Livonia in the second half of the 16th century; in this regard it is appropriate to quote a passage from the Kronika, tho ie th Hi torya Swiátá na ße wiekow (published in Cracow 1551, 1554, 1564) by Marcin Bielski: ießc e y d i tám ieth tary Narod Litewki po Wiach [still today there (i.e in Livonia) is the old Lithuanian people in the villages]. The repeated words at the beginning of the text may be understood as accomplishing a conative function. Therefore one could explain them as connected to the Lithuanian exclamation jrus (an assimilated loanword from German Herr “Sir”) which in the text lost the final –s. Another possibility could be to recall the esclamation jrau or the like (i.e. Lith. jergau and jergutas  cf. German Herr Gott “Sir Lord” with diminutive forms: jergutalis, jerguteliau, jergutãliau, and also jergumano; cf. LKŽ IV 340-342). The second part of the short enigmatic text is differently registered in the sources, sometimes it is written as one word (e.g. or the like) and sometimes as two separated words ( or and or and others). As a matter of fact none of the extant writings may be considered the right one. The German traveler probably heard a certain stream of sounds and wrote it down any way he could, and the other (later) authors could easily have copied the text in various ways. I would rather be inclined to distinguish two lexical units. The first one may conceal an imperativ form: mèsk “throw!”, cf. Inf. mèsti (rather than the also possible nèšk “carry!”, cf. inf. nèšti, because this would imply the conjecture = []). The second one could be something like [š:lõ], which phonetically recall the word for “beer”, cf. Lith. Acc. Sg. al (Nom. Sg. alus). It is not inconsistent to imagine a situation in which beer is thrown. One has to keep in mind the fact that in ancient Lithuania beer was especially brewed and consumed after sowing or hay time; on these occasions a ritual beer was prepared (cf. Dundulien 1982, 178 and 1991, 312). At that time the beer was kept in casks and in small barrels (Lith. statinaits), so that it should not be too difficult to imagine that Loewenklau’s passage portrays a situational context in which the use of casks and small barrels is implied. I finally propose, basing myself on the data of the Lithuanian language, to solve and understand the enigmatic text in the following way: Pone “Sir! ~ My Lord!” mesk “throw!” [~ nešk “carry!”] al “beer” = “a barrel of beer”.

112

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Interestingly enough, such a request for beer, with the same semantic and phrase structure, is attested also in the Gaulish inscriptions: NATA VIMPI CVRMI DA rendered in French as “Fille belle, donne(-moi) de la cervoise [O beautiful girl, give (me) beer]” (cf. Lambert 1997, 123). In my opinion this explanation may well represent the scenario described by Loewenklau, and is anyway better than the previous explanations. It seems quite plausible that the serfs asked for beer from their Lord or supervisor while working in the fields. If all this is at least acceptable, the text completely loses any spiritual-religious connotation. It is not a lamentation for the lost homeland, and it is not even a praise or a denigration of the Muscovites. On the contrary, it is a text belonging to the genre of the potatoria (by the way, similar to the Old Prussian Trace of Basel2).

Chapter Eight Marcin Bielski’s ideas on the Lithuanian Marcin Bielski’s [ca. 1495–1575] monumental work Kronika. tho ieĒth/ HiĒtorya Swiátá na ße wiekow/ á cТterŠy Monárchie/ roŠdzielona... (Cracow, 1551, 1554, 1564), written in Polish, belongs to the tradition of Polish humanists such as Jan Dugosz, Maciej z Miechowa (Miechovita), Biernat Wapowski [ca. 1450–1535], Ludwik Decius, and served as a model for the following generation of Polish historians such as Maciej Strykowski, Jan Krasiski and other (cf. Krzyanowski 1986: 125–129). The third edition, enlarged and corrected, of the Kronika of the Polish historian (cf. Chrzanowski 1926, 1936) contains some material about the Baltic regions, peoples and also the Baltic languages. In particular Chrzanowski (1926:52) established that these parts of the book were absent from the two previous editions. According to the principle that for Baltic linguistic historiography of the paleocomparativism period it is useful to minimize the separation between ‘data’ (real knowledge of the languages) and ‘theory’ (the ideas about those languages) and that it is often advantageous to organize the research as ‘theory and data–oriented’ (see 1.3.2; cf. Aut. 1998), I shall say that in Bielski’s Kronika there are several Lithuanian linguistic data, anyway more than generally believed until now. For the sake of precision: in addition to the sentence ‘discovered’ by Sigitas Narbutas (1994) one must now include also at least three lexical items not previously observed: , , (cf. Aut. 2000). These linguistic data observed in Bielski constitute a small part of the more general problem concerning the existence of (still unknown or no longer extant) Lithuanian (hand)written texts of the 16th century. In this chapter, however, I shall focus on Bielski’ ideas on the Lithuanian language. 8.1. Diachrony Bielski dealt especially with Lithuanians and their history in two parts of his work: O Litwie (LiĀt 358v–359r) and RoŠdŠ༼ielenie DŠ༼ieĒite o Litwie (LiĀt 436v–437r), but a small amount of information is also given elsewhere in the Kronika. In the chapter O Litwie Bielski asserts that he shares the idea of those historians who thought that the Lithuanians came from Northern Europe and derived from the people called Gepids:

114

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics LJthewĀki narod ŏ dawná poßed ŏ ŏamorĀkich krain / morŏá punocnego ŏ ludŏi tych ktore hiĀtorykowie ŏow Gepide. [The Lithuanian people in very old times came from the shores overseas of the northern sea from those peoples, whom the historians call Gepids].

Following the peoples related to them the Gepids also sailed to Prussia: á bowiem bdcŏ Gepidy iednego rodŏáiu / nie rychlo ŏá Āwemi ŏ okrty do Prus prŏyignli [and even if the Gepids were not of the same stock, they did not come to Prussia with their ships quickly for their own people] and here they split into five groups which went in different directions: some of them wandered through the continent: bo iuŏ༿ ŏ Gotty wyßli byi ŏ Prus do Wgier / ŏ Wgier do Fránciey potym do Hißpániey. Oni tuajc Āie nad morŏem ŏá Āwemi i nie mieli / ie máic Āußney Āpráwy. [because they had already left Gotta, they left Prussia for Hungary, and Hungary for France and after that for Spain. While wandering at the seaside they did not dare to go for (their) people having no just cause for this]. Some others remained in Prussia and fought against the Crusaders: A tak niektorŏy Ānich w PruĀiech ŏoĀtali / ŏ ktoremi Krŏyŏ༿acy dugo cŏ༿ynili [And so some of them remained in Prussia, and the Crusaders had conflicts for a long time]; still others settled down in Samogetia and Livonia: Niektorŏy w puĀtyniách nad morŏem oĀiedli gdŏie dŏi Ćmodŏ༿ y Liwlai [Still others settled down in the deserts near to the sea where today is Samogetia and Livonia]. Another group, the Poowcy, went southwards, and finally a last group, the Jatvingians, went to the west: Niektorŏy ku poudniowi poßli iako Poowcy. Niektorŏy ku ŏachodowi iako Jáwiegowie

Pietro U. Dini

115

[Another group, as the Poowcy, went southwards. And finally a last group, as the Jatvingians, went to the west]. In the chapter RoŠdŠ༼ielenie DŠ༼ieĒi te o Litwie, Bielski is at first less sure concerning the provenance of the Lithuanians: Ākd poßli ŏ dawná o tym piĀma niemamy / wßakŏŢe ile moŏŢem roŏumie wedug imion. Poßli od Morŏá gdŏŢie dŏŢi Liwlani / Finlándy / Swedowie / Ākd teŏŢ y Gotowie wyßli / nie ŏ Woch iako drudŏy piĀali / ále ŏ wyĀpow... [Whence (they) came in antiquity we do not have any writings about it, except for what we can understand from the names. They came from the sea where today live Livonian, Finns, Swedes, whence came also the Goths, and not from Italy as others wrote, but from the islands]. Thus, on the one hand he underlines the lack of documents on this subject and on the other hand he says that it is possible to learn more about the ancient times from the names. It is a pity that Bielski only noted the correct method but did not apply this onomastic argument thoroughly. After that he repeated once more the opinion which he had already asserted, according to which the Lithuanians came from Northern Europe, and in no way from Italy. 8.2. Synchrony In the same chapter O Litwie, Bielski proposes that even the contemporary linguistic situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the result of a mixture between stocks and languages, and precisely a mixture of those Lithuanians who established themselves in their historical places with the Russians (A gdy w tych kraioch oĒiedli gdŠie dŠi Ē / pomießali narod y mow Š RuĒi). It turns out that those (groups of) Lithuanians are no longer able to understand the other groups (thak iŠ༼ iuŠ༼ drudŠy Ēobie mao roŠumiei). In this way Bielski explained the large diffusion of ruski in the multiethnic Lithuanian polity. On the other hand he understood the way of speaking of the Samogitians and the Curonians compared with that of the Lithuanians and the Jatwingians rather as variation (Odmiennie mowi ėmodŠinowie / thak teŠ༼ kurowie / niŠ༼ Litwá álbo JawieĒse), and not as a difference between languages. Chrzanowski (1926:123) already pointed out that Bielski did not feel any particular sympathy with the Lithuanian nation and even gave some evidence of his negative attitude towards it (cf. Chrzanowski 1926:123):

116

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics Do Litwinów nie ma szczególnego pocigu, i jako nie bardzo chce mu si wierzy ‘naszym kronikarzom’, którzy ‘domniwali si ich naród wyni z Woch’, bo, raz, o tem ‘pisma nigdziej niemasz’, a powtóre obyczaj z przyrodzenim tego nie ukazuj do nich...1

As a matter of fact at the end of the chapter O Litwie (LiĀt 359a) Bielski quotes (after Ptolomeus) the opinion of some contemporary Polish historians (Naßy kronikarŠe) with no other purpose than to give a critical appraisal of their ideas on the Roman origin of the Lithuanians. A similar criticism on this same topic comes from the chapter RoŠdŠ༼ielenie DŠ༼ieĒi te o Litwie (X:436b–437a), and from the following RoŠdŠ༼ielenie JedennaĒte o Liwlánckiey Š༼iemi (X:437a–438a) as well. Bielski considered the Roman origin of the Lithuanians as being without any real foundation because there is no documentary evidence of this (o cŠ༼ym piĒmá nigdŠiey nie maß); nor is there any evidence of the people’s original native customs (áni obycŠ༼ay Š prŠyrodŠenim thego nie vkáŠui do nich). Basing himself on these two main arguments Bielski also considered the Latin Theory of the origin of the Lithuanian language just an ungrounded rumor: LitewĀkiey mowy wiádomiĀmy wßyĀcy / á iáko powiedái ŏ༿eby Āie ŏgadŏálá ŏ LáiĀk / nieŏda mi Āie... [All of us have a certain conception of the Lithuanian language (mowa), but it does not seem to me, as someone has said, that there is agreement with the Latin language]. Bielski’s point of view is clear: All of us have a certain conception of the Lithuanian language (mowa), therefore it seems to him to be just an idle story – as some people nevertheless claim – that Lithuanian is closely connected to Latin. Chrzanowski (1926:107–113) has also thoroughly investigated Bielski’s sources and his use of them. He stated that from 1380 to 1506 (i.e. for the years concerning Lithuania) Bielski based his knowledge on Miechovita. This aspect is quite interesting: it shows us how independent Bielski was in his linguistic ideas and also how he needs to be understood in the context of the other major palaeocomparativistic theories about Lithuanian circulating in the same period. The fact that no trace of the so–called Theory of the Linguagium Quadripartitum is to be found in Bielski’s work must be considered. There is no doubt that Bielski knew this peculiar Theory about the Lithuanian language but he intentionally avoided mention of it in the Kronika because his acceptance of Miechovita’s linguistic ideas on Lithuanian would have

Pietro U. Dini

117

implied also the acceptance of the Latin Theory about Lithuanians and their language. 8.3. Conclusions Some general conclusions may be drawn concerning both the linguistic data and Bielski’s own linguistic ideas: a) Interestingly enough, in the 3rd edition of his Kronika, Bielski added Lithuanian lexical material which was unknown in the previous edition (e.g. the word for “bread”; see 1.1.2.). b) Bielski’s skepticism concerning the Latin Theory of Lithuanian is total and uncompromising in his work. In order not to give any credence to this theory Bielski even omitted reference to his main source, Miechovita, in this matter.

Chapter Nine The Disappearance of the Baltic languages in Edward Brerewood’s Enqvireies (1614) In the history of older Baltic philology a book by Edward Brerewood can claim a special position, if only as a result of the fact that in the description of the languages of Europe (even within the Illyrian and Slavic groups) there is no mention of the Baltic languages. Edward Brerewood was not a linguistic scientist, i.e. not even in the meaning of this word in his time, but a famous mathematician and astronomer; he was however interested both in antiquity and in problems of linguistics.1 “He loved solitude” – one reads in Jöder (cf. Jöchers 1960:1354– 1355) –, “and let nothing distract him from his mathematical and philological meditation, or from his research into antiquities. He wrote much, but published very little and almost everything now extant from his work was edited after his death by his son Robert. Such was also the fate of the book the 1st edition of which appeared in 1614 and is discussed in this chapter. The entire front page is reproduced below: ENQVIREIES TOVCHING the diverĀity of LANGVAGES, and RELIGIONS, through the chiefe parts of the World. Written by Edvv. Brerevvood lately profeĀĀour of AstronomyI in GreĒham Colledge in London. LONDON, Printed by Iohn Norton, for Ioyce Norton, and Richard Whitaker, at the Kings Armes in St. Pauls Churchyard. Brerewood’s work has been published several times. One recalls at least the following editions in English (London 1614, 1622, 1635, 1647), a French translation by J. de la Montagne (Recherches sur la diversité des langues et des religions dans les principales parties du monde, I, Paris, 1640; II. Paris, 1662; III. Varennes, 1667) a German and a Latin one by J. Johnston (Scrutinium religionum et linguarum, 1650; Frankfurt, 1659; 1670 not complete). 9.1. Description of the languages On pages 21–22 one finds a description of the languages of Europe to which Giuliano Bonfante (1955:224–227) was the first to direct his attention and which is presented again here:

120

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics FirĀt, therefore, there is certainely obĀerved, that there are at this day, fourteene mother tongues in Europe (beside the Latine) which remaine, not onely not aboliĀhed, but little or nothing altered, or impayred by the Romans. And thoĀe are the 1 IriĒh, spoken in Ireland, & a good part of Scotland: the 2 BrittiĒh in Wales, Cornewaile, and Brittaine of France: the 3 Cantabrian neere the Ocean, about the Pyrene hils, both in France, and Spaine: the 4 Arabique, in the Āteepy mountaines of Granata, named Alpuxarras: the 5 Finnique, in Finland, and Lapland: the 6 Dutch, in Germany, Belgia, Denmarke, Norwey, and Suedia: the 7 old Cauchian, (I take it to be that, for in that part the Chauci inhabited) in East FriĒland, for although to Ātrangers they Āpeake Dutch, yet among themĀelves they uĀe a peculiar language of their owne: the 8 SlauoniĒh, in Polonia, Bohemia, MoĒcouia, Rußia, and many other regions, (whereof I will after intreate in due place) although with notable difference of dialect, as alĀo the BrittiĒh, and Dutch, in the countries mentioned have: the old 9 Illyrian, in the Ile of Veggia, on the EaĀt Āide of IĒtria in the bay of Liburnia: the 10 Greeke, in Greece, and the Ilands about it, and a part of Macedon, and of Thrace: the old 11 Epirotique in the mountaine of Epirus: the 12 Hungarian in the greateĀt part of that Kingdome: the 13 Iazygian, in the North side of Hungaria betwixt Danubius, & TibiĒcus, utterly differing from the Hungarian language: And laĀtly, the 14 Tartarian, of the PrecopenĒes, betweene the river of Tanais, and BoryĒthenes, neere Mæotis and the Euxine Āea, for, of the EngliĒh, Italian, SpaniĒh, and French, as being derivations, or rather degenerations, the firĀt of the Dutch, and the other three of the Latine, Āeeing I now Āpeake onely of originall or mother languages, I muĀt be Āilent: And of all theĀe fourteene it is certaine, except the Arabique, which is knowne to have entred Āince, and perhaps the Hungarian, about which there is difference among Antiquaries, that they were in Europe in time of the Roman Empire, and Āixe or Āeuen of them, within the limits of the Empire.

Among other items, Bonfante notes also the absence of the Baltic languages, which however, he says, should not be surprising, because European scholars had ignored them for a long time (cf. Bonfante 1955:227: “...quella [i.e the absence] delle lingue baltiche sorprende poco, perché gli studiosi europei le hanno ignorate a lungo”). And because, one can add, the sources used for this part by Brerewood had not acknowledged the Baltic language.2 What is otherwise remarkable at first sight in this description is the role of the Illyrian language because it differs signifycantly from the concept of this language branch made by other contemporary writers (see Chapter Three).

Pietro U. Dini

121

In fact Brerewood uses the term “Illyrian” in a quite peculiar way: he even includes the Veglia language and considers it as an independent branch. It is remarkable that Bonfante (1955: 225) as well has underlined the peculiarity of Brerewood’s linguistic conception of Illyrian emphatically. If one considers this peculiarity of the concept of Illyrian in Brerewood and his disregard of the languages of the Baltic people in the same work, than one might ask, to what extent these facts may be related. 9.2. Comment As the book by Brerewood seems to be important, especially for the Baltic languages, more for what it does not say, than for what one can learn from it, one should examine whether in fact no hint of the Baltic people can be found in it. As already said, Brerewood’s notion of Illyrian is quite original, therefore at first his concept of the Slavic languages should be analysed, because in this period the Baltic languages were often considered as being Slavic languages. Thus Brerewood writes the following about Slavic: Many are the Nations that have for their vulgar language the SlavoniĒh tongue in Europe, and Āome in AĒia. Among which the principall in Europe, are the Slavonians themĀselves, inhabiting Dalmatia, and Liburnia. The WeĀt Macedonians, the Epirotes, the BoĒinates, Servians, RaĒcians, Bulgarians, Moldavians, Podolians, Rußians, MuĒcovites, Bohemians, Polonians, SileĒians. And in AĒia the Circaßians, Mengrellians, and Gazarites. TheĀe I Āay are the principall but they are not all: for GeĒner and Roccha reckon up the names of 60 Nations, that have the Slavonian tongue for their vulgar language. What is now really surprising is the fact that although Brerewood refers to the works of Gessner (1555) and Rocca (1591), he differs substantially from them as well. As we know, Gessner and to a certain extent also his successor Rocca had classed the language of the Prussians, the Lithuanians, the Livonians (Latvians), the Curonians and Samogitians as Illyrian. One may ask at this point, if it is possible that Brerewood had any knowledge of the Baltic peoples and their languages. In respect of the two themes in the title of the book, one should not neglect the chapter on religion, because exactly there some short notes appear on the pagan Balts. As a matter of fact one and exactly the same short description of the Moslems in Lithuania is repeated twice word for word and this in chapter X:66–79, Of the sundry parts of the world inhabited by Christians:

122

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics ALL Europe is poĀĀeĀĀed by ChriĒtians, except the utmost corners of it, toward the EaĀt, and the North for the Āmall company of Mahumetans, inhabiting their peculiar villages about Wilna in Litunia [sic], or the Ācattered remnants of Idolaters, in the Āame Province, and in Samogitia, are not worthy mentioning.

And in chapter XI:79–86, Of the parts of the world poĒĒeĒĒed by Mahumetans: Mahumetans then poĀĀeĀĀe in Europe, as I Āaid before... all the region betwixt Tanais, and BoriĒthenes... beĀide Āome villages in Lituania about Wilna, where the uĀe of their religion is by the King of Poland permitted them... Hardly different is the citation in the following chapter XII:86–91, Of the Ēundry parts of the World inhabited by Idolaters where the pagans are discussed: BeĀide which Provinces, there are alĀo to be found in divers places of Lutuania [sic] and Samagotia [sic], Āome Ācattered remnants of Idolaters. Furthermore one finds in the preface of this book a couple of less important short mentions i.e. Lituania and Livonia (7); Lituania and BoruĒĒia (10); PruĒĒia (13). Therafter only Lituania is mentioned, first within the list of countries where Jews were resettled in masses (93), secondly when it tells about temples of the Orthodox (Greek religion) which can be found in Wilna (the metropolis of Lituania) (138). 9.3. Conclusion Although the scarcity of information is evident, there is no doubt that the Baltic people were known to Brerewood. Moreover one should observe that in chapters X., XI. and XII. his source was Miechovita (De Sarmatia, l. 2. c. 3.), for the region of Vilnius, and for Sambia Johann Bohmus (Beem., De Morib. gent. l. 3, c. 7.)3 together with Johann Boterus (Boter., Relat. p. 3, l. I, c Litunia [sic])4, for the pagan Idolaters, authors (especially Miechovita) who had reported in their works detailed information about the languages of the Baltic people in their times. Thus the disregard of the languages of the Baltic people in this book becomes more understandable. It is possible that the new conception of Illyrian deprived the Baltic languages of a space in this book.

Chapter Ten Concluding Remarks: Was there a Baltistics before Baltistics? In the previous parts of this book I tried to focus not only on linguistic ideas but also on textual connections and on relations among various authors, that is, in general, on the cultural history of my theme. At this point I will try to draw some general conclusions and present a synopsis of the main inguistic theories and the mutual dynamic among them. The general situation may be represented in this way: —————————————————————————————— Authors Theories &Variants Developments —————————————————————————————— 1) Western Central Europe Æ.S. Piccolomini Volaterranus S. Münster et al.

  

Slav Theory  Scytho-Illyrian (17th c.) sermo semidalmaticus — ut Polonis —

Swiss Philoglots



Illyrian Theory

Polish humanists



Sarmatian Myth

 Embryo Blt.–Sl. Hypoth.  cultural Sarmatisms

—————————————————————————————— 2) Eastern Central Europe Jan Dugosz Vilnius’s Latinizers

  

German human.



J. Loewenklau J. Willichius

 

Latin Theory Semi–Latin Variant Neo–Latin Variant

 Diachronic Thought  // Biondo Flavio W–Eu.

Wallachian Connection  Basanaviius’s ideas Hebrew Theory Greek Theory

 No followers  Old Prussian only

—————————————————————————————— 3) Eastern Central Europe – Western Central Europe Miechovita



Quadripartite Theory (its wrong reception)

 Hervás End of 18th c.

—————————————————————————————— The Hebrew Theory (see Chapter Seven) circulated mainly in Western Central Europe and remained quite marginal. Also the so–called

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

124

Greek Theory concerned solely the Prussian language (see Chapter Six) and was indeed rather an episode localized in only one author, although significant for the general Hellenizing tendency in Europe during this period (cf. Tavoni 1990a:216–233; Demonet 1992). 10.1. Synopsis of the Slav Theory and of the Illyrian Theory The relationship between the Slav Theory and the Illyrian Theory was characterized by circularity and fusion (as shown by the simple scheme reproduced above). Another way to illustrate this situation is given below:

Variations —————— Authors Piccolomini Sabellicus Bergamus Volaterranus Cochlaeus Boemus Münster Krantz Gessner Bizzarrus D’Anania Wapowski Rocca Ortelius Megiser

a) Sermo Sermo ut Sclauo- Polonis nicus Schlauonicus + + + + +? + + + + + + + + + + +

c1 ) b) c2 ) Sermo Illyrian Sarma Semidal- Theory maticus tian Myth

+

c3 ) Vandalic idea

+?

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+

+

The investigation of the above mentioned works has shown that a certain knowledge about the Baltic languages (especially Prussian) was circulating already during the early Renaissance, and that the general tendency was to ascribe these languages to the Slav linguistic family The first and the second columns in the table manifest the persistence, although with various transformations, of the Slav Theory, whose most popular variatio was ut Polonicus. Other concepts such as the Sarmatian Myth or the so–called Vandalic idea, which indeed remained limited to a few of authors (the first one to the Polish historians of the

Pietro U. Dini

125

Grand Duchy, and the second one mainly to German authors) also referred to the Slav theory.

The relation between Slav Theory and the Illyrian Theory may be summed up in the following points: a) Although in the works of Volaterranus and Jovius at the beginning of the 16th century it is already possible to observe a convergence between the concepts of the Illyrian and the Slav theories, these two authors did not develop their own linguistic idea, and did not espouse a real Illyrian Theory. b) A real Illyrian Theory was to appear only later in the second half of the 16th century with the works of the so–called Philoglots from Zürich. Especially Conrad Gessner (1555) developed the Illyrian idea into a linguistic theory (the Illyrian Theory) according to which the Baltic languages occupied a place close to the Slavic languages. Gessner’s linguistic idea was supported by Angelo Rocca (1591). c) The classifications of languages proposed by Hieronymus Megiser (1603) and Johann Alsted (1624), however, showed a sort of collision between the two theories; the primacy of the Slav Theory in their works was a step backwards in the comprehension of the Baltic languages as an autonomous linguistic group, that is to say compared to the conception previously expressed by Gessner. d) As a matter of fact, Megiser and Alsted accepted the linguistic ideas already expressed by Æeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (middle of the 15th century), and classified the Baltic languages tout court within the Slav family. Summing up, one may say that the Illyrian Theory of the Baltic languages was conceived at the beginning of the 16th century in the works of Volaterranus and Jovius, obtained a certain prestige during the second

126

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

half of the 16th century especially in the works of Gessner and Rocca, but was soon assimilated into the stronger and older Slav Theory (cf. Piccolomini), especially in the works of Megiser and Alsted, which had appeared already in the first half of the 17th century. 10.2. Synopsis of the Latin Theory and its Variants As for the Roman Origin Myth of the Lithuanians one must first of all observe that during the 16th century it remained unknown in Italy. Instead it found a place within the Quadripartite Theory (see below and Chapter Five), and in the works circulating in Eastern Central Europe; it is not surprising that this myth persisted primarily in the Lithuanian–Ruthenian, and generally Eastern Slavic, area. Latin Theory and its Variants

During the 16th century debate there were several variants of the Latin Theory: the Semi–Latin, the Neo–Latin, and the so–called Wallachian Connection. The first two variants were known mainly among Lithuanian and Polish humanists, the latter first of all in the German humanistic milieu. The common feature of all these variants was the recognition of both a theoretical and historical similarity or identity of Latin and Lithuanian, and

Pietro U. Dini

127

the apparent differences between the two languages were explained by the widespread ‘Corruption Theory’. Such a similarity or identity was, however, differently contextualized, i.e., all the variants of the Latin Theory recalled the Roman Origin Myth, but related it to different historical epochs and/or events. The situation is the following:

Years 1517 1521 1550 1550 1555 1615 1553 1555 1567 1569 1571 1576 1577 1582 1585 1585 1591

Variants ——————— Authors

a) Roman Semi– Origin Latin Myth lang. Miechovita + Decius + Bibliander + Münster (many eds) + Cromerus + Michalus Lituanus + + Agrippa + Gessner + Jovius + Peucer Cureus Rotundus + + Strubycz Stryjkowski + + Sarnicki Pirckheimer Rocca

b) Neo– Latin lang.

c) Wallachian Connection

+ +

+ + + +

One may observe that the myth of the Roman origin of the Lithuanians as a people is still mentioned in the historical works of Maciej Stryjkowski [1547–1597]. In his Kronika (1582 = 1846:48–49 and 75–77) he maintained that Roman fugitives ruled in Prussia, Lithuania, Samogitia and unified the different languages of the region. The Lithuanian historian Darius Kuolys (1992:76) has written: Jo istorinius darbus skatino ir rm tiek lotyniškosios, tiek lietuviškosios pakraipos krašto šviesuomen

128

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics [Both the enlightened class of the Latinizing tendency, and the Lithuanizing class favored and supported his (i.e. Stryjkowski’s) historical works].

I should like to stress that the difference – which is taken into careful consideration by historians – between the two cultural streams, Lithuanizing and Latinizing, is – in my opinion – rather imagined than real, and it even vanishes if one looks at it through the lens of linguistics. As a matter of fact, the supporters of lituanitas defended it on the basis of Latin antiquity as much as those, who supported latinitas in order to protect the rights of contemporary Lithuanian. None of the authors mentioned in the scheme above knew about the so–called Wallachian connection, which may be considered a special variant of the Latin Theory based on new linguistic arguments. In fact, based on the genralized ‘Corruption Theory’, it changed correspondences between languages normally assumed at that links, as illustrated in point (a) and introduced also in point (b) of the following scheme:

a) 1. Latin  2. Lithuanian, Prussian (valid for: Semi–Latin, Neo–Latin Variants) b) 1. Latin  2. (variety of) Wallachian  3. Lithuanian, Prussian, [and since the 17th c. also Latvian (valid only for the Wallachian Connection) Where ‘’ should be always read as ‘derived through corruption’. The correspondence indicated under point a) sums up the most widespread variants of the Latin Theory: Lithuanian and Prussian are languages similar or identical to Latin, and derived from it as a result of corruption. The correspondences in point b) show that Lithuanian and Prussian are the result of a double corruption, more precisely of a twice corrupted Latin language: first Latin gave rise to the Wallachian language (or to a variety of it), and secondly from this last (or from a variety of it) the Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Prussian) arose. As a matter of fact, the idea of a Wallachian Connection was already to be found in the works of many authors during the 16th century, and it is worthwhile to observe its relationship with respect to the other variants of the Latin Theory in that same period:

Pietro U. Dini Area of Diffusion Greece Italy France Swiss Germany Poland

Neo–, Semi– Wallachian Latin Connection

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+ Lithuania

+

Livonia

+

+ +

Authors Calcondila Rocca et al. Thevet, Duret Bibliander, Gessner Peucer, Cureus et al. Dugosz, Cromerus, Crassinius etc. Sarnicki Michalo Lit., Rotundus, Agrippa et al. Strubycz Menius

129

Cent. 15th

16th

17th

In the light of this investigation it seems likely that the Wallachian Connection, as a variant of the Latin Theory, originated in Germany, and from there, perhaps through Poland, arrived in Livonia. It is even possible to trace in the work of Maciej Strubycz an interesting special development of it which involved also the Estonian language (see 4.4.3.). Beyond that it is worthwhile to point out not only the fact that the Italian humanists obviously knew the Roman character of the Daco–Danubian region (one of the best examples may be Poggio Bracciolini), but also that they completely ignored the fact that such a Roman character might be proposed for the Eastern Baltic region as well. Thus, in his De dialectis (1591), Angelo Rocca did even not mention the Latin Theory, although it was quite well known to his direct source, the Swiss philoglot Conrad Gessner, who mentioned this linguistic theory very clearly in his Mithridates (1555). To different degrees the Latin Theory was known also in the French milieu (André Thevet, see 4.1.1.; Claude Duret [1570–1611]), and to many authors in Poland. The connection between Latinitas, and two European peripheral regions, i.e. Balkans and Baltics, however, remained unknown to all of them. A different situation may be observed in Germany (see 4.4.1.). Already in the 16th century there were ideas about both the European

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

130

peripheral Latin–speaking areas: the Daco–Danubian, and the Eastern Baltic ones. It is precisely in the works of German authors that it is possible to find the first news about the Wallachian Connection as a variant of the Latin Theory. The idea that a certain Roman stock, speaking a certain variety of Latin, left the Daco–Danubian region and reached the shores of the Baltic sea, and settled there, originated very likely in the German humanistic milieu of Wittenberg. It is also very probable that this explanation for the Latin presence in the Eastern Baltic region had already begun with Philipp Melanchthon, and then became prevalent in Germany. In the rest of Central and Eastern–Central Europe, and even in the Baltic area itself, however, other variants of the same Latin Theory (or other alternative theories) prevailed. 10.3. Synopsis of the Quadripartite Theory A synopsis of the Quadripartite Theory may be given by means of this scheme:

The different positions concerning the Quadripartite Theory may also be illustrated by means of the following diagram: Variations c) b) a) linguagium —————— Lithuanicum e t Quattuor viererley Illyrian Years Authors quadripartitum gentes... prachen Theory 1517 Miechovita + 1521

Decius

1550

Bibliander

+ (+)

Pietro U. Dini 1550

Münster, ecc.

1555 1567

Gessner Jovius

+

1585

Pirckheimer

+

1591

Rocca

+

131 + +

+ +

+

According to the different concepts – represented by the letters a), b), and c) in the columns to the right – the scheme aims to represent the various misunderstandings the Quadripartite Theory evidenced in the works of many authors from different humanistic milieus. Agreement with Miechovite in the cases of Bibliander, Gessner and Rocca is apparent, because it was literal, but it is not substantial; in fact these authors adhered to the Illyrian Theory. From a chronological point of view, however, the scheme does not offer much help, because the references to the Quadripartite Theory become widespread during the entire 16th century. Oddly enough, Jan Stobnica in his Epitoma Europe (1512) did not mention either the contemporary ideas of Miechovita, who was one of his colleagues at the University of Cracow, nor other linguistic ideas circulating in the same period (like the other variants of the Latin Theory). On the other hand it should also be stated clearly that neither did Miechovita quote Stobnica at all, so that both of their two descriptiones Litvaniae of the beginning of the 16th century appeared to ignore, but (from the contemporary point of view) in fact supplemented each other. 10.4. Mutual dynamic among the linguistic theories It is useful to survey the most important theories on the Baltic languages, and the principal authors who dealt with the subject. In this case a simple scheme may be helpful:

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

132

Theories Slav Authors Th. Piccolomini

Illyr. Origin Semi–L. Neo–L. Wall. Quad. Greek Hebr. Th. Myth Var. Var. Conn. Th. Th. Th.

+

Dugosz Michalo Lit. Cromerus Agrippa Bibliander Gessner

(+)

+

+ + + + + (+)

(+) + (+) + +

Willichus

+

Loewenklau Megiser

+ +

(+)

Goebel

+

Peucer

+ +

Cureus Rotundus

+

Strubycz

+

Miechovita Rocca

+

(+) (+)

+

+

The “ebb and flow” movement, i.e. circulation, of each different theory from one author to another was a typical feature of this epoch (cf. Brogi 1982), but – as far I know – it was not formerly observed for the Baltic languages. The best example to illustrate this dynamic is again the idea of a linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum, which, starting with Miechovita, went first to the Swiss Theodor Buchmann alias Bibliander (1548), then to his pupil Conrad Gessner (1555) and finally to the later follower in Italy Angelo Rocca (1591). With regard to the linguistic ideas of the individual authors, one will notice that it was exactly in Italy – that is in the legendary homeland of the Lithuanians – that the origin myth was ignored by Rocca. Nevertheless such a myth persisted, and still for a long period, not only in the Gran Duchy of Lithuania, but also in Eastern Slav Ruthenian and Lithuanian milieux, and in the German–Swiss milieu (Bibliander, Gessner). The characteristic features of Megiser’s linguistic ideas, however, were mainly the total absence of reflections on the origin of the Prussians and of the Lithuanians. He knew neither the Polish historians (Dugosz, Miechovita etc.), nor the contemporary Lithuanizers of Vilnius (Michalo Lituanus, Augustinus Rotundus, Venceslaus Agrippa).

Pietro U. Dini

133

One will also observe that several original ideas on the Baltic languages remained without a real continuation. This was the case of the Semi–Latin and Neo–Latin variants, but also of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum, i.e. the Quadripartite Theory. During the 16th century the linguistic ideas of the Latinzers remained completely isolated, although it is possible to find some reflections of them during the following century in Western Europe, for instance in the work of Pierre D’Avity [1573–1635] and Thuanus (Jacques Auguste de Thou [1553–1617]). Many of the comparisons already proposed by Michalo Lituanus are still considered valid from the point of view of contemporary linguistics, and it is important to underline the persistence of the comparative tradition initiated by him. Some of the lexical pairs that he compared for the first time lasted beyond the Renaissance period, were accepted in the Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache (Königsberg 1745) by Philip Ruigh, and finally emerged again at the beginning of the scientific study of comparative philology. Therefore one must stress the great importance of the comparative process implied by Michalo Lituanus’s Semi–Latin Variant. Because of his valuable theoretical effort Michalo’s linguistic ideas deserve an appropriate place within the Renaissance Palaeocomparativisms and in the frame of so–called pre–scientific linguistics. One should finally also point out that the linguistic ideas of Miechovita acted as a sort of counterweight to the Slav Theory, which had been introduced by Æeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and included many supporters during the entire 16th century. Nevertheless Miechovita’s quite modern linguistic ideas were disregarded and misunderstood by many contemporaneous authors (e.g. Decius, Münster, Jovius, etc.). Miechovita’s very original concept sank into oblivion until the 18th century when it found a renewed appreciation thanks to Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro [1735–1809] in his work of 1785. 10.5. Attempt at a Generalization In order to offer a general picture and characterization of the linguistic theories about the Baltic languages circulating during the Renaissance it is important to keep in mind these categories: ignorance, variety of theories, prevailing genealogical interest. • Ignorance of the Baltic linguistic group. On the ground of the most widely known classifications of languages in Western Europe until the 16th century it is possible to affirm that in the best case ‘confusion’ or otherwise simply ‘ignorance’ are the most apt terms for labeling the knowledge about the Baltic languages in that period. As for the classifications of languages ignorance was typical (cf. Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, Dante Alighieri, André de Poza, Genebrardus, Justus Scaligerus) at least untill Brerewood

134

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

(1614) with the only exception being Marcin Bielski (see Chapter Eight). The failure to consider the Baltic languages as an autonomous linguistic group, however, was the norm for all the authors and for all the theories investigated. The only exception worthy of note was the linguistic coception of the linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum by Miechovita (see Chapter Five). • Variety of theories. To better circumscribe the above mentioned ‘confusion’ one should consider the multiplicity of the linguistic theories known at that time. It is noteworthy that all these ideas about the same object (i.e. the Baltic languages) were circulating all together in the same century. They often coexisted and mutually influenced each other, sometimes even in the work of a single author (as is well illustrated, for instance, by Conrad Gessner). • Prevailing genealogical interest. The most disputed topic in the earliest Renaissance linguistics, including also the Baltic linguistic group, was the genealogical relationship. In fact, during the whole so–called prescientific period these languages were ascribed to many different linguistic groups. A genealogical explanation, plausible with the knowledges of that time, was given on the ground of various linguistic theories. This last point is completely in line with the spirit of the epoch. As a matter of fact, the main goal pursued by many Renaissance authors was the investigation of the origin of the peoples, and the singling out of the different ethnic groups1. Acknowledging this point of view allows one to single out several other aspects of a more specific linguistic nature. Some of them reveal themselves when the authors offer microtexts or specimina of the Baltic languages. Others appear with the first attempts of a grammatical description for those languages (that is already in the 17th century). It is useful to point out these further categories too: • Scanty practical linguistic knowledge. The practical knowledge of the languages was clearly insufficient, and came always indirectly through non–native speakers. Therefore the Baltic languages were often assimilated to an esotic context (something similar will be observed later, in the 17th century, dealing with non–Indoeuropean languages as for instance Finnic, cf. Klein 2001) or even esoteric (for instance in the works of the doctor and practicing alchemist Leonhard Thurneysser [1530–1596]2). • Lack of attempts at a reconstruction. One should emphasize that Baltic linguistics of the Palaeocomparativism period, in spite of its primary genealogical interest never did succeed in producing attempts at linguistic

Pietro U. Dini

135

reconstruction, not even in embryonic form, in order to explain those genealogical relationship, which nevertheless it was able to observe. It is possible to find only some generic statements. • Inadequacy of the Latin model. The prism of the Latin model through which the first attempts at a grammatical description of the Baltic languages were made turned out to be ambiguous for describing the peculiarities of these languages, because it concealed many features, especially typological features, of these languages. • Lack of grammatical description. It was rather rare that phonetic or grammatical linguistic arguments were used to support any linguistic ideas about the genealogical relationships uniting the languages. Only Jan Dugosz mentioned very briefly some small phonetic data with regard to the affinity between Lithuanian and Samogitian on the one hand and Latin on the other hand, and also for supporting the affinity between Prussian and Latin. Morphology as such, even in a very generic sense, was scarcely touched upon. One can only mention some isolated and in any case later (17th century) observations on the dual number in Prussian. Augustinus Rotundus was probably the only one who, dealing with the differences between Latin and ruski, made some vaguely syntactical remarks. • Importance of lexical data. Attention to lexical data, on the contrary, was a characteristic feature of 16th-century linguistics (cf. Trovato 1984), and this is true also for the Baltic domain. In this regard it has been appropriately noticed that “presuppositions and terminological habits… [are] what should be the main interest of the history of linguistic thought in pre–paradigmatic situations” (Tavoni 1984:4fn). Yet, within this general consideration, it is possible and useful to introduce some distinctions. In the linguistic discourse of that epoch in this area one may record specific ‘techniques’ of argumentation – such as creation of neologisms and renaming – along with prevailing ‘terminological habits’ – such as use of hypernyms and observance of etymologies (i.e. paraetymologies). 10.5.1. Nations–languages. Another general aspect concerning Renaissance linguistics (not only for the Baltic area) is the lack of a clear distinction between the notions of language and nation (cf. Renzi 2000). Ideas about the origins of a people were normally circulating and often spread etymological (actually paraetymological) explanations of ethnonyms and of toponyms; a typical case was deriving Lithuania from L’Ithalia or similar forms. Equally costumary was a reflection on language in general almost always sustained by a myth, first of all, of course, by the myth of the Tower

136

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

of Babel. Accurate ideas on the origin of a certain language were, however, much less common and from the contemporary point of view sometimes quite bold. So in Italy the idea of a Greek origin for Latin was circulating (cf. Tavoni 1986), as were in France that of the origin of all languages from Gallic (cf. Tavoni 1990a:216–233), in Spain the idea of a Latin origin for Castilian (cf. Buceta 1925; Tesón Martín 1982) and still others. One has also to keep in mind that the comprehension of the phenomenon that languages change in the course of time has been a relatively recent achievement in linguistics. Therefore it should be underlined that in the 16th century the correspondence between Lithuanian and Latin was more often understood precisely in a diachronic perspective. As a matter of fact, the Latin Theory, according to the Latinizers of Vilnius, included elements of a diachronic explanation of linguistic change. Differently, the other theories circulating (Slav, Illyrian, Quadripartite, etc.) had only a synchronic perspective. Among the variants of the Latin Theory only the Semi–Latin one proposed a (somewhat) ‘sociolinguistic’ interpretation and understood the relation between Lithuanian and Latin rather as an opposition between the ‘language of the aristocracy’ and the ‘language of the common people’. Because of its peculiarity in the context of Renaissance theories about the Baltic languages, the Latin Theory shows some clear features of modernity. For its importance and diffusion in Eastern Central Europe it should be drawn nearer to the linguistic ideas first expressed by Flavio Biondo in Western Central Europe. One recognizes Flavio Biondo [1392–1463] as the beginner of the modern approach to the historical study of languages when he first considered the Romance languages as ‘Neo–Latin’ languages in the still current contemporary sense, that is, ‘derived’ from Latin. Within the European Renaissance linguistic debate, both the ideas of Flavio Biondo (in Western Central Europe) and those of Michalo Lituanus and Vaclovas Agrippa (in Eastern Central Europe) represented conceptual notions of modernity leading to the rise of comparative linguistic genealogy. It may be useful to present a comparative synopsis of the main theories about the Baltic languages expressed by authors of the 16th century. 10.5.2. Hypernyms. One notes that the awareness of Baltic linguistic unity was already rather diffuse during the 16th century, so that some authors grouped the same ethnolinguistic realities even without labeling them with a specific hypernymic designation. So for instance:

Pietro U. Dini

Authors and Works

Hypernyms

Jan Dugosz, Historia Polonica Crassinius, Polonia, 1574 Stryjkowski, O pocztku..., 1576–1578

Ø Ø

Ø

137

Nations–Languages Lithuanian and Samogitian, Jatvingian, Prussian Lithuanian, Liuonien es, Prussians Lithuanians, Curonians, Latvians, Samogitians, Jatvingians, Polovcians and Prussians

It is much more interesting to note the occurrence of some specific ‘terminological habits’ much earlier than the acceptance of Nesselmann’s [1811–1881] (1845:xxviii) proposal to call ‘Baltic’ the languages we are dealing with. As a matter of fact, some early attempts to give a common designation for this linguistic group have been collected during the present investigation. Within the lexical data one observes that special attention was given to hypernyms. The following scheme shows this in chronological order: Authors and Works

Hypernyms

Nations–Languages

Pomponius Letus [1428– 1497], Comments to the Georgiche Miechovita, Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis (1517)

lingua Lectonica

Lithuanian, Latvian

linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum

Jatvingians, Lithuanians and Samogitians, Prussians, Latvians or Latgallians

Georg Agricola [1494– 1555], De ortu et causis subterraneorum (1546)

Prußi

Prussians/Sudavians, Curonian and other

One coud doubt these authors’s awareness of hypernyms considering their variety and the variety of ethnolinguistic realities (Nations– Languages) they assumed case for case. Yet it is worth recalling that such a variety (at least for hypernyms) continued during the following centuries. In this regard it is enough to mention, among many other later designations for the Baltic languages, Hervás y Panduro’s dialetti scitico–illirici (‘Scythian– Illyrian dialects’), Franz Pott’s Letticae linguae (‘Latvian languages’) and Walther Prellwitz’s Lettische Sprachen (‘Latvian languages’), or still Aleksander Brückner’s and August Leskien’s Lituslavisch.

NOTES Chapter One 1. For a panorama of the studies in the field of Baltistics I refer to Aut. 1997g, 2000ab, 2002, forthcoming. 2. Mediaevalists of different disciplines have already investigated the work and they are all primarily concerned with its first (Latin) edition(s), cf. Perdrizet 1909; Schönbach 1906; Kürbisówna 1953:278-279; Spekke 1935:92-93; Matusova 1978. 3. Precisely the chapter O wie  y Babel á ro d yeleniu ie ykow (Lit 7ab) of the first book. It is noteworthy to stress that the Lithuanian word for ‘bread’ is an addition in the 3rd edition of Bielski’s Kronika. In fact this quotation is absent in the 1st edition. The corresponding passage from the 1st edition of the Kronika (without any Lithuanian word) is quoted in Chrzanowski 1926:67 and 302fn. Cf. Aut. 2006a. 4. Cf. Asher, Simpson 1994; Koerner, Asher 1995; Swiggers 1997; Auroux, Koerner, Niederehe, Versteegh 2000. A general reference work for the Baltic Palaeocomparativism is Aliletoescvr (2010).

Chapter Three 1. The Gessnerian conception of the individual language groups has been examined differently: for the Germanic languages, cf. Metcalf 1963b; for the Celtic languages, cf. Poppe 1986, 1992; however for the Baltic languages no preparatory work exists yet, except for the suggestions in Metcalf 1963a and Coseriu 1995. Cf. Colombat, Peters 2009. 2. Cf. Gessner 1555:52b: “IAPIDES & IAZYGES Illyricè loquuntur”. The Jazyges appear in Gessner next to the Lituani and Livi, only because the peoples are classified by him in alphabetical order. It is highly improbable that the Jazyges of Gessner corresponded to the Jatvingians. We may already point to the following passage in Junius 1591:506 (1st ed. 1567): “Iazyges, Metanastæ, Septem catra, Traniluania, Pop. Hungsr. qui Iaz hodie vocantur, & habent peculiarem linguam”. 3. Such a procedure has been stigmatized also by Metcalf 1963a:18: “The reliance on varying sources also inevitably introduces an uncertainty into the nomenclature... The three terms... follow interchangeably according to the particular sources being cited”. Coseriu 1995:181 notes with regard to

140

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

the versions of the Lord’s Prayer of Gessner that “Illyrian as a neutral terminus is generic and characterized the Slavic in general (also Czech, Polish, Russian and so on)”. 4. In this regard I wish to mention the investigations of Kabelka 1929; Breidaks 1994; Aut. 2000b.

Chapter Four 1. The first to bring the fragmentary work of Michalo Lituanus to the attention of the scientific world was the Russian scholar Fortunatov 1876:113, and later also Pisani 1983:4–9. The treatise itself has been reprinted in recent time by Juozas Jurginis 1966, see also Korsakas 1957:83–88; Lebedys 1977:30–32. 2. Cf. Baryczowa 1935, 1936; Korsakas 1957:89–91; Lebedys 1977:124– 125. A reprint of the Rozmowa has been offered by Józef Korzeniowski (= Rotundus 1890). 3. On Hervás and the Baltic languages cf. Aut. 1997. 4. Cf. Roka 1967; Rimša 1986; Kuolys 1992:52. 5. In Rumanian historiography this fact was first ‘discovered’ by Armbruster (1997) only at the beginning of the 1970es. As for Baltic historiography – so far as I know – this link has not yet been noticed.

Chapter Five 1. Cf. Hajdukiewicz 1974 with bibliography; about his linguistic ideas cf. Aut. 1999a:70–71; 1999b. 2. At this point a further interesting question arises with regard to the term ‘quadripartitum’. Did Miechovita create this definition himself or did he have a model? One should keep in mind Dantes’s Idiomata tripharia in De Vulgari Eloquentia (I:vii–ix) and the related fact that Miechovita spent quite a long period in Italy; whether he might have gotten this expression from Dante or not remains a question which cannnot as yet be answered. About Miechovita’s stay in Padua or Bologna see Hajdukiewicz 1960:269–278. 3. The interest in these matters was perhaps conditionated by a peculiar Zeitgeist which still existed when Miechovita wrote his Treatise. We should not forget that the picture of Lithuania which was at the center of

Pietro U. Dini

141

Miechovita’s attention is that one of about hundred years after the introduction of Christianity (or, as Kavolis 1989 prefers ‘the invasion of Devil’). 4. As a special case showing the extreme complexity of the relationships between different languages and types of writing, I should like to mention the Khitaib, a text translated into a mixed Bielorussian–Polish koiné and rendered in Arabic script. 5. Works of other authors of the same period should be, of course, investigated as well and particularly in comparison with Miechovita’s data. I hope this idea might stimulate scholars to develop similar topics in historical sociolinguistics of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Chapter Six 1. Cf. Jansons 1965, and general comments in Schmalstieg 1976:83–86, Aut. 1997g:240, 2000ab, 2002. 2. Cf. Colker 1979; Górka 1916; Popa–Lisseanu 1934; Ochmaski 1985. 3. Some chapters of Prätorius’s work have been reprinted in Acta Borussica (1730–1731), Book 16, devoted to the Old Prussian language, in Acta Borussica 1731:55–85. The complete edition (18 books) has been undertaken, to its considerable merit, by the Lithuanian Institute of History in Vilnius. The content is given also in Pierson 1871:119–144 and Lukšait 1999:418–425. A new Lithuanian edition of Deliciae is Prätorius 1999. Cf. Young 2004, 2011. 4. It is perhaps not without interest that this opinion is shared by modern scholars, cf. Parenti 1995 with bibliography. For further discussion cf. Trautmann 1910:436–438, Schmalstieg 1974:135. 5. Cf. Pisanski 1766:3–6; 1791:38–41 §20; reprinted in 1886:5–6 §2, 26–27 §20. 6. In general for the conformity between Greek and vernaculars cf. Trapp 1971 with bibliograpfy; especially for Latin cf. Tavoni 1986. For conformity between Latin and vernaculars cf. Buceta 1925 for Castilian; Aut. 1996 for Lithuanian.

142

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Chapter Seven 1. Also in J. Brodovskis’s [1692–1744] manuscript Lexicon (953) there is this passage: “Paigerau, pailinkminojau, wius awo wargelus uzmirßau, iimgojau, iipagÿrojau, wii wargai pa ßáli. Bey dem Trunck vergißt mann des Leides und Unmuht, eine Grillen vertrincken”. Cf. Drotvinas 2009. 2. On OPr. Trace of Basel cf. McCluskey, Schmalstieg, Zeps 1975; Schaken 2002–2003; Ardoino 2012.

Chapter Eight 1. English translation: “He has no particular appeal for Lithuanians and thus he is not inclined to believe ‘our chroniclers’, who ‘presumed their origin from Italy’, because, first, there ‘are no written documents about this’, and, second, their customs and their nature do not support this for them”.

Chapter Nine 1. Brerewood (also Breerewood) was born in Chester in 1565, studied in Oxford and was active as a professor of astronomy in London beginning in 1565. He died there on November 4, 1613. An extensive description about the life and work of Brerewood can be found in Athenae Oxoniens (I:390); cf. Leslie S., Dictionary of national biography, VI, London, Smith–Elder & Co., 1886:273–274; Ersch J.S., Gruber J.G., Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, Bd. 12, Graz, Akademische Druck– u. Verlagsanstalt, 1970:366–367. 2. They are: Scaligerus J.C., 1610; Merula P. [1558–1607], 1605; Ortelius A., 1570; only in this last work is an extensive relative consideration of Prussia, Lithuania and Livonia to be found. 3. Beem. With this Boehme Joh. (lat. Boemus) and his work Mores, leges, et ritus omnium gentium… (Augustae Vindelicorum, 1520) must be understood (Italian translation: Gli costumi, le leggi et l’usanze di tutte le genti, Venice 1549; Spanish translation by Thamara Francisco: El libro de las constumbres de todas gentes del mondo, y de las Indias, Anvers 1556). In the Lyons edition of 1582 one finds the mention of idolatry in Sambia and Lithuania in chapter VII:217–219, De Lithuania, & Lithuanorum vita; in the Italian edition also in chapter VII:109b–110b, Della Lithuania, e del uiuere delle ue genti.

Pietro U. Dini

143

4. Boter. Here is the question about Giovanni Botero (lat. Joh. Boterus Benisius) and his work Le relationi vniversali (Rom, 1592) which has been printed several times. In the edition published in Venice in 1600 one finds Idolatry in Lithuania and in Sambia mentioned in the Parte Terza, Lib. 1:89–90: “Concio ia che in Lituania, e in Samogitia, i cuoprono in più luoghi molte reliquie d’idolatria...”.

Chapter Ten 1. This attitude was well expressed by Jean Bodin in his Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem 1566:478: “no other problem is more important for historians than the origin of the peoples” – as underlined also by Kuolys 1992:71. 2. Cf. Thurneysser 1583ab. On Thurneysser and the Baltic languages cf. Aliletoescvr:479–484.

Sources Acta Borussica 1731-1732. Acta Borussica ecclesiastica, civilia, literaria Oder Sorgfaltige Sammlung allerhand ur Ge chichte des Landes Preu en gehüriger Nachrichten / Uhrkunden / schriften und Documenten, Konigsberg und Leip ig, bei Chritoph Gottfried Eckart. T. 1, 1730; T. 2, 1731, T. 3, 1732. Agricola Georg (Georg Bauer) 1546. n.v. 1612. GORGII AGRICOLÆ, De ortu & cau is ubterraneorum lib. V. De natura eor, quæ effluunt ex terra lib. IV. De natura fo silium lib. X. De veteribus & novis metallis lib. II. Bermannus, ive de re metallica Dialogus. Interpretatio Germanica vocum rei metallicæ. Addito Indice fœcundiimo, Plurimos jam annos à Germanis, & externarum quoque nationum doctißimis Viris, valdè deiderati & expetiti; Nunc verò in rei metallicæ tudioorum gratiam receniti, in certa capita ditributi, capitum argumentis, & nonnullis choliis marginalibus illutrati, JOANNE SIGFRIDO PHILOS: & Medicinæ Doctore, & in illutri Julià Profeore ordinario. Accesserunt De metallicis rebus & nominibus obervationes variæ & eruditæ, ex chedis Georgii Fabricii, quibus es potißimum explicantur, quæ Georgius Agricola præterijt. Wittebergæ Sumptibus Zachariæ Schureri Bibliopolæ, Typis Andreæ Rüdingeri, 1612. Agrippa Venceslao J. (Vaclovas) 1553. ORATIO FVNEBRIS DE ILLVSTRISSIMI PRINCIPIS ET DO=mini Domini Iohannis Radziuili Oliciæ & Ne ni i Ducis, uita & morte, cripta à VVENCESLAO AGRIP=pa Lithuano. EPICEDION SCRIPTVM A PHILIPPO MELANTHONE. [Wittenberg] 1553. Alsted Johann 1624. Johannis-Henrici Alstedii Thesaurus chronologiæ in qvo Univera temporum & hitoriarum eries in omni vitæ genere ita ponitur ob oculos, ut fundamenta Chronologiæ ex S. literis & calculo atronomico eruantur, & deinceps tituli homogenei in certas claes memoriæ causâ digerantcta. Herbornæ Naoviorum, Anno M. DC. XXVIII. Anglicus Bartholomew (Anglicus Bartolomeus; Glanville de) 1481. De Proprietatibus Rerum, Köln, Johann Koelhoff d. Ä. 1975. On the Properties of Things. John Trevisa’s translation of Bartholomæus Anglicus De proprietatibus Rerum. A critical text, 4 voll., Oxford, At the Clarendon Press.

146

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Behm Johannes 1625. Dem Chritlichen vnd andachtigen Leer WuԌnche ich Johannes Behm der heiligen Schrifft Doctor, Profeor in der Academien u Konigsberg in Preuen/ Churfurtlicher Brandenburgicher Preucher Hoffprediger GOttes huld/ gnadige erleuctung in dem heiligen vnd allein jrligmachenden Wort Gottes/ nebent beharrlicher betandigkeit / in der einmal erkandten vnd bekandten Warheit biß ans Ende. Bibliander Theodor (Theodor Buchmann) 1548. DE RATIONE communi omnium linguarum & literar commentarius Theodori Bibliandri. CVI adnexa et compendiaria explicatio doctrinæ recte beateq; uiudi, & religionis omnium gentium atque populorum, quam argumentum hoc potulare uidebatur, TIGVRI APVD CHRISTOPH. FROSCH. AN. M.D.XLVIII [Tiguri]. Bielski Marcin 1564. Kronika. tho ie th / Hi torya Swiátá na ße wiekow / á ctery Monárchie / rodzielona  romaitych Hi torykow / ták w wi tym pi mie Kreijá kim ydow kim/ iáko y Pogá kim / wybierána y ná Pol ki i yk wypi ána do tháthecniey ni pierwey / s prydánim wiele recy nowych: Od pocatku Swiátá/ á do tego roku / ktory ie piße 1564. s figurámi och donymi y wa nymi [Cracovia, 1564]. Bizzarrus Petrus (Biz(z)arus, Bizzarri Pietro) [1525-1584] 1568. [n.v.] Historia della guerra fatta in Ungheria dall’invittissimo Imperatore de’ Chri tiani, contra quello de’ Turchi: con la narratione di tutte quelle co e che sono avvenute in Europa dall’anno 1564 all’anno 1568, Lyone. 1573. Pannonicvm bellvm, svb Maximiliano II. Rom. et Solymano Tvrcar. Imperatoribvs gestvm: cvmqvq arcis Sigethi expugnatione, iampridem magna cura & tudio, de criptum, Per Petrvm Bizarvm. Vnà, Cum Epitome illarum rerum, quæ in Europa inigniores getæ unt: & præertim de Belgarum motibus, ab anno LXIIII. usq; ad LXXIII. Cum gratia & priuilegio Cæareæ Maiet. Basileæ, Per Sebastianvm Henricpetri. Boemus Johannes (Boemus J. Aubanus, Beham, Böhm) 1520. REPERTORIVM LIBRORVM TRIVM IOANNIS BOEMI DE OMNIVM GENTIVM RITIBVS. Item index rerum citu digniorum in eo dem. Cum priuilegio Papali ac Imperiali M.D.XX. [excipit:] Augu tæ Vindelicorum excu a in officina Sigi mundi Griœ medici, ac Marci Vuir ung. Anno virginei partus. M.D.XX. men e Iulio. 1535. OMNIVM GENTIVM MORES, Leges & Ritus ex multis clari imis rerum criptoribus, à Ioanne Boëmo Aubano Teutonico nuper collecti & noui imè recogniti. Tribus libris ab olutum opus, Aphricam A iam &

Pietro U. Dini

147

Europam de cribentibus. Non ine Indice locupleti imo. Lvgdvni, Apvd Hæredes Simonis Vincentii. M.D.XXXV. 1611. The manners, lauues, and customes of all nations / collected out of the best vvriters by Ioannes Boemus...; with many other things of the same argument, gathered out of the historie of Nicholas Damascen; the like also out of the history of America, or Brasill, written by Iohn Lerius; the faith, religion and manners of the Aethiopians, and the deploration of the people of Lappia, compiled by Damianus à Goes; with a short discourse of the Aethiopians, taken out of Ioseph Scaliger his seuenth booke de emendatione temporum; written in Latin, and now newly translated into English, by Ed. Aston. At London, Printed by G. Eld and are to bee sold by Francis Burton, 1611. Bohusz Xawier 1808. O pocztkach narodu i j zyka litewskiego. Rozprawa przez Xawiera Bohusza Imperyalnego Wilenskiego Uniwersytetu, Czonka Honorowego, Towarzystwa Królewskiego Warszawskiego Przyiacio Nauk Czonka Czynnego, Praata Katedry Wilenskiey, Orderu Sgo Stanisawa Kawalera Napisana, a na publicznym posiedzeniu tego Towarzystwa Warszawskiego roku 1806. d. 12 grudnia Czytana, teraz za, to iest 1808 Roku Wydrukowana w Warszawie. W Drukarni Gazety Warszawskiey. Botero Giovanni (Boterus) [1533-1617] 1592. n.v. Le Relazioni Universali, Roma. 1600. Le Relationi Universali di Giovanni Botero Benese, divise in qvattro parti... In Venetia, Appreo Giorgio Angelieri. M. DC. Brerewood Edward 1614. n.v. 1635. ENQVIREIES TOVCHING the diver ity of LANGVAGES, and RELIGIONS, through the chiefe parts of the World. Written by Edvv. Brerevvood lately profeour of Astronomy in Gre ham Colledge in London. LONDON, Printed by Iohn Norton, for Ioyce Norton, and Richard Whitaker, at the Kings Armes in St. Pauls Churchyard. Calcondila Laonico (Chalco(co)ndyla) [ca. 1430 - ca. 1490] 1567. Laonici Chalcocondylæ Atheniensis historiarvm de origine ac rebvs gestis Tvrcorvm. Conrado Clavsero Tigvrino interprete. In: Corpvs Vniversæ Historiæ præsertim bizantinæ. Ioannis Zonaræ Annales aucti additionibus Georgij Cedreni. Nicetæ Acominati choniatæ lib. XIX. Nicephori Gregoræ lib. XI. Laonici Chalcocondylæ lib. X. hitoriæ Turcicæ. In fine etiam additus et locupletiimus rerum Index. Lvtetiæ, Apud Guillielmum Chaudiere, via Iacobæa, ub inigni temporis. 1567. Cvm privilegio regiæ maiestatis.

148

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Brodovskis  Bibliography, Drotvinas 2009. Carion Johann 1569. Newe volkommene Chronica Philippi Melanthonis. Zeytbuch Vnd Warhafftige Be chreibung / Was von anfang der Welt biß auff diß gegenwertige Jar / nicht allein von den Juden vnd Chri ten / onder auch von allen Heyden / Turcken / vnd andern Vülckern o viel deren je gewe en / beide in Gei tlichen vnnd Weltlichen achen / rath vnd an chlegen / in fried vnd kriegßeiten in der ganten Welt... Anfenglichs unterm Namen Johan Carionis auffs kürte t verfa t / Nachmals durch Herrn Philippum Melanthonem vnnd J. Ca parum Peucerum auffs neuwe vber ehen / gemehrt / vnd jett auß dem Latein verdeutscht durch M. Eu ebium Menium: Sampt einem ummari chen grundlichen anhang die es jett lauffende Tau ent / funff hundert / echs vnd echttg t Jar... Getruckt u Franckfurt am Mayn / Anno M.D.LXIX. 1572. CHRONICON CARIONIS expositvm et avctvm mvltis et veteribvs et recentibvs historiis, in descriptionibvs regnorvm & gentivm antiquarum, & narrationibus rerum Eccle ia ticarum, & Politicarum, Græcarum, Romanarum, Germanicarum & aliarum, ab exordio Mundi v q; ad Carolvm Qvintvm Imperatorem. A PHILIPPO MELANTHONE ET CASPARO PEVCERO. Adiecta est narratio hi torica de electione & coronatione Caroli V. Imperatoris. Cum Gratia & Priuilegio. WITEBERGÆ excvdebat Iohannes Crato, Anno M.D.LXXII. Cochlaeus Johannes (Cochlæus, Cocläus, Wendelstinus) 1512. Co mographia Pomponij Mele: Authoris nitidi imi Tribus Libris dige ta: uo qda Compendio Joannis Coclei Norici adaucta quo Geographie principia generaliter comprehduntur / Breuis q Germanie De criptio / Ad profect Juututis Laurentiane Norinbergen is imprimis: Dein ad Ceterorum quoq; in litterarum tudio ucce us nc prima ui Editione in luc fert. [Norimbergae] 1969. [11960, 31976]. Brevis Germanie Descriptio (1512) mit der Deutschlandkarte des Erhard Etzlaub von 1501, Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert von Karl Langosch, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Crassinius (Crassinius Ioannus, Krasiski Jan Andrzej) 1574. Ioannis Crassinii Polonia. Ad Serenissimvm, et Potentißimum, Henricum primû Vale ium, Dei gratia vtriusq; Poloniæ Regem. Bononiæ, Apud Peregrinum Bonardum, Venia ab Superioribus Concea. 1852. Polska czyli opisanie topograficzno-polityczne Polski w wieku XVI, oraz materiay do panowania Henrika Walezyusza, przetumaczone, zebrane i objanione przez Stanisawa Budziskiego, Warszawa, Stanisaw Strbski.

Pietro U. Dini

149

Cromerus Martin (Kromer Marcin) 1555. Martini Cromeri De origine et rebvs gestis Polonorum libri XXX. Adiecta et in fine, eiudem autoris funebris Oratio, Sigismvndi Regis uitam compendioè complexa. Cum Cæ. Maiet. gratia & priuilegio ad annos decem. Basileæ, per Ioannem Oporinum. [M.D.LV]. 1562. Mitnachtischer Vülckeren Hi torien Jn welcher viler Nationen / als naœlich der Polenderen Vngaren Tartaren Slauen Walachen Türcken Pomeren Schle ier Lyfflanderen Reü en Littauweren Oe terreicheren Mo couiten Wenden Podolier Preü en Behemen Brandenburger. Vr prung / mancherley gebreüche/ naœhaffte Hi torien / Regiment / vnnd Ritterliche taathen / biß auff di e vn ere eyt / auff das kürte te / waarhafftig / vnnd ordenlichen / in dreyßig Bucheren / begriffen. Er tlich durch den Hochgelerten Herren Martinum Chromer auß Poland  Latein fleyßig be chriben: Jet malen aber durch Heinrich Pantaleon der Artney vnnd freyer kün ten Doctor  Ba el /  gtem gemeiner Teüt cher nation / auff das treüwliche t verteüt chet / gemehret / vnd in truck verordnet. Mit Kay. May. gnad vnd freyheit in fünff jaren nit nach Ÿtrucken [Basel]. Cureus Joachim 1571. Gentis Silesiæ Annales complectentes historiam de origine, propagatione et migrationibvs gentis, & recitationem præcipuorum euentuum, qui in Eccle ia & Republica v q; ad necem LVDOVICI Hungariæ & Bohemiæ regis acciderunt. Contexti ex antiqvitate sacra et ethnica, et ex criptis recentioribus: A Ioachimo Cvreo Freistadiensi, philosopho et medico in inclyta vrbe Glogouien i. Cum Priuilegio Cæ areo ampli simo ad annos X. Witebergæ M. D. LXXI. 1585. Schle i che General Chronica, Darinnen Wahrhaffte eigentliche vnd kurt e Be chreibung / Des Landes Ober vnd Nider Schle ien, Ankunfft, Namen, Herkommen, deren Hert ogen, Fur tenthümern, Stedten, Schlo ern, Sit en, der elben Vermehrungen, Rey en und Verwachßlungen, in onderheit der weitberuhmbten herrlichen Stadt Breßlaw und Fur tenthumbs Glogaw... Sampt angehengten Polni chen, Lifflendi chen, Mo chowiteri chen, Schwedi chen und anderen Hi torien, so ich unter die em jet igen regierenden Künig zu Polen, Stephano, biß auff die es 1585, Jar verlauffen haben / Ertlich durch... Ioachimum Cureum, Freytadienem... in Lateinicher Sprach bechrieben: Jetzundt aber dem gemein Vaterlandt zu gut verdeutcht Durch... Herrn Heinrich Rätteln zu Sagan. Mit fleiß uammen ge ogen / Durch D. Laurentium Muller / damals Furtlichen Churlendichen Hoffraht. M. D. LXXXV. D’Anania Giovanni Lorenzo [ca. 1545-1607/09] 1576. L’VNIVERSALE FABRICA DEL MONDO, OVERO COSMOGRAFIA DI M. GIO. LORENZO D’ANANIA, Diui a in quattro Trattati, Ne i quali ditintamente i miura il Cielo, e la Terra, & i dicriuono

150

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

particolarmente le Prouincie, Città, Catella, Monti, Mari, Laghi, Fiumi, & Fonti, Et i tratta delle Leggi, & Co tumi di molti Popoli: de gli Alberi, & dell’Herbe, e d’altre co e pretio e, & Medicinali, & de gl’Inuentori di tutte le co e. Di nuouo pota in luce. CON PRIVILEGIO. IN VENETIA, Ad intantia di Aniello San Vito di Napoli. MDLXXVI. 1582. L’VNIVERSALE FABRICA DEL MONDO, OVERO COSMOGRAFIA dell’Ecc. Gio. Lorenzo d’Anania, Diui a in quattro Trattati, Ne’ quali ditintamente i miura il Cielo, e la Terra, & i decriuono particolarmente le Prouincie, Città, Catella, Monti, Mari, Laghi, Fiumi, & Fonti. Et i tratta delle Leggi, & Co tumi di molti Popoli: de gli Alberi, & dell’Herbe, e d’altre co e pretio e, & Medicinali, & de gl’Inuentori di tutte le co e. Di nuouo ornata con le figure delle quattro parti del Mondo in Rame: Et dal medeimo Auttore con infinite aggiuntioni per ogni parte dell’opera, ampliata. CON PRIVILEGIO. IN VENETIA, Preo il Muchio. MDLXXXII. Ad intanza di Aniello San Vito di Napoli. Dante Alighieri  Tavoni 2012 Daukša Mikalojus 1599 = 1926. Daukšos Postil. Fotografuotinis leidimas, Kaunas, Lietuvos Universiteto leidinys. 1990. Mikalojus Daukša. Postils prakalbos, Vilnius, Mintis. 2000. Mikalojus Daukšos 1599 met Postil ir jos šaltiniai. Leidim pareng prof., habil. dr. Jonas Palionis, Vilnius, baltos lankos. D’Avity Pierre 1615. [n.v.] 1660. DESCRIPTION GENERALE DE L’EVROPE. QVATRIESME PARTIE DV MONDE AVEC TOVS SES EMPIRES, ROYAVMES, ESTATS ET REPVBLIQVES. OV SONT DEDVITS ET TRAITEZ PÀR ORDRE LEVR Noms, Aiettes, Confins,... TOME III. A PARIS, Chez Denys Bechet, au Compas d’Or et Lovis Billaine, à S. Augutin ruë S. Iacques. M. DC. LX. Auec Approbation & Priuilege du Roy. Decius Jodocus Ludovicus (Deciusz, Dietz Jodocus Lodevicus) 1521. Ad illvstrissimvm invictissimvmqve principem et dominvm Sigismvndvm dei nvtv Poloniæ regem magnvm Lithvaniæ dvcem, Rvssiæ, Prvssiæ, Pomeraniæque dominvm et heredem & c. Iodoci Lvdovici Decii wissenbvrggeññ sacri lateraneñ et imperialis palacii comitis in qvatvor libros historiarvm regni Poloniæ excellentissimi Domini Mathiæ de Mechovia artivm et medicinæ doctoris et canonici Graccovieñ nvncvpatoria epistola... Impreum Craccouiæ opera atq; indutria Hieronymi Vietoris Chalcographi. Anno M.D.XXI. mene Decembri.

Pietro U. Dini

151

Descriptio Europa Orientalis  Górka 1916, Popa-Lisseanu 1934 Dugosz Jan (Johannes Longinus) 1615. Historia Polonica Ioannis Dugossii sev Longini canonici cracoviensis in tres tomos digesta. Autoritate & Sumptibus Herbvlti Dobromilski edita, Dobromili, Officina Ioannis Szeligæ, Anno D. 1615. 1873-1878. Joannis Dugossii seu Longini Canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae libri XII, Cracoviæ,  akociski, Opera Omnia cura Alexandri Przezdziecki edita. Cracoviae ex typographia Kirchmayeriana. Duret Claude 1613. Thresor de l’Histoire des langves de cest vnivers..., Imprimé a Cologny, par Matth. Berjon. Fabricius Dyonisius 1795. Livonicae Historiae compendiosa series. In quatuor digesta partes ab anno millesimo centesimo quinquagesimo octavo usque ad annum MDCX curante Gustavo Bergmann. Editio secunda auctior et emendatior, Stanno Ruiensi. MDCCXCV. Ferreri Zaccaria (Ferrerius) 1521. Vita beati Casimiri Confessoris ex ereni imis Poloni regibus, & magnis Lithuani ducibus clari imi a Reuerendi imo patre dño Zacharia Ferrerio Vicentino pontifice Gardieñ: in Poloni et Lituaniã legato apo tolico ex fide dignoR! te tium depo itionibus cripta. Aedibus J. Haller, Cracoviae. Foresti, Giacomo Filippo (Jacopo da Bergamo, Bergomatus) 1492-1493. Opus preclarum Supplementum Chronicharum vulgo appellatum: in omnimoda hi toria noui ime conge ta fratris Jacobi pjilippi Bergomensis religionis heremitarum diui Augu tini decoris: q; fau ti ime inchoat... Venetiis, Bernardinus Rizus. Funck Johann (Funccius) 1552 Chronologia hoc est omnivm temporum et annorvm ab initio mvndi, vsqve ad hunc præ entem a nato Chri to annum M.D.LII. computatio. In qva methodice envmerantvr omnivm popvlorvm, regnorvmque memorabilium Origines ac uccesiones. Item omnes eorum Reges, quando quiq; cœperit, quamdiu regnarit, quid dign memoria geerit. Quis tatus Populi Dei fuerit. Ac quemadmodum translata int Imperia a Populo in Populum & c. Et i qui uiri illutres, qu facinora egregia, ac i quid amplius memoratu dignum extitit, ea omnia breuiter uis locis referuntur. Svntque in hac compvtatione omnia tempora, tum ex Sacris Biblijs, cum ex optimis quibuq; autoribus, Hitoricis, & Atronomorum oberuationibus,

152

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

umma fide ac diligentia conciliata. Item commentariorvm libri decem, in qvibvs qvid tradatvr proprio titulo indicatur. Avtore Iohanne Fvnccio. Regiomonte Prvssiæ in officina Lufftiniana excuum. Anno alutis M.D.LII. Mene Octobri. Genebrardus Gilberto (Genebrard) 1580. Genebrardi theologi parisiensis divinarvm hebraicarvmqve literarvm professoris regii Chronographie Libri Qvatvor Priores Duo Sunt De rebus Veteris populi, & praecipuis quatuor millium annorum ge tis. Po teriores, è D. Arnaldi Pontaci. Parisiis, Apud Martinum Iuuenem. Gessner Conrad (Konrad Gessnerus, Gesner, Geßner) 1555. Mithridates. De differentiis lingvarum tvm vetervm tum quæ hodie apud diuersas nationes in toto orbe terrar in u u unt, CONRADI GESNERI Tigurini Oberuationes. Anno M.D.LV. Tigvri excvdebat Froschovervs. 1610. Mithridates Gesneri, exprimens differentias lingvarum, tum veterum, tum quæ hodie, per totum terrarum orbem, in usu sunt, Tiguri 1610, Typis Wolphianis. 1974. Konrad Gessner. Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum veterum tum quae hodie apud diversas nations in toto orbe terrarium in usu sunt, Neudruck der Ausgabe Zürich 1555. Hrsg. und eingeleitet von Manfred Peters, Aalen, Scientia Verlag. 2009.  Colombat Bernard, Peters Manfred 2009 Göbel Severin, the Young (Goebelius) 1616. Einfeltiger Jedoch gruԔndtlicher Bericht vnd Bedencken / Vom vr prung des Agadt oder BoԔrnsteins, woher der elbige komme / vnd in wa erley Kranckheit er gebrauchet / wie auch von dem Ohl o darauß di tiliret wird: Getelet durch Severin Göbel Medicinæ Doctorem den Elteten FuԔrt. D. Herčogen in Preuen trewen geweenen Leib Medicum vnd Profeorem. Jeto aber auffs newe Durch Severin Göbel F.M.D. auch F.D. Herčoges in Preuen Leib Medicum vnd Profeorem wieder auffgeleget. Gedruckt ŏu KoԌnigsberg in Preuen / bey Johann Schmidt / Anno 1616. Göbel Severin, the Old (Goebelius) 1565. DE SVCCINO LIBRI DVO / AVTHORE Seuerino Gœbelio, Medico Doctore. Horvm prior liber continet piam commonefactionem, de paßione, re urrectione, ac beneficijs Christi, quæ in historia Succini depinguntur.

Pietro U. Dini

153

Jovius Paolus (Iovius, Giovio) 1560. Pavli Iovii novocomensis Episcopi Nvcerini, Historiarvm vi temporis. Tomvs Primvs. Acceßit rerum Turcicarum Commentarius eiu dem Iouij ad finem operis, ex Italico Latinus factus. Basileae M. D. LX. Guagnino Alessandro (Guagnini, Gwagnin Aleksander) 1578. Sarmatiæ Evropeæ descriptio, quæ Regnum Poloniæ, Litvaniam, Samogitiam. Rvssiam, Massoviam, Prvssiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam, et Moschoviæ, Tartariæqve partem complectitur. Alexandri Gvagnini Veronenis, equitis Aurati, peditumque, praefecti, diligentia concriptæ. Cracoviæ, Typis Mathiæ Wirzbitæ. Hartknoch Christoph 1679. Alt- und Neues Preußen, Francfurt und Leipzig. 1684. Alt- und Neues Preußen oder Preußischer Historien Zwey Theile. Auß vielen alten so wol als neuen, einheimischen als außwertigen Scribenten, Privilegien und andern Documenten..., Francfurt und Leipzig, in Verlegung Martin Hallervorden, Buchhandlern in Konigsberg. Druckts Johann Andreæ. Hermelin Olof 1698. De Origine Livonorum Disqvisitio, Dorpat. 1717. De Origine Livonorum Disqvisitio, Qvam Propter Raritatem Ac Præ tantiam. Lipsiæ, H.I. Grossius = SRL, II, p. 542-566. Hervás y Panduro 1785. Trattato dell’origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degl’idiomi, tomo XVIII de L’Idea dell’Universo, Cesena 1785, per Gregorio Biasini all’insegna di Pallade. [San] Isidoro de Sevilla (Isidorus Hispalensis) 1982. Etimologías. Edición bilingue. Texto latino, version española y notas por Jose Oroz Reta y Manuel-A. Marcos Casquero, Libros I-X; Libros XI-XX, 2 voll., Madrid, La Editorial Católica. Kelch Christian K. 1695. Liefländische Historia oder kurze und eigentliche Beschreibung der Denkwürdigsten Friedens- und Kriegsgeschichte, Reval. Klein Daniel 1653. GRAMMATICA Litvanica Mandato & Autoritate SERENISSIMI ELECTORIS BRANDENBURGICI adornata, & præviâ Cenurâ primùm in lucem edita à M. DANIELE Klein/ Patore Til. Litv. Præmia et ad Lectorem Præfatio non minùs utilis, quàm necearia.... REGIOMONTI,

154

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Typis & umptinus JOHANNIS REUSNERI, ANNO "#$%'*'+?@% M. DC. LIII. 1957. Lietuvos TSR Moksl¡ Akademija. Lietuvi¡ kalbos ir literat™ros institutas, Pirmoji lietuvi kalbos gramatika 1653 metai, Vilnius, Valstybin politins ir mokslins literat™ros leidykla. Krantz Albert 1575a. A. Krantzii, viri in theologia et ivre pontificio celeberrimi, historiciqve clarissimi, Wandalia. De Wandalorvm vera origine, variis gentibus, crebris è patria migrationibus, regnis item, quorum vel autores vel euer ores fuerunt. Cvm indice locvpletiss. Adiecta et appendicis intar, Polonici regni, & Pruiæ, tum regiæ tum ducalis decriptio, nunquam antehac via. Francofvrti, Ex officina typographica Andreæ Wecheli. M.D.LXXV. 1575b. Alberti Krantzii, rervm germanicarvm historici clariss. Saxonia. De Saxonicæ gentis vetu ta origine, longinquis expeditionibus u ceptis, & bellis domi pro libertate diu fortiferq; ge tis. Denuo, & quidem accuratius emendatiuq; quàm antè, edita. Cum præfatione D. Nicolai Cisneri, I.C. & tribunalis Imperatorij a e oris. Addito Indice locvpletiss. Francofvrti ad Moenvm apvd A. Wechelvm. M. D. LXXV. Letus Pomponius 1515. Opera Pomponii Laeti. Romanae historiae compendium, ab interitu Gordiani iunioris vsque ad Iustinum tertium. Pomponius. De Romanorum magistratibus. De sacerdotiis. De iurisperitis. De legibus ad M. Pantagathum. Item De antiquitatibus vrbis Romae libellus, qui Pomponio adscribitur. Pomponii Epistolae aliquot familiares. Pomponij vita, per. M. Antonium Sabellicum. Index praeterea est hic additus, qui in priori impressione desyderabatur. Argentorati, ex aedibus Schureriani, Mense Octobri. 1515. Letopisi  ¢£¤¥£¦ ¨£©ª«¥¬¦ ª­¨¨®¬¯ ¤¦°£±¬¨¦², t. 1, Moskva, Izdatel’stvo Vostonoj literatury, 1962-. Loewenklau Johannes (Leuncla(v)ius Johannes, Lewenklaw Hanen) 1588. Annales Svltanorvm Othmanidarvm a Tvrcis sva lingva scripti: Hieronymi Beck a Leopoldtorf, Marci fil. tudio & diligentia Contantinopoli aduecti MDLI, Diuo Ferdinando Cæ. Opt. Max. D.D. iuuque Cæ. a Joanne Gaudier dicto Spiegel, interprete Turcico Germanice translati. IOANNES LEVNCLAVIVS NOBILIS Angriuarius, Latine redditos illutrauit & auxit, vque ad annum CIO IO XXCVIII. FRANCOFVRDI Apud Andreæ Wecheli heredes, Claudium Marnium, & Ioannem Aubrium. MDLXXXVIII.

Pietro U. Dini

155

1590. Neuwe Chronica Turcki cher nation / von Turcken elbs be chrieben: volgents gemehrt / vnnd in vier Bucher abgetheilt: [...] Das Dritt/ PANDECTES Turcki cher hi tori / Das ist / vollkomner Bericht allerley Turcki cher achen / vnd Erklarung der elben [...] 1590. Gedruckt u Franckfurt am Mayn / bey Andres Wechels eligen Erben / nemlich / Claudi de Marne vnd Johann Aubri. Megiser Hyeronimus 1603. Polyglottus: vel, Dictionarium Multilingue: Ex Qvadringentis circiter tam veteris, qvam novi (vel potiùs antiquis incogniti) Orbis Nationum Linguis, Dialectis, Idiomatibus & Idioti mis, constans... Hieronymo Megisero P. C. Cæs. et Sereni. Autr. Archidd. Hitoriographo..., Francofvrti ad Moenvm... M.DC.III. Menius Fridericus 1632. Syntagma de origine Livonorum, Dorpati = SRL, II, p. 511-542. Merula Paulus 1605. Cosmographiæ generalis libri tres: item geographiæ particvlaris libri qvatvor: Quibus Evropa in genere..., Ex Officina Plantiniana Raphelengij... Væneunt etiam Amsteldami apud Cornelium Nicolai, Lugduni Batavorum. Michalo Lituanus 1615 [1550]. Michalonis Lituani De moribus Tartarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum fragmina X multiplici historia referta. Nunc primum per I. Jac. Grasserum C.P. ex manuscripto authentico edita, Basileae. 1966.  Jurginis 1966 Miechovita (Maciej z Miechowa, Miechovo, Matheas de Miechov) 1517. [n.v.] Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis Asiana et Europiana et de Contentis in eis, Cracoviæ, Haller. 1582.  Pistorius 1582. Münster Sebastian [1489-1552] 1554. Komograffia Ceská: To ge t wyp ánij o poloenij Kragin neb Zemij y Obyegijch Národuow w eho Swieta a Hy torygij podlé Potu Leth nan\m b\hlých prwé nikdá tak po polku w ádném Jazyku newidaná... w Pra e w Pátek den Powyenij Swatého Kij³e Létha Pánie Tiýcýho P´titého Padeátého C³twrtého: Jan Kooky Skooe. 1559. COSMOGRAPHIAE uniuersalis Lib. VI. in quibus iuxta certioris fidei criptorum traditionem de cribuntur, Omnium habitabilis orbis partium itus, propriæq; dotes. Regionum Topographicæ effigies. Terræ ingenia, quibus fit ut tam differentes & uarias pecie res, & animatas, &

156

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

inanimatas, ferat. Animalium peregrinorum naturæ & picturæ. Nobiliorum ciuitatum icones & de criptiones. Regnorum initia, incrementa & translationes. Regum & principum genealogiæ. Item omnium gentium mores, leges, religio, mutationes: atq; memorabilium in hunc u que annum 1559. ge tarum rerum Hi toria. Autore Sebat. Muntero. [Basel.] 1564. Cosmographey oder be chreibung aller lander / herr chafften / fürnem ten tetten / ge chichten / gebreüch / hantierungen etc. Er tmals be chriben durch Seba tianum Mun terum / auch durch jn elb t gebe ert / an welt vnd natürlich hi tori / jetunder aber biß auff das M. D. LXIIII. jar nach jnhalt nachfolgendes blats vereichung vyl gemehret. jtem mit hüb chen figuren vnd landtafl geiert / underlichen aber werd dari cõtrafehtet acht vñ viertig Stett / vnder welchen bey dreißig auß Teüt cher nation nach jrer gelegheit dar komen / vnd von der tett oberkeit dohin ampt jren be chreibungen verordnet. Getruckt Ÿ Basel. 1575a. COSMOGRAPHIA VNIVERSALE, Nella quale econdo che n’hanno parlato i piu veraci Scrittori, on deignati i iti di tutti gli paei... Raccolta primo da diuer i autori per Seba tiano Mun tero, & dapoi corretta & repurgata, per gli Cen ori Eccle ia tici, & quei del Re Catholico nelli pae i ba si, & per l’Inqui itore di Venetia. In Colonia, Appreo gli heredi d’Arnoldo Byrckmanno. M.D.LXXV. 1575b. COSMOGRAPHIE VNIVERSELLE DE TOVT LE MONDE. En la quelle, uiuant les auteurs plus dignes de foy, ont au vray decriptes toutes les parties habitables, & non habitables de la Terre, & de la Mer, leurs aiettes & choes qu’elles produient: puis la decription & peincture Topographique des regions, la difference de l’air de chacun pays, d’où aduient la diuerité tant de la complexion des hommes que des figures des betes brutes. Et encor l’origine, noms ou appellations tant modernes qu’anciennes, & decription de pluieurs villes, citez & Iles, auec leurs plantz, & pourtraictz, & ur tout de la FRANCE, non encor iuques à preent veus ny imprimez. S’y voyent aui d’auantage, les origines, accroiemens, & changemens des Monarchies, Empires, Royaumes, Etatz, & Republiques: enemble les mœurs, façons de viure, loix, coutumes, & religion de tous les peuples, & natiõs du monde: & la ucceion des Papes, Cardinaux, Archeueques, & Eueques, chacun en leur Diocee, tant anciens que modernes: Auec pluieurs autres choes, le ommaire dequelles e void en la page uiuante. Auter en partie MVNSTER, mais beaucoup plus augmentée, ornée & enrichie, par FRANCOIS DE BELLE-FOREST, Comingeois, tant de es recerches, comme de l’aide de pluieurs memoires enuoyez de diueres Villes de France, par hommes amateurs de l’hitoire & de leur patrie. Auec trois Tables, l’vne des plantz, & pourtraictz des Iles, & des Villes. La econde, des tiltres & chapitres. Et la troiieme, de tous les noms propres, & des matieres cõpries en tout l’œuure. A Paris, Chez Nicolas Cheneau, rue S. Iaques, au Chene Verd. M.D.LXXV. Avec privilege dv Roy, et de la Covr.

Pietro U. Dini

157

Nesselman Georg H. F. 1845. Die Sprache der alten Preussen an ihren Überresten erlautert, Berlin, Reimer. Ortelius Abraham (Hortelius, Abraham Oertel, Wortel) 1570. Theatrum orbis terrarum, Anversa, M.DC.LXX. [1964, Sequoia s.a. Lausanne, Paesi Bassi]. Peucer Caspar 1555. Propositiones de origine et cavsis Svccini prvssiaci. Caspar Pevcervs. VVittebergae excvdebat Iohannes Crato. Anno M.D.LV. Piccolomini Aenea Sylvius 1458. De Europa, Basileae. [1702, Frankfurt und Leipzig]. 1471-1475. De itu et origine Pruthenorum, s.l. 2001. ENEE SILVII PICCOLOMINEI postea PII PP ·II DE EVROPA. Edidit commentarioque instruxit ADRIANVS VAN HECK, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Pirckheimer Bilibaldo (Willibald) [1470-1530] 1585. DESCRIPTIO GERMANIÆ VTRIVSQVE Tam uperioris quàm inferioris: Auctoribus Bilibaldo Pirckeimero & cæteris quorum nomina equenti pagina continentur. Antverpiae. Ex officina Chritophori Plantini, M. D. LXXXV. Pisanski Georg Christoph 1766. DISSERTATIO HISTORICO-LITTERARIA, GRAECAE LINGUAE IN PRUSSIA HISTORIAM in compendio sistens. Quam consentiente amplissimo philosophorum ordine publicae disquisitioni subiicit M. Georgius Christophorus Pisanski... A.D. xviii. Iunii. MDCCLXVI, Regiomonti, Litteris VIDUAE IOANNIS FRIDERICI DRIESTII. 1791. Entwurf der Preußischen Litteraergeschichte, Königsberg, Hartung. 1886. Entwurf einer preussischen Literaturgeschichte, Königsberg, Verlag der Hartungchen Druckerei. [Reprint: 1994, Rudolf Philippi (Ed), Hamburg, Verein für Familienforschung in Ost- und Westpreußen e.V.]. Pistorius Johann [1546-1608] 1582. Polonicæ Historiæ Corpvs, hoc est, POLONICARVM RERVM LATINI recentiores & ueteres criptores, quotquot extant, uno volumine compræheni omnes, & in aliquot ditributi Tomos. Ex Bibliotheca Ioan. Pistorii Nidani d. ... Cum Gratia & Priuileg. Cæ. Maiet. Basileæ, Henricpetri.

158

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

de Poza Andres Licenciado 1587. De la antigua lengva, poblaciones, y comarcas de las E panas en que de pa o e tocan algunas co as de la Cantabria. Compue to por el Licciado Andres de Poa natural de la ciudad de Orduña y auogado en el muy noble y leal Senorio de Vizcaya... Con priuilegio real, Impreo en Bilbao por Mathias Mares, primer impreor de Vizcaya. Año de 1587. 1959. Antigua lengua de las Españas, Edición de Angel Rodriguez Herrero (Biblioteca Vasca, 4), Madrid, Minotauro. 1987. De la antigua lengva, poblaciones, y comarcas de las E panas, Bilbao, Real Academia de la Lengua Vasca-Euskaltzaindia. Praetorius Matas (Prätorius, Pretorijus Matas) [1635?-1707?] 1690 ca. Deliciae Pru icae, oder Preu ische Schau-bühne, ms.  Pierson 1871. 1999. Prsijos domybs, arba Prsijos regykla, Vilnius, Pradai. Daniel, Prinz von Buchau 1681. Moscoviae ortus et progressus, Ludguni Batavorum [= Scriptores rerum Livonicarum, II, Riga, Leipzig 1848]. de Rada Jiménez Rodrigo (Rodericus Archiepiscopus Toletanus) ca. 1243. De rebus Hispaniæ, Toledo. 1545. Rerum in Hispania gestarum Chronicõn Libri X, Apud inclytam Granatam. Rehehusen Joannis Georgus 1644. Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et certa, excusa a G. Schroeder, Rigae. Rocca Angelo 1591. Appendix de dialectis, hoc est de variis linguarum generibus. In: BIBLIOTHECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA A SIXTO V P.M. IN SPLENDIDIOREM COMMODORIEMQUE LOCVM TRANSLATA..., Roma, Tipografia Apostolica Vaticana, 1591. 1745. OPERA OMNIA, Roma, Tipografia San Michele. Rotundus Augustinus (Rotund Augustyn) 1890. Rozmowa Polaka z Litwinem, Józef Korzeniowski, Kraków, Wydawnictwa akademii umiejtnoci w Krakowie (Biblijoteka pisarzów polskich, 11). 1900. Serenissimo Principi ac Domino, Domino STEPHANO Dei gratia Poloniae Regi, Magno DVCI Litvaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Samagitiae, Masouiae, Liuoniae, Volhiniae, Podlachiae etc. Transiluaniae Principi, Domino clementissimo. [Reprint: Archivum Komisij Prawniczej, 7,

Pietro U. Dini

159

Kraków, p. xv-xxii: Statvta magni dvcatvs Litvaniae in Biel. Scen. comitiis promvlgata, in Vilnensib. anno Salutis humanae Millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo sexto approbata. E Rutheno sermone in Latinum bona fide conuersa]. 1921. Epitome Principum Lituaniae a migratione Italorum P. Libone vel, ut Lituanica historia scribit, Palemone Duce usque ad Jagellones  Bibliografia, Jakubowski 1921, p. 85-94. Ruigh Philip (Ruigys, Pilypas) 1745. Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache, in ihrem Ursprunge, Wesen und Eigenschaften, Königsberg. [1986, pareng V. Jurgutis, V. Vilnonyt, Lietuvi kalbos kilms, bdo ir savybi tyrinjimas, Vilnius, Vaga (Lituanistin biblioteka, 23)]. 1986. Pilypas Ruigys. Pareng V. Jurgutis, V. Vilnonyt, Lietuvi kalbos kilms bdo ir savybi tyrinjimas, (Lituanistin biblioteka, 23), Vilnius, Vaga. Sarnicki Stanisaw 1587. Annales, sive De origine et rebvs gestis Polonorvm et Litvanorvm libri octo. Habes hîc priorem partem horum Chronicorum, hactenus omiam & neglectam ab alijs authoribus: quæ incipit ab Aarmoth conditore Sarmaticorum populorum, & continuatur ad Lechum ipum, rerum ordine ecundum temporum eriem eruato. Et tandem à Lecho ad no tra tempora, quid in i tis terris actum it fideliter exponitur. Cætera, quæ in hoc libro continentur, ip ius libri argumentum eidem præfixum indicabit. [Cracoviae] Anno Domini M.D. LXXX. VII. Scaligerus Julius Caesar 1610. Ios. Ivsti Scaligeri Ivlii Caesaris a Bvrden filii Opvscvla varia antehac non edita: Omnium Catalogum post Præfationem Lector inueniet, Parisiis, Apud Hadrianum Beys. Skarga Piotr 1577. n.v.  1885. 1885. O jednoci Kocioa Boego pod jednym pasterzem i o Greckiem i Ruskiem od tej jednoci odstpieniu, przez Ks. Piotra Skarg S. J. wydanie szóste, oraz Synod Brzeski i Obrona Synodu Brzeskiego, przez tego Autora. Wydanie pite. W Krakowie, nakadem Ks. Ludwika Bobra, Archiprezbytera Infuata Kocioa Najw. Maryi Panny w Krakowie. W drukarni “Czasu” Fr. Kluczyckiego i sp. pod zarzdem Józefa  akociskiego. 1885, str. XVI+292+XVI.

160

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Stobnica Johannes (Jan ze Stobnicy, Stobniczka) 1512. Epitoma europe Enee Siluij paucis aliunde adiectis, in: Introductio in Ptholomei Co mographiã c longitudinibus et latitudinibus regionum et ciuitatum celebriorum, Cracoviae, Ungler & Wietor. Stryjkowski Maciej 1576-1578. O pocztkach, wywodach, dzielnociach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sawnego narodu litewskiego, emojdzkiego i ruskiego, przedtym nigdy od zadnego ani kuszone, ani opisane,  natchnienia Boego a uprzejmie pilnego dowiadczenia. 1582. Która przedtym wiata nie widziaa. Kronika Polska Litewska

modzka y wszyskiey Rusi Kijowskiey Moskiewskiey Siewierskiey Wolhyskiey Podolskiey Podgorskiey Podlaskiey... y rozmaite przypadki woienne y domowe Pruskich, Mazowieckich, Pamorskich y inszych krain Krolestwu Polskiemu i Wielkiemu Xi stwu Litewskiemu przylegych... w Królewcu  Stryjkowski 1846, I: p. 1-392; II: p. 1- 572. 1846. Kronika Polska, Litewska, ^módzska i wszystkiej Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego, Warszawa, Nakad Gustawa Leona Glücksberga, Ksigarza. 1978. O pocztkach, wywodach, dzielnociach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sawnego narodu litewskiego, emojdzkiego i ruskiego..., Opracowaa Julia Radziszewska, Warszawa, Pastwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Strubycz Matthia Livoniensis 1577. n.v. 1727. Brevis atque Accurata Livoniæ Ducatus descriptio historico-geographica. Ad Eccleiaticam & Profanam In primis Ordinum Johannitarum, Teutonicorum & Templariorum faciens Hitoriam è MSto uo vetutiimo eruta ac in lucem protracta â M. Justo Laurentio Diezio.U.F. Amstelædami, Impenis Auctoris Apud Abraham Strander, Bibliopolam. Anno 1727. Thévet André 1554. COSMOGRAPHIE DE LEVANT, Par F. André Theuet d’angovlesme. A Lyon par Ian de Tovrnes, et Gvil. Gazeav. M. D. LIIII. Auec Priuilege du Roy. 1575. LA COSMOGRAPHIE VNIVERSELLE D’ANDRÉ THEVET COSMOGRAPHE DV ROY. ILLVSTREE DE REMARQVABLES VEVËS PAR l’Auteur, & incogneuës de noz Anciens & Modernes. TOME SECOND. A PARIS, Chez Pierre l’Huillier, rue S. Iaques, à l’Oliuier. Auec Priuilege du Roy.

Pietro U. Dini

161

Thurneysser Leonhard (Thurneysser, zum Thurn) 1583a. }À– ɵŠ·¸É–¹ Das it ein ONOMASTICVM vnd INTERPRETATIO oder außfuƉhrliche Erklerung/ Leonharten Thurneyers um Thurn/ Churfurtichs Brandenburgichs betalten Leibs Medici. Vber Etliche frembde uñ (bey vielen hochgelarten/ die der Lateinichen vnd Griechichen Sprach erfahren) vnbekante Nomina, Verba, Prouerbia, Dicta, Sylben/ Caracter, vnd ont Reden. Deren nicht allein in des theuren Philo ophi vnd Medici Aurelij, Theophra ti, Paracel i von Hohenheim/ Sondern auch in anderer Authorum Schrifften/ hin vnd wider weitleufftig gedacht/ welche hie uammen/ nach dem Alphabet ver eichnet. Das Ander theil. Jn welchem fat jedes Wort/ mit einer eigenen chrifft/ nach der VoƉlcker Etymologia oder eigenen art vnd weis ureden/ bechrieben worden it. Gedruckt u Berlin durch Nicolaum Volt en. Anno M. D. LXXXIII. 1583b. Šº¹¼· ½¾Š–¹, VEL MAGNA ALCHYMIA. Das it ein Lehr vnd vnterweiung von den offenbaren vnd verborgenlichen Naturen/ Arten vnd Eigenchafften/ allerhande wunderlicher Erdtgewechen/ als Ert en/ Metallen/ Mineren/ Erdafften/ Schwefeln/ Mercurien, Salt en vnd Geteinen. Vnd was der dingen um theil hoch in den Lufften/ um theil in der Tieffe der Erden/ vnd um theil in den Waern/ welche aus dem Chaos oder der Confuion vnd vermichung Elementicher Subtanzen, als Geitlicher/ vñ doch ubtiler/ noch vnbetendiger weis veruracht/ empfangen vnd radicirt, Aber von Himelicher uneigung der Influentichen impresion, oder Eintruckung/ Seelicher vnd Fixer oder betendiger weie/ u einer weentlichen materia digerirt, coagulirt, oder præparirt, Vnd durch die naturliche VermoԌgligkeit/ Krafft vnd forthtreibung/ jedes in einer getalt/ Als ein greiffelichs/ eint igs/ weentlichs ding/ Corporalicher/ volkommener weie/ von einer Radice abgeloƉet/ an tag außgetoen/ vnd in getalt einer ichtigen Maæ geboren: Vnd wie/ oder welcher getalt/ oder auff was weiß vñ wege/ deren ein jedes/ mit

illat des andern/ durch Menchlichen Handgriff/ oder den Vum (dieer ehr alten Kunt) eintweders in ein Liquorem/ Oehl/ Salt / Stein/ Waer/ Schwefel/ Mercurium oder andere Mineren vnd Metall verwandelt/ oder ont um nut / gebrauch vnd woltandt/ Menchlichs eitlichs Lebens

ugericht vnd bereitet wird. Welches alles durch Leonharten Thurneiern

um Thurn von Bael/ Churfurtlichen Brandenburgichen betalten Leibs Medicum/ menniglichem u nut in 30. vercheidner Bucher/ mit onderlichem vnkoten/ vleis vnd arbeit am tag geben. Gedruckt u Berlin durch Nicolaum Voit en. Anno M. D. LXXXIII.

162

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Waldseemüller Martin 1507. CoĒmographiae Introdvctio, cvm qvibvsdam geometriae ac astronomiae principiis ad eam rem necessariis. St. Dié. 1907. The Cosmographiæ introductio of Martin Waldseemüller in facsimile. By Joseph Fischer, Franz von Wieser, edited by Charles George Herbermann, New York, The United States Catholic Historical Society. Wapowski Bernat (Vapovius) 1847. Dzieje Korony Polskiéj i wielkiego Ksi stwa litewskiego od roku 1380 do 1535. Przez Bernarda z Rachtamowic Wapowskiego, ze wic¿o odkrytego spóczesnego rkopismu, z jzyka aciskiego na ojczysty przetómaczy, przypisami objani, poczet rzeczy i osób doda Mikoaj Malinowski. Tom pierwszy. Wilno, Nakadem i czcionkami teofila Glücksberga. Ksigarza i typografa szkó biaoruskiego naukowego okrgu. Willichius Jodocus (Willich Jodoc) 1551. IN CORNELII TACITI EQVITIS ROMANI GERMANIAM COMMENTARIA. Autore D. Iodoco Vuillichio Reelliano. Insertae svnt et historiae. Zythi Germanici contra multos criptores. Succini contra plæro q;. Sueui fluminis contra omnes Geographos. Eodem autore. Francforti ad Viadrum per Iohann. Eichorn Anno M.D.LI. 1610. D. Jodoci Willichii reselliani, in Cornelii Taciti Equitis Romani Germaniam Commentaria, in: Beathi Rhenani Selestadiensis Rerum Germanicarum Libri Tres, Argentorati, Lazarus Zetznerus, 1610:405-657. Volaterranus Rafael Maffeius 1506. Commentariorvm Vrbanorvm Liber... Impreus Rom per Ioannem Beicken Alemanum Anno Dñi. MDVI. XIII. CAL. Martii. 1603. Raphaelis Volaterrani, Commentariorvm Vrbanorvm libri octo et triginta, accvratius quàm antehac excu i. Cum variis locorum, virorum, plantarum, Indicibus recognitis. Item Oeconomicus Xenophontis, ab eodem Latio donatus. Acce erunt huic nonæ editioni Indices duo, prior capitum totius operis: posterior verò rerum, ac verborum memorabilium locupleti imus. Apud Claudium Marnium, & hæredes Ioannis Aubrij. M. DC. III.

Zamelius Friedrich (Zamehl) 17th cent. De Galindis ac Sudinis, Carmen, In quo multa de Veteri Lingua Prussica occurrunt, in  Hartknoch 1679:104–108 and 1684:112–114.

References Aliletoescvr = Dini Pietro U. 2001: Aliletoescvr. Linguistica baltica delle origini. Teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecento, Livorno, Books & Company. Ardoino Diego 2012: “La Traccia di Basilea nel suo contesto tedescolatino: aspetti codicologico, paleografico e filologico”. In: N.N. Kazanskij (Ed), Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassieskaja filologija, XVI (Átenija pamjati I.M. Tronskogo), Sankt Peterburg, Nauka, p. 19–33. Armbruster Adolf 1977: La romanité des Roumains: histoire d’une idee. Bibliotheca historica Romaniae, Monographies 17, Bucuresti, Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. Asher Ronald E., Simpson J.M.Y. 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford-New York-Seoul-Tokio, Pergamon. Auroux Sylvain, Koerner Ernst F.K., Niederehe Hans-Josef, Versteegh Kees 2000: History of the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, 18.1-3. In: A. Burkhardt, H. Steger, H. Ernst Wiegand (Eds), Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 3 vols, Berlin–New York, de Gruyter. Auth. 1996: “Latino e lituano nel Rinascimento. Sull’importanza del momento linguistico nel mito dell’origine latina del lituano”. In: Mirko Tavoni & Dini P.U., Flood J., Gallotta A., Jensen K., Lardet P., Niederhehe H.-J., Tamani G. (Eds), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni / Italy and Europe in Renaissance Linguistics. Comparisons and Relations, Modena, Panini, 2 vols., p. 363-375. Auth. 1997c: “Der Werdegang der Auffassung über die baltischen Sprachen bei Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro am Vorabend der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft”, Indogermanische Forschungen, 102, p. 261-294. Auth. 1997g: Le lingue baltiche, Firenze, La Nuova Italia. Auth. 1998: “Historiographia Linguistica Baltica («±£Ã¬¥«¥¬¦ £ ±£Å«©Ç°£² £©¤«¨°¬ ¬¨¨¤¦È£Ê«¥¬²)”, Ë«¤°£-¨¤«ÊÌ¥¨®¬¦ ¬¨¨¤¦È£Ê«¥¬Ì 1997, Í£¨®Ê«, 1998, p. 297–302. Auth. 1999a: “Ketveriopos kalbos (linguagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum) samprata ir Renesanso balt¡ kalbotyros istoriografijos kontekstas”, Metmenys, 76, p. 138-150. Auth. 1999b: “The linguistic dispute of Vilnius Humanists regarding Latin, Lithuanian and Ruthenian”, Historiographia Linguistica, 26-1, p. 23-36. Auth. 2000a: Balt kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija, Vilnius, Mokslo ir enciklopedij¡ leidykla. Auth. 2000b: “Die baltischen Sprachen bei Hieronymus Megiser”. In: J.-D. Range (Ed), Aspekte baltistischer Forschung. Festschrift R. Eckert, München, p. 89-108.

164

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Auth. 2006a: “A Note on Marcin Bielski and the Lithuanian language”. In: S. Kessler, Chr. Schiller (Eds), Navicula litterarum balticarum. Philologische Baltikum-Studien für Jochen D. Range zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, p. 95-100. Auth. 2006b: “A lesser known Variant (the Valachian Connection) and its Place within the Renaissance Theory of the Roman Origin of Lithuanian”. In: ΰ¥£®­¤Ï°­ª¥Ç¦ ¬ а¥£ÌÅÇ®£ÊǦ ®£¥°«®°Ç ¥« °¦ªª¬°£ª¬¬ Ѧ¤¬®£Ò£ ®¥ÌÓ¦¨°Ê« Ô¬°£Ê¨®£Ò£, Moskva, Dom J. Baltrušajtisa, p. 87-101. Auth. 2007: “An Illyrian Theory of the Baltic languages in the 16th century”. In: Ë«¤°Ç ¬ Ѧ¤¬®£¦ ®¥ÌÓ¦¨°Ê£ Ô¬°£Ê¨®£¦, Moskva, Dom J. Baltrušajtisa, p. 285-293. Baryczowa Maria 1935: “Augustyn Rotundus Mieleski, wójt wileski, pierwszy historyk i apologeta Litwy”, Ateneum Wileskie, 10, p. 70-96. Baryczowa Maria 1936: “Augustyn Rotundus Mieleski, wójt wileski, pierwszy historyk i apologeta Litwy”, Ateneum Wileskie, 11, p. 117-172. Bonfante Giuliano 1954: “Ideas on the kinship of the European language from 1200 to 1800”, Cahiers d’histoire mondiale, 1, p. 679-699. Bonfante Giuliano 1955: “Una descrizione linguistica d’Europa del 1614”, Paideia, 10-10, p. 224-227. Breidaks Antons 1994: “H. Megisers un veclatviešu rakstu valodas sÕkotne”, Baltu Filolo_ija, 4, p. 15-18. Brogi-Bercoff Giovanna 1982: “Storiografia italiana e slava dal Medioevo al Rinascimento”, Europa Orientalis, 1, p. 3-9. Brückner Aleksandr 1917: Die Erforschung der indogermanischen Sprachen, II, 3, Strasbourg, Trübner. Chambers Jack K. 1995: Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons. Chrzanowski Ignacy 21926: Marcin Bielski, studium historyczno-literackie, Lwów-Warszawa. Chrzanowski Ignacy 1936: “Bielski Marcin”, PSB, 2, Kraków, Nakadem Polskiej Akademji Umiejtnoci, p. 64-66. Colker Marvin L. 1979: “America rediscovered in the thirteenth century?”, Speculum, October, p. 712-726. Colombat Bernard, Peters Manfred 2009: CONRAD GESSNER MITHRIDATE. MITHRIDATES (1555). Introduction, texte latin, traduction française, annotation et index, Librairie Droz, Gèneve. Coseriu Eugenio 1995: “Das westeuropäische Bild vom Südslavischen zur Zeit Primus Trubers”. In: Rolf-Dieter Kluge (Ed), Ein Leben zwischen Laibach und Tübingen Primus Truber und seine Zeit, München, Sagner, p. 174-185. Demonet Marie-Lucie 1992: Les Voix du signe. Nature et origine du langage à la Renaissance (1480-1580), Paris-Genève, Champion-Slatkine. Doblinger Max 1905: “Hieronymus Megisers Leben und Werke”, MIÖG, 26, p. 431-478.

Pietro U. Dini

165

Donecker Stephen 2011a: “Wallachian settlers in the Baltic sea region. A humanist tale of migration and colonization, and its implications for the mental maps of Early modern Europe”, Revista Român` de Studii Baltice {i Nordice, 3-1, p. 9-27. Donecker Stephen 2011b: “Alt-Livland zwischen römischen Kolonisten und jüdischen Exilanten. Genealogische Fiktionen in der Historiografie des 17. Jahrhunderts”, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung, 60-2, p. 210-231. Donecker Stephen 2012: “An Itinerant Sheep, and the Origins of the Livonians. Friedrich Menius’s Syntagma de origine Livonorum (1635)”, Journal of Baltic Studies, 43-1, p. 1-20. Donner Gustav Adolf 1929: Kardinal Wilhelm von Sabina, Bischof von Modena (1222-1234) Päpstlicher Legat in den Nordischen Ländern (†1251), Helsingfors, Societas scientiarum fennica. Drotvinas Vincentas (Ed) 2009: Brodovskis J. Lexicon Germanico-Lithuanicum et Lithuanico-germanicum. Rankraštinis XVIII amžiaus žodynas: dokumentinis leidimas su faksimile, perrašu ir žodži registru, 3 vols, Vilnius, Lietuvi¡ kalbos institutas. Dundulien Pran 1982: Lietuvi etnografija, Vilnius, Mokslas. Dundulien Pran 2005: Žaltys ir jo simboliai lietuvi liaudies mene ir žodinje kryboje, Vilnius, Mokslo ir enciklopedij¡ leidybos institutas. Fischer et al. 1967: Conrad Gessner Universalgelehrter Naturforscher Artz, Zürich. Fortunatov Filip F. 1876: “Miscellanea”, Beiträge für vergleichende Sprach forschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen, 8, p. 111-119. Frick David 1985: “Meletij Smotryc’kyj and the Ruthenian Language Question”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 9, 1-2, 1985, p. 25-52. Górka Olgierd (Ed) 1916: Anonymi Descriptio Europae orientalis “Imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia” anno MCCCVIII exarata. Edidit, praefatione et adnotationibus instruxit Dr. Olgierd Góka, Cracoviae, Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, Gebethner et socii. Guida Francesco 1979: “Enea Silvio Piccolomini e l’Europa Orientale: il ‘De Europa’ (1458)”, Clio, 15, 1, p. 35-57. Hajdukiewicz Leszek 1960: “Przyczynki do ycia i twórczoci Macieja z Miechowa”. In: Barycz Henryk (Ed), Maciej z Miechowa 1457-1523. Historyk, geograf, lekarz organizator nauki, Wrocaw-Warszawa, Zakad narodowy im. ossoliskich wydawnictwo polskiej akademii nauk, p. 255304. Hajdukiewicz Leszek 1974: “Maciej z Miechowa zwany Miechovit”, PSB, 19, p. 28-33. Herrmann G. 1930: “Massagetai”. In: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg

166

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Wissowa, Stuttgart, J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 14, p. 21232129. Jablonowski Horst 1961: Westrussland zwischen Wilna und Moskau, Leiden, J.E. Brill. Jakubowski Jan 1921: Tautybi santykiai Lietuvoje prieš Liublino unij”, Kaunas, Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. Jansons Aivars 1965: “DonÕta gramatikas tulkojums latviešu cilšu valodÕs 13. gs.”, Latvijas PSR Zin|t}u Akad~mijas V~stis, 12(221), p. 25-38. Jurginis Juozas (Ed) 1966: Apie Totori, Lietuvi ir Maskvn paproius, Vilnius, Vaga (Lituanistin biblioteka). Ivanov Vyacheslav V. 1998: “Multilingual Communication and Large Urban Centers”, Plurilinguismo, 5:33-60. Kabelka Jonas 1929: “Latviški žodžiai 1603 met¡ Thesaure Polyglotte”, Archivum Philologicum, 8, p. 19–21. Kavolis Vytautas 1989: “The Devil’s invasion: cultural changes in early modern Lithuania”, Lituanus, 35–4, p. 5–26. Kavia Sarma 2008: Latviešu valodas p~tnieki. No klaušu laikiem ldz savai valstij, R×ga, RaKa. Koerner Ernst F.K. 1995: Professing Linguistic Historiography, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, vol. 79, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, Benjamins. Koerner Ernst F.K., Asher Ron E. 1995: Concise History of the Languages Sciences from the Sumerian to the Cognitivists, Oxford-New York-SeoulTokio, Pergamon. Korsakas Kostas 1957: Lietuvi literatros istorija, I, Vilnius, Valstybin politins ir mokslins literat™ros leidykla. Krzyanowski Julian 1986: Historia literatury polskiej, Warszawa, Pastwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Kuolys Darius 1992: Asmuo, tauta, valstyb Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštysts istorinje literatroje. Renesansas, Barokas, Vilnius, Mokslo ir enciklopedij¡ leidykla. Kürbisówna Brygida 1953: “Ksztatowanie si poj geograficznych o Sowiszczyznie w polskich kronikach przeddugoszowych”, Slavia Antiqua, Pozna-Wrocaw, 4. Lebedys Jurgis 1977: Senoji lietuvi literatra, Vilnius, Mokslas. Lepschy Giulio 1990: Storia della Linguistica, II vol., Bologna, Il Mulino. Leskien August 1876: Die Declination im Slavisch-litauischen und Germanischen, Leipzig, Hirzel [= 2nd ed., 1963: Leipzig, Zentral-Antiquariat der DDR]. LKŽ = Lietuvi kalbos žodynas, 20 vols, Lietuvi¡ kalbos institutas, Lietuvi¡ literat™ros institutas, Vilnius. Lukšait Ing 1999: “Matas Pretorijus – Pr™sijos kult™ros istorikas. Gyvenimas, veikla ir mokslin k™ryba”  Sources, Pretorijus Matas 1999, p. 9-83.

Pietro U. Dini

167

Martel Antoine 1937: “La langue polonaise dans les pays Ruthènes (15691667)”, Lille, Travaux et mémoires de l’Université de Lille. Matuzova Vera I. 1978: “Vostonaja Pribaltika v soinenii Bartolomeja Anglijskogo ‘O svojstvax vešej’”, Vostonaja Evropa v drevnosti i šrednevekov’e. Sbornik statej, Moskva, Nauka, p. 49-55. Mažiulis Vytautas 1981: Prs kalbos paminklai II, Vilnius, Mokslas. McCluskey Stephen C., William R. Schmalstieg, Valdis J. Zeps 1975: “The Basel Epigram: A new minor Text in Old Prussian”, General Linguistics, 15, p. 159–165. Metcalf George J. 1963a: “The Views of Konrad Gesner on Language”, in: Erich Hofacker, Liselotte Dieckmann (Eds), Studies in Germanic languages and literatures. In memory of Fred O. Nolte. A collection of essays written by his colleagues and his former students, Washington University Press, St. Louis, p. 15-26. Metcalf George J. 1963b: “Konrad Gesner’s views on the Germanic languages”, Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, deutsche Sprache und Literatur, 40-4, p. 149-156. Narbutas Sigitas 1994: “Nežinomas sakinys 1564 m. knygoje”, Lietuvos Aidas, spalio m. 10 d., p. 17. Ochmaski Jan 1976: “Michalon Litwin i jego traktat o zwyczajach Tatarów, Litwinów i Moskwicinów z poowy XVI wieku”, Kwartalnik Historiczny, 4, p. 765-783. Ochmaski Jan 1985: “Nieznany autor “Opisu krajów” z drugiej poowy XIII wieku i jego wiadomoci o Batach”, Lituano-Slavica Posnaniensia. Studia Historica, 1, p. 107-114. Parenti Alessandro 1995: “Note sul problema dell’articolo prussiano”, Pontobaltica, 6, p. 71-87. Perdrizet Paul 1909: “Barthélemy l’Anglais et sa description de l’Angleterre”, Journal des savants, Paris, 7, p. 170-175. Pierson William (Ed) 1871: M. Prätorius. Deliciae Prussicae oder Preußische Schaubühne: Im wörtlichen Auszuge aus dem Manuscript, Berlin, Duncker. Pisani Vitttore 1968: “Rom und die Balten”, Baltistica, 4, p. 7-22 [= Id. 1978, Mantissa, Brescia, Paideia, p. 223-243]. Pollak Roman (Ed) 1964: Pimiennictwo Staropolskie, opracowa zespó pod kierownikiem Romana Pollaka. A-M, Instytut Bada Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Pollak Roman (Ed) 1965: Pimiennictwo Staropolskie, opracowa zespó pod kierownikiem Romana Pollaka. N- , Instytut Bada Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Popa-Lisseanu Gheorghe (Ed) 1934: Izvoarele Istoriei RomÙnilor volumul II. Descrierea Europei Orientale. De Geograful Anonim traducere de G., BucureÚti, Tipografia Bucovina, I.E. TorouÛiu.

168

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Poppe Erich 1986: “Multiplex sane linguarum ac dialectorum varietas: Zur Quellenrekonstruktion im ‘Mithridates’ (1555) d. Konrad Gessner am Beispiel des Keltischen”, Arbeitsberichte, VI, Münster, Institut fuur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft d. Westfalischen Wilhelms-Universität. Poppe Erich, 1992: “The Celtic languages in Conrad Gessner’s Mithridates (1555)”, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, 45, p. 240-250. Pott August Friederich 1837–1841: De Borusso–Lithuanicae tam in Slavicis quam Letticis linguis principatu commentatio, 2 t., Halle, in Libraria Gebaueria. PSB = Polski Sownik Biograficzny, Wydawnictwo Polskieji Akademii Nauk, Wrocaw, Warszawa, Kraków, Zakad Narodowy Im. Ossoliskich. Rimša Edmundas 1986: “Venclovas Agrippa ir jo gimin”, LTSR Moksl akademijos darbai, A serija, p. 1-94. Riedl-Dorn Christa 1989: Wissenschaft und Fabelwesen. Ein kritischer Versuch über Conrad Gessner und Ulisse Aldovrandi, Wien-Köln. Renzi Lorenzo 2000: “Ancora sugli Umanisti italiani e la lingua rumena”, Romanische Forschungen, 112, p. 1-38. Robins Robert Henry 1973: “Theory-Orientation versus Data-Orientation: A recurrent theme in linguistics”, Historiographia Linguistica, 1, p. 1126. Roka Marcelinas 1967: “V. J. Agripa – kult™ros veikjas ir literatas”, Literatra, 10, p. 45-68. Roka Marcelinas 1988: Mykolas Lietuvis, Vilnius, Mokslas. Romaschko Sergej A. 1995: “Der Fehler: Ein Interpretationsproblem der Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung”. In: Jankowsky, Kurt R. (Ed), Papers from the Sixth International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS VI), Washington DC, 9-14 August 1993, Amsterdam, New York, Benjamins, vol. 78, p. 55-63. Schaeken Jos 1991: “Die altpreussischen Wörter in einem Gedicht von Friedrich Zamelius (1590-1647)”, in: A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen, R. Sprenger (Eds), Studies in West Slavic and Baltic Linguistics (Studies in Slavic and general Linguistics, 16), Amsterdam-Atlanta GA, Rodopi, p. 273-290. Schaeken Jos 2002-2003: “Observations on the Old Prussian Basel Epigram su Basilea”, International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 4445, p. 331-342. Schmalstieg William R. 1974 An Old Prussian Grammar: The Phonology and Morphology of the Three Catechisms, University Park and London, The Pennsylvania University Press. Schmalstieg William R. 1976: Studies in Old Prussian, University Park and London, Pennsylvania, p. 83-86. Schönbach Anton 1906: “Des Bartholomaeus Anglicus Beschreibung Deutschlands gegen 1240.”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 27, p. 54-90.

Pietro U. Dini

169

Seebaß von Gottfried (Ed) 1994: Andreas Osiander. Gesamtausgabe. Schriften und Briefe 1549 bis August 1551. Im Auftrag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hrsg., Bd. 9, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Simone Raffaele 1975: “Theorie et histoire de la linguistique”, Historiographia Linguistica, 3, p. 353-378. Spekke Arnolds 1935: Latvieši un Livonija 16. g.s., R×ga, A. Gulbis. SRL = Scriptores Rerum Livonicarum. Sammlung der wichtig ten Chroniken und Gechichtsdenkmale von Liv-, Ehst- und Kurland in genauem Wiederabdrucke der beten, bereits gedruckten, aber elten gewordenen Ausgaben. Erter Band. Riga und Leipŏig, Eduard Franten’s Verlags= Comptoir, 1853; Ćweiter Band. Ibidem, 1848. Strumins’ky Bogdan 1984: “The Language Question in the Ukrainian Lands before the Nineteenth Century”. In: R. Picchio, H. Goldblatt (Eds), Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, 2 vols, New Haven, Yale Russian and East European Publications, II, p. 9-47. Swiggers Pierre 1997: Histoire de la pensée linguistique: Analyse du langage et reflexion linguistique dans la culture occidentale de l’Antiquité au XIXe siecle (Linguistique nouvelle), Paris, PUF. Tarnowska Irena 1962-1964: “Jan ze Stobnicy”, PSB, 10, p. 480-481. Tavoni Mirko 1984: Latino, grammatica, volgare. Storia di una questione umanistica, Padova, Antenore. Tavoni Mirko 1986: “On the Renaissance Idea that Latin Derives from Greek”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, Ser. 3, 16-1, 205-238. Tavoni Mirko 1990a: La linguistica rinascimentale, in: Lepschy 1990, II, p. 169-245. Tavoni Mirko 1990b: “‘Ydioma Tripharium’ (Dante, De Vulgari Eloquentia, I 8-9)”. In: Niederehe, Hans-Josef and E.F. Konrad Koerner (Eds), History and Historiography of Linguistics: Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS IV), Trier, 24-28 August 1987, 2 vols, Amsterdam, New York, Benjamins, II, p. 233-247. Tavoni Mirko (Ed) 2012: De vulgari eloquentia, Milano, Mondadori. Tesón Martín L. 1982: “La maternidad del latín sobre el castellano en tela de juicio”, in: Miscelánea de trabajos de investigación ofrecida al D. Vicente García López, Sevilla, p. 165-171. Trapp Joseph Burney 1971: “The Conformity of Greek and the Vernacular: The History of a Renaissance Theory of Languages”. In: Bolgar R.R. (Ed), Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 500–1500: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Kings’s College, Cambridge April 1969, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 239-244. Trautmann Reinhold 1910: Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

170

Prelude to Baltic Linguistics

Trovato Paolo 1984: “‘Dialetto’ e sinonimi (‘idioma’, ‘proprietà’, ‘lingua’) nella terminologia linguistica quattro- e cinquecentesca”, Rivista di letteratura italiana, II-2, p. 205-236. Ulinait Eugenija 2000: “Lietuvos vardo kilms aiškinimas XVI-XVII amžiaus raštuose”, Archivum Lithuanicum, 2, p. 51-60. Voigt Edmund 1910: “Bartholomaeus Anglicus. De proprietatibus rerum. Literarhistorisches und bibliographisches”, Englische Studien, 41, p. 337359. Young Steven 2004: “Old Prussian in M. Prätorius’ Deliciae Prussicae”. In: Baldi Ph., Dini P.U. (Eds), Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Benjamins, p. 275-284 Young Steven 2011: “Old Prussian-East Baltic hybrid forms”, Res Balticae, 11, p. 53–57.