Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

FURTHER

IV.

NOTES ON CHYLIŃSKI AND

THE LORD'S PRAYER.

By LEONARD C. WHARTON.

[Read at the Meeting of the Philological Society on December 1, 1911.]

Aт pp. 189-204 of the preceding volume of the Transactions, 1907-10, appeared a paper described as "Notes on the Lithuanian Lord's Prayer and Chyliński's Bible". As this has appeared in print it is not necessary to repeat here the summary of it given viva voce, but it is just worth while to recommend those interested to begin at the eleventh page (p. 199) with the postscript, and only approach the main text after reading that. They will thus gain an idea, I hope a correct one, of the process of research by which I was led to conclusions which I must repeat here, because I have had occasion to modify them somewhat. I quote my own words from p. 198: "I think it may be taken as proved that the main part of the Lord's Prayer is . . . as we get it in W[ilkins] in 1668, from Luther's 'Kleiner Catechismus' in Maźwyd's Lithuanian translation of 1547. There is, I conceive, no doubt that the person responsible for W., as he adopted some of its variants, must have known of the version of 1579 by Willent.

"It is certainly not proved, though barely possible, that Chyliński, the self-styled translator of the Bible of 1660 (?), had a hand in the copying or even adapted the Lord's Prayer to the dialect he spoke and wrote.

"Finally, as is made clear above, no proof exists in the matter of the Doxology, whose history, apart from this question of the Lithuanian version, is not a little obscure. I think it is quite clear, however, that it has nothing whatever to do with the Bible in Lithuanian."

Further, at p. 16 (204) I said: "I think it safe to affirm that the set form of the Lord's Prayer in Lithuanian was set down and thus permanently established in the sixteenth century in the same way that the English version . . was fixed by the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Prayer Book and Primer before that. It is very possible that the form is older than 1547, as the Church in far pre-Reformation days certainly did ordain the teaching of

the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Creed in the vulgar tongue. This is, of course, the matter of the Primer."

These, then, were my main conclusions in my original paper, apart from speculative points as to the Doxology and certain guesses as to the larger question of the Bible, on which Dr. Reinhold has since told me that he had written in a second article in the Mitteilungen der Lithauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft, of which I have skimmed the greater part since originally reading this paper.

What has happened is that since 1909 I have kept my eyes open and looked for new illustrative matter, in gathering which I have had rather remarkable success. As I have not gone into it in detail orally I cannot very well put its very considerable bulk into this paper, even if there were nothing which I had found but not had time to copy. In 1910 I made some slight search for the books I wanted at the Royal Library at Brussels, where, however, I was much more concerned with classical and Slavonic researches, not to speak of Librarianship. I did, however, make two excursions to Antwerp to visit the Plantin Museum in this connexion. I got my main sources, however, from a fairly long Continental expedition in the next year, when I stayed nearly three weeks at Berlin, the inside of a week at Königsberg, the same at Posen, and three weeks at Cracow. Throughout this journey I had to divide my time between this question and my general Slavonic, Letto-Baltic, and classical studies, but I saw many books inaccessible in England, and made pertinacious inquiry for another copy of the Pradzia Pamoksla, the Dissidents' book of 1680. The result is that I have brought back a remarkable number of extra references, of copies of versions not accessible over here, and of other illustrative matter.

The result is further that I have been able to verify many references and build up a very considerable addition to the bibliography of the subject, and, besides this, secured a large number of variant versions worthy to be intercalated in an ultimate revision of the tabular arrangements which are such an important feature of my former paper.

At the time of reading the paper, I had not had time to realize the full bearing and extent of discoveries which I had made, and which have since proved their importance. So I could only point to a limited number of questions on which my investigations had borne fruit.

One was that a reference found abroad led me to look up an article at home which showed that the undiscovered study of the vocabulary of the Bible of 1660 by Kunik consisted of materials partly collected by him, but afterwards given to and worked up by E. A. Volter, a quite accessible pamphlet.

As to the first point of my conclusions, I would reaffirm this origin of the version we are discussing, but remark that my view arises rather from the convictions roused by what I have read than from evidence which one can formally adduce.

As to Chyliński, there is a whole group of languages in Wilkins whose Protestant churches were in constant touch with those of Lithuania and such connexion persists to-day-and granted that Wilkins had heard of or met Chyliński, there was nothing more easy than for him to ask Chyliński for the forms of the Lord's Prayer in those languages. But it is important to notice that this is purely possible, not a fact, nor even a theory.

The establishment of the version in the sixteenth century-with a caveat in favour of an earlier date in even stronger terms than before-is still more to be regarded as historic in the light of what I have found in other early Lithuanian books, like that of Daubman the Jesuit, etc.

The pre-Reformation origin is rather confirmed by the various anti-Protestant Catechisms and hymn-books where the Lord's Prayer is either paraphrased or expounded.

One other rather important point emerges from my studies between 1909 and 1911, and that is, that there is abundant evidence in support of the authenticity of the variant orthographies and the peculiar turns of rendering which make such a contrast between the work of the cousins Maźwyd and Willent. This has its own importance, as showing the direction in which the respective translators looked for light and leading, and is a symptom of the dialect differences which became more conspicuous later.

As to the 1680 Dissidents' Book, I have seen the manuscript letter-books of the Princess Radziwill at Posen with their references to Gordons, who were either her Protestant chaplains or Roman Catholic refugees on her lands, and everything tends to make me believe that there is sense in the view that the Pradzia Pamoksla is the long-sought book of 1681 for which bibliographers have longed. At any rate, by whatever method I tried then (and I had a facsimile with me), I could find no other copy nor any comprehension of its character nor a hint of any rival in any

Phil. Trans. 1911.

7

library that I visited. The possibility, of course, exists that some Polish or Russian library unvisited by me contains some more materials, but that remains to be tested later-in regard to the whole question. So important did I find this book that I think it necessary to repeat with some emphasis that two quite different versions of the Lord's Prayer are given in the book at different places, though both are from the same text. Further, it seems to be bound up with the question of the Bible so intimately that it will be necessary to compare Bretkun's Apostol, as I may call it, with the Bible in point of language, and also with the Lord's Prayer and with the Pradzia Pamoksla. There is also a certain connexion with the queer contortions of the history of Tobago, so that I proposed to gather up the final history of Chyliński and the Lord's Prayer and the others in the following terms, submitted as an ultimate contribution to the publications of the Society on May 22, 1913.

I. Preface.

II. Introduction. (a) On Catechism of 1680 (1681). (b) On the language and its grammar.

(c) On the MS. vocabulary in the B.M. copy of it.

III. A revised and corrected version of my paper on Chylinski's Bible and the Lithuanian Lord's Prayer, with all the latest lights from my further notes and elsewhere.

IV. Text-verbal reprint, with one facsimile (title-page), of the Catechism of 1680 (Königsberg printing).

V. Translation.

Possibly as an after-piece: the History of the Colonies of

Tobago, Goree, and Senegal, or relations between the
Dukes of Courland and the Royal House of Scotland and
England between 1603 and 1689.

V.

SOME CELTIC RIVER NAMES.

6

By E. C. QUIGGIN.

[Circulated at a Meeting of the Philological Society in September, 1913.] WITH the help of Holder's Altcelt. Sprachschatz and Hogan's Onomasticon Goedelicum it is now possible to investigate the river names of the countries in Western Europe where Celtic nomenclature may be expected. Certain types occur with great frequency in individual areas, and it is of importance to discover whether those names which are common in Wales or England are represented in Gaul and Ireland. Thus Alauna, Alaunos, giving Welsh Alun, and in the rest of Great Britain, Alne, Allen, Aln, and Ale, is not found in Ireland, nor does it occur as a river name in Gaul, though a form allied to it is known, Gaul. Alava=Welsh Alaw (Anglesey). Similarly, the common English name Stour occurs in North Italy and in Holstein, but is absent in Ireland and Wales, unless it form the first element of the Sirhowey Brook in Monmouthshire. Celtic terms for water are very widespread, e.g. Gaul. (Verno-)dubrum, Germ. Tauber, W. Dyfr(-dwy), Sc. Dour. A word for river, stream', Ir. glas, W. glais, enters into a number of names, Ir. Dubglas, Finnglas, Sc. Douglas, W. Dulas, Cynlais, Morleis, etc. In Wales the termination -wy is exceptionally frequent. This suffix may represent a whole series of endings found in Gaulish names of streams, e.g. (1) -ēsis, cf. W. Tawy, if for *Tafwy < Tamēsis, (2) -esia, (3) -eia, -čia, (4) -avios, (5) -evios, -ovia, cf. Conovium > Conwy. In certain S. Welsh names -wy has lost a final dd, e.g. Ebbw for older Ebwydd. The form Tywy (Towey) may be explained in this way, cf. Ptolemy's Τοβίου ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί, but this is very doubtful. It is also possible that the name of the River Wye, W. Gŵy, is itself an old name for 'water, river'. The suffix has probably been extended to a number of forms in which it did not originally occur, e.g. Bryth. Leuca (Rav. Geogr.) = Llugwy (Carn. and Radnor), now called Lugg in Hereford. The other suffixes common in Wales, -i (-y), -ni (-ny), are not easy to explain, but doubtless arise in certain cases from -iso-, -niso-, e.g. Ewenny, older euenhi (Glam.), may represent *Avantisa, cf. Bryth. Aventio (Rav. Geogr.).

« PoprzedniaDalej »