"Sūduvių knygelės" nuorašų formalioji analizė bei analitinė eksplikacija

LT„Sūduvių knygelė“ yra sutartinis keliais rankraščių variantais, o vėliau ir spausdintomis knygelėmis, platintų žinių apie sūduvius šaltinio pavadinimas. Autorius atliko išsamią šio rankraštinio veikalo analizę. [Nacionalinės bibliografijos duomenų bankas]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Nuorašai; Teksto analizė; Rankraščiai; Suvalkija (Sūduva); Etimologija; Jotvingiai; Etnologija; Copies; Text analysis; Manuscripts; Etymology; Yatvigian; Ethnology.

ENYatvigian Book (hereinafter YB) is a conventional, probably the most exhaustive and the most important description of the ethno-cultural tradition of the tribe that spoke Yatvigian, one of the two languages of Western Balts, recorded during the Reformation period. It is based on the source of information disseminated in several variants of manuscripts, and later in small printed books (reprints). Unfortunately, the original of YB has not been found yet, and the scholars who discussed this source or analysed it to some detail after the appearance of Wilhelm Mannhardt’s book Letto-Preussische Götterlehre (1936), which contains copy A(p), resorted not to the analysis of the copies, but to the materials provided in the book, and did not doubt the authenticity of the given information. Due to these reasons, historical facts of the manuscripts were not investigated as the information in Mannhardt’s monograph was taken for granted. Unfortunately, in many cases it does not correspond to reality and is essentially erroneous or elliptical. Textological analysis of ten surviving manuscripts of YB shows that the method of information structuring in the copies A(p), α, B, X of the old edition presupposes a reflection of the mandatory tradition of the preparation of diplomatic documents, i.e., those that are related to the legal field: the presentation of factual material follows strict rules established for preparation of such works – a prologue, a narrative, and an epilogue. Although this circumstance has not been highlighted by any of the researchers of the source analysed, it is extremely important, because it can be related with the intent of the work and the aim of its creation.Starting with copy C, whose author doctor Gregor Duncker decided to remove the foreword of YB and to retell the remaining narrative instead of copying it, a precedent was created for evaluating this work not as a supposedly important document of the juridical field, but as a work of prose. Unfortunately, the creator of manuscript K distorted the information of this source even to a greater extent, removed the information on the lexicon used by the Yatvigians that he deemed unnecessary, and transformed this important work into something like a rough copy. In summing up the results of the examination of YB, the following conclusions should be made: 1. 15 copies of SK should be codified. Of these, ten have survived (A[p], α, B, C, E, G, G[p], J[p], K, X), and five are lost (†D, †ε, †F, †H, †X1). 2. Presumably, the way of presenting factual material in manuscript A(p) presupposes the system of information modelling in the original YB and is of special importance; it is recorded only in Mannhardt’s monograph. 3. The manuscript that Mannhardt codified with symbol A is not kept at the Department of Manuscripts of the Gdansk Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences: 3.1. identified with this symbol, the information material in the footnotes of the monograph duplicates copy A and corresponds to the factual material in Ms. 1277 (manuscript α), which is kept in the above-mentioned library; 3.2. in Mannhardt’s book, the information of two different copies A(p) and α is unified and erroneously treated as an component of manuscript A. 4. Copy C was created in 1545. 5. There is no precise correspondence between Manuscript G, which is a secondary copy of copy C, and the primary variant. 6. The special quality of copies G and †X1 is the final sentences of YB, which are of different modification but of similar semantic connotation and were created by the copiers of these manuscripts.7. The innovative transposition of the functions of mythonyms recorded in copy K presupposes a secondary status of this manuscript (from the point of view of mythonym analysis). 8. Copy X, which is attributable to the group of rewrites of the old edition and which has not been known to or analysed by Lithuanian scholars is kept at the Department of Manuscripts of the Gdansk Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 9. Four types of the bibliographic status of YB should be distinguished: α. Jan Malecki’s De sacrifi‖ciis et idolola‖tria vetervm Bo‖ruſſorum… copy of no value; β. Agenda Ecclesiastica a speculative variant; γ. hybrid reworking of Agenda Ecclesiastica and a work published by Jeronimas Maleckis; δ. valuable memoir-genre ‘source of Prussian mythology of special value’. 10. Based on the consecutive grouping of structural elements of the copies of the old edition (resp. A[p], α, B, X), the structure of the prototype of YB should be explained by distinguishing 12 components. 11. The language of the manuscripts of YB is a combination of Early High German and Middle Low German used in Prussia in the sixteenth century. [From the publication]