LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Volume 19, No.3 - Fall 1973
Editors of this issue: Antanas Klimas, Ignas K. Skrupskelis, Thomas Remeikis,
Copyright © 1973 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.
The Cover of the Lithuanian Catechism of Martynas Mažvydas (1547) "Simple Words of a Catechism, Instruction in Reading and Writing, and Hymns for Christendom and for Young Children Newly Put together In Königsberg on the eight Day of the Month of January of the Year of the Birth of God 1547. Glory to God alone." (Translation by Gordon B. Ford, Jr.)
THE MARTYNAS MAŽVYDAS CATECHISM OF 1547
he First Lithuanian Book in the Light of New Research1
University of Notre Dame
December 1972 marked 425 years since the first Lithuanian book, the Mažvydas' Catechism, appeared in Karaliaučius (Koenigsberg) in 1547. This date also marks fifty years since scholars took a new look at this work. In 1922 Jurgis Gerulis (Gerullis), requested by the Lithuanian Ministry of Education, published a collection of Mažvydas' writings: "Mažvydas, seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 m." (Mažvydas, The Oldest Texts of the Lithuanian Language, to 1570); which was also released the following year, in 1923, in the German language: "Mosvid, die aeltesten litauischen Sprachdenkmaeler bis zum Jahre 1570" (Heidelberg, Winter).2 It was the first critical look at A. Schleicher's thesis that the Mažvydas' Cathechism belongs to the Prussian Lithuanian dialect which "is spoken in the area of Klaipėda -Memel." According to Gerulis, the language of Mažvydas is that of the Northern Lithuanians (the Samogitians). The exact location is difficult to determine; however, there are many indications that Mažvydas himself originated from Lithuania Major.3
The succeeding language analysis of the Mažvydas' Cathechism was undertaken by Christian Stang, who published a major work in 1929 on this subject entitled "Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas" (The Language of Mažvydas' Lithuanian Cathechism). Having deeply analyzed Mažvydas' written language phonetically and morphologically, Stang also came to the conclusion that Schleicher's theory is unacceptable and that Mažvydas' language should be placed with the central Northern Lithuanian (Žemaičiai, Samogitian) dialect. Thus, Mažvydas' birthplace must be in the northwest section of Žemaitija (Samogitia).4
It must be remembered here that neither Mažvydas' birth date nor his place of birth has yet been accurately determined, although it is known that he died in 1563 at about 44 years of age. No one, it seems, doubts that Mažvydas was the author of the first Lithuanian book, after the Polish linguist Jan Safarewicz in 1938 had read the acrostic in the Lithuanian introduction of the Cathechism and confirmed the affirmation of Mažvydas' relative Baltramiejus Vilentas (d. 1587) that the author of the first Lithuanian book, which appeared anonymously, was Mažvydas (in Latin Martinus Mosvidius).5 The same Safarewicz at a later date also found another acrostic by Mažvydas in his little book "Forma Chrikstima" (1559) .6
Stang's conclusions about the first Lithuanian book have been accepted by many linguists. Ernst Fraenkel wrote as follows: "With reference to Mažvydas' dialect we can agree with this professor's opinion that the writer is using one of the Northwestern Samogitian dialects. But as yet we cannot pinpoint precisely which one of them he is using. One thing is certain, that Mažvydas was not born in the region of Klaipėda. Merely the fact that he did not know German precludes the possibility that Mažvydas' homeland was in Lithuania Minor. Stang believes that the region of the Mažvydas' dialect borders on the west of a geographic line going from Švėkšna through Kvėdarna and Varniai to Raudėnai".7
Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga (d. 1924), who also designated the Samogitian dialects as donininkai, dounininkai, dūnininkai, had come to the same conclusion even earlier, although not in such a detailed fashion. Būga's opinion is that the Mažvydas' dialect is of the northwest Samogitian area (dounininkai) .8
In 1947, in a collection of articles "Senoji lietuviška knyga" (The Old Lithuanian Book) published in Kaunas and honoring the first Lithuanian book's 400 year anniversary, we find the works of several linguists Jonas Kruopas, Kostas Doveika, Juozas Senkus but they say nothing about the dialect of Mažvydas' Catechism. This topic is treated to some extent by the historians. However, J. Senkus, in a separate article "Pirmosios lietuviškos knygos tarmė" (The Dialect of the First Lithuanian Book) states that, all in all, Stang's conclusions should be accepted: "Without undertaking the task of exhaustively checking all of Christian Stang's reference material or attempting to supplement some deficient areas and formulate our own conclusions accordingly, we should accept favorably pretty much the entire content of his proposals".9
In the other articles of this anniversary collection, it is clear that there is a tendency to return to A. Schleicher's proposals. This return is supported by Vladas Grinaveckis. His article "Dėl Mažvydo katekizmo tarmės lokalizacijos" (On the Localization of the Mažvydas' Catechism Dialect), comes to this conclusion: "The language of the first Lithuanian book is closest to the dialect of the southern portion (south of Priekulė) of the Samogitian 'donininkai' district the dialect of the Klaipėda area." However, he notes immediately that the coincidence of language between the Catechism and this dialect might be accidental.10 For this reason another linguist, J. Palionis, having analyzed the Lithuanian literary language of the XVI and XVII centuries, says: "Although the 1547 Catechism is dominated by the Samogitian dialect, the task of localizing Mažvydas' language any further into sub-dialects is an unusually difficult one. First of all, the orthography used in this Catechism lacks the phonetic symbols which would represent specific Samogitian dialect sounds; secondly, without having any extant XVI century Samogitian texts, it is difficult to trace the isoglosses of the various Samogitian sub-dialects of that time. Thus it is not surprising that in researching the 1547 Catechism one group of scholars would catch intimations of one dialect in the Catechism language and others of a different one.11
The first Lithuanian book, only 79 pages and printed in only two to three hundred copies, once again becomes the object of new research, especially since there are still many ambiguities left concerning its author, its language and its sources.
The well-known Lithuanian bibliographer, Vaclovas Biržiška (d. 1956), devoted much effort to the task of analyzing the sources of Mažvydas' writings and his contributors. For the Catechism's four hundred year anniversary Biržiška wrote a work entitled "Martynas Mažvydas ir jo bendradarbiai" (Martynas Mažvydas and his Contributors), also published in German: "Martin Mažvydas und seine Mitarbeiter" (translated into German by E. Fraenkel).12 It not only examines the sources of Mažvydas' Cathechism and of his other writings, but also examines contributors such as Stanislovas Rapolionis, Abraomas Kulvietis, Jurgis Zablockis, whose names do not appear in the first Lithuanian book, but who no doubt contributed to it. In fact, it is known that the duke Al-brecht appointed Rapolionis and Kulvietis to write the first Lithuanian Cathechism; it was only because of their premature death that the job was completed by Mažvydas.
Vaclovas Biržiška's article is supplemented by two of his later and highly valuable publications: "Senųjų lietuviškų knygų istorija" (The History of Old Lithuanian Books) (2 parts, 1951-53), and "Aleksandrynas, senųjų lietuvių rašytojų, rašiusių prieš 1865 m., biografijos, bibliografijos ir biobibliografijos" (Aleksandrynas, Biographies, Bibliographies and Biobibliographies of Old Lithuanian Writers, Who Wrote before 1865) (3 volumes, 1960 - 65). In the latter work we find a detailed bibliography of Mažvydas up to I960.13 V. Biržiška has analyzed especially intensively the previously mentioned contributors of Mažvydas, although even this cannot be considered the final word. It is established that of the eleven hymns included in the Cathechism, only one can be accurately attributed to a known author: of course, not to mention those that are obviously translated from the Se-klucijan. This hymn is called "Litania naujei suguldyta" (Litany newly composed). The author of this hymn is Jurgis Zablockis, who with Rapolionis, Kulvietis and Mažvydas, taught in the school of Vilnius. He was also the tutor of Merkelis Giedraitis, later the bishop of Samogitia and its foremost leader in the Counterreformation.
This point calls for more information about one of the first, even though indirect, contributors to Mažvydas, Friedrich Staphylus (Stapelage, d. 1564), who lived in Lithuania for some time and knew Lithuanian. After Rapolionis' death he was rector of Karaliaučius University and a professor of theology. Forced to leave Karaliaučius because of some theological disagreements with other Protestant theologians, he later returned completely to Catholicism and died in Ingolstadt. Beside the Latin introduction accredited to him, he supported Mažvydas and gave him advice concerning the general tone of the Catechism. Consequently the tone is comparatively tolerant. In the Latin preface he says: "Non loquor de abstrusionibus controversiis religionum" (I shall not discuss here the more abstruse controversies of religion).14
Vaclovas Biržiška even sheds new light on the date of the Mažvydas' Catechism, which is given on the title page (January, 1547). Relying on the changes in the names of the months and on historical facts, he comes to this conclusion: "Thus, printing of the booklet was begun in the early part of January, 1547, but finished only at the year's end, because the hymns taken from the Seklucijan's Catechism were printed at the end of the booklet." 15
Finally, V. Biržiška, drawing on several sources, has also raised the question of the missing Lithuanian translation of the Canisius' Catechism (ca. 1585). He expresses hope that one day this Catechism will be found.16
A page from the Martynas Mažvydas Catechism of 1547.
The linguistic aspect of the first Lithuanian book has been studied by linguists who left their homeland during the war. Some of their research was linked with the 400 year anniversary of the book. Other research was done independently, in the course of studying the history of the language or of the dialects.
The importance of Mažvydas in the history of the Lithuanian language was raised by Pranas Skardžius during the anniversary celebration.17 A Samogitian of Lithuania Major, just arrived at Karaliaučius, Mažvydas began to write in the dialect of his birthplace, which was in part the western Aukštaičiai (High Lithuanian) dialect with a touch of the old Samogitian dialect. Exactly which dialect he does not mention, but it seems that it does not conflict with S tang's theory. Later, in adapting to his readers, Mažvydas began to use more features of the Aukštaičiai dialect. Why didn't Mažvydas use the Aukštaičiai dialect from the very beginning? Skar džius proposes this answer: "Having just arrived from another land and not yet acquainted with the local requirements, it wasn't easy for him to orient himself immediately in his new surroundings and to anticipate things in advance. What his situation could have been like is illustrated very clearly by the example of Mikalojus Daukša: in translating Ledesma's Catechism or Wujek's Postilla he wrote not in the Žemaičiai (Samogitian) form but in his own middle Aukštaičiai (High Lithuanian) dialect, more accurately, the dialect of Dotnuva, in the district of Kėdainiai." 18
To these considerations from the studies of Mažvydas and of the linguistic aspect should be added the analysis done by the linguist Petras Jonikas, especially in his "Lietuvių kalbos istorija" (The History of the Lithuanian Language), which was written on the occasion of the anniversary (Chicago, 1952). To the historian of the Lithuanian language, Mažvydas remains one of the primary sources. Especially important are the phonetic and morphological features of his writings, those still in use and those that have disappeared. Jonikas also agrees with Stang's proposals.19
The Lithuanian linguist Antanas Salys (d. 1972) became involved, although indirectly, with the phonetic aspect of Mažvydas' dialect. Here he takes an original "dūnininkai" approach, diverging from those used by Stang (dounininkai), and Schleicher (donininkai). It surprised some that Salys, in his "Lietuvių kalbos tarmės" (1946) (The Dialects of the Lithuanian Language) was looking for Mažvydas' birthplace in southeastern Samo-gitia.20 All of this shows that the location of the Mažvydas' dialect is still an open question; as has been already mentioned, it is understandable why this is so.
"Senoji lietuviška knyga" (The Old Lithuanian Book), edited by Vincas Mykolaitis, and published in Kaunas in 1947 in honor of the first Lithuanian book's 400 year anniversary, attempts to consider Mažvydas' Catechism from several standpoints: historical, linguistic, folklore, pedagogical and polygraphical. Although the intention was to evaluate the book from a Marxist viewpoint, actually, wide use is made of writings by "bourgeois" authors. This is especially true of the article Pirmoji lietuviška knyga" (The First Lithuanian Book) by Kostas Korsakas, in which the authors used for reference are either unmentioned or indicated merely by their initials. The major part of this article (no doubt in order to stress the Marxist viewpoint) is taken by presenting the faults of the Catholic clergy of that time, making use even of the rightist periodicals, for example, "Draugija".
Povilas Pakarklis' "Mažoji Lietuva Mažvydo laikais" (Lithuania Minor at the Time of Mažvydas), and Konstantinas Jablonskis' "Mažvydo gyvenimo aplinka" (Mažvydas' Life and Environs), attempt to examine Mažvydas' times from the historical perspective. As much as the first author diverges from the immediate theme and discusses the general character of the era, the other enters into the area of linguistic analysis. Nevertheless, the latter author's contribution, in pondering the question concerning the standard Lithuanian language of that time, is significant. He also corrects Stang's opinion that the peculiarities of the Aukštaičiai dialect in the Mažvydas' Cathe-chism were due to the influence of Mažvydas' relatives. "His (Mažvydas') Aukštaičiai dialect peculiarities are explained by the standard Lithuanian language in Aukštaičiai, to which he became accustomed here." 21
"Senoji lietuviška knyga" (The Old Lithuanian Book) has room for controversial opinions. One must include P. Pakarklis' "Mažvydo kilmės klausimas" (The Question of Mažvydas' Decent) in this category. The historian, with rather limited linguistic data, attempts to solve the question that linguists have found extremely difficult to answer: "I am inclined to believe that Mažvydas is most probably a Prussian Lithuanian whose homeland is either in middle, southern or western Prussia." 22
A new, original article is Vincas Mykolaitis' "Literatūriniai elementai Mažvydo ir jo amžininkų raštuose" (Literary Elements in the Writings of Mažvydas and his Contemporaries), in which Mažvydas' Cathechism and his other works are evaluated both from the literary historian's and the critic's point of view. Mykolaitis analyzes in depth the first Lithuanian poem, Mažvydas' metered Lithuanian introduction "Knygelės pačios byla lietuvninkump ir žemaičiump" (The Speech of the Booklet Itself to Lithuanians and Samogitians), rejects the attempts of some critics to hear a hexameter, and instead indicates a syllabic versification. However, this analysis has also been re-evaluated recently. For example, Juozas Girdzijauskas tries to evaluate. Mažvydas' versification not as syllabic but as syntactic intonation.23 This is the poetic intonation of the entire sentence and its groups, where the meter of the poem is based not on the syllables but on the structure of the sentence. This versification is the first level of the syllabic versification which was predominant in Lithuanian poetry until the second half of the nineteenth century, when it was replaced by tone versification.
The article "Liaudies papročiai ir mitiniai įvaizdžiai Mažvydo raštuose" (Folk Customs and Mythological Metaphors in the Writings of Mažvydas), by folklorist Zigmas Slaviūnas (d. 1973), is like an extensive commentary of Mažvydas' mythological names. The article draws heavily on the numerous works done in this area by "bourgeois" authors, sometimes without indicating them.
The work of linguist Jonas Kruopas, "Žodinės sla-vybės Mažvydo katekizmo kalboje" (Lexicographic Sla-vicisms in the Language of Mažvydas' Cathechism), and Kostas Doveika "Prielinksnių vartojimas Mažvydo katekizme" (The Use of Prepositions in the Mažvydas' Cathechism) remain within the bounds of lexicographic research, and include already known data. However, J. Kruopas has reason in rejecting J. Gerulis' colonization theory of the origin of Slavicisms in Prussian Lithuania.24 His vocabulary listing of Slavic terms has lately been supplemented by another author.25 Overall, in this section one feels the lack of an analysis devoted to one area of inquiry, especially with respect to the question of the localization of the Mažvydas' dialect.
This book still bears the shortcomings of the wartime period, and could have made good use of what had been more recently made available. Also, the above mentioned article of J. Senkus, "The Dialect of the First Lithuanian Book" would have been much better suited for this book than his article dealing with Mažvydas' name.
The educational, aesthetic and polygraphical standpoints of the first Lithuanian book have been analyzed by Jonas Laužikas, "Mažvydo elementorius" (The Mažvydas' Primer); Paulius Galaunė, "Mažvydo knygų meniškoji pusė" (The Artistic Qualities of Mažvydas' Books); Vladas Abromavičius, "Senųjų lietuviškų knygų spaustuvės" (The Printing Presses of the Old Lithuanian Books). However, a restricted approach to the literature and its sources could not but hamper new insights in their research; e. g., V. Abromavičius did not see the important Weinreich monograph, written by Paul Schwenke, even though it had actually been reprinted from "Alt-preussische Monatsschrift." 26
Why Marcelinas Ročka's "Pirmasis lietuviškas hegzametras" (The First Lithuanian Hexameter) was placed not in the literary, but in the polygraphical, section remains unclear. Perhaps because the article does not have much to do with the main theme of the book. If that had been the case, one would have had to investigate also the 1595 Catholic Catechism by Daukša, the oldest surviving Lithuanian Catholic book. Besides, it seems that at the time the question had not even been raised that the author of the first Lithuanian hexameter could have been Mikalojus Pacas, also the possible translator of the Canisius' Cathechism.27
The research on the first Lithuanian book continues. Before the second world war only one copy of this book was known, in the University Library of Koenigsberg (Karaliaučius). Now there are two known copies. The previously unknown copy was acquired from the M. Gorki Scientific Library of Odessa. The other one is in the Torun University Library;28 records indicate that this is the copy previously held in Koenigsberg.29
After A. Bezzenberger's edition of the Mažvydas' Cathechism, 1874, in the series "Litauische und lettische Dručke des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts" (Lithuanian and Latvian Publications of the 16th and 17th Centuries), and J. Gerulis' photographic copies (1922-23), only in 1947 was there released "The First Lithuanian Book", edited by J. Kruopas, which in its transcription contains numerous errors.30
A similar, although more modest, type of publication was released on the 400 year anniversary of Mažvydas' death by the Lithuanian Pedagogical Institute of Chicago, in 1963. Edited by Domas Velička, "Martynas Mažvydas, pirmosios lietuviškos knygos autorius" (Martynas Mažvydas, the Author of the First Lithuanian Book), a short preface precedes the complete Mažvydas' text, reproduced by the photomechanic method. Undoubtebly, it would have been useful to have transcriptions for the more difficult script; especially since the book is intended for the students of that institute.
The list of vocabulary words of the first Lithuanian book prepared by V. Šaulys and A. Dundulis is valuable to students for its explanation of the morphologically more interesting words which now have a different meaning, of those meanings which now require a different word, and for its explanation of foreign words. The commonly accepted words, such as bažnyčia (church), ponas (mister), karalius (king), kryžius (cross), vynas (wine), are not explained here, but only such words as dūšia (soul), griekas (sin), nedėlia (week), svietas (world) and others that were not accepted into the standard language but replaced by new substitutes (siela, nuodėmė, savaitė, pasaulis) . Mažvydas' "vredas" is evidently the same as "urėdas" (manager).
American linguist Gordon B. Ford wrote "The Old Lithuanian Cathechism of Martynas Mažvydas (1547)" for scholarly research. It was published in 1971 by Van Gorcum publishing house in Assen, Holland. This gives a carefully prepared and transcribed text of the Cathechism with a parallel English translation.31 Such a translation is extremely valuable and would also be useful in other languages, German for example. Ford gives a complete vocabulary of Slavicisms, based on the dissertation of Pranas Skardžius "Die slavischen Lehnwoerter im Altlitauischen" (1931) (The Slavic Borrowings in Old Lithuanian). (Used also by J. Kruopas in his vocabulary list, without indication of the author). This also gives the commonly used foreign words which are not in the D. Velička edition. Some of these words are of more ancient origin;~e. g.; the Latin words, coming into Lithuanian through the mediation of her closer neighbors.
G. B. Ford's purpose, as indicated in the preface of his book, was to give the exact text of the first Lithuanian book, based on the earlier editions. At the present time he is preparing another work in the same field "The Syntax of Martynas Mažvydas' Old Lithuanian Catechism of 1547".
Thus many of the errors and ambiguities which occur-ed in the anniversary publications have been corrected in the ensuing twenty-five years since the great anniversary of the first Lithuanian book.
1 This article was first published in the German language in 1971, in Gutenberg Jahrbuch (Mainz). This is the translation of the revised version for Pradalgės (London).
2 A. Jakštas, in reviewing this publication, called it a "precious work", excepting one or two controversial cases. Cf. Draugija, 1923, nr. 1-2, p. 54.
3 Mosvid, etc. p. XIV.
4 Chr. Stang. Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo, 1929, p. 169.
5 J. Safarewicz. "Un acrostiche de Mažvydas", Prace filologiczne, 18, 1938, p. 7-8, 1963, p. 199.
6 J. Safarewicz. "Dwa drobiazgi litewskie", Inter arma, 1946, p. 65. There Mažvydas called himself Martinus Maswidas. According to the linguist A. Senn, Mažvydas should be called Mosvidas. Cf. his Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg,1966. Bd. 1, S. 55. On the same acrostic found in Lithuania, cf. Literatūra ir kalba, 2, 1957, p. 479.
7 E. Fraenkel. "Apie Mažvydo katekizmo kalbą". Arehivum phi lologicum, 2, 1931, p. 141.
8 K. Būga. Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius, 1961, 3, p. 293. "Dounininkai", etc. from the Lithuanian word "duona" (bread).
9 J. Senkus. "Pirmosios lietuviškos knygos tarmė". Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, l, 1957, p. 79.
10 V. Grinaveckis. "Dėl Mažvydo katekizmo tarmės lokalizacijos". Kalbotyra, 6, 1963, p. 74.
11 J. Palionis. Lietuvių, literatūrinė kalba XVI - XVII a. Vilnius, 1967, p. 52 - 53.
12 V. Biržiška. "Martynas Mažvydas ir jo bendradarbiai". 'Lietuvių žodis, nr. 16 - 20, 1947, and Naujienos, 1947. The German translation was reprinted from Scholar, nr. 2 - 3, 1948.
13 Mažvydas' bibliography up to 1967 is given in Lietuvos TSR bibliografija. Vilnius 1969, t. l (Knygos lietuvių kalba, 1547 -1861). Also cf. V. M(aciūnas) "Mažvydas" Lietuvių enciklopedija. Boston, vol. 18, 1959, p. 50.
14 Mosvid, etc. p. 4.
15 V. Biržiška. Senųjų lietuviškų knygų istorija. Chicago, t. l, 1953, p. 86-87.
16 Ibid. p. 165. Also cf. t. 2, p. 80, and Z. Ivinskis, "Die Druckerei der Jesuiten in Vilnius und die ersten litauischen katholischen Bücher. Commentationes Balticae, 1, 1955, p. 55 - 56.
17 P. Skardžius. "Martynas Mažvydas ir jo vaidmuo lietuvių bendrinės kalbos istorijoje". Aidai, 5, 1947, p. 198 - 201.
18 Ibid. p. 200.
19 P. Jonikas. Lietuvių kalbos istorija. Chicago, 1952, p. 69.
20 A. Salys. Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Tuebingen, 1940, p. and ff. (Lectures of the course at the University of Vytautas the Great).
21 K. Jablonskis. "Mažvydo gyvenimas ir aplinka". Senoji lietuviška knyga. Kaunas, 1947, p. 107.
22 P. Pakarklis, "Mažvydo kilmės klausimu". Senoji lietuviška knyga. Kaunas, 1947, p. 123.
23 J. Girdzijauskas. Lietuvių eilėdara. Vilnius, 1966, p. 55 and on.
24 Cf. G. Gerullis, "Die Herkunft der slavischen Lehnwoerter im Preuss.-Litauischen". Indogermanische Forschungen, Berlin, Bd., 42, 1924, S. 183 -185.
25 V. Urbutis. "Nepastebėti Mažvydo slavizmai". Kalbotyra, 4, 1962, p. 387 - 390.
26 P. Schwenke. "Hans Weinreich und die Anfaenge des Buchdrucks in Koenigsberg". Altpreussische Monatsschrift, 33, 1896, p. 67 -109. The article by V. Abromavičius was later supplemented by the article "Karaliaučiaus spaudos pradininkas Hansas Weinreichas ir pirmieji jo darbo tęsėjai (XVI-XVII)" by L. Vladimirovas. Bibliotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimai, l, 1961, p. 99-109; only that article shows little relation to the first Lithuanian book.
27 Cf. Lietuvių enciklopedija, vol. 21, 1960, p. 310.
28 According to Lietuvos TSR bibliografija, t. l, 1969, p. 240, the Koenigsberg copy (lost?) would be a fourth copy of this book. Using this copy, J. Lebedys, in his article "Du unikumai" (Literatūra ir menas, nr. 5, 1957 vas. 2) questions the photographic copy made by Gerulis. The fate is uncertain of the copy of the Mažvydas Catechism which was in the Koenigsberg State Archives, cf. Archivum Philologicum. 1935, 5 kn., p. 153.
29 Prom this article's author's conversations with Dr. Forstreuter, in Goettingen in the Summer of 1970: "the copy was not burned during the war."
30 Cf. Gordon B. Ford. "Some Remarks about Jonas Kruopas' 1947 edition of Martynas Mažvydas Catechism of 1547". Lituanus, v. 18, no. 2, Summer 1972, p. 34-36.
31 The Old Lithuanian Catechism of Martynas Mažvydas (1547), etc. by Gordon B. Ford, Jr., Assen, 1971, p.IX. Translated into English presumably from the A. Bezzenberber edition, avoiding the errors of the photographic copy by Gerulis, (e.g., the distorted word "Syllabisaturas", p. 16).