ETYMOLOGICALDICTIONARYOFBALTICMYTHOLOGEMESII: YATVIGIANBOOK Summary YatvigianBook(hereinafterYB),alsocalledbyitsoriginaltitleDervnglau- bigen‖SudauenihrerbockheiligungmitsambtandernCeremonien,sosietzubrauchen gepflegeth(i.e.ThegoatworshipbytheheathensSudoviansalongwithotherceremonies whichtheyareinthehabitofperforming)1237,isaconventional,andprobablythemost exhaustiveandmostimportantdescriptionoftheethno-culturaltraditionofthetribe1238 thatspokeYatvigian,oneofthetwolanguagesofWesternBalts,recordedduringthe Reformationperiod.Itisbasedonthesourceofinformationdisseminatedin15var- iantsofmanuscripts,andlaterinsmallprintedbooks–acompilationabyHieronim Maleckiand4reprints(b,c,d,e).ThetextofYBsurvivedinonlysevenhandwritings (α,B,C,E,G,K,X)andthreepublishededitions,i.e.inLetto-PreussischeGötterlehre byWilhelmMannhardt(resp.A[p]),inPreuſſischeChronikbyLucasDavid(resp.G[p]) ChronicaAlterPreuſſcherbyMatthäusWaissel(resp.J[p]). Unfortunately,theoriginalofYBhasnotbeenfoundyet,andthescholars whodiscussedthissourceoranalyseditinsomedetailaftertheappearanceofW. Mannhardt’s book Letto-Preussische Götterlehre (1936), which contains the most importantcopyA(p),resortednottotheanalysisofthecopies,butthematerials presentedinthebook,anddidnotdoubttheauthenticityoftheinformationpro- vided.Duetothesereasons,historicalfactsofthemanuscriptswerenotinvestigated astheinformationinW.Mannhardt’smonographwastakenforgranted.Unfortu- nately,inmanycasesitdoesnotcorrespondtorealityandisessentiallyerroneous orelliptical(seeKregždys2018b:90–92,95–96). Textological analysis of ten surviving manuscripts of YB shows that the methodofinformationstructuringinthecopiesA(p),α,B,Xoftheoldedition presupposesareflectionofthemandatorytraditionofthepreparationofdiplomatic documents,i.e.,thosethatarerelatedtothelegalfield:thepresentationoffactual materialfollowsstrictrulesestablishedforpreparationofsuchworks–aprologue, anarrative,andanepilogue.Althoughthiscircumstancehasnotbeenhighlighted byanyoftheresearchersofthesourceanalysed,itisextremelyimportant,because itcanberelatedwiththeintentoftheworkandtheaimofitscreation. 1237ThefulltitlevariedgreatlybetweendifferentcopiesofYB.ThetitleoftheprintedH.Malecki’s compilationaanditsvariantsisusuallygivenasWarhafftigebe‖ſchreybungderSudawenauff‖ SamlandtſambtihrenBockhey‖ligenvnndCeremonien(i.e.Truthfuldescriptionofgoatworshipand ceremoniesbyYatvigiansfromSamland). 1238ItisknownfromPetervonDusburgthat1600and1500SudovianswererelocatedtoSambia Peninsulaattheendofthe13Lc.Theirdescendantsstilllivedintheso-calledSudovianCorner SudaischerWinkel)andwereknownasdeterminedbelieversintheirpagangods. StartingwithcopyC,whoseauthorphysicianGregorDunckerdecidedto removetheforewordofYBandtoretelltheremainingnarrativeinsteadofcopying it,aprecedentwascreatedforevaluatingthisworknotasasupposedlyimportant documentofthejuridicalfield,butasaworkofprose.Unfortunately,thecreator ofmanuscriptKdistortedtheinformationofthissourceeventoagreaterextent, removedtheinformationonthelexiconusedbytheYatvigiansthathedeemedun- necessary,andtransformedthisimportantworkintosomethinglikearoughcopy. TheprincipalresearchobjectofVolume2oftheEtymologicalDictionaryof BalticMythologemesisfactographicinformationofYB: α)mythonymsAuschauts,Autrimpus,Bardoayts,Barstucke,DeywotyZudwityDeÿ wothÿzudwÿthÿ,DeÿwoÿthïƷudwÿthÿ↔Zudewiten,Ʒdewittern),Hullmigeria (↔Hulmigeria),Markopole,Ockopirmus,Parkuns,Peckols,Pergrubrius,Pilnitis, Pockols,Potrimpus,Puschkayts,Swayxtix,Wourschkaite,waidler; β)hieronymsWourschkaite,Segnotwaidler; γ)ethnomythologicalmotifs,i.e.WiesiedenBockheiligen,DererdengottPusch- kaytus,BardoaytsderSchiffleutgot,VonjrenSponsalienvndvorlubnissen,Vonden todten,Vonjerlichemgedechtnis,Istimandsbestolen,andproblemsoftheethnic accessoryofthematerial. Aparallelanalysisisdoneofethnographicmaterials,ascribedtotheBaltsin theoldestandthesubsequentlaterreligiousandmythologicalsources,whoseprob- lemsarerelatedtothoseofYBintermsoftheabove-mentionedculturalmotiffs: (1)ChristburgPeaceTreaty(1249),informationofPartsIX,X; (2)complaintofthebishopofSambiaJohannes(1322[themotiffsoffuneralrites]); (3)adecreeofConradvonJungingenDieLandesordnungdesHochmeistersKonrad vonJungingenden23.April1394(mythologemepilwittenn); (4)CollatioEpiscopiWarmiensisfactacoramSummopontificeperdominumAndream plebanuminDanczk(1418(mythonymNatrimpe); (5)ErasmusStella.DeBorvssiaeantiqvitatibvslibridvo(1518[mythonymHulmige- ria,episodesofsnakeandelderidolatry]); (6)apreceptofMichaelJunge,abishopofSambia(1426[themotiffsoffuneralrites andtellingfortunesusingbearoritsfroth]); (7)adecreeofHennigScharfenberg,anarchbishopofRiga(1428[themotiffsof funeralrites]); (8)folkloreelementsofGermanswhosettledinPrussia(incantationagainsttheplague). Comparativeandinnerreconstructionmethodsareusedtoperformtheanaly- sisoftheWestBalticlexemes:Yatv.abglobte,Capernen,OPr.poskeiles,Puſchkayles. Also,theetiologyoftheYatvigiansyntagmasBegeyte,BegeytePecolle;Ohowmey myleswentepanike!;kaylsnaussengingethe;kaylsposskaylseinsperanters;Kellewese periot,Kelleweseperiot;trenke,trenkearepresented. Themonographalsoanalyses15manuscriptsofthewrittensource,thepos- siblecircumstancesofcreationoftheoriginal,itspurpose,datingandtheproblems ofauthorship. YBhasbeenrepeatedlydiscussedbymanyartworkersofdifferentepochsand branchesofscience.Thedatinganditspossibleauthorshipweredifferentlyinterpreted (see Kregždys 2019: 258–259)1239. The mostvaluableanalysis was carriedout by W. JL1240.ItwasveryessentiallysupplementedbytheLithuanianhistorianIngė Lukšaitė1241.Basedonthehypothesesadvancedbyher,itispossible,andnecessary,to onceagainreconsidertheknownfacts,theactualmaterial,andthestructuraltypologyof thesource.Therefore,thepurposeofthismonographwasaresearchoftheaboveissues. Inthismonograph,thequestionofthemeaningofthelatentacrosticsisad- dressedanew.TheyarefoundintheBible,inextrabiblicalsources,andinancient Easternliterature.Therearevariousexplanationsforthephenomenon,andineach case,thefunctionoftheacrosticshouldbedeterminedthroughacomprehensive analysisofthecompositionitself. ItishighlybelievablethattheauthorofYBconcealedthelatentmessage.It istobeassumed,thathispersonalnameofSemiticoriginisencodeditinthecata- logueoftheonymsofYB.Thenameiscomposedusingthenumerologicalsystem ofGematriainaccordancewiththealphanumericcodeofM.-Hebr.mispārheḵǝraẖi combiningitwiththeAvGagalphabeticsequences(i.e.,partlyreplacingeachletter withthenextone):IshmǝraiSābābēnĀḏām,i.e.IshmeraiSaba,Adam’sson.The surnameM.-Hebr.Sābā(“anoldman;amanwithgreyhair”)isasynonymtothe G.Graumann“ditto”andGr.Πολιανδρος“ditto”.Thesesurnamesindicatetheau- thorofYB–JohannesPoliander,orJohannGraumann.HewasaGermanpastor, theologian,teacher,humanist,reformer,andLutheranleader. 1239AccordingtoAleksanderBrückner(1904:44,47,1918:148,1980:212),YBoriginatedfrom letterswrittenaround1545byProtestantpriestJanMaleckiusinginformationfromAgendaEccle- siasticapublishedin1530.TheletterswereexpandedandtranslatedbyJ.Malecki’sson,who publishedYBin1561.Therefore,itcontainednoneworvaluableinformationandcouldnotbe consideredanindependentsourceofPrussianmythology. 1240W.Mannhardt(seeWMh271)believedthatH.Maleckionlypreparedpreviouslywrittenano- nymousmanuscriptforpublication(seefootnote1237).AccordingtoW.Mannhardt,YBpredated andwasusedasasourceforAgendaEcclesiastica.Heclaimedthatthiswrittensourcewaswritten byLutheranclergy–GeorgvonPolenz,BishopofSambia,ErhardvonQueis,BishopofPomesania, andPaulusSperatus,preacherofAlbert,DukeofPrussia,andlaterBishopofPomesania.During the1520stheyvisiteddifferentparishes,collectedinformationaboutpaganbeliefs,whichwasthen KMEEJRLAgendaEcclesiastica. 1241I.Lukšaitė(seeBRMŠII:123)claimedthatbothYBandAgendaEcclesiasticawerepartsofa largermoreextensivework.ShenotedthattheseworkswritteninRenaissancestyle–theauthor didnotcondemnthepaganbeliefsandrituals,whichwasimprobableiftheworkswereprepared byChristianclergyseekingtoeradicatepaganism.Therefore,authorscannotbeascertained. Modernscholarsdisagreeonthe originandvalue ofYB.Despitedoubts aboutitsreliability,thewrittensourcebecamepopularandwasfrequentlyquoted inotherhistorybooks.MuchofthePrussianmythologyisreconstructedbasedon thisworkoritsderivatives1242. Thepresentbookisgroupedonthebasisoftheformalcorrelationbetween thefactographicmotifsoftheYBinquestionandthemythologemes:oneofthem looksintotheonlymythonymsfoundintheYB(cf.Ockopirmusetc.)andinterfe- rential(ofanetiological,aswellasrandom,i.e.questionablelink)mythonyms(e.g., G.dial.[EastPr.]Aitwars),andtheother,intothegenesisandevolutionofthesocial statusandconceptionofapaganpriestofWestBalts,aswellashieronyms(sacred names)Wourschkaite,waidler,Segnoten,waidlotten. ThemythonymOckopirmusA(p)ispresentedintheYBforthefirsttime. However,fallaciousreferencesareprimarilymentionedinancientwrittensources ofthemythonymandcanbefoundinmanyworksoftheearlyperiodorevenin contemporaryscientificresearch,e.g.,toquoteAntanasMažiulis: “OKOPIRMAS,supposedPrussiangod,honoredbytheSambiantribeasLordofHeaven, ELJLJKLLEConstitutionesSynodalesEvangelicae(1530).Heisalsolisted underthenameOccopiruumbyJer.LasiciusinhisDeDiisSamagitarum(ca1580);variantsof thisnameappearinlatersources.TheLithuanianlinguistKazimierasBūgamaintainsthatin PrussianitwasprobablywrittenUkapirmas,andisnotanameofagod,butacorruptionof theLatinwordomnipotens(omnipotent,almighty)” (ELIV:111). EndreBojtár(1999:315)citedthesamedocument,i.e.ConstitutionesSyno- dalesEvangelicae,asthemainsourceinwhichthemythologemeOckopirmuswas mentioned. JaanPuhvel(1974:82)namedawrittendocumentofanunknownauthor, i.e.YB,asoneoftheprincipaldocumentsofBalticmythology.Infact,nodoubts ariseabouttheWestBalticstatusofthesource(i.e.historyofancientreligionof