Imiona biblijne w historycznej antroponimii Podlasia (XVI-XVII w.)

Abstract

This monograph aims to analyse how biblical personal names functioned in the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of Podlasie. In 16th and 17th centuries, the region was inhabited by Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (ancestors to today’s Belarusians and Ukrainians) as well as Tatars and Jews. While providing a foundation for the Jewish anthroponomy, biblical names are also present in the Islamic Tatar culture as well as serving a common framework for the Christian anthroponomies of all denominations. For this reason, they have been subjected to multi-faceted research. This paper focuses on the cultural motivation of name selection as well as name assimilation and functioning in an area of ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity, since name adaptation and modification were both ethnic culture- and language-driven. 1. A confrontation of the popularity and motivation in selecting names for a nomination with their original biblical subjects has revealed a strong cultural influence on the names taking root in the native anthroponomical systems of Podlasie’s Christians. The historical evidence of Podlasie provides a clear illustration of the fact that Christianity, although having emerged from Judaism, only assimilated a small number of biblical names as compared to the source of their origin. The names of the most important characters of OT and NT enjoyed most popularity, with a majority of names being adopted from the New Testament. In Christianity, a central role is taken by the Holy Family role with the primary and by far the most important character of Jesus Christ. Yet, Podlasians did not confer upon their children either the name Jezus or any other of Jesus’s designations. Maria’s, Jesus’s mother’s, name was another taboo. The Podlasian name records of that period only feature a single occurrence of the name Maria among Christians whereas similarly sounding or derivative forms, such as Marianna, Marina, Maryna, Marusa, Marusza, Maruszka, Mania and Maska enjoyed considerable popularity. By contrast, there was no prohibition on nomination with the name of BVM’s beloved and Jesus’s earthly guardian – St. Josef. The latter name occurs in diverse Latin and Latinised variants adapted to Polish and East-Slavic languages and dialects. On its basis, shortened, diminutive, hypocoristic and other forms were created. During the period in question, the name was among the most popular, given not only by Christians, but also by the Jewish and Tatar communities. The names of the Holy Family’s relatives were readily given, such as Maria and Joseph’s parents’ names: Joachim, Anna, Jakub as well as those of the more distant relatives: Elisabeth, Maria’s relative, and Zachary, her husband – parents to John the Baptist. The name Jakub clearly stands out among those names as used for nomination by Jews and Tatars as well, although in the latter cases it was most probably associated with Old-Testament characters, specifically with one of the patriarchs – son of Isaac and Rebecca, brother of Esau, as in the Jewish tradition the house of Jacob refers to the entire people of Israel. In terms of importance for the Christian culture, the subsequent places are taken by the Evangelists, Apostles, Jesus’s disciples, prophets, patriarchs and angels. Popular among the Christian community in Podlasie in 16th –17th centuries were names strongly rooted in the Christian culture, associated with the Christian symbolism, such as the names of the first people: Adam: in OT – a symbolic designation of the first man (Gen 4, 25), in NT – that of Christ, the New Man (Gen.5,14; 1 Cor. 15, 22; 45); Ewa – name give by Adam to his wife as “mother of all life” (Gen. 3, 10; 4, 1); together with Adam it is an eponym for the entire mankind (Tob. 8, 6). Undoubtedly, the saints of the early Christian era as well as those living in later centuries further contributed to the consolidation of many names of biblical characters. A comparison between the Christian community’s names and those of the Jewish and Tatar communities reveals considerable cultural differences between the three confessions. Jews derived their names primarily from the onomastic treasury of OT; by giving their offspring biblical names, they would commemorate their patriarchs, prophets as well of the more or less known national heroes. Tatars, on the other hand, not only adopted Old-Testamental names, such as Abraham and Abram in their multiple phonetic variants, Adam, Daniel, Dawid, Elias//Helias, Chawa//Ewa, Jakub, Jan//Ivan, Jachim//Jakim, Józef, Salomon, Samuel, Zachariasz, but were also open to NT onomastics and accepted many names important to Christians, viz.: Andrzej//Andrej, Krzysztof, Dymitr, Korneliusz, Maciej, Marianna, Michał, Stefan, Simon//Sziman, Tomasz, etc. 2. A comprehensive analysis of the phonetic and morphological adaptation of biblical names as evidenced in the historical material of the 16th and 17th centuries in Podlasie has revealed a remarkable linguistic and cultural complexity of the region. Names adopted through Latin and Greek were then adapted to the phonetic and grammatical rules of the ethnic languages and dialects occurring in Podlasie. In terms of phonetics, the most characteristic changes for the region under scrutiny occurred when adapting Greek or Latin phonemes, foreign to Slavic languages, depending on the period and adoption route. They manner of assimilation of certain sounds was largely determined by the system of Latin-Greek transcription, i.e. the so-called Erasmus or Reichlinian reading (e.g. assimilation of the Greek letters η, θ: Daniel//Daniił; Teodor//Fieodor; Tomasz//Foma). In this context, the [f] phoneme posed greatest problems as it had been unknown to Slavic languages until the disappearance of the front yers ь, ъ. Hence the ubiquitous substitution of [f] with [p], [ch], [chw] or [w], e.g.: Arefa//Orech; Filip//Pilip//Chilip; Foma//Choma; Józef//Osip; Małachija//Małofiej//Małochwiej, etc. The orthoepic (i.e. orthophonic and orthographic) standards emerging between the 16th and 17th centuries in the region in question also gave rise to considerable diversity and produced multiple name variants. The yet unsettled spelling rules for names served to reflect the palatalisation (i.e. in Polish and Belarusian) and dispalatalisation (i.e. in Ukrainian) processes ongoing in the Slavic languages concerning consonants preceding front vowels, e.g.: Dmitrz//Dzmitr (: Old Church Slavic Dimitrij), Filip//Fylip, Pert//Pietr//Piotr; Terech//Tierech//Cierech. Diphthongs as well as vowel and consonant groups were adapted in several variants as the process occurred at different time intervals, in several languages as well as in their local dialects. Finally, of considerable importance to the manner of adaptation of biblical names to the ethnic languages was the impact of the intermediating liturgical languages (i.e. Latin in the Catholic Church and Old Church Slavic in the Orthodox Church) and official languages: Latin, East-Borderland Polish and Old Belarusian, which, on the one hand, helped retain th form of a name that was similar to the original (Latin), e.g. with the initial [a]: Andrzej//Andrej; with the etymological [f]: Stefan; on the other hand – the ethnic languages (Borderland Polish, Old Belarusian) enabled the introduction of alternating, colloquial and dialectically-driven, phonetically-transformed forms, such as Jędrzej, Szczepan, Osip, Ochrem, Olizar, Jołtuch, Hauryło, etc. 3. When analysing the morphological adaptation of OT biblical names of Hebrew, Aramaic and other etymological origins and of NT names of various etymologies, first to the biblical Greek and Latin languages and subsequently to Slavic languages, one is impressed by the complexity and diversity of the entire process. The comparisons of name forms between the different languages have shown that some of them retained their etymological rhymes in both the intermediate and recipient languages, e.g. Abraham//Abram, Adam, Dawid, Baltazar, etc.; however, other names adopted a different rhyme in Greek and Latin, whereas the source from which a name found its way to Polish or Old Church Slavic determined on how it was adopted in the morphological systems of the receiving languages. This is from where the differences stem between the rhymes of Catholic versus Orthodox names, such as the names adapted to Polish from Latin: Gabriel, Elizeusz, Jonasz, Mojżesz, Sofoniasz, Tobiasz, Zachariasz etc. and to East Slavic languages via the Old Church Slavic language: Gawriił, Jelisiej, Jona, Mojsej, Sofonija, Tobit; Tovija, Tovij, Zacharija, etc. Most OT names in Podlasie in the 16th and 17th centuries took the forms already established in Polish, such as: Aron, Abraham, Abram, Adam, Joachim, Daniel, Gabriel, Michał, Rafał, Samuel, Józef, Jonasz, Łazarz, Jakub, Jan, Bartłomiej, Mateusz, Maciej, Tomasz, etc. In addition to those name forms, there were variants of full, correct Old Church Slavic forms or those very similar to them: Awram, Joakim, Jefrem, Iiew, Jona, Jakow, Joan, Matffiey, Ilia, Matwij, Osij. Texts written in Latin contain correct or phonetically-modified Latin forms, e.g. Homan or hyper-correct ones with -ias, -us inflections added upon the original Greek or Latin forms: Adamus, Hohemias, as well as alternating forms: Latin Adae, Joach, Jach, Jak. All the forms of morphological adaptation of biblical names led to personal names being incorporated into the basic *-o, *-jo, *-a and *-ja declinations or the adjectival -i,-y or -yj ones. 4. The anthroponomical historical material attests to the fact that the phonetically and morphologically adapted forms of biblical names were subject to further, much more profound, structural transformations as early as at the wordformation stage. The derivation mechanisms and tools employed at that stage proved to be extraordinarily diverse. The following techniques were used in creating new forms of assimilated biblical names: – quantitative alternation, or abbreviation of the full primary name with its inflectional characteristics retained, e.g.: Manel < Emanuel; – quantitative alternation, or abbreviation of the full primary name with its inflectional characteristics modified, e.g.: East Slavic Dymitr, Dmitr < Old Church Slavik Димитрий (cf Polish Demetriusz); – qualitative alternation, i.e. palatalization, e.g.: Dmitrz < Dmitr, Jodzio < Jodo; – change in inflective characteristics with the full form of the name retained as the word-formation root, e.g.: Daniło < Daniił, Dmitr-o <Dmitr, Gabrielio < Gabriel, Hawriło//Hawryło < Gawriił; – single-step suffix-based derivation by adding simple suffixes, e.g.: Andrejko, Janek, Iwanko etc, and multi-step composite derivation, e.g. Andr-usz-ko, Awr-asz-ko, Jan- ecz-ko, Jan-icz-ko, Jan-usz-ko etc. 5. An analysis of the Podlasian anthroponomical material of the 16th and 17th centuries has revealed that the formation of first name-derivative surnames was a long, complex and mixed process. The word-formation rules for the creation of first name-derivative surnames differ significantly from those governing the creation of other types of semantic-structural surnames. In the creation of first name-derived surnames two principal modes of derivation played a leading role: transonimisation and suffix-based derivation, occurring on a stage-by-stage basis on different levels of the language. Various factors contributed to the wealth and diversity of first name-derivative surname structures. Some of the fundamental processes include biblical name adaptation techniques in the areas of phonetics and morphology, as well as word-formation processes. Assimilating biblical names into ethnic languages and dialects through the intermediation of different liturgical languages resulted in a wealth of phonetic variants of basic names. Moreover, a morphological adaptation in an area of ethnic diversity resulted in a structural diversity of name forms. On the basis of basic names, differentiated phonetically and morphologically, further alternated forms began emerging as soon as they became assimilated into the recipient languages. Names would be abbreviated or structurally expanded. New name forms were created by suffixing basic name forms (: Andrzej > Andrzejko) abbreviated ones (: Andr> Andresz, Androsz, Androcz, Andruch, Andruk, Andrus, Andrusz, Andruta, Andrych, Andrys). Based on thus structurally expanded name forms, new diminutive or hypocoristic names would be created by adding subsequent diminutive suffixes (: Andrusz > Andruszko, Jędrusz > Jędruszko). Given the tendency to record in documents the baptismal names in their primary forms, such deformed variants functioning in the public domain began to serve as an additional identification element, converting with time, as a result of transonimisation, into surnames without quantitative changes (e.g. the name Bołtruk Pieczkowicz and derived surname Szymko Bołtruk) or served as a basis for more elaborate name-derived structures: patronyms, matronyms, or andronyms in female anthroponomy (: Andrzej > Andr > Andros > Androsewicz, Androsicha; Andrusz > Andruszków, Andruszkowicz, etc.). Suffix stacking is a characteristic feature of such proto-surnames. Various Slavic suffixes of the following proveniences were employed in the derivation process: Polish (e.g. -ek, -owa, -anka, etc.)., East Slavic (-ko, -icha, -uk, etc.) and Lithuanian (-el < -elis, -uta). The Pan-Slavic suffix -ic(z) < *-itjo, specifically its expanded variant -ewicz//-owicz, enjoyed particular popularity. Therefore, in the roots of proto-surnames unique name forms can sometimes hide that, although no longer used in the public official register, were still functioning in everyday speech as live diminutive, hypocoristic or augmentative formations, such as: Iwachul in the root of the proto-surname Iwachulina (: Iwan > Iwach > Iwachul → Iwachulina); Iwanutiel in the proto-surname Iwantielik (: Iwan > Iwanuta > Iwanutiel → Iwan(u)tielik) or Januszczynek in the proto-surname Januszczynczyk (: Jan > Janusz > Januszek//Januszko > Januszczynek//Januszczynko → Januszczynczyk) etc. 6. An analysis of the biblical names given by Podlasian Christians of the 16th and 17th centuries compared to the Jewish and Tatar names of that period, has revealed, on the one hand, significant cultural differences between those denominations as well as different approaches to the biblical characters – name-bearers, and on the other – an evolution of a uniquely syncretic onomastic culture of the region. Notwithstanding significant cultural and linguistic differences, one can easily identify a number of features common to all the religious and ethnic communities under scrutiny. The linguistic interference occurred on different levels of language. On the level of phonetics, one can find in Jewish and Tatar names phonetic changes typical of the Christian Slavic majority, such as the avoidance of the frontal [a]: ~ Jewish: Aron > Ogron; Abram > Obrom; Aszer > Oszer; ~ Tatar: Abduła > Obduła; Abrahim > Obrahim; Achmet > Ochmet; prosthetic consonants: ~ Jewish: Aba > Habo; ~ Tatar: Abduła > Hobdula; Abrahim > Hebraim; similar pronunciation of ‘h’ and ‘ch’: ~ Jewish.: Herszko and Cherszko; Hona and Chonel; ~ Tatar: Hasien and Chasien, Hasia and Chasia; substitution of f > ch, p, chw: ~ Jewish: Koffman and Kochman; Naftali and Naptalij; ~ Tatar: Fatma and Chatma, Tafta and Tachta; Jusuf and Jusup; Mustafa and Mustuchwa, etc. The linguistic interference was most apparent in name formation. Derivative forms were created from primary ones in much the same way in all the ethnic and religious groups in question. Names would be abbreviated through apheresis, syncopation or apocopation, or augmented by the same word-formation means. The ethnic minorities took over word-formation elements from their neighbours, e.g. the suffix -ko occurs in all of them, cf: ~ Christian: Tomko Janowicz, Tomko Puczka 1528, JI 216, 192; Awrassko Rzepka 1571, IT 35; ~ Jewish: Abramko Jakubowicz 1654, IMO 3 (Ż); Аврашком Яцковичом 1540, AGZS XVII 15 (Ż); ~ Tatar: Адко Маршалокъ 1528, PWL 114 (T); -ś: ~ Christian: Jaś Masłowski, Jaś Mostowski 1558, IS 50; ~ Tatar: Адась Богдановичъ 1565, PWL 429 (T); -ec: ~ Jewish: ...зъ Абрамцомъ Мейровичъ 1540, AGZS XVII 95 (Ż); -sz: ~ Tatar: Абрашъ Телешевичъ 1528, PWL 111 (T) etc. With the same suffixes, Tatars and Jews created diminutive and hypocoristic names, not only based on names common to all the cultures and religions, but also from their own biblical or nonbiblical names that were not taken over by the other communities, e.g.~ Jewish: Boruszko and Boruszek, Całko (: Becalel), Fajbuś (: Febus), Herszutko (: Hirsz), Icek, Icuk, Icko, Icchanko (: Icchak) etc. (Dacewicz 2008a, 53–62) ~ Tatar: Adko, Ainiszko, Alejko, Asanczyk, Iwaszko, Janko, Jaśko, Macula, Miszko, Misiuk, Szymko etc. (Dacewicz 2012, 107–110). The onomastic syncretism is even more evident in surnames, cf.: ~ Christian: Sak Abrahamowicz, Tymosz Abrahamowicz 1662, PnM 432; ~ Tatar: Ryzwan Abrahamowicz, Abduła Abrahamowicz 1631, RDT 90, 96 (T); ~ Christian: Wołos Abramowicz 1551, IMŁII 268; Wojciechem Abramowicz 1580, JI 93; ~ Jewish: Juda Abramowicc, Slloma Abramowicc 1571, IT 15 (Ż); Mustafa Abramowicz 1631, RDT 94 (T); ~ Tatar: k. Dzianaj Ibrahimowicz 1690, RPT 81 (T); ~ Jewish: Szłomczyna Abramowiczowa zydowka 1669, IMO 38 (Ż); ~ Tatar: Ewa Abramowiczowa, Marianna Abramowiczowa, Chawa Abramowiczowa 1690, RPW 104, 105 (T). The most distinguishable name-formation elements in Podlasie, not only in the period at issue, but also today, besides the suffixes -icz, -ewicz//-owicz, include: -ko, -uk, -el,-uta,-uć, -icha//-ycha etc. Their dissemination and consolidation in the name of the Podlasie region is attributable to the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of the region. 7. The derivative first-name and surname forms from the base variants: Latin, Polish, Old Church and East Slavic were created out of phonetically transformed bases. There is a clearly defined dialectic-specific differentiation of personal names and phonetic processes typical of Polish (e.g. o > u; r’ > rz), Belarusian (e.g. Lithuanian -utis > -uć, d’ > dź) and Ukrainian (e.g. e > i, dispalatalisation before front-row vow-els. These diverse name forms, as well as the patronyms, andronyms and other forms of additional determination created on their basis and evidenced in subsequent years in historical sources, tended to be petrifi ed in the form of names inherited by the subsequent generations and are currently corroborated in modern-time anthroponomy of Podlasie. The phonetic diversity, wealth of means and methods of derivation only testifies to the extraordinary creativity and linguistic inno vativeness of the generations living at that time, forced by the need to precisely define, individualise and identify the individual in the society at a time when surnames were only developing, but also to linguistic and cultural diversity of Podlasie.