Word of God, words of men: Translations, inspirations, transmissions of the Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance [1 ed.] 9783666552779, 9783525552773

Citation preview

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault (ed.)

Word of God, words of men Translations, inspirations, transmissions of the Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance Academic Studies

43

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 43

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault (ed.)

Word of God, words of men Translations, inspirations, transmissions of the Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance

With 40 Figures

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-55277-9

Contents

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault Preface of the editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

I. Contexts Wojciech Kriegseisen Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the Mid-sixteenth Century to the Mid-seventeenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance . .

39

II. From Publishing Houses Rajmund Pietkiewicz Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance. An Attempt at Bibliographical Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Aurelia Zdun´czyk The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content in the Oldest Polish Printed Bible Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Izabela Winiarska-Górska Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible in the Second Half of the 16th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss Words of God Cut in Wood. Some Remarks about the Illustrations in Polish Renaissance Editions of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6

Contents

Mariola Jarczykowa Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy . . . . 187

III. Intersections Robert Dittmann, Jarosław Malicki Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙ Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Tatars and Translations of the Bible into Polish during the Renaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

IV. Vistas Tomasz Lisowski The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632) in Comparison to the Brest Bible’s New Testament (1563) and the New Testament of the Jakub Wujek Bible (1599) – in Search of Adequacy of the Translation into Renaissance Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Łukasz Cybulski Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

. . . . . . . . . . 303

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙, Kristina Rutkovska Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible . . . . . . 317

V. In Verse and in Music Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska, Fernando Reyes Ferrón “Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka to the Jan Kochanowski’s Psalter translation. A Polish and European work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Notes about Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Name Index

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault

Preface of the editor

All Polish translators’ achievements in the field of biblistics take their origin from the times, when the process of the confessionalization had become irreversible and started to strongly mark the history of European culture. The name Martin Luther itself appeared in the Polish literature quite early, because in 1524, in the title of the Encomia Lutheris by the then bishop of Płock, Andrzej Krzycki. This first work on Polish lands, which referred directly to the reformers’ assumptions, after a long time, till today, is remembered only because it was unfairly registered on the ecclesiastical index (Pietrzak-Thébault: 2015, 43). In this inevitably polemic context will appear the translations and the translators themselves will consider their role in such a polemical way. Therefore, it is hard to look among the translations created then for some aconfessional, neutral accomplishment of biblical, philological and textual ideas, of a quality equal to Erasmus of Rotterdam, Lefèvre, Estienne, or Beza (Hanusiewicz-Lavallée: 2009, 75)1. However, at exactly the same time the Polish language had gained a new meaning, and its role in public and literary life had grown importantly. It is considered that from 1543 the Polish language could be called a national language, because it was used as the language of the state documents (Urban´czyk: 1979, 210). It did not happen due to the fact that great writers already used this language – their time was about to come, and they appeared just because the national language attained a high status and got the “flexibility” allowing it to shape the artistic expression (Urban´czyk: 1979, 210). The collection of studies presented further, concerning the translation and publication of the Holy Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, focuses then on the linguistic, philological and editorial sides of the phenomenon. However, this phenomenon is impossible to comprehend without describing the historical background. Political and economic prosperity (described by Wojciech Kriegseisen) converged with the first wave, on such a big scale, of an interest and practical activity in the field of language – literature. The developing theoretical 1 About some translations of the Psalter, that seem to question this rule, see further.

8

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault

idea directed to the theory and practice of translation was accompanied the growing linguistic and literary awareness of the court, and academic and noble circles, Catholic, as well as Lutheran and Protestant ones. This idea was most closely related to the interest in the Bible and the interdependencies between those two fields are the subject of the second of the guiding articles, by Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik. This intellectual movement would not have been possible without the support of the printing houses, especially the offices in Cracow. Rajmund Pietkiewicz, who can be described as the person, who probably held in his hand each copy of the Bible published on Polish lands in the 16th and 17th centuries, covers in his study what was the real scope of these publications. However, not only the scope and technological “support” are crucial here. It is important to what extent and how the publishing houses, their collaborators, usually anonymous in the editorial field, as well as the organization of text, considering the editing process as a metatext itself, aimed at interpretation, to create as a matter of fact a new quality of the Bible’s perception, and comprehension by the audience. This perception, less and less “abstract”, has had increasingly become an object adapted to the particular needs, and the ways of usage of the Holy Bible can be read via different typographical issues. The answers to the questions about the design of such new editions, and also taking significant benefit from them, can be found to a large extent in the study of Izabela Winiarska-Górska. This study also shows how much still had to be done in this field – how necessary is a new, more profound insight was into the Bible publications of the 16th and 17th centuries, but also into the literature of those years: didactic, devotional, and para-liturgical. Similar questions emerged from the another research’s results, and the article of Mariola Jarczykowa draws similar conclusions. The inscriptions for the catholic king placed in the protestant Gdan´sk Bible speak a lot about the functioning of the Holy Bible (and of printed books in general too) in the social space of the kingdom, and about the prestige and usage of this most popular translation, used for ages (in practice till recent years), among all denominations of the Polish Protestants and Lutherans. Considering the books’ illustrations of those times only as decorum can be far superficial, and even erroneous, because in that matter the editorial idea also manifests itself (in such case the authorship shall be attributed to the publishing house, due to the lack of authors’ names). Two articles in this volume investigate the meanings hidden in the illustrations and on the title pages of books: by Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss and of Aurelia Zdun´czyk, who is young, starting her scholar’s path, but competently keeping the pace with her older colleagues. The reading of all studies univocally shows a common initial point and the focus of attention of the researchers. The keystone here is clearly the language, and its predominant role is corroborated by the next articles three: thanks to Robert Dittmann with Jarosław Malicki and Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙, the reader will get

Preface of the editor

9

knowledge about the connections and mutual influence of the translations into Polish, Czech and Lithuanian. I would like to pay particular attention to the study discussing the impact of the Polish biblical translations, and the religious terminology taking root in Polish language related with them, on the translations of the religious literature of Polish Muslim Tatars. Thanks to Joanna KulwickaKamin´ska we can see, how the philological work achieved seemingly only in the scope of one language and one religion can become an inspiration for works answering to the needs of another religion, and later on even influence them in remarkable and stimulating ways. The three articles presented in this volume of course do not exhaust this rich subject matter. We shall also pay attention to Franciszek Skoryna, the Catholic translator of the Bible into the language defined as the Belarusian variant of the Old Church Slavonic, or as old Belarusian. The language developed for the purpose of the liturgy of the Eastern Church and was successfully used there, thanks to the work of Skoryna, published in 1529, had become a foundation, as well as a prototype of the Belarusian literary language2. That on the one hand, and on the other, one hundred years later, and even more to the East, comes to being the translation of the New Testament into Turkish (issued in 1653) came into being made by a Polish captive, captured by Tatars in the south-eastern territory of the Commonwealth, near Lvov, and sold to the sultan’s court – Wojciech Bobowski. The young man, Calvinist (who converted to Islam in the sultan’s court and took the name of Ali Ufki Bej, but obviously had not forgotten about his roots and knew how to productively use them), who in 1665 published the Ottoman Psalter (Mezmurler) – a selection of fourteen psalms of the Genevan Psalter, recomposed to Turkish sounds and translated into Turkish (Ła˛tka: 2005, 56–57; Privatsky: 2014, online). Here we start exploring the musical use of the poetic translations of psalms – we will find in our volume another such example, closer to our culture. The compositions of Mikołaj Gomółka, published only two years after the first edition of Psalms translated by Jan Kochanowski (1581), which are the subject of an article by Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernand Reyes, can be listened to in the form of an interpretation, which aims to reconstruct the musical practice contemporary to the time of the creation of the Gomółka/Kochanowski’s psalms. The collection of the studies and essays, conceived at the beginning as an expert review of the matter of our interest, unexpectedly revealed another face, which may be even more intriguing – it is the multiplicity of research possibilities, constantly broadening of their field. We can find different proofs in the stylometric, linguistic technique of Tomasz Lisowski’s comparative research, as well as in considering the translation of Jakub Wujek as a pattern for other under2 I would like to thank to Professor Aleh Dziarnowicz of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences in Min´sk for valuable information.

10

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault

takings, as a starting point for developing the interpretation of the Holy Bible and its further translations. Both Łukasz Cybulski, and Wirginija Vasiliauskiene˙ with Kristina Rutkovska proved the enormous importance of the translation done by the Jesuit of Wa˛growiec – a text, which came into being in the time span between the variant of the Sistine Vulgate, seemingly still obligatory in Catholicism, and a newer one – the Clementine Vulgate. This translation had become not only the next element in the polemic series on Polish ground, but also the sole available version for the Polish Catholics for many future centuries3, a model, up to the new translations, that have appeared recently only with the modernization wave of The Second Vatican Council. The range of topics presented in the volume is very wide, then, but it cannot exhaust the matter of our interest. I regret that some phenomena, names, titles, although mentioned on pages of this book, were not given a proper discussion. But it is worth referring to them, at least in a few sentences, even though for persons acquainted with the history of the Polish biblical translations of the Renaissance they should be certainly well-known. Also, the role of each of them is particular in the history of the development of the Polish language’s artistic articulation. With Stanisław Murzynowski, the first translator of the new times, the author of a translation of the Gospel after saint Matthew from Greek to Polish, is related the history of the systematization of the Polish grammar and orthography. The translation, published in 1551 at the Koenigsberg’s printing house of Aleksander Aujezdeckis4 (the full New Testament was issued two years later) was accompanied by Polish orthography, being in fact a closing and crowning of the experiences of the Cracovian typographers since 1470, and it arranged the spelling rules rather than presented new ideas than creating them5. Although the Orthography of Murzynowski numbers only eight pages, the aim to put an order is obvious there. “Therefore let’s enunciate and write”: “[…] so each word would be read and written not so-so, but after some manner”, we can read on those pages6. It is worth considering that academic Koenigsberg, apart from Cracow, had 3 The references to the Greek versions, criticized by the monastic superiors, disappeared from the next editions not due to the reasons pertaining to the subject matter, but doctrinal ones. On the rich philological proficiency of the Jesuit see Sobczykowa: 2012, 34–36. 4 On the printing process itself in the Koenigsberg’s printing house of Aleksander Aujezdeckis and on related circumstances, see Rospond: 1949, 46–49. The translation for the young protestant community was primarily ordered to Fryderyk Staphylus, recommended by Melanchton, arrived from Germany, and finally it was done by Murzynowski himself, Ibidem, 46. 5 The earlier treatise of Zaborowski was printed nine times in years 1514–1546 (Urban´czyk: 1979, 210–211). See also Urban´czyk: 1983, 32–40, 123–135. 6 The only one preserved copy of this edition is kept in the collection of the Library of Warsaw University SD 614.82. Reprints of this work were also published: Towarzystwo Naukowe Płockie, Płock, 2003 and Samizdat of Zofia Łos´, Płock 2011.

Preface of the editor

11

become at the time an important typographic centre, and, what goes hand in hand with that, a centre of intellectual debates, where the linguistic trends of conservatives (Sandecki-Malecki) conflicted with the tendencies of progressive modernists ones (Murzynowski) 7. The language of Murzynowski was “new” because it was close to everyday Polish and the translation was fine, and it was written on the basis of an erudite and rich philological technique (Sobczykowa: 2012, 31–32; Rospond: 1949: 41–51). The popularity of this translation and the clearly polemical, not to say bitter, nature of the editor’s commentary, determined the appearance of numerous following translations within the space of the second half of the century: the Catholic ones and probably of all other reform’s confessions present in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Hanusiewicz-Lavallée: 2009, 66). Among the translations strongly marked by confession in their nature, one in particularly stands out: it is The Psalter by Jan Kochanowski. The translation, or rather a poetic paraphrase, published in 1579 in the Łazarzowa printing house in Cracow, was the excellent result of an artistic experiment, and the author himself considered his work as his best poetic achievement, thus exceeding his original works written thus far (both Songs and Epigrams)8. The rock of “Beautiful Calliope” had to breathe with Horace’s poetry thanks to the quill of Kochanowski, because the imitation of Horace’s forms happened to be an exceptionally successful new “attire” for Hebraic poetry, being a far cry from the Latin forms after all. The Kochanowski’s experiment was based on the consistent references to the classical forms, with simultaneous, consistent usage of the varietas principle, breaching the parallelism of the Hebrew original: in the metrical plan (in the work of the Polish poet we can find as many as 41 different kinds of stanzas), as well as in the lexical plan (consisting in a highly successful usage of possibilities provided by the synonymy of the Polish language). Kochanowski created of the spirit of the classical poetry. However, he did not yield to the temptation of using ancient, mythological metaphors, present in humanistic religious language but strange to the sphere of Hebraic poetry. But he referred willingly, and almost solely, both to native expressions – to strong ones too, recalling the imagery found in the original – and to neologisms, built in a way showing a unique poetic intuition and linguistic imagination. Moreover, the poetic imagination of Kochanowski already promised the distinctive to the religious (and poetic) language 7 See the copy of the translation of “The Saint Gospel of Lord Jesus Christ by Saint Matthew” with numerous, not to say – innumerable – corrections and remarks by Sandecki-Malecki. See also Rospond: 1949, 457. 8 That was not the first paraphrase in the Polish poetic field of the Psalter see the work of Mikołaj Rej, edited in 1532, who translated into Polish the Latin paraphrase of Jan van den Campen, and Z˙ołtarz Dawidow […] of Walenty Wróbel published in 1539. More comprehensively on this topic see Kowalska: 2009, 199–208 and Kamieniecki: 2009, 209–218.

12

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault

of the Polish baroque, expression of the split, the awareness of the “shadow zones” of a believer – being on a quest rather than convinced. At the same time the poet’s translation, at its docta level, made use of the previous translators’ achievements of Europe and Poland (Karpin´ski: 2007, 111–116). The Psalter very quickly became a “songbook” (see the article mentioned earlier by P. Ceremuz˙yn´ska/F. Reyes Ferrón), and it was also probably the most often published Polish book within the space of the two last decades of the 16th century and at the beginning of the 17th century. We hope that all the keys to comprehending the uniqueness of this translation will be made available to us in the currently supplemented critical edition of this work, where the commentaries to the Psalter will be provided9. It will be released in the forthcoming years. Another linguistic experimenter was Szymon Budny, a personality of exceptional significance and ”individually”, also against the varied and important biblical translators’ achievements of the 16th century in Poland. His linguistic and literary works, innovative both in the field of the vocabulary and the syntax, were a manifestation of his eagerness to make the new translation as close to their originals as possible, even contrary to the recognized tradition. Usually, the acknowledged foundation for the translation of the Old Testament was one of the Biblia Rabbinica, also the Biblia Hebreo-Latina of Sebastian Münster of 1534, and perhaps the Biblia Hebraica, published in Cracow in 1552. For the translation of the New Testament the foundation was considered to be the Parisian editions of Simon de Colines (possibly of 1534 or 1551), and the Genevan publication of Jean Crespin of 1564 (Kamieniecki: 2002, 106–107). These “experiments” were far from idle amusement – apart from the obvious knowledge of the biblical languages, the knowledge of Old Church Slavonic as well, and interest in the eastern Slavic theology highlighted the originality of Budny’s achievement (Kamieniecki: 2002, 108–113; Sobczykowa: 2012, 32–33; Meller: 2009, 97–98). His viewpoint seems to be the closest of all Polish translators and commentators of that time, to the concepts of humanistic philology and to the Erasmian search for the most perfect text shape. What can appear to be a linguistic extravagance is in reality a search for the proper form of the text, and the theological background does not prevent the translator from taking the path to the full doctrinal independence. Aware of the fact, that as an Arian, and even an Arian “heretic”, he moved so far the boundaries of the free reading of the Holy Bible as none before him, he also 9 The completion of the parliamentary edition of all writings of Jan Kochanowski is prepared by Jacek Wójcicki. The current issue of the Psalter is incomplete, until now in the edition of Dzieła wszystkie (All writings) so-called parliamentary; there were included only the volumes having the transcription with the collotype, and the letter of Jan Kochanowski to Stanisław Fogelweder (J. Woronczak (ed.), Wrocław 1982, vol. I, part 1) and the index of the terms and forms (J. Woronczak (ed.), Wrocław 1991, t. I, part 3).

Preface of the editor

13

provides a very bold (if the matter referred to another topic, we could even say “perverse”) evidence of his esteem for – marked by the translation’s reform – the practice of saint Hieronymus usually rejected by Biblical scholars, and he understands the significance of the Latin tradition (Hanusiewicz-Lavallée: 2009, 70– 71)10. The subjects that I just managed to mention about, are not as much unrecognized, as require a new methodological approach – both in the editorial context, and the history of our language, including in the scope of the taking shape of its literary style. Similarly, the matters thoroughly discussed in this volume are proof of the unique, the never recurring, activity of this century, exceptional for the Polish culture. The disputes over the Old and New Testaments, the translator’s drive, the activity of the printing presses, and the search for new reading formulas became the focus of works at that time – and that hermeneutical pursuit is essential to our contemporariness. It results from a continuously up-to-date humanistic paradigm, and manifests itself in the forged, detailed practices, much varying, and at the same time common to so many citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: to speaking (and reading) Polish, as well as to the speaking (and reading, or at least being willing to read) other languages – German, Lithuanian, Belarussian, Ruthenian, Tartarian… These translators’ and commentators’ ambitions are also noticeable also in the following 17th century, which seems to prove that such pursuits go beyond the distinct counter-reformation caesura and indicate their unexpected continuity, previously undiscerned. It happens thanks to the comprehension, humanistic in its nature, that language, its formal correctness and literary articulation, are the only way to lead a man to an understanding of the Holy Scripture. Today those intuitions and quests are still scientifically attractive – and this volume proves that (and, ironically, its deficiency too!). They raise not only intellectual curiosity, but also an admiration for the then aspiration to join the comprehension of the God’s word with drawing out from it a hidden, new beauty of the human word, and also for the ability to integrate, by the young Renaissance printing culture, the requirements of pragmatism and the need of beauty. Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault Translated by Urszula Zinserling

10 Also about the successors of Budny: Czechowic and Szmalc. See Szczucki: 1993, 42–64; Ogonowski: 1971, 16, L. Szczucki/J. Tazbir: 1959, 629–631; Kot: 1956, 63–118.

14

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault

Bibliography Hanusiewicz-Lavallée, Mirosława (2009), Czy był i czym był humanizm chrzes´cijan´ski w Polsce, in: Mirosława Hanusiewicz-Lavallée (ed.), Humanitas i Chrisitanitas w kulturze polskiej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 53–86. Kamieniecki, Jan (2002), Szymon Budny zapomniana postac´ polskiej reformacji, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Kamieniecki, Jan (2009), Z˙ołtarz Dawidow Walentego Wróbla – filologiczne i teologiczne osobliwos´ci, in: Paweł Bortkiewicz/Stanisław Mikołajczak/Małgorzata Rybka (ed.), Je˛zyk religijny dawniej i dzis´ (w konteks´cie teologicznym i kulturowym), Poznan´: Wydawnictwo “Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne”, 209–218. ´ ski, Adam (2007), Renesans, (Mała historia literatury polskiej), Warszawa: Pan´Karpin stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kochanowski, Jan (1982), Dzieła wszystkie. Wydanie sejmowe, Jerzy Woronczak (ed.), vol. 1, part 1, Wrocław: Ossolineum. Kochanowski, Jan (1991), Dzieła wszystkie. Wydanie sejmowe, Jerzy Woronczak (ed.), vol. 1, part 3, Wrocław: Ossolineum. Kot, Stanisław (1956), Szymon Budny, der grösste Häretiker Litauens im 16. Jahrhundert, Wiener Archiv für Geschichte des Slaventums und Osteuropas, Bd. II: Studien zur älteren Geschichte Osteuropas, I, Graz/Köln: 1956, 63–118. Kowalska, Danuta (2009), Mie˛dzy tradycja˛ a nowatorstwem. O stylu Psałterza Dawidowego Mikołaja Reja (na wybranych przykładach) in: Paweł Bortkiewicz/Stanisław Mikołajczak/Małgorzata Rybka (ed.), Je˛zyk religijny dawniej i dzis´ (w konteks´cie teologicznym i kulturowym), Poznan´: Wydawnictwo “Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne”, 199–208. Kwilecka, Irena (1999), Les Bibles protestantes polonaises et leurs rapports avec les Bibles Françaises, in: Bertram Eugène Schwarzbach (ed.), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, 364–377. Ła˛tka, Jerzy S. (2005), Słownik Polaków w Imperium Osman´skim i Republice Tureckiej, Kraków: Ksie˛garnia Akademicka. Meller, Katarzyna (2009), Chrystian´ska humanistas Braci Polskich XVI i XVII wieku, in: Mirosława Hanusiewicz-Lavallée (ed.), Humanitas i Chrisitanitas w kulturze polskiej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 87–124. Murzynowski, Stanisław (2003), Ewangelia S´wie˛ta Pana Jezusa Chrystusa wedle Mateusza S´wie˛tego, Płock: Towarzystwo Naukowe Płockie. Murzynowski, Stanisław (2011), Ewangelia S´wie˛ta Pana Jezusa Chrystusa wedle Mateusza S´wie˛tego, Płock: Samizdat Zofii Łos´. Ogonowski, Zbigniew (1971), Antytrynitaryzm w Polsce: stan badan´ i postulaty, in: Lech Szczucki (ed.), Wokół dziejów i tradycji arianizmu, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 7–28. Pietrzak-Thébault, Joanna (2015), Andrzej Krzycki – Andreas Cricius (1482–1537) : évêque des paradoxes, Seizième Siècle 11/2015, 43–57. Privatsky, Bruce G. (2014), A History of Turkish Bible, Ph.D. Harvard University, https:// historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/.

Preface of the editor

15

Rospond, Stanisław (1949), Studia nad je˛zykiem polskim XVI wieku (Jan Seklucjan, Stanisław Murzynowski, Jan Sandecki-Malecki, Grzegorz Orszak). Studia Instytutu Filologii Polskiej i Słowian´skiej Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław: Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Sobczykowa, Joanna (2012), O naukowej polszczyz´nie humanistycznej złotego wieku. Wujek – Budny – Murzynowski, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Szczucki, Lech/Tazbir, Janusz (ed.) (1959), Literatura arian´ska w Polsce XVI w., Warszawa: Ksia˛z˙ka i Wiedza. Szczucki, Lech (1993), Nonkonformis´ci religijni XVI i XVII wieku. Studia i szkice, Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk IFiS. ´ czyk, Stanisław (1979), Rola wielkich pisarzy złotego wieku na tle innych Urban czynników kształtuja˛cych normy je˛zyka literackiego, in: ibidem, Prace z dziejów je˛zyka polskiego, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdan´sk: Ossolineum, 206–235. ´ czyk, Stanisław (ed.) (1983), Die Altpolnischen Orthographien des 16. JahrhunUrban derts, Stanisław Zaborowski – Jan Seklucjan – Stanisław Murzynowski – Jan Januszowski, (Slavistische Forschungen, Bd. 37), Köln/Wien: Böhlau Verlag.

I. Contexts

Wojciech Kriegseisen

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the Mid-sixteenth Century to the Mid-seventeenth Century

The latter half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century constitute the most interesting epoch as far as the political and religious history of the multi-ethnic and multicultural Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is concerned. The exact 100 years that separate the beginning of the reign of Sigismund II Augustus and the death of Władysław IV Vasa in 1648 constitute also the period of a rapid increase and then the ever growing decrease in the importance of Polish-Lithuanian Protestantism. Introduced in the name of the raison d’état of a multi-faith country in 1573, confessional equality was reduced after the death of Sigismund III Vasa in 1632 to guarantee of tolerance, which over the course of forthcoming years was to become gradually more and more limited. Changes in denominational politics took place parallel to the political problems that were on the increase in the seventeenth century. After 1648 the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth entered the epoch of permanent crisis, which it never managed to leave – not until its very end in the late eighteenth century. We are at a loss with regard to the causes and ensuing results as available scholarship does not allow one to ascertain whether the changes in the religious relations were caused by the mounting internal tensions or whether the said shift aggravated the situation. The death of King Sigismund I the Old in 1548 and the enthronement of his son Sigismund August in Cracow, the last ruler of Poland and Lithuania from the Jagiellonian dynasty, marks the beginning of the open Reformation ferment, which in the following years merged with the so-called Executionist movement that intended to modify the country in the direction of the Nobles’ Democracy (Nobles’ Commonwealth) (Schramm: 1965, 232–251). However, it is worth remembering that the first manifestations of the Reformation date back to a considerably earlier period. The Lutheran Reformation movement that took place in the towns of Pomerania (Gdan´sk, Torun´, Elbla˛g) in the 1520s was quashed as a result of Sigismund I’s military intervention and in the consecutive decades the Reformation tendencies had to develop undercover (Kriegseisen: 2010, 430–448). The dynamics of the penetration of these ideas

20

Wojciech Kriegseisen

were influenced by the intensive exchange that the Polish noble and burgher elites were involved in with Western Europe as well as the in-depth reception of Renaissance ideas. The Reformation tendencies resurfaced in hopes that Sigismund Augustus, with whose court were associated not only Evangelical preachers (Wotschke: 1907, 329–350), but also prominent lay figures such as Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski, Great Treasurer of the Crown Jan Lutomirski, or the Radziwiłł Family, would incline favourably towards the cause (Cynarski: 1988, 84–87). In contrast with the previous decades, the post-1548 Reformation processes in Poland were dominated not by Lutheranism that resonated from Germany but by Calvinism, which is evidence of openness to Western European modernisation proposals (Schramm: 1985, 41–52). Furthermore, what was equally important was the fact that, in accordance with Calvin’s doctrine, the authority in congregations was bestowed upon the laity, which must have pleased the noble leaders of the Executionist movement fighting for leverage and domestic influence (Bartel: 1965, 644–650; Zeeden: 1985, 192–221). Works of Calvin and Zwingli were popular with the participants of the 1550 Sejm in Piotrków and were unsurprisingly sold there. Even if the information that hundreds of copies were bought by the representatives is exaggerated, it is a testimony to the growing demand (Górski: 1929, 21). Concurrently, there appeared another factor that strengthened the attraction of Protestantism. At the end of 1548, a group of Evangelicals banished from the Kingdom of Bohemia on the strength of the edict issued by Ferdinand I arrived in Poland. These members of the Church of the Bohemian Brethren (Jednota bratrská, Jednota bratrˇí cˇeských) (Schramm: 1965, 87–88) settled in the Greater Poland, where they impressed the residents with their discipline and doctrinal maturity. In the 1550s the nobility of the Kingdom of Poland acted publicly as the collective protector of the Reformation (Tazbir: 1987, 17). Many towns and villages saw the end of the celebration of the holy mass (Catholic service); Evangelical sermons were delivered either by former Roman Catholic priests or by new Protestant preachers. Catholic churches on the premises of noble estates, among others ones belonging to the Boner, Firlej, Górka, Leszczyn´ski, Oles´nicki, Ostroróg, and Zborowski families, were converted into places of Protestant worship (Schramm: 1965, 30–35). The Reformation movement was gaining its momentum, as it involved the entire country and was typified by a rather advanced if – with the exception of the Duchy of Prussia – uncoordinated character (Barycz: 1971a, 221–242). Soon Lesser Poland was to be in the lead. Catholic priests were expelled from Pin´czów, a private town owned by Mikołaj Oles´nicki, and in the October of 1550 the first Evangelical Synod took place there. Its aim was to establish the basic doctrinal regulations to be obeyed by the fledgling Protestant congregations in the region (Kowalska: 1999, 19).

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

21

As a result, on 12 December 1550 Sigismund August, clearly under the direct influence of the episcopate, ordered Oles´nicki to re-instate status quo ante. Furthermore, the king prohibited the dissemination of Reformation doctrines, swore to proscribe Evangelicals from state posts as well as to implement the verdicts of ecclesiastical courts with the help of royal starostas (Lubieniecki: 1971, 60–61; Sucheni-Grabowska: 1996, 304–309). Declaring the Protestants ineligible for public functions and the confirmation of the state execution of church court rulings severely affected the proponents of the Reformation. However, after the Sejm of 1550 they in fact did feel the support of the Catholic exponents of the execution of law and strove to pursue a confrontational course (Sucheni-Grabowska: 1996, 306). A test of strength ensued in Cracow, where Bishop Andrzej Zebrzydowski accused Konrad Krupka Przecławski, a noble man of an established burgher family, of heresy. He was charged not only with partaking of the holy communion sub utraque specie, but with convening “clandestine meetings”, i. e., Protestant religious services, with making his subjects work during holy days and with disobeying the rite of fasting (Bukowski: 1883, 181–185). He disregarded summons and, in consequence, was in his absence officially considered a heretic; the court declared him an outlaw and ordered confiscation of his assets (Barycz: 1971b, 284–296). Both Przecławski and his supporters traversed Lesser Poland in protestation of the verdict and the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The matter was discussed at Sejmiks (regional assemblies) in 1551; at the Sejmik in Proszowice a royal edict dated 12 December 1550, which warned against the prelude to the tyranny of bishops (Lubieniecki: 1971, 60–61), was produced. The dispute over the ecclesiastical judiciary snowballed into a major issue while the Evangelicals were supported by the Executionists, to whom the freedom of religion and religious practice were the unalienable attribute of noble liberties. Given such countrywide sentiments, the opponents of the Reformation were at a disadvantage as far as any attempt to introduce the mandatory Catholic denomination was concerned; furthermore, trials against the exponents of the Reformation angered members of the nobility, who construed them as an example of violation of the nihil novi constitution. Some cases yielded acts of civil disobedience while the estate solidarity of the nobility started to evolve into religious solidarity. In the November of 1554, Evangelicals in Lesser Poland, in particular, Protestants at a congregation in Słomniki, decided to establish an overt church structure, which – in the subsequent years – gave rise to five synodal conventions, during which the organisation of the Evangelical Reformed Church as well as the union between the Calvinists and the Czech Brethren were discussed and approved of (Sipayłło: 1966, XXXIV). . After the Sejm of 1555 the state authorities ceased to support ecclesiastical courts, which – in practice – led to their acknowledgement of the freedom of

22

Wojciech Kriegseisen

private Evangelical religious service – the nobles were granted the right of worship on the premises of their own estates. These regulations meant the acceleration of the Reformation process – work on the unification was under way. On 31 August 1555 in Koz´minek in Greater Poland, the Czech Brethren and the Evangelicals from Lesser Poland united under the banner of the confession of the former. However, the agreement did not last long but it did for some time strengthen the advocates of the Reformation, who – in defiance of Catholic propaganda – proved that they were capable not only of division but of unity as well. The role of their organiser was played by the most renowned of Polish Reformation theologians – John Laski (Jan Łaski) (Kowalska: 1999, 30–46). He preceded his return to Poland by publishing a Reformation manifesto: dated 31 December 1555, Epistolae tres lectu dignissimae, de recta et legitima ecclesiarum bene instituendarum ratione ac modo was issued in Frankfurt am Main and expressed his opinion that the Reformation would be supported by the highest authorities of the Kingdom of Poland (Łaski: 2003, 16–26). Having reached Poland in the December of 1556, Laski was soon to realise that his hope was groundless. Till his death in the January of 1560, he concentrated his efforts on organisational groundwork and on fight against divisive tendencies espoused by Antitrinitarians. During the 1562/63 Sejm Protestant politicians, including Marshal of the Sejm (speaker) Rafał Leszczyn´ski and castellan of Cracow Marcin Zborowski succedded in rejecting the postulate of bishops. The case of the re-introduction of the ecclesiastical sovereignty over lay courts eventually failed to materialise; moreover, the demand to return the churches and their assets appropriated by the Evangelicals was also dismissed (Zakrzewski: 1870, 115ss., 156ss). When in the January of 1563 the news regarding the siege of Połock by Moscow forces broke Sigismund Augustus was forced to choose between the interest of the state and of the Catholic Church. In return for the taxes that would support the expenses of the military, he eventually agreed to repeal the execution of the verdicts of ecclesiastical courts on the part of starostas (Polak: 2004, 94–95). This victory of the Reformation was, however, counter-balanced by the political weakening of their milieu as a direct result of the 1562 division of Protestantism in Lesser Poland into two strands, i. e., Calvinists (Larger Congregation) and Antitrinitarians (Lesser Congregation) (Halecki: 1915, 80–82). The intentions and interests of Sigismund Augustus in terms of confessional politics at that time are best defined by votum of Vice–Chancellor of the Crown (vicecancellarius regni Poloniae) Piotr Myszkowski at the Sejm of 1565, during which he exhorted his fellow representatives to rise above religious controversies and to exist in harmony:

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

23

Rozumienie róz˙ne Pisma niech miłos´ci nie targa mie˛dzy nami, ani niech jeden drugiemu nie ura˛ga, niech kaz˙dy przy swem rozumieniu ostaje. Jako to widzieli, co sie˛ działo w Niemczech, co we Francji, iz˙ póki jedni drugim ura˛gali, uz˙yli niepokojów wielkich, których uchodza˛c, zostawili kaz˙demu wolne rozumienie, i tak pokój mie˛dzy soba˛ postanowiwszy trwaja˛ w zgodzie. (Krasin´ski/Chome˛towski: 1868, 65–66). Let different understandings of Scripture tear not the love between us; let them not serve for one to affront another, let each in his own understanding abide. As they have seen what has come to pass in Germany, and in France, that as long as some affronted the others, they endured great disturbances, but abandoning these [dissents], they left to each man his own understanding, and so, having established peace between themselves, they remain in concord.

In comparison with the Reformation of the nobles, plebeian Protestantism was not as developed. The Reformation in the countryside is worth mentioning only in the context of the activities of the magnates or the administrators of estates who were at a liberty to use propaganda and influence their subjects and/or resort to religious coercion (Urban: 1959, 130–170). The fate of burghers bode better but even they were dependent on the protectorate of the nobility (Müller: 1996, 265). Evangelical centres came into existence in numerous towns and cities of the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania but their fate is testimony to their weakness. Although in the then capital of Cracow in 1556 the congregation amounted to approximately 1000 members but as early as in the late-sixteenth century it fell victim to the counter-Reformation movement (Schramm: 1970, 1– 41). In contrast, in Royal Prussia it was the municipalities that served as the burgeoning centres of the Reformation (Małłek: 1997, 182–191). In 1557 and 1558 Gdan´sk, Torun´ and Elbla˛g were granted royal privileges allowing them to practise dual communion, which in fact meant that there was approval of further Protestantisation (Bogucka: 2008, 238–246; Pawlak: 1994, 36–37). Not unlike in Greater Poland, where Lutherans residing in its many municipalities were granted privileges (Małłek: 1999, 65–72). However, the only fully Protestantised territory of the Crown was Livonia, which was granted freedom of religion in 1561 and the feudum of Courland, where already in 1554 such a freedom had been announced and which in practice meant full-on Lutheranisation (Schmidt: 2000, 195–220; Bues: 2002, 61–79). Reformation tendencies grew in strength in the 1560s in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was enabled by the weakness of the local Catholic Church. What is also worth remembering is the specific structure of the hierarchy of power in Lithuania, where magnates took precedence over nobility. In effect, denominations preferred by the magnates played a decisive role there. This particular milieu regarded the Evangelical confession as an example of the sought-after Occidentalisation. A fitting example of this influence is provided by the Radziwiłł Family – Chancellor Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny and Hetman, the second-highest

24

Wojciech Kriegseisen

military commander, Mikołaj Radziwiłł Rudy. Their endorsement of Calvinism also gave rise to the publication of important works: in 1563 in Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest) the flagship translation of the Bible into Polish, the so-called Brest Bible (Biblia brzeska) (Jasnowski: 1939, 196–200, 360–368) was published. Magnates’ confessional choices were followed not only by numerous Lithuanian Catholics but by Ruthenian Protestant nobility as well, whose representatives frequently converted to Reformed Protestantism. In 1569 circa half of the Evangelical political elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania consisted of former adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Liedke: 2004, 59–73). During the Lublin Sejm of 1569, acting in defiance of a section of magnates, nobles implemented the most important political plan of Sigismund Augustus – a union, on the strength of which the Polish-Lithuanian relation evolved into the real union (Bardach: 1970, 11–67; Lulewicz: 2002, 17–39). In 1569 the Senate had the following representation: 70 Catholics, 58 Evangelicals, two Eastern Orthodox Christians (Halecki: 1915, 157), and the representatives of nobility in the lower chamber consisted of a considerable section of Protestants. At that time, Catholic, Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox nobles lobbied for the political project that would bestow upon them sovereignty over royal authority. The construction of the Democracy of Nobles ran parallel to the organisation of the structures of the Reformed Church, which was also controlled by the nobility; both processes strengthened each other (Schramm: 1985, 46–47). Founded in 1569, the Commonwealth was a country devoid of a defined confessional profile, yet the majority of the residents were Catholic – senators included Catholic Bishops, but there was not a single Eastern Orthodox hierarch or superintendent of any of the Evangelical Churches. On 12 August 1569 Sigismund Augustus closed the Lublin proceedings with a speech, in which he expressed his hope that the next Sejm would sort out the denominational relations within the Commonwealth (Piroz˙yn´ski: 1972, 9–10). The political success of the 1569 Sejm encouraged Evangelical leaders to conduct a series of unification activities that were supposed to serve as a prelude to the wide-ranging Protestantisation of the Commonwealth. The ultimate goal of the Calvinist leaders was to convince Sigismund Augustus to establish a state Evangelical Reformed Church, while the minimal threshold aim was to found a united Evangelic Church that would be equal to the Catholic one. At the April 1570 general synod in Sandomierz took place a political unification of the three strongest Protestant denominations in Poland: Reformed (Calvinists), Lutherans and the Czech Brethren (Jobert: 1994, 92–96). However, what was not achieved was dogmatic agreement and, as a result, ecclesiological and liturgical autonomy was granted to all of the denominations. The act of the Sandomierz Covenant (Agreement) was reached, i. e., each of the denominations acknowledged every other as the rightful Evangelical Christian confession, each swore to cease

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

25

proselytising, and each declared the commonality of the pulpit and organisation of joint general synods (Maciuszko: 1974, 124–128). Sigismund II Augustus died on 7 July 1572. The decisive political force, the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian nobility whose leaders largely supported Reformation, had to take care of the security of the state and the guarantees of religious and political freedoms (Gruszecki: 1969, 17–31). The Senate was almost evenly split along religious lines, with 58 Catholic senators and 59 non-Catholic ones (Dworzaczek: 1962, 41–56). What appears of key importance is that Evangelicals, who had pondered turning the Commonwealth into a Protestant country only several years earlier, now sought merely a guarantee of religious equality. The Convocation Sejm, sitting in Warsaw on 28 January 1573, passed the agreement negotiated by Evangelicals and the Sejm committee headed first by Stanisław Karnkowski, Bishop of Kujawy, and then by Primate Jakub Uchan´ski (Budka: 1921, 314–319; Gruszecki: 1969, 225–241). The agreement, known as the Warsaw Confederation, stated that all dissidentes in religione (dissidents in religion – the adherents of different confessions) enjoyed the guarantee of religious peace, and any persecution for reasons of belief, including on the grounds of orders issued by authorities or court judgments, was illegal (Korolko/Tazbir: 1980, 25–26; Salmonowicz: 1974, 7–30). The Warsaw Confederation can be considered a success of Protestants, with the reservation that by becoming a party of this agreement, they abandoned the hope of making the Commonwealth an Evangelical country (Ogonowski: 1957, 17–18). In 1573, the Commonwealth, formed in 1569, rejected both the idea of an Evangelical state Church and the notion of subordinating the state to the Catholic Church. Polish and Lithuanian dissidentes in religione chose a middle way – the state of the nobles did not favour either side of the denominational conflict and tasked itself with keeping the peace between them. The good of the Commonwealth thus prevailed over religious interest, and this advantage of “politics” over “religion” was something that those who had opposed the idea had to reckon with. In the late sixteenth century, the Commonwealth of Both Nations, or the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Lutheran Livonia and Courland had about 7.5 million inhabitants, speaking mainly Polish and Ruthenian, but also Lithuanian and German. Apart from Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Evangelicals of various confessions, there were Armenians, Jews, Crimean Karaites, as well as Tatars. This was when the image of the Commonwealth as a mosaic of cultures, confessions, and religions, and a paradise for Jews and heretics, was formed. The political life was dominated by an elite largely composed of non-Catholics; for instance, in 1572, some 60 % of the participants of the opinion-forming Kraków Sejmiks in Proszowice were Calvinists and Polish Brethren (Urban: 1953, 333). Evangelical nobles likely con-

26

Wojciech Kriegseisen

stituted not more than a dozen or so per cent of the nobility overall, but in 1569, 52 % of the political elite of the country – lay senators – were Evangelicals, and the Sejm had as many as 66 % Evangelical Crown deputies. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, this ratio was even less favourable for Catholics. In 1572, 17 out of 22 Lithuanian senators were non-Catholics (fourteen were Evangelicals and three Eastern Orthodox); in 1586, the Lithuanian senate had twelve Protestants; and in 1596, the ninth year of the reign of the arch-Catholic Sigismund III, ten Protestant senators remained (Lulewicz: 1977, 425–445). In the last decades of the sixteenth century, the Protestant parish network had about 1000 congregations (parishes) of various confessions and diverse character. In Greater Poland, we know of some 140 Lutheran congregations, many of which were large communities which comprised entire villages or small towns (Litak: 1986, 359ff). In Royal Prussia, the Evangelical congregations resembled those of Western Europe, with large urban parishes playing the key role. In contrast, Evangelical Reformed congregations, established largely in villages or private towns, tended to have few “auditors”, or faithful, especially in Lesser Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Church of the Polish Brethren, who described themselves as simply Christians (chrystyjanie) and were dubbed “Arians” by their opponents, was formed as a result of a split in Reformed congregations. Protestant religious communities were typically diasporic, which defined pastoral work and the possibilities Church authorities had to act. Given the confession of the subsequent kings and tradition, Catholics continued to consider their denomination the dominant one, but this was not particularly significant at the time. However, the presence in the Senate of Catholic bishops, who found it increasingly difficult to reconcile their duties to the Church with the responsibility for the state, should not be underestimated (Dzie˛gielewski: 1994, 191–210). Further, the territorial structures of the Catholic Church had traditionally performed supplementary services for the state. Catholic Parishes were used to announce taxes and summon the meetings of Sejmiks. At times, they were treated as lowest-level administrative units of the state (Litak: 2001, 18–35). The Warsaw Confederation established the principle of equality in the relations between the denominations. This regulation was part of the public law, for the 1573 Election Sejm included an abbreviated version of the Confederation in the Henrician Articles1 (Gruszecki: 1969, 260–261). Stephen Báthory swore fi1 Henrician Articles (Polish – Artykuły henrykowskie, Latin – Articuli Henriciani) – articles adopted by the Polish and Lithuanian nobility in 1573 during the interregnum after the death of the last Jagiellonian dynasty king – Sigismund II Augustus (reign 1548–1572), and before the free election in 1573 of next Polish king – Henry III de Valois (Polish – Henryk III Walezy, reign 1573–1574). The Henrician Articles stated the fundamental principles of constitutional law in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the Constitution of May 3, 1791. From the short reign

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

27

delity to the Articles with the mention of the Confederation, which then became the law (Grodziski/Dwornicka/Uruszczak: 2005, 356). Despite the fears of the Catholic opponents of confessional equality, its official confirmation did not prevent the shrinking of the impact of Protestantism in subsequent decades. As early as in the 1570s, the Catholic Episcopate embarked on the Counter-Reformation offensive. At the 1577 Synod in Piotrków, the bishops of the Gniezno province denounced the Warsaw Confederation. In this way, a constitutional act of law, acknowledged by the king, was officially undermined by the Catholic Church. At this stage it was merely a political demonstration, but the stance of the Episcopate was evidently contrary to the Commonwealth’s reason of state. Thus, in the Sejm, Catholic bishops attempted to not openly oppose the equality of rights, so as not to lay themselves open to charges of undermining religious peace (Dzie˛gielewski: 1994, 191–210). Nonetheless, the Counter-Reformation drive was considered an urgent need and was initiated where the guarantees of religious equality were at their weakest. The first victim of “confessional hatred” would be the Evangelical congregations in royal towns (Sobieski: 1902). The fight to remove them from the capital city of Cracow, which succeeded after 1591, was the most spectacular (Z˙elewski: 1962). Evangelical churches in Poznan´ and Lublin survived a little longer, closing in the first half of the seventeenth century. The position of nonCatholics in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was slightly better: the III Lithuanian Statute of 1588 placed temples of all denominations under the protection of the law, and the Warsaw Confederation was included in the Statute (Ptaszycki: 1935, 185–213). Particularly successful in their fight against religious equality were members of the Society of Jesus, who initially drew upon the ideology of monarchy as the defender of “the true religion”. Piotr Skarga viewed the Commonwealth as a fortress besieged by enemies: “Jews, pagans, tyrants, Turks, heretics, dissidents, and bad Catholics” (Skarga: 1898, 337). His solution was the cooperation between the state and the Catholic Church, which should regain the position of the dominant confession (Obirek: 1995, 173–178). The state was to be tasked with defending the true religious worship, which could only be done by fighting nonCatholics. The Commonwealth would have to become truly Catholic or die, as Skarga wrote in 1610, using the example of Cracow, where non-Catholic churches had to be destroyed, “for with them the city would never have peace” (Obirek: 1995, 197). of Henry III de Valois in Poland (better known further as Henry III, the last king of Valois dynasty in France) and election of succeeding Polish king Stephen Báthory (Polish – Stefan Batory, Hungarian – Báthory István, reign 1576–1586) every new king-elect of Poland-Lithuania was required to swear fidelity to the Henrician Articles. See: Makiłła: 2012.

28

Wojciech Kriegseisen

Faced with the Jesuit missionary drive, the repossessions of properties taken over by Evangelical congregations, and the removals of Evangelical churches from royal towns, Protestants did not remain inactive. They demanded, among others, the legalisation of the status of the churches they had taken over and the right to erect new Evangelical churches, as well as further restrictions on the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, which did not recognise mixed marriages (Korolko: 1974, 79–102). They intensified their efforts to ensure that executory provisions for the Warsaw Confederacy were issued (Wisner: 1974, 129–149). Evangelical politicians were not entirely unsuccessful, but in 1595 their attempts to broaden the scope of regulations against riots and make them permanent failed (Kempa: 2007, 74). In view of this, General Evangelical Synod was summoned for 21 August 1595. About 140 representatives of Reformed Evangelicals, Czech Brethren, and Lutherans arrived. Representatives of Gdan´sk, Torun´, and Elbla˛g city authorities also turned up, as did the envoy of Konstanty Ostrogski, the political leader of the Eastern Orthodox community (Kempa: 1997, 39–52). The organisers sought to reaffirm the Sandomierz Covenant and to prepare a defence of the equality of religious rights. However, not only were the 1570 Sandomierz arrangements not confirmed; Lutherans even questioned the inter-confessional agreement. At least the political aspect of the Synod was more successful: a plan to carry “the process of the Warsaw Confederation” in Sejm was agreed; more importantly, the Synod showed that Evangelicals were capable of reaching political accord, joined also by Eastern Orthodox Christians (Sławin´ski: 2002, 294–301). After the Synod, letters calling for a defence of the equality of religious rights were sent to over 30 Sejmiks. Nonetheless, Sigismund III considered the Synod illegal and refused to recognise its decisions. The constant attacks of Catholic writers on the Warsaw Confederation kept the atmosphere tense. Particularly dangerous was their questioning of the civic loyalty of Protestants, who were accused of disrespecting state institutions and of being ready to riot. These accusations must have been deemed serious by Evangelicals, for in 1599 a key passage from John Calvin’s Institutio Christianae religionis was published in translation. The passage, which treats of the duty to obey authorities and lists the conditions under which one can resort to the right to resistance, was intended not only to counter the charges of disloyalty to the state made against Protestants, but also to provide a reminder that the authorities also have a duty towards the people, and that the dereliction of this duty may lead to legitimate resistance (Kriegseisen: 2006, 101–113). In 1596 in Brest there took place a union between a section of the PolishLithuanian Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church (Kempa: 1996, 17–36; Dmitriev: 2003, 159–177). It resulted in the military alliance of the Orthodox Church and the Protestants. Political atmosphere visibly thickened and

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

29

the opponents of the Brest Union, the so-called Disuniates, were – not unlike Evangelicals before – being accused of disloyalty to the state. In response, the dissenters revived the postulate of passing executory provisions – until the Warsaw Confederation and before the 1597 Sejm issues of denominational nature constituted one of the most pressing matters discussed at Sejmiks. At the 1597 Sejm Evangelical deputies demanded the passing of “the process of the Confederation”, while Eastern Orthodox ones spoke in favour of the annulment of the Union (Kempa: 2007, 122). The next Sejm was held in 1598 and it was then that nonCatholic deputies requested “the process of the Confederation” and the legalisation of the Disuniate (Orthodox) Church, but it all boiled down to the king’s promise to address the denominational matters during the subsequent Sejm. Due to Sigismund III’s unflinching stance, consecutive Sejms did not grant any privilege to non-Catholics and the decisive battle over the continuation of the denominational equality was to happen at the “momentous Sejm” of 1606. In particular, the Protestants were moved by the events in Poznan´, where in 1605 a throng of people made a number of attempts to burn down churches – Lutheran and Bohemian ones. The political and confessional reasons for hostility to Sigismund III on the part of the opposition intensified, creating a highly explosive mix. After the commencement of the meeting in Warsaw, Evangelical deputies discussed their postulates with members of the Catholic opposition, while near Ste˛z˙yca gathered the nobility summoned by Mikołaj Zebrzydowski, leader of the anti-royal faction. On 20 March Evangelical representative Piotr Gorajski read out in the Sejm a register of political and denominational charges against the opposition. In response, Sigismund III stated that he was obeying the Warsaw Confederation and that he would not oppose the passing of “the process of the Confederation” – on condition that the proposed ideas would be acceptable to the Catholics (Kempa: 2007, 134–140). Some hoped that in the last days of the Sejm the king would be suggestible and would agree to make concessions. A committee was set up, which on the last but one day of the proceedings put forward a project that had already been accepted by the bishops. It seemed that the Sejm would indeed yield a compromise and that the rebellious forces gathered near Ste˛z˙yca would have no reason to fight the king. Still, on the night of 17/18 April Sigismund III decided to consult the matter with his court confessors. Fryderyk Bartsch and Piotr Skarga both declared that the motion proposed by the Sejm was incompatible with the Catholic doctrine and, as a result, it was rejected by the ruler and the Catholic episcopate (Sobieski: 1912, 191–225). The opposition learnt the hard way that it was incapable of breaking down the king’s will. This, at least to some, justified their resort to the right of resistance and participation in Zebrzydowski’s rebellion. When in 1577 the bishops condemned the Warsaw Confederation, they only did it as a test of strength – as a form of demonstration of their authority. But

30

Wojciech Kriegseisen

when in 1606, on the king’s initiative, the episcopate rejected the prospect of strengthening the Confederation, this was a far more serious matter. This was an unbridled victory of the idea of the Catholic confessional state and the turning point that marked the end of the equality of denominations (Bömelburg: 2007, 285–309). Sigismund III identified himself with the official stance of the Catholic Church on the matter, which in turn declared acceptance of toleration but not of equality; by doing so it rejected the Warsaw Confederation and proposed instead religious peace based on good will rather than on legal guarantees (Wisner: 1991, 87–88; Obirek: 1994, 166–169). Those who believed that the subordination of the raison d’état of the Commonwealth to the Catholic doctrine was perilous to the state were countered by Skarga, who publicly advised that when a conflict of the political and religious reasons occurred, one was supposed to side with the latter. Famously, he opined: “And should the worldly mother country perish, then we will survive in the eternal one in the heavens…” (Skarga: 1974, 368). The Brest Union of 1596 and the rejection of “the process” of the Warsaw Confederation 10 years later by Sigismund III did not generate any legal alterations as far as the Catholics and “the denominationally divergent” were concerned. The Warsaw Confederation was still binding and non-Catholics did not give up the hope of the re-introduction of real-life equality – their potential success depended on the growing tension between the backers of Sigismund III Vasa and the opposition that drew on the tradition of “the execution of the laws” (Wisner: 1974, 129–149). Started in 1606 and orchestrated by Mikołaj Zebrzydowski, the Sandomierz Rebellion was primarily directed against any plan of strengthening the king’s authority but the dissidents also remonstrated with the monarch in defence of denominational equality. This is confirmed and documented by the then publications, in which the political criticism of the royal court is augmented by the religious argument (Stec: 1984, 311–327). It was the Jesuits that were in particular severely castigated, both in Evangelical and Catholic writings. Clearly, all of this was informed by a considerable dose of anti-clerical demagogy, but the Jesuits were also perceived by responsible politicians not only as opponents of religious equality but as proponents of absolutum dominium (Tazbir: 2002, 13–21). The fate of the state reform was decided on 5 July 1607. The defeat of the rebels in the battle of Guzów meant the end of the designs to limit royal power and restore a real equality of religious rights (Chowaniec: 1924, 256–266). But the court too had to abandon its plans to strengthen the executive power. The rivalry between monarchy and nobility allowed a third party – the magnates – to claim victory. The history of the Sandomierz rebellion should be viewed in a broader European context as an element of the estate opposition’s struggle against the monarchy collaborating with the Catholic Church. Other links of this chain of conflicts in Central Europe were the 1604–1606 Hungarian revolt; the Sando-

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

31

mierz rebellion; the actions of the estates of Hungary, Moravia, Bohemia, and Austria, which in 1608 used the rivalry between Matthias and Rudolf of the House of Habsburg to obtain concessions; finally, the Bohemian revolt after 1618 (Schramm: 2010, 157–174). Following the Sandomierz rebellion, the propaganda directed against nonCatholics aggravated the relations between the denominations. An example is the Jesuit Mateusz Bembus, who succeeded Skarga as the royal preacher after the latter’s death in 1612 and who claimed that an agreement with Evangelicals was not necessary – instead, a transitory toleration, considered as malum necessarium, was sufficient (Bembus: 1979, 459–472; Obirek: 1996, 244–247). What was so recently considered a symptom of dangerous fanaticism was now becoming the official stance of the court and of the Catholic clergy. The Catholic side did not restrict itself to propaganda: where possible, dissidents were deprived of civic rights, such as in Poznan´ in 1619 and 1627 or in Cracow in 1624. On the other hand, the Evangelical authorities of large cities in the Royal Prussia restricted the rights of Catholics and their freedom of worship, which caused conflicts as well (Glemma: 1934, 108f; Walczak: 1983, 247–288). Particularly memorable was the year 1611, now considered the apogee of the fight against “heresy” during the reign of Sigismund III (Tazbir: 1967, 145). Unrest broke out in Vilnius, where several days after the Corpus Christi procession was disturbed by an Evangelical, Franco de Franco (who suffered capital punishment as a result), the mob destroyed the school and the church of the Reformed congregation (Tazbir: 1993, 90–105: Wisner: 1989, 41–48). In the same year, Iwan Tyszkowic, an anti-Trinitarian of Bielsk Podlaski, was burnt at a stake. In accordance with the tenets of his confession, he had refused to swear an oath. Franco de Franco and Tyszkowic were considered blasphemers, but there can be no doubt that theirs were trials “for faith”. In 1620 in Lublin, a mob vandalised the church of the Polish Brethren, and in Giałów in Samogitia an Evangelical church was burnt. It appears that at the end of the reign of Sigismund III Vasa Evangelicals realised that the equality of rights was unlikely to be restored without the change of the monarch. They thus awaited the interregnum, and made forceful interventions only when faced with significant disturbances, such as the burning of the church in Giałów (Wisner: 1995, 30–31). Non-Catholic elites focused their efforts on the “organic work” of strengthening church structures and consolidating the confessional awareness of the faithful. This is evidenced by the increase in writing aimed at religious instruction, also in the Eastern Orthodox community (Korzo: 2007, 343–360). In 1625, the authorities of the Reformed Church in Lithuania reorganised its educational structures, opening Evangelical colleges in Kiejdany and in Słuck. Work commenced on the complete translation of Calvin’s Institutio Christianae

32

Wojciech Kriegseisen

religionis (Kriegseisen: 2009, 27–28). This was also the time of Father Krzysztof Krain´ski, one of the most eminent Polish Evangelical writers. Apart from the We˛gierski brothers, he had the greatest impact on the consolidation of the confessional awareness of Evangelicals, particularly in Lesser Poland (Tworek: 1971, 117–139; Urban: 2002, 47–51). After taking his first step as a writer with the publication of the catechism in 1596, he sought to order and standardise liturgy, to publish his greatest work, the three volumes of Postylla (1608, 1611, 1617) (Tazbir: 1983, 195–231). Sigismund III died on 30 April 1632. From the vantage point of the relations between denominations, his reign appears a negative influence. The crisis of the equality of rights at the 1606 Sejm was not redressed, leading to religious hostilities which weakened the state. The Sejmiks increasingly took no stance on denominational matters; if they recognised the wrongs done to dissidentes in religione, they did so under the influence of Evangelical magnates (Wisner: 1978, 123–150; Opalin´ski: 1989, 21–40). Therefore, the aim of non-Catholics during the interregnum was to persuade Catholic bishops to recognise the Warsaw Confederation. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians made a concerted effort, and it appeared that the “hard line” from the times of Sigismund III could not be sustained, with Catholics signalling their readiness to make concessions. At the convocation meeting in Warsaw, dissenters took a firm stance, which was all the easier given that, for the first time since 1600, an Evangelical, Lithuanian Crown Field Hetman Krzysztof Radziwiłł, was elected Marshal of the Sejm. In the Senate, the interests of non-Catholics were represented by Rafał Leszczyn´ski, Voivode of Bełz. It was believed that the reason of state would induce the Catholic side to allow politics to outweigh religion. Thus, two committees were established to hear the grievances of non-Catholics (Dzie˛gielewski: 1986, 11f). After arduous negotiations, the convocation, election and coronation Sejms of Władysław IV Vasa accorded non-Catholics a state-guaranteed toleration instead of the equality of rights based on the 1573 formula. Compositio inter status was also passed, regulating the relations between nobility and clergy. This was a longdebated set of issues, comprising among others the legal status of church properties taken over by nobles in the times of Reformation and the problem of overdue tithes (Dzie˛gielewski: 1983, 81–91). The direction in which the public mood evolved is, however, best exemplified by Jerzy Ossolin´ski’s statement, made during the Sejm debate, that Catholicism was the ruling denomination in Poland, while dissidents had as many rights as they have been granted (Barłowska: 2000, 42f). This would soon become the official stance of the authorities. The relations between denominations would now be shaped by individuals shaped in the world of the notions and values dictated by post-Trent Catholicism. The late 1630s saw another wave of violence directed against dissidents. In 1638, the mob vandalised the Evangelical church in Połock, and in the Crown,

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

33

“the Raków affair” ended in the closing of the Polish Brethren congregation (Tazbir: 1971, 7–45). In 1639, a riot broke out in Vilnius, which led to the removal of the local Reformed church beyond the city walls. In 1640, an attempt was made to expel Janusz Radziwiłł from the Sejm; he was accused of defending his Vilnius co-religionists from the attacks of Catholics during the funeral of Aleksander Przypkowski (Wisner: 1993, 89–102; Augustyniak: 2006, 169–189). The last years of the reign of Władysław IV Vasa saw an increase of the Catholic drive to repossess churches. The mid-1640s brought another wave of lawsuits against the Polish Brethren, directed at their congregations in Ukraine. The outbreak of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in 1648 was precipitated by grave errors in the religious policy towards the Ruthenian and Eastern Orthodox population of Ukraine. It opened a long period of state crisis, culminating in the 1650s: the Commonwealth found itself in armed conflict with almost all of its neighbours: the Orthodox Russia and the Protestant Sweden, BrandenburgPrussia, and Transylvania, with the Catholic Austria its only ally. This in turn triggered the effect of the besieged fortress, and the growing xenophobia was directed against non-Catholics. The subsequent decades, up until the first half of the eighteenth century, would be the time of increasing religious restrictions, as the Catholic majority found it increasingly difficult to tolerate dissenters, culminating in the stripping of non-Catholic nobles of their political rights in 1733– 36. Ensuing problems, known in the eighteenth century as “the dissident affair”, were used by Russia and Prussia as pretexts for their preparation of the first partition of Poland in 1772 (Kriegseisen: 1996, 19–49). In that sense, the mistakes of the denominational politics of the state were used against it and contributed to the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the nobles in the late eighteenth century. Translated by Małgorzata Paprota and Bartosz Wójcik

Bibliography Augustyniak, Urszula (2006), Jeszcze raz w sprawie tumultu wilen´skiego 1639 i jego naste˛pstw, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 50, 169–189. Bardach, Juliusz (1970), Studia z ustroju i prawa Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego XIV– XVII w., Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Barłowska, Maria (2000), Jerzy Ossolin´ski. Orator polskiego baroku, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Bartel, Oskar (1965), Zwingli i Kalwin a Polska, Przegla˛d Historyczny, 56, 664–650. Barycz, Henryk (1971a), U narodzin ruchu reformacyjnego w Małopolsce, in: idem, Z epoki renesansu, reformacji i baroku. Pra˛dy – idee – ludzie – ksia˛z˙ki, Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 221–242.

34

Wojciech Kriegseisen

Barycz, Henryk (1971b), Proces Konrada Krupki Przecławskiego o wiare˛ w 1551 r., in: idem, Z epoki renesansu, reformacji i baroku. Pra˛dy – idee – ludzie – ksia˛z˙ki, Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 284–296. Bembus, Mateusz (1979), Pax non pax seu rationes aliquot, quibus confoederationis evangelicorum cum catholicis pacem, nullo modo veram esse pacem, breviter ostenditur, Kraków 1615, in: Zbigniew Ogonowski (ed.), Filozofia i mys´l społeczna XVII wieku, Zdzisław Piszczek (trans.), vol. 1, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 459–472. Bogucka, Maria (2008), Prusy Królewskie jako teren styku wielu kultur i wpływ tego zjawiska na rozwój reformacji. Przykład Gdan´ska, in: eadem, Człowiek i s´wiat. Studia z dziejów kultury i mentalnos´ci XV–XVIII w., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 238–246. Bömelburg, Hans-Juergen (2007), Konfessionspolitische Deutungsmuster und konfessionsfundamentalistische Kriegsmotive in Polen-Litauen um 1600. Durchsetzung und Grenzen in einer multikonfessionellen Gesellschaft, in: Konfessioneller Fundamentalismus. Religion als politischer Faktor im europäischen Mächtesystem um 1600, Heinz Schilling (hrsg.), München: Oldenburg Verlag, 285–309. Budka, Włodzimierz (1921), Kto podpisał Konfederacje˛ Warszawska˛ 1573?, Reformacja w Polsce, 1, 314–319. Bues, Almut (2002), Stosunki wyznaniowe w Kurlandii od XVI do XVII wieku, in: Marian Dygo/Sławomir Gawlas/Hieronim Grala (ed.), Stosunki mie˛dzywyznaniowe w Europie S´rodkowej i Wschodniej w XIV–XVII wieku, Warszawa: DiG, 61–79. Bukowski, Julian (1883), Dzieje reformacyi w Polsce od wejs´cia jej do Polski az˙ do jej upadku, vol. 2, Kraków: druk W. L. Anczyc i Sp. Chowaniec, Czesław (1924), Pogla˛dy polityczne rokoszan 1606–1607 wobec doktryn monarchomachów francuskich, Reformacja w Polsce, 3, 256–266. Cynarski, Stanisław (1988), Zygmunt August, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Dmitriev, Michail Vladimirovitsch (2003), Die Kirchenunion von Brest (1596) und die Konfessionalisierung der polnischen Ostpolitik in der Regierungszeit Sigismunds III., in: Russland, Polen und Österreich in der Frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Walter Leitsch zum 75. Geburtstag, Christoph Augustynowicz/Andreas Kappeler et al. (hrsg.), Wien: Böhlau. Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz (1962), Oblicze wyznaniowe senatu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w dobie kontrreformacji, in: W. Dworzaczek et al. (ed.), Munera litteraria. Ksie˛ga ku czci prof. Romana Pollaka, Poznan´: Poznan´skie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 41– 56. Dzie˛gielewski, Jan (1983), Sprawa compositio inter status w latach 1632–1635, Kwartalnik Historyczny 90, 1, 81–91. Dzie˛gielewski, Jan (1989), O tolerancje˛ dla zdominowanych. Polityka wyznaniowa Rzeczypospolitej w latach panowania Władysława IV, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Dzie˛gielewski, Jan (1994), Biskupi rzymskokatoliccy kon´ca XVI – pierwszej połowy XVII w. i ich udział w kształtowaniu stosunków wyznaniowych w Rzeczypospolitej, in: Anna Sucheni-Grabowska/Małgorzata Z˙aryn (ed.), Mie˛dzy monarcha˛ a demokracja˛. Studia z dziejów Polski XV–XVIII wieku, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 191–210.

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

35

Glemma, Tadeusz (1934), Stosunki kos´cielne w Toruniu w stuleciu XVI i XVII na tle dziejów kos´cielnych Prus Królewskich, Torun´: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu. Górski, Konrad (1929), Grzegorz Paweł z Brzezin. Monografia z dziejów polskiej literatury arjan´skiej XVI wieku, Kraków: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. Grodziski, Stanisław/Dwornicka Irena/Uruszczak Wacław (ed.) (2005), “Litterae confirmationis Articulorum Henrico Regi antea oblatorum”, Volumina constitutionum, vol. II: 1550–1609, vol. 1: 1550–1585, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe. Gruszecki, Stefan (1969), Walka o władze˛ w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej po wygas´nie˛ciu dynastii Jagiellonów (1572–1573), Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Halecki, Oskar (1915), Zgoda sandomierska. Jej geneza i znaczenie w dziejach reformacyi polskiej za Zygmunta Augusta, Kraków: Gebethner i Wolff. Jasnowski, Józef (1939), Mikołaj Czarny Radziwiłł (1515–1565). Kanclerz i marszałek ziemski Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego, wojewoda wilen´ski, Warszawa: Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie. Jobert, Ambroise (1994), Od Lutra do Mohyły. Polska wobec kryzysu chrzes´cijan´stwa 1517–1648, Elz˙bieta Se˛kowska (trans.), Warszawa: Pax Volumen. Kempa, Tomasz (1996), Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski wobec katolicyzmu i wyznan´ protestanckich, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 40, 17–36. Kempa, Tomasz (1997), Prawosławni a synod protestancki w Toruniu w 1595 roku. U pocza˛tków współpracy dyzunitów z dysydentami, Zapiski Historyczne, 62, 1, 39–52. Kempa, Tomasz (2007), Wobec kontrreformacji. Protestanci i prawosławni w obronie swobód wyznaniowych w Rzeczypospolitej w kon´cu XVI i w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek. Korolko Mirosław/Tazbir, Janusz (1980), Konfederacja warszawska 1573 roku. Wielka karta polskiej tolerancji, Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. Korolko, Mirosław (1974), Spory i polemiki wokół konfederacji warszawskiej, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 19, 79–102. Korzo, Margarita (2007), Die Union von Brest und die katechetische Literatur, Ostkirchliche Studien, 56, 343–360. Kowalska, Halina (1999), Działalnos´c´ reformatorska Jana Łaskiego w Polsce 1556–1560, Warszawa: “Neriton”. ´ ski, Władysław Wincenty Adam/Chome˛towski Władysław (ed.) (1868), Krasin Dyaryusz sejmu piotrkowskiego R. P. 1565 poprzedzony Kronika˛ 1559–1562, Warszawa: Biblioteka Ordynacji Krasin´skich. Kriegseisen, Wojciech (1996), Ewangelicy polscy i litewscy w epoce saskiej (1696–1763). Sytuacja prawna, organizacja i stosunki mie˛dzywyznaniowe, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Kriegseisen, Wojciech (2006), Polski przekład XX rozdziału czwartej ksie˛gi Institutio Christianae religionis Jana Kalwina, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 50, 101–113. Kriegseisen, Wojciech (2009), Wste˛p, in: Wojciech Kriegseisen (ed.), Jan Kalwin, O zwierzchnos´ci ´swieckiej, porza˛dne, według sznuru Pisma ´swie˛tego opisanie. Zaraz o poz˙ytkach i powinnos´ciach urze˛du jej. Z łacin´skiego na polskie wiernie przetłumaczone. Anonimowy przekład polski dwudziestego rozdziału czwartej ksie˛gi Institutio Christianae religionis nunc uere demum suo titulo responens Jana Kalwina wydany w 1599 r., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 5–47.

36

Wojciech Kriegseisen

Kriegseisen, Wojciech (2010), Stosunki wyznaniowe w relacjach pan´stwo – kos´ciół mie˛dzy reformacja˛ a os´wieceniem (Rzesza Niemiecka – Niderlandy Północne – Rzeczpospolita polsko-litewska), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Łaski, Jan (2003), Listy trzy wielce czytania godne o dobrym i prawidłowym sposobie urza˛dzenia kos´ciołów, Rafał Leszczyn´ski (ed.), Tomasz Płóciennik (trans.), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Liedke, Marzena (2004), Od prawosławia do katolicyzmu. Ruscy moz˙ni i szlachta Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego wobec wyznan´ reformacyjnych, Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Litak, Stanisław (1986), Kos´ciół w Polsce w okresie reformacji i odnowy potrydenckiej, in: H. Tüchle/C. A. Boumann (ed.), Historia Kos´cioła, vol. 3: 1500–1715, Jerzy Piesiewicz (trans.), Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX. Litak, Stanisław (2001), Organizacja Kos´cioła łacin´skiego w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI– XVIII wieku ze szczególnym uwzgle˛dnieniem diecezji krakowskiej, in: Waldemar Kowalski/Jadwiga Muszyn´ska (ed.), Kos´ciół katolicki w Małopolsce w s´redniowieczu i we wczesnym okresie nowoz˙ytnym, Kielce/Gdan´sk: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Officina Ferberiana. Lubieniecki, Stanisław (1971), Historia reformationis Polonicae, H. Barycz (ed.), Varsoviae: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Lulewicz, Henryk (1977), Skład wyznaniowy senatorów s´wieckich Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego za panowania Wazów, Przegla˛d Historyczny, 68, 1977, 425–445. Lulewicz, Henryk (2002), Gniewów o unie˛ cia˛g dalszy. Stosunki polsko-litewskie w latach 1569–1588, Warszawa: Neriton/Instytut Historii PAN. Maciuszko, Janusz T. (1974), Konfederacja warszawska 1573 roku. Geneza, pierwsze lata obowia˛zywania, Warszawa: Chrzes´cijan´ska Akademia Teologiczna. Makiłła, Dariusz (2012), Artykuły henrykowskie (1573–1576). Geneza, obowia˛zywanie, stosowanie. Studium historyczno-prawne, Warszawa: Vizja Press & IT. Małłek, Janusz (1997), The Reformation in Poland and Prussia in the Sixteenth Century. Similarities and Differencies, in: Karin Maag (ed.), The Reformation in Easter and Central Europe, Aldershot: Routledge, 182–191. Małłek, Janusz (1999), The Prussian Estates and the Question of Religious Toleration, 1500–1800, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, vol. 19, 65–72. Müller, Michael G. (1996), Protestant Confessionalization in the Towns of Royal Prussia and the Practice of Religious Toleration in Poland-Lithuania, in: Ole Peter Grell/Bob Scribner (ed.), Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262–281. Obirek, Stanisław (1994), Kos´ciół i pan´stwo w kazaniach ks. Piotra Skargi SJ, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM. Obirek, Stanisław (1995), Wizja pan´stwa w nauczaniu jezuitów polskich w latach 1565– 1668, Kraków: Wydział Filozoficzny Towarzystwa Jezusowego. Obirek, Stanisław (1996), Jezuici w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów w latach 1564– 1668. Działalnos´c´ religijna, społeczno-kulturalna i polityczna, Kraków: Wydział Filozoficzny Towarzystwa Jezusowego. Ogonowski, Zbigniew (1957), Z zagadnien´ tolerancji w Polsce XVII wieku, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Historical Overview of the Political and Denominational Reality

37

´ ski, Edward (1989), Sejmiki szlacheckie wobec tolerancji religijnej, Odrodzenie Opalin i Reformacja w Polsce, 34, 21–40. Pawlak, Marian (1994), Reformacja i Kontrreformacja w Elbla˛gu w XVI–XVIII wieku, Bydgoszcz: Wyz˙sza Szkoła Pedagogiczna. ´ ski, Jan (1972), Sejm warszawski roku 1570, Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, vol. 189, Prace Piroz˙yn Historyczne, 36, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Polak, Wojciech (2004), O dobro wspólne i egzekucje˛ praw: sejm 1565 w Piotrkowie, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek. Ptaszycki, Stanisław (1928), Konfederacja warszawska 1573 r. Rozmys´lania archeograficzno-je˛zykowe, Reformacja w Polsce, 5, 90–97. Ptaszycki, Stanisław (1935), Konfederacja Warszawska roku 1573 w trzecim Statucie Litewskim, in: Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa ku uczczeniu czterechsetletniej rocznicy wydania pierwszego Statutu Litewskiego, Wilno: Znicz. Salmonowicz, Stanisław (1974), Geneza i tres´c´ uchwał Konfederacji Warszawskiej, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 19, 7–30. Schmidt, Christoph (2000), Auf Felsen gesät. Die Reformation in Polen und Livland, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schramm, Gottfried (1965), Der polnische Adel und die Reformation 1548–1607, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH. Schramm, Gottfried (1970), Reformation und Gegenreformation in Krakau. Die Zuspitzung des konfessionellen Kampfes in der polnischen Hauptstadt, Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, 19, 1–41. Schramm, Gottfried (1985), Polityczna rola protestantów polskich. Jej przeobraz˙enia od XVI do XVII wieku, Przegla˛d Humanistyczny 29, 11/12, 41–52. Schramm, Gottfried (2010), Faza zbrojnych starc´ w Europie wschodniej. Protestancka opozycja szlachecka i katolickie stronnictwo królewskie 1604–1620, in: idem, Polska w dziejach Europy S´rodkowej. Studia, Ewa Płomin´ska-Krawiec (trans.), Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Poznan´skie. Sipayłło, Maria (ed.) (1966), Akta synodów róz˙nowierczych w Polsce, vol. I: 1550–1559, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Skarga, Piotr (1898), Kazania na niedziele i s´wie˛ta całego roku, vol. 1, Lwów: Ksie˛garnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta. Skarga, Piotr (1974), Dyskurs na konfederacyja˛, in: Mirosław Korolko (ed.), Klejnot swobodnego sumienia. Polemika wokół konfederacji warszawskiej w latach 1573–1658, Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. ´ ski, Wojciech (2002), Torun´ski synod generalny protestantów w 1595 roku. Sławin Z dziejów polskiego protestantyzmu w drugiej połowie XVI wieku, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Sobieski, Wacław (1902), Nienawis´c´ wyznaniowa tłumów za rza˛dów Zygmunta III-ego, Warszawa: nakładem Stefana Dembego. Sobieski, Wacław (1912), Czy Skarga był “turbatorem” ojczyzny?, in: idem, Studya historyczne, Lwów: Ksiegarnia Polska B. Połonieckiego, Wende i Ska. Stec, Wiesław (1984), Retoryka antyjezuickiej literatury rokoszu Zebrzydowskiego, in: Barbara Otwinowska/Janusz Pelc (ed.), Przełom wieków XVI i XVII w literaturze i kulturze polskiej, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich.

38

Wojciech Kriegseisen

Sucheni-Grabowska, Anna (1996), Zygmunt August król polski i wielki ksia˛z˙e˛ litewski 1520–1562, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krupski i Spółka. Tazbir, Janusz (1967), Pan´stwo bez stosów. Szkice z dziejów tolerancji w Polsce XVI i XVII w., Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Tazbir, Janusz (1971), Zagłada arian´skiej “stolicy”, in: idem, Arianie i katolicy, Warszawa: Ksia˛z˙ka i wiedza, 7–45. Tazbir, Janusz (1983), “Kopalnia najciekawszych szczegółów…” (Postylla Krzysztofa Krain´skiego), Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 28, 195–231. Tazbir, Janusz (1987), Sukcesy i kle˛ski polskiej reformacji, in: idem, Szlachta i teologowie: studia z dziejów polskiej kontrreformacji, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 15–30. Tazbir, Janusz (1993), Me˛czennik za wiare˛ – Franco de Franco, in: idem, Reformacja w Polsce: szkice o ludziach i doktrynie, Warszawa: “Ksia˛z˙ka i wiedza”, 90–105. Tazbir, Janusz (2002), Staropolski antyklerykalizm, Kwartalnik Historyczny, 109, 3, 3–22. Tworek, Stanisław (1971), Starania o ujednolicenie obrza˛dku kalwin´skiego w Polsce XVII w., Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 16, 117–139. Urban, Wacław (1953), Skład społeczny i ideologia sejmiku krakowskiego w latach 1572– 1606, Przegla˛d Historyczny, 44, 309–333. Urban, Wacław (1959), Chłopi wobec reformacji w Małopolsce w drugiej połowie XVI wieku, Kraków: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Urban, Wacław (2002), Rola braci We˛gierskich w podtrzymywaniu protestantyzmu polskiego, in: Marian Surdacki (ed.), Religie – edukacja – kultura. Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa dedykowana Profesorowi Stanisławowi Litakowi, Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 47–51. Walczak, Ryszard (1983), Konfederacja Gdan´ska, Torunia i Elbla˛ga w obronie zagroz˙onych przywilejów, Rocznik Gdan´ski 43, 1, 247–288. Wisner, Henryk (1974), Walka o realizacje˛ konfederacji warszawskiej za panowania Zygmunta III Wazy, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 19, 129–149. Wisner, Henryk (1978), Sejmiki litewskie i kwestia wyznaniowa 1611–1648, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 23, 123–150. Wisner, Henryk (1989), Stracenie Franca de Franco, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 34, 41–48. Wisner, Henryk (1991), Zygmunt III Waza, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Wisner, Henryk (1993), Likwidacja zboru ewangelickiego w Wilnie (1639–1646). Z dziejów walki z inaczej wierza˛cymi, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 37, 89–102. Wisner, Henryk (1995), Religijnos´c´ i tolerancja Krzysztofa Radziwiłła hetmana wielkiego litewskiego, wojewody wilen´skiego (1585–1640), Zapiski Historyczne 40, 1, 25–38. Wotschke, Theodor (1907), König Sigismund August von Polen und seine evangelischen Hofprediger, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 4, 329–350. Zakrzewski, Wincenty (1870), Powstanie i wzrost reformacji w Polsce 1520–1572, Lipsk: Fr. Wagner. Zeeden, Ernst Walter (1985) Calvins Einwirken auf die Reformation in Polen-Litauen. Eine Studie über den Reformator Calvin im Spiegel seiner polnischen Korrespondenzen, in: idem, Konfessionsbildung. Studien zur Reformation, Gegenreformation und katholischen Reform, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Z˙elewski, Roman (ed.) (1962), Materiały do dziejów reformacji w Krakowie. Zaburzenia wyznaniowe w latach 1551–1598, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich.

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

In the sixteenth century, two different models of translation developed parallel and harmoniously coexisted in Polish literature, namely literal translation and prototype-modifying paraphrasing (Robinson: 1992, 3–25). The first type of translation and the beginnings of its theory formed in Poland in the sixteenth century undoubtedly under the influence of debates on the need for, and ways of, translating the Word of God into Polish, which were conducted by the translators of the Holy Scripture and are certified by polemically-marked prefaces to Polish translations of the whole Bible or the New Testament (cf. e. g. Gustaw: 1960, 306– 327; Kossowska: 1968, 89–360; Frick: 1989; Pietkiewicz: 2015). In these framework statements, which were placed before the Bibles printed in the sixteenth century in Polish, the borderline between a conventional introduction to reading (which introduction was (cf. Ulewicz: 1977, 110), to the same degree, an advertisement of the work, as well as an opportunity for authors to excuse themselves against any charges) and a theological text whose purpose was to explain in a simple and accessible way the doctrinal and dogmatic issues to ordinary mortals (cf. Robinson: 1992, 3–4) often became blurred. Furthermore, we can find there information about the circumstances of the work on the vernacular versions of the Word of God, the difficulties faced by their authors, as well as passages which allow us to reconstruct the most important assumptions of the Polish theory of translation of the Scripture in the Renaissance. This study is an attempt to synthetically reconstruct the views of the Polish translators of the Word of God on this issue. Therefore, the first part of it will discuss the selected prefaces to the sixteenth-century translations of the Bible or the New Testament, which were developed by representatives of both the Catholic Church and other faiths. Due to the size of this paper, the exemplificative material is limited to introductions to readers preceding the editions of the following translations of the whole Scripture or the New Testament: the Leopolita Bible (Catholic translation, Cracow 1561)1, the Brest Bible (Calvinist translation; Brest-Litovsk, 1563)2, the Nies´wiez˙ 1 The translation was commissioned by Marek Szarffenberger and his son Stanisław, owners of a

40

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

Bible (Arian translation; place of print: unknown, 1572)3, the Jakub Wujek Bible (Catholic translation, Cracow 1599)4, translations of the New Testament: Lutheran translation by Stanisław Murzynowski (Königsberg 1552)5, Arian translation by Marcin Czechowic (Raków 1577)6 and Catholic translation by Jakub Wujek (Cracow 1593) 7. In the second part of this paper, I deal with the theory of translation which aims at transforming the original, and the impact of this theory on the translations of selected books of the Bible. All the prefaces to readers in the above-mentioned translations begin with disclosing the motives behind the creative work. The translations of the whole Bible from 1561, 1563 and 1572 provide the same reason, namely the need for the preparation of a proper Polish version of the Word of God because of its role in the life of a Christian. The author of the Catholic translation published in 1561 in the printing house of the Szarffenberger family stressed that the Word of God plays a vital role in the work of inner renewal of humans, transforms bad people into good ones, teaches humans, who are naturally prone to sin, regulates their relations with God and fellow human beings but only if it is well understood (cf. Leopolita: 1561, A3v.). This concerned not only problems which could arise from reading the Scripture in Latin, because this text is mentioned in the introduction to the reader, but, above all, the dangers that could result from coming into contact with translations of other faiths (the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew by Martin Luther is mentioned (cf. Leopolita: 1561, A3v.). Its uselessness was believed to be evidenced by its divergence from other translations of this part of the Bible which were also based on the original text)8. The same

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

printing house in Cracow, where the work was printed in 1560–1561. Neither the first, nor the second edition (of 1575) provides the name of the translator, but it is assumed that it was Rev. Jan Nicz of Lviv (aka Leopolita or of Leopolis), a lecturer of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. For more information about J. Nicz cf.: Hajdukiewicz: 1972, 74–76. The views of scholars about the authorship of the translation are summarized and discussed by Gustaw: 1960, 310–311; Kossowska: 1968, 204–205. For more information about the translation cf.: Gustaw: 1960, 324–325; Kossowska: 1968, 232– 253. A discussion on the translation in: Gustaw: 1960, 325–327; Kossowska: 1968, 254–276; Kamieniecki: 2002, 84–135. For more information about the translator cf. Kot: 1937, 96–99. A synthetic discussion on the translation in: Gustaw: 1960, 312–314; Kossowska: 1968, 347–360; Sobczykowa: 2013, 83–100. For information about the life and work of Wujek see: Kuz´mina: 2004. For information about the translation see: Gustaw: 1960, 322–324; Kossowska: 1968, 155–175. For information about the life of S. Murzynowski see: Małłek: 1977, 281–282. For information about the life and work of J. Seklucjan see: Małłek: 1995, 182–186. A synthetic discussion on the translation in: Gustaw: 1960, 327; Kossowska: 1968, 284–298. For information about the life of M. Czechowic see: Szczucki: 1964. A synthetic discussion on the translation in: Gustaw: 1960, 311–312; Kossowska: 1969, 320–338; Bien´kowska: 1992. Cf.: “Sam tez˙ Luter tym sie˛ w przekładaniu chlubił, z˙e według z˙ydowskiego tekstu Biblija˛

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

41

argument appeared in Przemowa ku krzes´cijan´skiemu czytelnikowi o poz˙ytku Pisma ´swie˛tego i o wszytkiej sprawie przekładania tych ksia˛g [Preface to Christian readers about the utility of the Scripture and about all matters involved in translating these books], which preceded the Calvinist translation announced in Brest-Litovsk in 1563, although this time it was the Catholic version of 1561 that was recognized as a dangerous message by the authors of the translation9, and the decisive argument for the rejection was not so much the denomination of the translator but the fact that he worked alone, took into account only the Latin text by St. Jerome, and therefore, obviously, he created a version that was distant from the Greek and Hebrew original. As already noticed by the scholars studying this text, the translators of the Brest Bible also used the preface to present the basic principles of Calvinism, and among them, in first place, the role that the “treasures of the scriptures” (“skarby pism s´wie˛tych”) plays in the lives of believers, for they are “the key that opens the Kingdom of God for us” (“kluczem, który nam otwarza królestwo Boz˙e”), “a simple and yet certain path that surely leads us and prevents us from roaming and going astray […] during our whole life” (“prosta˛ a pewna˛ droga˛, która nas niepochybnie prowadzi, z˙ebys´my tułaja˛c sie˛ nie zbła˛dzili […] po wszytek czas z˙ywota”), “a certain and unerring rule” (“prawym a nieomylnym prawidłem”) showing the difference between good and bad and the true glory of God, “a school and exercise of wisdom” (“szkoła˛ I c´wiczeniem ma˛dros´ci”), “a mirror in which we can see the face of God” (“zwierciadłem, w którym ogle˛dujemy oblicze Boz˙e”) (cf. O poz˙ytku: 2003, XV). Szymon Budny, an Arian, explained in the preface to “the pious reader” (“poboz˙nego czytelnika”) also in a very interesting way why, despite the existence of the above-mentioned translation published in 1563, he decided to prepare a new one. The first reason he presented was the high price of the book and the form in which it was published: the tome was very large, heavy, and thus unwieldy to use, and so basically useless for zealous believers who wanted to familiarize themselves constantly and diligently with the Word of God10. As the second reason, he mentioned errors in translation, which were publicly pointed out during the Synod of Skrzynno in 1568, resulting from the fact that translators reached for not only the original languages and more – especially in the books of the New Testament – care about artistic expression than a faithful translation11. Jakub przekładał, a wz˙dy ci, którzy po nim tez˙ takiez˙ z z˙ydowskiego przetłumaczyli, dziwnie sie˛ z nim nie zgadzaja˛” (Leopolita: 1561, A3v.–A4r.). 9 The translation was the result of the work of a team of outstanding translators, philologists and humanists, including Jan Łaski, Grzegorz Orszak, Grzegorz Szoman, Jakub Lubelczyk, Andrzej Trzecieski, Szymon Zacius, Franciszek Stankar (Gustaw: 1960, 325). 10 Cf.: “wszakz˙e wiele sie˛ na ich wielkos´c´ a na cie˛z˙kos´c´ jej uskarz˙ało, z˙e sie˛ z nia˛ trudno wozic´, a jeszcze trudniej nosic´” (Budny: 1572, 5v.). 11 Cf.: “Na on czas było kilka synodów w Polszcze chrystian´skich, na których niektórzy bracia

42

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

Wujek, a Jesuit, the author of the last sixteenth-century translation of the whole Scripture, started his preface by explaining the meaning of the following terms: the Scripture, the Word of God, the Bible, and then he pointed out that through “visible words and letters” (“słowa i litery zwierzchnie”; Wujek: 1599, iv) which we can see, read and hear, God wanted to prevent “human errors and falsities by giving in writing what he wanted to announce to everyone” (“błe˛dom i fałszom ludzkim, dawszy na pis´mie to, co chciał do wiadomos´ci wszystkich podac´”; Wujek: 1599, iv). For this reason, attention to the accurate rendering of the Word of God and caring about its availability seemed to be issues of the utmost gravity, especially given the existence of heretical sects, which rejected the teaching of the Scripture. The fact of putting emphasis on the role of the Word of God involved another, no less important issue of selecting the basis of translation in a particular language (Latin, Greek or Hebrew) or languages. The author of the 1561 Bible chose the path of one text, for he rejected the Greek and Hebrew version and followed the work of St. Jerome12. The reasons for this decision are interesting. They arise from the conviction that the Hebrew text is distorted by both Jews who rejected Christ and by the translators, and also from the belief that “the real Jewish Bible” (“prawdziwej z˙ydowskiej Biblii”) could exist only at the time when learned Doctors of the Church led by the Saint of Stridon lived. Being fluent in Hebrew, he was able to prepare a reliable and faithful translation of the Word of God into Latin, which was not distorted by translation errors13. This argument was alluded to in the preface to the reader by the translators of the Brest Bible, who justified the need for taking up work on a new translation of the Bible. Firstly, they criticized the 1561 version, because its author, as mentioned above, worked alone pewne omyłki w Biblijej brzeskiej obaczywszy (a zwłaszcza na synodzie skrzynien´skiem), mie˛dzy bracia˛ podali, gdzie tez˙ niektorym z nas ten synod zlecił, abychmy w ten przekład pilnie wejz´eli, a co by sie˛ ku poprawieniu godnego byc´ zdało, z˙ebychmy naznaczyli” (Budny: 1572, 5v.); “o oche˛doz˙na˛ polszczyne˛ najwie˛cej sie˛ starali, zaniechawszy własnos´ci rzeczy greckiej w Nowym Testamencie” (Budny: 1572, 5v.). 12 His authority is certified not only by the selection of the Vulgate as the basis for the translation but also the fact that two letters of St. Jerome were added to the 1561 edition: List ´swie˛tego Hieronima, który pisał do Paulina kapłana o wszystkich ksie˛gach Starego i Nowego Zakonu na kapituły rozdzielony (Leopolita: 1561, B2r.–C1r.), Przedmowa ´swie˛tego Hieronima na pie˛cioro ksia˛g Mojz˙eszowych (Leopolita: 1561, C1r.–C1v.). 13 Cf.: “K temu rozumieja˛c to, z˙e tez˙ z˙ydowie w stanowieniu błe˛du swego nie ´spia˛c, Biblie˛ w swym je˛zyku […] pofałszowali, nie chcielis´my ani tych nas´ladowac´, którzy sie˛ wedle z˙ydowskiego przetłumaczac´ powiedali. Widza˛c, jes´liz˙e była prawdziwa z˙ydowska Biblija kiedy, tedy na on czas pewnie, gdy oni jeszcze uczeni doktorowie s´wie˛ci z˙yli, a gdy prze krotkos´c´ czasu z˙ydowie tak dalece Biblijej pofałszowac´ nie mogli. Ktemu iz˙ Jeronim s´wie˛ty był tak w z˙ydowskiem je˛zyku biegły (który przetłumaczył wszystke˛ Biblija˛), z˙eby tez˙ był z˙ydem urodzonym, tedy by bieglejszym byc´ nie mógł, dalis´my juz˙ te˛ wiare˛ (a nie tylko my, ale wszystek Kos´ciół krzes´cijan´ski) przetłumaczeniu Jeronima” (Leopolita: 1561, A3v.).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

43

and used the wrong source, e. g. Vulgate, which they rejected recognising that its text was in many places incompatible with the message of the original in Hebrew (as far as the Old Testament is concerned) and Greek (when it comes to the New Testament), but, on the other hand, they mentioned that while working on the Polish translation of the New Testament they often referred to the works of Greek commentators and Doctors, and, furthermore, to “the commentaries of other nations into national languages” (“wykładów postronnych narodów je˛zyki przyrodzonemi przełoz˙onych”; O poz˙ytku: 2003, XIX) prepared by the virtuous and wise. Thirdly and finally, they wrote that a team of foreigners participated in the work, whose knowledge of biblical languages proved to be very useful14. Szymon Budny also began by criticizing the achievements of his predecessors: he found, and rightly so, that the Leopolita Bible is a translation based not on the languages of the original; he summed up similarly the work of translators of the 1563 Bible as they were believed to use the Vulgate and French translations as the basis15. It was Jakub Wujek who returned to the version by St. Jerome16. In his preface To the Christian reader… (Chrzes´cijan´skiemu czytelnikowi…) preceding the 1593 translation of the New Testament, Jakub Wujek accurately pointed out that he used the Latin version published by Luc de Bruges, a theologian of Leuven, but in the case of incomprehensible places he referred to the original versions, and “in extensive comments he cited the Church Fathers, quoted the erroneous statements and interpretations of infidels and expounded the right meaning of the text” (Gustaw: 1960, 312). When writing about the source basis of the work on the Polish version of the whole Scripture, the Jesuit of Wa˛growiec explained: Firstly, what concerns the text itself, it is a translation from the old text in Latin, called Vulgatam Editionem, which is far more faithful and reliable than all the other versions […]. And that is especially the case after the last Roman correction, as part of which the text of the Bible was revised and examined with great diligence by scholars (selected and assigned to this task by the Holy See), and compared with the old books, both those written with the Latin hand as well as the Greek and Jewish ones, and the writings of old Doctors, and purified to the greatest possible extent from typographical errors and wrong corrections, which text Pope Clement VIII ordered to publish for the benefit of

14 Cf. O poz˙ytku: 2003, XIX. This probably referred to two Frenchmen, Pierre Statorius and Jean Thénaud, who used the translations of the Bible into French by Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and Robert Estienne (Kossowska: 1968, 230–231). 15 Cf.: “Bo na przodku abo w tytule ich napisali, z˙e te ksie˛gi z ebrejskiego abo, jako oni zowa˛, z˙ydowskiego a z greckiego przełoz˙yli, ale sie˛ jawnie […] pokazało, z˙e i greckiego, i ebrejskiego na wielu miejscach chybili, a mało sie˛ ich dokładali, znac´, iz˙ tylko z łacin´skiego, a k temu z francuskiego przekładali” (Budny: 1572, 5v.). 16 The reasons were clarified in the preface to the translation of the New Testament (Wujek: 1593, 8–10).

44

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

the Church. The same text is hereby presented in its faithful translation, as revised according to the last correction.17

Marcin Czechowic, who rejected completely not only the version by St. Jerome, but also Szymon Budny18, indicates the sources of his work with equal precision. Interestingly, he did not dedicate his translation of the New Testament (developed primarily for the needs of the Polish Brethren gathered in the municipality of Raków) to any wealthy patron, as other translators did, and he mentioned among the sources used the annotations of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Antwerp Polyglot (1572), editions of the Greek versions of the New Testament from the Parisian publishing houses: one of 1549 by Robert Estienne and one by Simon de Colines, which was published forty years earlier (cf. Kossowska: 1968, 290; Frick: 1989, 120–121). Then he explained that even before he set about working on the translation, he compared the above-mentioned translations with each other and collated them with the commentaries by Nicolas Tacitus Zegers, Oecumenius, Jean Crespin and Wilhelm Lindan, and after noticing that there was no consistence between them, he decided to choose the 1549 edition by Estienne as the basis of the translation: Considering the fact that they differ in some places, and the differences are even more distinct in other versions, especially older written ones, as evidenced by the work of Robert Estienne, Jean Crespin, Zeger, Wilhelm Lindan, Oecumenius and other commentators of the Word of God, I decided to base my work entirely on the edition of Robert Estienne and Jean Crespin.19

Another element of the discussed prefaces is also the presence of observations relating to translation techniques. Even if the main source is indicated, it is reviewed in the translation process by its juxtaposition with other versions or

17 Cf.: “Naprzód, co sie˛ dotycze tekstu samego, ten przełoz˙ony jest z łacin´skiego starego tekstu, który zowia˛ Vulgatam editionem, która nad wszytkie insze daleko jest szczersza i pewniejsza […]. A zwłaszcza po tej ostatniej korrektyjej rzymskiej, gdzie tekst Biblijej S. od ludziuczonych (na to od stolice Apostolskiej wybranych i wysadzonych), z wielka˛ pilnos´cia˛ przejrzany, roztrza˛´sniony, i z staremi ksie˛gami, tak łacin´skimi re˛ka˛ pisanemi, jako i z greckimi, i z˙ydowskimi, i starych Doktorów pismy zniesiony, i od omyłek pisarskich i popraw obłe˛dnych, im najlepiej byc´ mogło, oczys´ciony, który Clemens VIII papiez˙ dla poz˙ytku wszytkiego kos´cioła wydac´ rozkazał. Tenz˙e tekst tu masz wiernie przełoz˙ony i według ostatniej korrektyjej poprawiony” (Wujek 1599, 4nlb.r.). 18 This resulted not only from different attitudes of both translators to the biblical text and the causes of taking up work on the translation, but also from Czechowic’s opposite position to Budny as the reformer and organizer of the Ecclessia Minor. (Cf. Kossowska: 1968, 289). 19 “W których samych, iz˙ jest na niektórych miejscach róz˙nica, a w inszych, a zwłaszcza starych, pisanych jeszcze sie˛ wie˛cej pokazuje, według okazania Robertowego, Erasmusowego, Krispinowego, Zegerowego, Wilhelma Lindana i z Ekumeniusa, i z inszych wykładaczów Słowa boz˙ego toz˙ sie˛ pokazuje, przeto ja zostawiwszy w cale tekst jako Robertowe i Krispinowe wydanie w sobie zamyka” (Czechowic: 1577, 2v.).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

45

comments. The closer to the end of the sixteenth century, the greater the basis from which the material for comparison was drawn became, as it was extended by subsequent native translations. The process of juxtaposing the most diverse translations and/or commentaries thereto revealed how many difficulties there were when one followed the path of faithful translation and that literal reproduction of the original was not always possible, especially if the translation was to be not only accurate but also beautiful, which, in view of the noble purpose of translations, was not less important. For the author of the 1561 Catholic version noticed: Every watchful person shall understand how difficult it is to express one language with another appropriately, and therefore one sought with a large commitment to truthfully and painlessly express the Latin text with the Polish one […].20

Similar difficulties are mentioned by the translators of the Brest Bible, for they were aware that despite the “polite faithfulness and great diligence” (“uprzejmej wiernos´ci i wielkiej pilnos´ci”; O poz˙ytku: 2003, XIX), the endeavour not to depart from the “the plain truth” (“szczyros´ci prawdy”; O poz˙ytku: 2003, XIX), places can be found in their work (particularly in relation to the passages translated from Hebrew) “which could be expressed more precisely and clearly” (“które by włas´niej i jas´niej wyraz˙one byc´ mogły”; O poz˙ytku: 2003, XIX) as well as more beautifully, if only time permitted. On the other hand, while attempting to achieve the aesthetic perfection of the translation, they were often forced to seek to remain faithful to the thought and meaning and to resign from a literal translation. For this reason, they allowed themselves quite a lot of licence in the selection, arrangement and combination of linguistic elements, for which they were criticized by Szymon Budny, who decided on a literal translation and judged severely both excessive shortening of the translated text, and its amplification. He was looking for literalness not only at the level of selecting words with a proper and equivalent meaning but also cared about reproducing their order and syntax. While advocating the “word-for-word” method, he was also aware that its use will not make the translation beautiful, but rather “coarse” (“grubym”), but the reward will be a rendition as faithful as possible of the Scripture in the Polish language21. Budny honestly admitted that it was not always possible to strictly follow the principle of literalism and that he relinquished it when the literal 20 “Rozumie to koz˙dy baczny, jako trudna rzecz jest jeden je˛zyk drugim je˛zykiem dostatecznie wyrzna˛c´, a przeto z wielka˛ sie˛ pilnos´cia˛ folgowało temu, aby i prawdziwie, i snadnie tekst polski on tekst łacin´ski wyrzynał […]” (Leopolita: 1561, A3v.) 21 Cf.: “A tak gdyby mi co innego przyszło sie˛ tłumaczyc´, nie samego Boga słowo, tedy bym mógł nie słowo słowem, ale rzecz rzecza˛ tłumaczyc´, ale tak straszne powies´ci tłumacza˛c, oche˛dostwa mowy szukac´ niebezpieczna rzecz jest. […] A tec´ sa˛ przyczyny mego tak prostego a grubego tłumaczenia, to jest, z˙em sie˛ tak barzo słów trzymał” (Budny: 1572, b3v.).

46

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

translation would either lead to incomprehension, or – even worse – to the incorrect understanding: The Hebrew speech has properties of its kind. Therefore, if the translation was made word for word, not only would it not be understood by anyone but the opposite could be understood, and therefore sometimes I had to express things with things without counting words22.

Also Jan Seklucjan admitted even earlier than Budny, for in the beginning of the fifties, while translating the second part of the New Testament for the reader (i. e. Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Revelation) that there were imperfections in the translation, which resulted from the difficulty of rendering the meaning of the Greek text in the Polish language, which was poorer and less developed23. On the other hand, as we know from the introduction to the 1551 edition of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, the translations by Stanisław Murzynowski, which appeared under the imprint of Jan Seklucjan, were created also by confronting the Greek text with various lexicons (some of them, such as the Suda or compendia drawn up by Hesychius of Alexandria, Julius Pollux, were mentioned in the preface to the “faithful listeners and true lovers of the Word of God”; (“wiernych słuchaczy a Słowa Boz˙ego prawdziwych miłos´ników”; Seklucjan: 1559). Marcin Czechowic also mentioned that his translation was literal, as far as it was possible to maintain faithfulness in the then Polish language. Otherwise, the author adjusted the translation to the system of the target language and shaped thoughts according to its pattern24. When justifying the modifications made, he referred to the competence of the readers, especially those educated and “fluent in other languages” (“w inszych je˛zykach biegłych”) who know how difficult it is to translate from Greek into Latin, “although the two languages have a certain friendship and companionship between themselves” (“chociaz˙ te dwa je˛zyki maja˛ niejaka˛ przyjaz´n´ i towarzystwo mie˛dzy soba˛”; Czechowic: 1577, 3r.). In addition, he noticed that a perfect translation is faithful as to the meaning of words and the message of the original and does not violate the norms of the language into which the translation is made. Also Jakub Wujek decided to translate faithfully “as far as it could be done and as far as our Polish tongue permitted” (“ile byc´ mogło, a ile rzecz nasza polska dopuszczała”), but on 22 “Wszakz˙e iz˙ mowa hywrejska ma swoje przyzwoitos´ci, z˙e gdyby słowo słowem było przełoz˙one, nie jedno by snadz´ nikt nie rozumiał, ale by co przeciwnego rozumiał, przeto musiałem niegdzie rzecz rzecza˛, nie licza˛c słow, wyraz˙ac´” (Budny: 1572, b3v.). 23 Cf.: “Bo ja to rad na sie˛ wyznawam, z˙e mi czasem polskich słów nie dostawało i musiałem podczas wyłoz˙yc´, jakom mógł, nie jakom chciał, wszakz˙e tak, aby z˙adnego błe˛du nie było” (Seklucjan: 1552, A4v.). 24 Cf.: “Wszakz˙e tez˙ i to na niektórych miejscach musiało byc´, rzeczy samej własnej i je˛zykowi naszemu folguja˛c, z˙e sie˛ od słow greckich własnej (iz˙ tak rzeke˛) własnos´ci nieco odchylic´ musiało” (Czechowic: 1577, 3r.).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

47

the other hand, when explaining the genesis of the translation of the New Testament, he stressed that in addition to the need for a new, vernacular and religiously-marked version of the Scripture provided with a commentary, there was also a need to create a beautiful text (flattering the “ornateness of Polish words” [“ozdobnos´ci słów polskich”]; Wujek: 1993, 20). He warned, however, that, because of the importance of the original, the literalness of the translation was more important for him, and an excessive effort to find ornate words could pose a threat of straying into the path of heresy25. Additionally, although the Jesuit from Wa˛growiec translated from Latin, he wanted to include in his work the specific features of the Greek and Hebrew versions, because, like Czechowic, he wanted to have a wider audience interested in the Word of God among the potential readers of his translation. It was for them that he created, just like his predecessors, an extensive critical apparatus printed on the margins, which recorded all sorts of the most diverse lexical variances, but also polemically-marked comments below the text, which were directed against dissenters (cf. Kossowska: 1968, 325). It is exactly the concern for the reader and the desire to make the translation as understandable for the reader as possible which were the reasons for providing the translation with glosses of all kinds. However – on the other hand – they also evidenced the impossibility to create a literal reproduction of the original, which basically did not exist without comments. The right meaning of the text was reflected in the language of the translation both by the reading of the Word of God itself and of additions, which were not less important and constituted an integral part of the printed text. Thus, faithfulness to the original was achieved by means of laborious, philological reading and meticulous criticism of the most diverse sources: from the Biblical texts in different languages and its translations into European languages, including Polish, to its interpretations and comments by Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, contemporary theologians or famous philologists and publishers. It should be mentioned that all the problems that sixteenth-century translators of the Word of God into Polish had to struggle with were nothing new in the 25 Cf.: “W samym lepak Pisma S. na polski przekładaniu tak sie˛ zachowało, z˙e słowo od słowa przełoz˙ono, im nawłas´niej byc´ mogło, nie nie przydawaja˛c, ani ujmuja˛c, ani odmieniaja˛c Pisma S., a wie˛cej własnos´ci słów z˙ydowskich, greckich i łacin´skich, a niz´li gładkos´ci abo ozdobnos´ci słów polskich folguja˛c. Przeto jes´liby sie˛ tu komu zdała polszczyzna gruba abo niegładka, niechajz˙e wie, iz˙ w Pis´mie S. nie ma słówek pie˛knych patrzyc´, ale samej własnos´ci mowy, jako Duch S. przez swoje pisarze pisał; bo jest wiele takowych rzeczy w Pis´mie, które kiedybys´my chcieli słowy gładkimi i dworskimi wymówic´, nigdy bys´my sensu wyrozumienia Ducha S. nie wyrazili. Jako sie˛ to trafia heretykom cze˛sto, którzy, dla gładkich i pie˛knych słów, prawdziwego sensu Pisma odste˛puja˛, a ono w Pis´mie S. słowo nie jest darmo połoz˙one. […] niechajz˙e sie˛ i nam nie dziwuja˛, jes´li rzeczy samej folguja˛c, mowy prostej i szczerej uzywamy. Czemu sie˛ z˙aden nie be˛dzie dziwował, kiedy sie˛ przypatrzy, iz˙ kaz˙dy je˛zyk ma swoje własnos´ci, które w inszym je˛zyku nie barzo sie˛ pie˛knie oddadza˛” (Wujek 1599, [4r.–v.]).

48

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

reflections on how to translate the Bible. The technical issues involved in the translation of the Scripture had been discussed by St. Jerome of Stridon, who was referred to in this article several times (cf. e. g. Robinson: 1992; Rebenich: 1993, 50–77; Venuti: 2010, 5–28). Among his most important statements relating to translation issues, there are two letters: 27 (To Marcella) and 57 (To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating), in which the author of the Vulgate justified that it was right to reflect the sense of the original in accordance with the principle of translating sense-for-sense. The use of this principle was necessary firstly due to the specificity of the language of the original and the language of the translation (differences in grammatical structures, syntax, phonetic system, etc.), and secondly – due to the context in which the translation was to function (cf. Hieronymus: 2010, 59–61). For St. Jerome understood that the translation, according to the etymology of the word translatio, is a transfer of elements of one culture into another. This resulted in difficulties that prevented the creation of a literal translation that was far from preposterousness and ugliness. A word-for-word translation took all the beauty and concealed the sense, thus making the text incomprehensible26. For this reason, Jerome called for reflecting not words, but sentences in translation, which would justify both abbreviations and amplifications, and protect against obscuring the meaning27. This, however, did not mean an immoderate expansion of the text, as the translator should be guided by respect for “holy simplicity” (“sancta simplicitas”; Hieronymus: 2010, 67) rather than the love for “verbose rusticity” (“verbose rusticitas”; Hieronymus: 2010, 67). Therefore, ending the letter to Pammachius, the Saint of Stridon argued that adding two words did not destroy the meaning, and the Church was not put in danger if a word happened to be omitted because of the haste in dictating28. The theory of faithful translation of the Bible also affected the translation of other dogmatic and doctrinal texts. The verbum ex verbo principle was used especially by the Polish translators of the writings of reformers. This could result from the special normative significance of these works. A good example here is the work entitled Opisanie wiary chrzes´cijan´skiej [Describing the Christian faith] (1573) – a translation of the Compendium christiane religionis (1556) by Heinrich Bullinger. The person who acknowledged the authorship of the work in a dedicatory letter to Jan Firlej, the wealthy patron of the Cracow congregation, was Maciej Wirzbie˛ta, a printer and a writer (cf. e. g. Wirzbie˛ta: 1573 5nlb.r.; Kawecka26 Cf.: “Ex alia in aliam lingua expressa ad verbum translatio, sensum operit; et veluti laeto gramine, sata strangulat” (Hieronymus: 2010, 60–61). 27 Cf.: “Ex quibus universis perspicuum est, Apostolos et Ewangelistas in interpretatione veterum Scripturarum, sensum quaesisse, non verba: nec magnopere de ordine sermonibusque curasse, dum intellectui res pateret” (Hieronymus: 2010, 65). 28 Cf.: “nihil damni in sensu esse, si duo verba sint addita. Audiant et ad me non periclitari Ecclesiarum statum, so celeritate dictandi, aliqua verba dimiserim” (Hieronymus: 2010, 66).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

49

Gryczowa: 1981, 13–14; Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1983, 368). The work not only faithfully renders the text of the Compendium… but also includes a Polish translation of the Index and Bullinger’s dedicatory letter addressed to William IV the Wise, the eldest son of Philip I the Magnanimous, the Landgrave of Hesse and one of the main leaders of the Schmalkaldic League. The next example is provided by Katechismus, to jest sposób nauczania i c´wiczenia dziatek w prawdziwej a szczerej nauce chrzes´cijan´skiej [The Catechism or the way of teaching and training children on the true and genuine Christian doctrine], printed in Cracow in 1564 in the printing house of the above-mentioned Wirzbie˛ta. The translator Aleksander Witrelin meticulously rendered the so-called second Catechism of the Church of Geneva by John Calvin (1542) in Polish (cf. Korzo: 2012, 191–201). The efforts to be as faithful to the original as possible are also visible in the case of Z˙ołtarz Dawidów [The Book of Psalms] (1539) by Walenty Wróbel. This work by a Catholic and fierce anti-Lutheran polemicist was made ready for printing by Andrzej Glaber of Kobylin (cf. e. g. Kossowska: 1968, 97–99; Pietkiewicz: 2010, 378–398; Brückner: 1902), who pointed out in the dedicatory letter that the collection was meant for nuns, simple priest not learned in the Scripture and common readers. They were also the addressees of the commentary consisting of 1) the argumentation introducing into the reading of the whole psalm, 2) a Latin verse (quoted after the Vulgate), 3) a translation of the so-called “simple lecture” (“wykład prosty”) into Polish, 4) a commentary or the so-called “understanding of the text’ (“wyrozumienie tekstu”). They laid emphasis on the figure of Christ – the model of Christian life and piety (cf. Kossowska: 1968, 99–103), and were associated with different functions envisaged for the text which was designed both as a polemical work (anti-reformationist) and a work which was to exert influence on the Catholic hierarchy by recognizing the need for, and the possibility of, issuing proper orthodox translations of biblical texts. Then, in the dimension of development and the stimulation of private piety – the book provided a comprehensible Word of God, and the manner of its publication (a small size and weight) enabled the reader to use it in all circumstances. Apart from that, Z˙ołtarz… could serve during a liturgical prayer (the Divine Office or the Breviary), or during a prayer modelled on the canonical hours, which could be said in Polish and Latin (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2010). In the case of mentioned texts, there were exceptions, and their authors should be regarded as supporters of a looser translation, which involved interference in the original text and its transformation. As far as its theory is concerned, it is difficult, in principle, to indicate in the Republic of Poland in the Renaissance any statements that are so consistent and consciously formed as in the case of the above-mentioned prefaces to the reader, which preceded the Bible. The reason may be the fact that the proponents of more or less loose paraphrases or adaptations included writers, and their reflections

50

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

should be considered against the broader context of the Renaissance theory of imitation and emulation, which developed in Europe from the second half of the fifteenth century in the course of the so-called disputes about the Ciceronianism (Fulin´ska: 2000, 133–268). The most interesting Polish voices about this type of translation include the introduction by Łukasz Górnicki to the first book of Dworzanin polski [The Polish Courtier] (1566) – an adaptation of Il Libro del Cortigiano (1528) by Baldassarre Castiglione, the preface by Jan Januszowski to the translation of Cardinal Bessarion’s Treaty on the Origin of the Holy Spirit (1605), and the letter by Jan Kochanowski to Stanisław Fogelweder, the Chancellor of the court of Queen Anna Jagiellonka of 6 October 1571. When translating the work of Castiglione, Górnicki resigned from a literal translation, because he assumed that the Italian work should be adapted to the Polish cultural conditions29. He believed that with these modifications the work adjusted to the customs of the readers would serve its parenetic purposes (cf. Gallewicz: 2006, 32–37, 66–93; Wojtkowska-Maksymik: 2007, 67–90). Interestingly, Górnicki, while translating and transforming the original, referred to the sources of the original. Like the translators of the Bible, he noticed that the difficulties in preparing a faithful translation resulted not only from a different cultural model and the projected range of readers but also from the divergence between the languages. Jan Januszowski, in turn, considered the postulate of a literal translation of the text impossible to be satisfied because of the considerable differences between the language systems, which resulted from different lexical resources, but also from the power and charm, which were difficult to grasp and translate, but decisive for the proprium of the work (cf. Fulin´ska: 2000, 325–326; Kilian´czyk-Zie˛ba: 2007, 325–332). Jan Kochanowski expressed actually all the most important issues related to the idea of literary imitation and translation in a beautiful form: the vision of a poet before whom two goddesses appeared: “Necessitas clavos trabales et cuneos manu gestas ahena” and “Poetica, nescio quid blandum spirans” (Kochanowski: 1955, 278). Necessitas should be understood both as a rule and faithfulness, whereas Poetica as the elusive charm of poetry, individual talent of the author. For this reason, poetry cannot be translated accurately, and the role of Necessitas must be limited to guarding the ideological and formal appropriateness, and cannot require faithfulness to the word, which is transformed by the power of the poetic talent (cf. e. g. Fulin´ska: 2000, 326–327; Kossowska: 1968, 302–311).

29 Cf.: “Zgoła niechaj kaz˙dy to wie, iz˙em ja, Polakom pisza˛c, Polakom folgowac´ chciał; przeto opus´ciłem siła rzeczy, które abo nie nalez˙ały Polszcze, abo rzecz zatrudnic´, a poczciwe uszy obrazic´ mogły’ (Górnicki: 1971, 56); “alem wyłoz˙ył to na tym miejscu, co wnis´c´ mogło i dac´ sie˛ zrozumiec´” (Górnicki: 1971, 58); “tak-em pisał, jako ku wyrozumieniu Polakowi najłatwiej było” (Górnicki: 1971, 58).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

51

A good example of reconciling Necessitas and Poetica or the rules and the power of inspiration, is, of course, Psałterz Dawidowy [The Psalter of David] (1579) in Jan Kochanowski’s adaptation30, to which the poet referred in the said letter to Fogelweder. Kochanowski used in his work, inter alia, the paraphrases by George Buchanan, John van Campen, Eobanus Hessus, but also the Polish translations of the Bible, the Septuagint and the Vulgate (Kochanowski: 1955, 277–278). It is interesting that unlike his predecessors he did not decide on providing the poetic paraphrases with any theological comment that would permit the reading according to a specific religious key, and it follows from the collection’s dedication addressed to Bishop Piotr Myszkowski that the poet gave the psalms the form of songs, or – in this case – works not so much for singing, as rhymed works characterized by strophic structure, which undoubtedly facilitated their musical adaptation (Melodie na psałterz polski… [The Melodies for the Polish Psalter…] by Mikołaj Gomółka came out in 1580)31. The paraphrases of psalms by Mikołaj Rej (Psałterz Dawidów [The Psalter of David], c. 1541–1542 or 1545–1546) were also given a title indicating not a literal translation (which, according to the author, was impossible to create), but the adaptation reflecting the meaning of the Latin original32. When translating psalms into Polish, Mikołaj Rej gave the collection the form of a prayer book and at the same time the manual of Christian ethics (therefore, he provided his versions of psalms with appropriate prayers; cf. Kossowska: 1968, 119–147), and in addition, as in the case of his other texts, he wanted to see it in the wide social circulation. Jakub Lubelczyk, the author of rhyming paraphrases of biblical psalms contained in Psałterz Dawida (1558), recommended, in the preface entitled Ku kaz˙demu krzes´cijan´skiemu człowieku a bratu w Panu Krystusie [To every Christian man and brother in Christ Our Lord], the beautiful and holy songs (“piosneczki”) of King David to the reader, emphasised their usefulness in “every danger and every difficulty that could fall upon you both from the side of your soul, and from the side of your body” (“w kaz˙dem niebezpieczen´stwie twem i w kaz˙dej trudnos´ci, która by na cie˛ przypadła tak z strony dusze, jako i z strony ciała”; Lubelczyk: 1558, A5v.; cf. Meller: 1992) and he defended himself against any charges related to the rhyming form of works. He explained the use of “rhymes or any fancy elements” (“rymów abo jakich rzeczy dwornych”; Lubelczyk: 1558, A5v.) or things that are invented or too ornate not only by the 30 Currently the work on a new critical edition of Psałterz… by Jan Kochanowski is in progress. For the literature on the subject (cf. Pelc: 1994, 171–176). 31 Cf. In this volume [p. 349–359] and also the musical link [editor’s note]. 32 Cf.: Psałterz Dawidów, który snadz´ jest prawy fundament wszytkiego pisma krzes´cijan´skiego, teraz nowo prawie na polski przełoz˙on, acz nie jednakos´cia˛ słow, co byc´ nie moz˙e, ale wz˙dy przełoz˙enie rzeczy w kaz˙dem wierszu według łacin´skiego je˛zyka sie˛ zamyka (Rej: 1901, 20). A discussion of the text in Maciuszko: 2002, 157–239.

52

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

purpose of the collection, which was designed to strengthen in faith, help in good life, but also to spread the custom of singing for the glory of God (hence the presentation of the melodic line added to the texts) and, therefore, they had to be arranged in such a way as not to impair not only the meaning of the text but also the rhythm of the poem intended for singing33. In conclusion, it should be noted that the translators of the Word of God in Poland during the Renaissance chose either the path of a literal translation (mainly translations of the whole Scripture or the New Testament), or the path of a more or less loose paraphrase (which was visible primarily in the vernacular versions of the Book of Psalms). However, it was not easy to achieve the best possible rendering of the meaning of the Bible in the Polish language, and the faithfulness to the original required a compromise between the abilities and the talent of translators, the specific features of the source and target languages, the tastes of readers and the purpose of the translations. And finally – regardless of the background from which the translator originated and his preferred method of translation – an essential element was the purpose of all the cited translations, which was essentially the same: they should, first of all, by enabling the reader’s contact with the Word of God, transform human heart and – in a broader, one might say ultimate perspective – lead a human to salvation and seeing God “face to face”. An interesting issue against this background is the popularity of paraphrases and translations of the Book of Psalms, which undoubtedly seems to result from the use of psalms in the liturgy (for example, during the funeral or penitential liturgy and the Divine Office; cf. e. g. Ste˛pien´: 2003, 272–278; Pietkiewicz: 2010, 378–379), the use of the Psalter in the prayers of communities (in an order, a church, a congregation) and private prayers and the need for prayer books and religious literature in Polish. This helped the collection of psalms to reach a broad range of potential readers, whereas the combination of words with music not infrequently guaranteed a huge success desired both by the authors and clergy, who could utilize the “David’s golden gusle” (“złote ge˛s´li […] Dawidowe”; Kochanowski: 1953, 7) for propaganda purposes.

33 Cf.: “mnie sie˛ tak zda, iz˙ mie˛ tu nie be˛dziesz z czego winic´ miał, a to z tej przyczyny, iz˙ sie˛ tu i wierszom, i tekstowi folgowac´ musiało” (Lubelczyk: 1558, A5v.).

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

53

Bibliography Sources Budny, Szymon (1572), Poboz˙nemu czytelnikowi Szymon Budny, tych ksia˛g tłumacz…, in: Biblia to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Przymierza znowu z je˛zyka ebrejskiego, greckiego i łacin´skiego na polski przełoz˙one, Nies´wiez˙/Zasław/Uzda (?): Daniel z Łe˛czycy, A2r.-A4r. Czechowic Marcin (1577), Chrystian´skiemu czytelnikowi Marcin Czechowic, in: Nowy Testament, to jest wszystkie pisma Nowego Przymierza z greckiego je˛zyka na rzecz polska˛ wiernie i szczerze przełoz˙one, Kraków: Aleksander Rodecki, [*2r.–†† †1r.]. Kochanowski, Jan (1953), Psałterz Dawidów, in: Jan Kochanowski, Dzieła Polskie, vol. 2, Julian Krzyz˙anowski (ed.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Kochanowski, Jan (1955), List do Stanisława Fogelwedera, in: Jan Kochanowski, Dzieła polskie, vol. 3, Julian Krzyz˙anowski (ed.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Leopolita, Jan (1561), Ku Czytelnikowi Krzes´cijan´skimu o zacnos´ci Pisma S´wie˛tego przedmowa, in: Biblia To iest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Zakonu na polski je˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ według łacin´skiej Biblijej od Kos´cioła Chrzes´cian´skiego powszechnego przyje˛tej nowo wyłoz˙ona, Kraków: drukarnia Szarffenbergerów. Lubelczyk, Jakub (1558), Ku kaz˙demu krzes´cijan´skiemu człowieku a bratu w Panu Krystusie krótka przemowa, in: Psałterz Dawida onego S´wie˛tego, a wiecznej pamie˛cie godnego króla i proroka, teraz nowo na piosneczki po polsku przełoz˙ony, a według z˙ydowskiego rozdziału na pie˛cioro ksia˛g rozdzielony, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta. O Poz˙ytku Pisma S´wie˛tego i o Wszytkiej Sprawie Przekładania Tych Ksia˛g Ku ´ skiemu Czytelnikowi Przedmowa (2003), in: Peter Krolikowski (ed.), Krzes´cijan Biblia brzeska 1563, Clifton/Kraków: Calvin Publishing/Collegium Collumbinum. Rej Mikołaj (1901), Psałterz Dawidów, Stanisław Ptaszycki (ed.), Petersburg. Seklucjan, Jan (1551), Swoim wiernym słuchaczom a Słowa boz˙ego prawdziwym miłos´nikom, in: Ewangelia s´wie˛ta Pana Jezusa Christusa vedle Mathaeusza s´wie˛tego z greckiego je˛zyka na polski przełoz˙ona, Królewiec: Aleksander Augezdecki, A3v.-B1v. Seklucjan, Jan (1552), Ku krzes´cijan´skiemu czytelnikowi, in: Testamentu Nowego cze˛´sc´ wtóra a ostateczna. Dzieje i Pisma Apostolskie z greckiego je˛zyka na polski przełoz˙one, Królewiec: Aleksander Augezdecki, A1r-A1v. Wirzbie˛ta Maciej (1573), Opisanie wiary chrzes´cijan´skiej, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta. Wujek, Jakub (1599), Apparatus Sacer, to jest Przygotowanie do poz˙ytecznego czytania Pisma S., in: Biblia to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Testamentu według łacin´skiego przekładu starego w Kos´ciele powszechnym przyje˛tego na polski je˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´cia˛ przełoz˙one z dokładaniem tekstu z˙ydowskiego i greckiego, i z wykładem katolickim, trudniejszych miejsc, do obrony wiary s´wie˛tej powszechnej przeciw kacerstwom tych czasów nalez˙a˛cych przez D. Jakuba Wujka z Wa˛growca, Kraków: Druk[arnia] Łazarzowa. Wujek, Jakub (1593), Chrzes´cijan´skiemu czytelnikowi Jakub Wujek…, in: Nowy Testament Pana naszego Jezusa Chrystusa z nowu z łacin´skiego i z greckiego na polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełoz˙ony przez D. Jakuba Wujka, Theologa Societatis Iesu, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk.

54

Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik

Studies Brückner, Aleksander (1902), Psałterze polskie do połowy XVI wieku, Kraków: Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. ´ kowska, Danuta (1992), Styl je˛zykowy przekładu Nowego Testamentu Jakuba Bien Wujka (na materiale czterech Ewangelii), Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Bryner, Erich (1980), Article “Bibelübersetzungen III/4, 3 (Übersetzungen ins Polnische)”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 6, 1980, 262–263. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the CounterReformation. Chapters in the History of Controversies (1551–1632), Berkeley: University of California Press. Fulin´ska, Agnieszka (2002), Nas´ladowanie i twórczos´c´. Renesansowe teorie imitacji, emulacji i przekładu, Wrocław: Leopoldinum. Gallewicz, Anna (2006), “Dworzanin polski” i jego włoski pierwowzór. Studium adaptacji, Warszawa: Semper. Górnicki, Łukasz (1971), Dworzanin polski, in: Łukasz Górnicki, Pisma, Roman Pollak (ed.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 49–454. Gustaw, Romuald (1960), Article “Polskie przekłady Pisma s´w.”, Podre˛czna Encyklopedia Biblijna, 2, 1960, 306–327. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1972), Article “Leopolita (Kasprowicz, Nicz, Nicius) Jan młodszy”, PSB (Polski Słownik Biograficzny), 17, 1972, 74–76. Hieronymus (2010), Epistola LVII Ad Pammachium de optimo genere interpretandi, in: Monika Oz˙óg/Henryk Pietras (ed.), Listy, 2 (51–79), Jan Czuj (transl.), Kraków: WAM, 59–61. Kamieniecki, Jan (2002), Szymon Budny – zapomniana postac´ polskiej reformacji, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1981), Polonia Typographica Saeculi Sedecimi. Tłocznie polskie XVI stulecia. Monografie i podobizny zasobów drukarskich, vol. XI: Maciej i Paweł Wirzbie˛towie (Kraków 1555/7–1609), Wrocław: Ossolineum. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1983), Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, Wrocław: Ossolineum. ´ czyk-Zie˛ba, Justyna (2007), Czcionka˛ i piórem. Jan Januszowski w roli pisarza Kilian i tłumacza, Kraków: Universitas. Korzo, Margarita A. (2012), Jeszcze raz w sprawie nieznanego tłumaczenia Jana Kalwina w Polsce, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 56, 191–201. Kossowska, Maria (1968), Biblia w je˛zyku polskim, Poznan´: Ksie˛garnia s´w. Wojciecha. Kot, Stanisław (1937), Article “Budny Szymon”, PSB (Polski Słownik Biograficzny), 3, 1937, 96–99. Kuz´mina, Dariusz (2004), Jakub Wujek (1541–1597). Pisarz, tłumacz i misjonarz, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP. Maciuszko, Janusz T. (2002), Mikołaj Rej. Zapomniany teolog ewangelicki z XVI w., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo ChAT. Małłek, Janusz (1977), Article “Murzynowski Stanisław h. Ogon´czyk”, PSB (Polski Słownik Biograficzny), 22, 1977, 281–282.

Theories of Translation of the Word in Poland during the Renaissance

55

Małłek Janusz (1995), Article “Seklucjan (Seclucianus, Sekluczian) Jan”, PSB (Polski Słownik Biograficzny), 36/1, 1995, 182–186. Meller, Katarzyna (1992), Jakuba Lubelczyka “Psałterz Dawida” z roku 1558: studium filologiczne, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo NAKOM. Pelc, Janusz (1994), Literatura rensansu w Polsce, Warszawa: Semper. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2010), Z˙ołtarz proroka Dawida w przekładzie Walentego Wróbla. Studium bibliograficzno-bibliologiczne, in: Waldemar Chrostowski (ed.), Ex oriente lux. Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa dla Ksie˛dza Profesora Antoniego Troniny w 65. rocznice˛ urodzin, Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Biblistów Polskich, 378–398. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2015), Biblia Polonorum. Historia Biblii w je˛zyku polskim, vol 1: Od pocza˛tku do 1638 roku, Poznan´: Pallotinum. Rebenich, Stefan (1993), Jerome: The “Vir Trilinguis” and the “Hebraica Veritas”, Vigiliae Christianae, 47, 1, 50–77. Robinson, Douglas (1992), The Ascetic Foundation of Western Translatology: Jerome and Augustine, Translations and Literature, 1, 3–25. Sobczykowa, Joanna (2013), Ks. Jakub Wujek jako komentator Biblii, in: Roman Słowin´ski (ed.), Biblia Jakuba Wujka w z˙yciu i kulturze narodu polskiego, Poznan´: Polska Akademia Nauk, 83–100. ´ , Paweł (2003), Z literatury religijnej polskiego s´redniowiecza. Studia o czterech Ste˛pien tekstach: Kazanie na dzien´ s´w. Katarzyny, Legenda o s´w. Aleksym, Lament s´wie˛tokrzyski, Z˙ołtarz Jezusow, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Polonistyki UW. Szczucki, Lech (1964), Marcin Czechowic (1532–1613). Studium z dziejów antytrynitaryzmu polskiego XVI w., Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Ulewicz, Tadeusz (1977), Ws´ród impresorów krakowskich doby renesansu, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Venuti, Lawrence (2010), Genealogies of Translations Theory: Jerome, Boundary 2, 37, 3, 5–28. Wojtkowska-Maksymik, Marta (2007), “Gentiluomo cortigiano” i “dworzanin polski”. Dyskusja o doskonałos´ci człowieka i jej humanistyczne z´ródła w “Il Libro del Cortigiano” Baldassarra Castiglionego i w “Dworzaninie polskim” Łukasza Górnickiego, Warszawa: IBL/Pro Cultura Litteraria.

II. From Publishing Houses

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance An Attempt at Bibliographical Synthesis

My current paper constitutes an attempt at a synthetic look at the achievements of Polish biblical editing in the Renaissance period. The findings presented here are based on my own research of the whole source material from that period of time (143 editions1). The chronological range of my research comprises the years from 1518 (the appearance of the first biblical print in Polish) to 1638 (closing down of an anti-Trinitarian printing house in Raków). I am going to present the dynamics of biblical editing development in quantitative and topographical aspects (1) qualitative (2) and functional (3). At the end, I am going to present the root causes, which were decisive in the emergence and development of Polish biblical editing (4). The presentation of the synthesis below was feasible thanks to systematic research done into all available Renaissance editions with a biblical text in Polish2.

1 As far as Polish biblical printing is concerned, it is not always possible to determine explicitly whether a given printing constitutes a new edition of the work. This situation is caused by the use of previously printed sheets in later editions (so-called variant editions). Thus, I shall regard as one: the Leopolita Bible from 1575 and 1577 (no. 2, 2a–the numbers are presented according to the bibliography at the end of the article); the Nesvizh Bible 1572 and the New Testament and the Apocrypha 1570 translated by Budny (no. 4, 4a); the New Testament translated by Budny from 1574 and 1589 (no. 18, 18a) and the biblical commentary on Hos by Mikołaj Rej from 1559 and 1559/1567 (no. 138, 138a). In the summary calculations I omit: cantionals containing the psalms (no. 151–160) and the editions of Polish Hortulus animae (no. 147–150) containing Polish translation of fragments of the Gospels and psalms, as the biblical texts in those books are not independent entities in respect of publishing; reprints of the New Testament from the Brest Bible done by Elias Hutter in 1599 (no. 145–146), as they do not belong to Polish publishing production; half a sheet, constituting an attempt at the translation of the Matt performed by Sandecki-Malecki (no. 144), because it is an experimental print matter, typed in several, or maybe only in one copy. I have placed detailed elaboration of the whole material in the monograph: Pietkiewicz Rajmund (2016), Biblia Polonorum. The History of the Bible in the Polish Language, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to 1638, Poznan´: Pallottinum Publishing House. 2 The remaining periods of the history of the Polish Bible are still waiting for elaboration.

60

1.

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Quantitative and Topographical Development

In the period of the Renaissance the following were produced in total in Polish (table 1): five translations of the whole Bible – altogether in six editions; ten translations of the New Testament – in 23 editions; twelve translations of the Psalter – in 58 editions; six biblical commentaries – in seven editions; 32 translations of individual books, their fragments or collections (so called small prints) – in 49 editions. Altogether: 65 translations in 143 editions (about 5798 printed sheets). The production peak (counted in quires) was achieved by Polish biblical editing in the years of 1558–1577 (chart 1 and 2). The greatest number of prints were produced by the Catholics (about 44.4 %), then the Protestants (Reformed, Lutherans and Bohemian Brethren – about 28.6 %) and Polish Brethren (about 13.2 %). Psalter in the translation of Jan Kochanowski (of neutral religious character) – 13.8 % (chart 3).

Chart 1. The number of quires printed in subsequent 20-year periodes.

Chart 2. The number of quires printed by individual denominations in subsequent 20-year periods.

– 1

1 6

1578–1597 – 1598–1617 1

1618–1638 1 5

1 2

2 4

89,25 1 1850,75 10

– 393,5

– 1368

3 23

6 4

5 5

102,79 1572,04

555,625 270

277,25 366,375

1st eds pr. eds altog. sh. – – –

New Testament

1 12

5 1

2 2

13 58

16 15

9 3 – 1

– 4

– 7

– 2

– 4 4 2

– 2 410,5 32

– 4

ALTOGETHER

5 49

4 5

14 16

11 25

46,42 5 275,59 65

45,67 10 86,75 7

39 18

22 143

26 27

28 32

489,645 5797,655

1075,215 1141,67

674,5 2334,875

1st eds pr. 1st eds pr. eds altog. sh. eds altog. sh. 5 5 39,75 7 8 81,75

Small Prints

– 7 400,5 12

Biblical Commentaries 1st eds pr. eds altog. sh. 1 1 6

251,185 – 1688,775 6

473,92 387,42

358,25 182

1st eds pr. eds altog. sh. 1 2 36

Psalter

1st eds: first editions; eds. altog.: editions altogether; pr. sh.: printed sheets

– 4

1538–1557 – 1558–1577 3

1st eds pr. eds altog. sh. 1518–1537 – – –

Bible

Table 1. The quantity of editorial production of biblical prints in Polish (1518–1638) in subsequent 20–year periods.

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

61

62

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Chart 3. Participation of denomination communities in the production of biblical prints.

The most noticeable dynamism and quantitative development falls in the period of intense religious polemics and successes of the Polish Reformation (1558– 1577). Initially, Polish biblical prints were published in Cracow (e. g. no. 11–2a, 5, 11– 13, 19–25, 30–41, 88–95, 99, 123, 125–126, 135–136) and Königsberg (no. 7–10). All Catholic prints appeared in Cracow3. Until 1638 we can observe the development of other centers publishing biblical works. In juxtaposition, Cracow arguably holds the first place, where 102 editions were printed (3659 sheets) which is about 63.1 % of the whole output, of which 2572 sheets were Catholic prints, 310 sheets were Protestant prints and 145 sheets were anti-Trinitarian. The subsequent places are held by: Brest-Litovsk (650 sheets – about 11.2 %), Nesvizh (257 sheets – about 4.4 %), Gdan´sk (255 sheets – about 4.4 %), Torun´ (178 sheets – about 3.1 %), Königsberg/Królewiec (172 sheets – about 3 %), Raków (160 sheets – about 2.8 %), Łosk (125 sheets – about 2.2 %), Vilnus (122 sheets – about 2.1 %)4, and Lubcz (28 sheets – about 0.5 %). The place of printing of 193 sheets in total (about 3.3 %) has not been established.

3 The Catholics prints: nos. 1–2a, 5, 11–13, 21–25, 30–41, 44, 75–77, 88–96, 119, 123, 125–137; the Protestants prints: no. 3, 6–10, 14–17, 26, 29, 42–43, 73–74, 78–87, 97–117, 120, 124, 138–139; the anti-Trinitarian prints: 4–4a, 18–20, 27–28, 121–122, 140–143; Kochanowski’s translations: no. 45–72, 118. 4 As for Vilnus and Łosk, it is not certain in which of the two places the reprint of the New Testament from the Brest Bible appeared in 1580 (no. 15). It has been assumed in the calculations that the book appeared in Łosk. Should it have been otherwise, then the data for these centres will have to be changed: Vilnus (185 sheets – 3.2 %), Łosk (62 sheets– 1.1 %).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

2.

63

Qualitative Development

While presenting the qualitative development of Polish biblical editorship I am going to present the issues connected with the choice of the basis for the translations, the publishing repertoire, the format, the shaping of the content of prints, the choice and adjustment of illutrations and the application of elements facilitating the multi-functional usage of biblical prints.

2.1.

Basis for Translations

While discussing the basis of Polish biblical translations I will concentrate on the translations of the whole Bible and the whole of the New Testament. The Catholics assumed the Latin Vulgate as the basis for translation. On its grounds the translation of the Kraków New Testament (no. 11), the Leopolita Bible (nos. 1, 2, 2a, 12, 13) and the Wujek Bible (nos. 5, 21–25) were made. Jakub Wujek, in the process of translation, took adavantage of original versions, taking notes of the differences between them and the Vulgate in the margin. The Protestants took versions in original languages as the basis for their translations (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). The first translation which was based on the Greek version was the Königsberg New Testament translated by Stanisław Murzynowski (nos. 7–10). However, up till now researchers are not sure if it was a new translation, or if it was a medieval translation of the Vulgate corrected on the basis of the Greek version. The translation of the Brest Bible (no. 3, 14–17) is considered to have been done on the grounds of original languages. Yet, in 1572 Szymon Budny, in the introduction to his own translation of the Bible (no. 4a) stated that he had found a body of evidence to prove that the translators of the Bible did it on the basis of Latin and the French Bible. Also today, some evidence is put forward to testify that translators, while working on the Bible, resorted to the Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible made by Sante Pagnino as well as Latin translation of the New Testament from Greek made by Theodore Beza (Pietkiewicz: 2015). Both translations were published in the years of 1556–1557 by Robert Stephanus5. Until today, it has been difficult to establish to what extent the Stephanus Bible was used in the works on the Brest Bible; whether it was used only as a supportive reference, or whether it constituted the core source for translation.

5 Biblia Utriusque Testamenti De Quorum Nova Interpretatione Et Copiosissimis in eam annotationibus lege quam in limine operis habes epistolam, 2 vol., Genevae: Robert Stephanus (Estienne), 1556–1557, 2°.

64

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Undoubtedly, the anti-Trinitarian Szymon Budny translated from the original versions (no. 4, 4a, 18, 18a). His translations are characterised by extreme literality and as a result are linguistically unpalatable. Also, other anti-Trinitarians translated the New Testament from Greek: Marcin Czechowic (nos. 19– 20) and a team headed by Walenty Szmalc, who corrected the Czechowic’s translation (nos. 27–28). At the beginning of the 17th century, in the Protestant group, the need for another translation of the whole Bible from original languages appeared. First, in 1606 the translation by Marcin Janicki came out, which was corrected by Daniel Mikołajewski and Jan Turnowski (no. 26). The translation of the whole Bible made by Mikołajewski, the so-called the Gdan´sk Bible was published in 1632 (nos. 6, 29).

2.2.

Publishing Repertoire

The research that has been conducted allows us to determine the publishing repertoire of Renaissance printing houses which printed the Holy Scripture in Polish. As far as individual biblical books are concerned or their fragments, it goes without saying that the Book of Psalms, printed as a whole 58 times, enjoyed the greatest popularity (nos. 30–87). The Gospels and their excerpts (besides the full editions of the Bible and the New Testament) were printed at least thirteen times (nos. 127–136, 140, 142–143). The explicit influence of Humanism can be traced down in wisdom books (Job, Prov, Eccl, Sir; nos. 97, 121–126, 88–90) and historical-didactic ones (Tob; nos. 93–96) – fourteen times in total. Fragments of the Pentateuch can be found in six editions (nos. 88–92, 135). The commentaries on the Hos (nos. 138–138a) and Rev (no. 139) – can be found in one edition. Individual books except for the Ps were generally published until the 1560. The decline in the number of those editions can be explained by the appearance of full editions of the New Testament and the Bible.

2.3.

Format

The format of a book decided its purpose, functions and usage as well as the choice of other typographical materials. The Bible was usually printed in folio, the New Testament and the Ps in octavo or in quarto, small prints in octavo. At the turn of the 17th century smaller formats appeared (see Table 2). The choice of format was connected with the size of a book, its functions and addressees. Bigger formats like folio and quarto were well suited for printing the texts of the Bible and the New Testament with a sizeable academic apparatus, and

65

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

Table 2. The number of editions produced in given formats in subsequent 20–year periods.

– –

16° – –

24°

2 6

8° 6 22

12°

1538–1557

2° – –

1558–1577 1578–1597

6 –

6 18

20 4

– 4

– –

– –

1598–1617 1618–1638

1 –

19 7

4 5

1 6

2 –

– 4

7

58

61

11

2

4

1518–1537

4°

– –

were targeted at educated readers involved in religious polemics. Octavo format and smaller ones were mainly used for printing the actual biblical text. Those editions were sought after by people searching for spiritual nourishment in the Holy Scripture (common priests, monks, nuns, and the majority of lay readers). It is worth mentioning that along with the appearance of a smaller format, though of lower quality, the price got reduced, which made the books widely available to the masses. In the 17th century even smaller formats came out, which was strictly connected with the function of the Bible. During this period of time we can observe the domination of the Counter-Reformation, which marginalized protestants for whom the biblical text became a source of consolation and strength in turbulent times. Small formats enabled readers to carry the book with them, using the “book of consolation” at any time and place. The ease with which the book was carried was the decisive factor in the choice of format, which was important for non-Catholics travelling to organized synods. Hence, non-Catholic typography opted for smaller formats, while Catholics went for the bigger version (see Table 3). Table 3. The number of Bibles, New Testaments, the Book of Psalms, commentaries and small prints produced in given formats by individual denomination. Bible

New Testament

Psalter

Biblical Small Prints Commentaries

2° 4° 8° 4° 8° 12° 24° 2° 4° 8° 12° 24° 2° 4° 8° 4° 8° 12° 16° Catholics 3 – – 2 6 – – – 1 12 3 – – – 1 5 12 4 2 Protes1 tants Polish – Brethren

–

1

6

3

–

1

1

3

4

3

3

–

2

–

3

20

–

–

1

–

2

2

1

– –

–

–

–

– 2

2

–

2

–

–

–

66

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

2.4.

Contents

Biblical prints contained different aids facilitating understanding of the text (socalled meta-text), material identification of the print (title pages, printer’s mark) and introductory material, along with the inspired text. 2.4.1. Title pages Title pages are not limited to just providing the title of a work but they specify its content, function and purpose, present the translator, the basis and method of translation, determine the confessional orientation of printing and advertise the translation. The title page of the Wujek Bible of 1599 (no. 5), for example, contains all the elements mentioned above, where one can read: The Bible that is the Books of the Old and the New Testament according to Old Latin Translation, Implemented Into the Catholic Church, Translated into Polish Diligently, with the Addition of the Hebrew and Greek Text, and with Catholic Lecturing of more Difficult Fragments to Defend the Catholic Holy Faith, against the Heretics of these Times. By D. Jakub Wujek of Wa˛growiec, Theolog Societatis Iesu. On the Approval of the Holy See, and under the Imprint of His Magnificence Archbishop of Gniezno.

Another example of an equally rich, content-sumptuous title page comes from the New Testament of Raków (no. 27–28), where the following information can be found: The New Testament: that is All the Writings of the New Covenant, from Greek into Polish Faithfully Translated Anew. By some Servants of the Word of God, Heavenly Mysteries and Languages Necessary for such Work Knowing, and by the Elders of those Churches, who Claim that Nobody Else but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only One who is Israeli God, and that this Human Jesus of Nazareth, who Was Born of a Virgin, and Nobody Else but Him, or before Him, is the only Begotten Son of God.

Frequently, biblical epigraphs constitute an integral part of title pages in nonCatholic publications, playing several roles: they encourage reading; call for a response to God’s word; impart the polemical character on the text; justify the orthodoxy of translators and publishers, and evangelize. These epigraphs are brief and blunt slogans, through which a publisher or a translator conveys a message to a reader about the work itself, its creators and purposes based on the Divine Authority of God. Here are some examples: Ps 115:1: Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam (no. 7). 1 Tim 2:5 : Unus est mediator Dei et hominum Jesus Christus (no. 8).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

67

John 3:5: Amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit, ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire regnum Dei (no. 9). Acts 26:14: Durum est contra stimulum recalcitrare (no. 138a). Heb 10:29 and Mtt 12:32: Quicumque agnita veritate conculcauerit sanguinem Jesu Christi, huic non remittetur peccatum illud, neque in hoc nec in futuro saeculo (no. 138a). Hos 14:10: Kto ma˛dry jest ten zrozumie temu, a roztropny ten sie˛ nauczy tego, abowiem drogi Pan´skie proste sa˛, a tez˙ sprawiedliwi chodzic´ w nich be˛da˛, ale zasie˛ przeste˛pce upadna˛ na nich [He who is wise will understand it, and he who is sagacious will learn it, because the ways of God are straight, and the just will walk along them, whereas the sinners will fall on them] (no. 138a). Acts 1:8: Be˛dziecie mi s´wiadkami w Jerozolimie, w Judzie, w Sameriej i po wszech granicach ziemie [Ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, in Judaea, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the Earth] (no. 141). John 5:39: Rozbierajcie pisma, gdyz˙ sie˛ wam zda, z˙e w nich z˙ywot wieczny macie, a onyc´ sa˛ które s´wiadcza˛ o Mnie [Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me] (no. 20). John 1:17: Zakon przez Mojz˙esza jest dan, ona łaska i ona prawda przez Jezusa Christusa stała sie˛ [For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ] (nos. 27 and 28).

2.4.2. Dedications Dedications and other additional elements (dedicatory letters, emblems, poems On an Emblem) indicate the genesis of an edition and locate it in the context of contemporary social relations. Among the 143 examined editions, 73 possess dedications6 (if one counts separately the variants – nos. 2a and 138a – which emerged as a result of a change in dedication, will reach 75 in number). The kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had thirteen editions dedicated seven dedications of the Bible (nos. 1, 2, 2a, 3, 5, 6 – in the Leopolita Bible separately for the Old and New Testament), four of the New Testament (nos. 8–11 – four parts of the Königsberg New Testament and the Kraków New Testament) and two of the Books of Psalms (nos. 40–41). The remaining were dedicated to dukes, magnates, wealthy noblemen and bishops. Dedications had the following functions: economic function – the sedication was connected with remuneration, which covered the costs borne during publishing; prestigious function – prints were a gift which evoked kindness, 6 Nos. 1–11, 17, 18, 32–37, 39–43, 45–72, 74–75, 79–81, 83, 89, 96, 120–126, 134, 138–141. It is hard to determine if the lost works (nos. 12, 38, 73, 88, 90, 92, 97, 119, 142–143) and those with missing first pages (nos. 18a, 135) were dedicated.

68

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

strengthened friendship and expressed gratitude for care; promotional function – based mainly on the authority of the word of God; moreover the dedicating people exercised their initiative to meet the new needs of the Renaissance period. While emphasizing the value of the work they sometimes solicited personal fame and memory of posterity; they advertised their printing houses; aesthetically printed, up to date, novel works, which were fashionable and preceded by a glare of publicity could count on better sales and as a result better material reward in the form of a sizeable profit; polemical-apologetic function – the person the work was dedicated to was informally obliged to defend it and propagate it, which was significant in the case of polemical texts.

2.4.3. Elements introducing the text and accompanying it (Methatext) The inspired text in the biblical prints in Polish was preceded by forewords and prefaces, which justified its emergence and presented the genesis of the new translation or edition, and informed the reader of the translation technique and of the basis of translation. One could find words of encouragement to read the Divine Word, suggestions concerning a determined method of reading, and interpretation of the text. Very often they constituted an attempt at academic approach to the study of the Bible and criticism of the text (e. g. the translation of Budny – nos. 4a, 18, 18a; Wujek – nos. 5, 21, 75; Czechowic – no. 19). Besides the biblical text in the editions of the Holy Scripture, you could find lists of books (e. g. nos. 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4a, 5, 6), summaries of books and chapters (e.g nos. 1, 2, 2a, 3, 5, 6) chronological tables (e. g. 3, 5, 21), tables facilitating planned reading of the Bible (e. g. no. 3), synoptic tables (e. g. nos. 21, 26), short thematic treatises (e. g. no. 5) and special supplements, such as the treatise on Polish orthography by Murzynowski (nos. 7–10). Together with the publication of the Holy Scripture, hymn books and catechisms were printed and bound, especially in the 17th century (nos. 82, 84, 86). Biblical prints also comprised continuous commentaries (e. g. nos. 5, 7–8, 10, 21, 75, 137, 138, 138a, 139–141) and marginal notes of different kinds: concordances (in all editions of the whole Bible and the New Testament), philological notes (e. g. nos. 3, 4a, 5, 7–10, 18, 18a, 19, 21, 27), notes concerning criticism of the text (e. g. nos. 3, 4a, 5–10, 18, 18a, 19, 21, 26–27), short commentaries (e. g. nos. 1, 3, 4a, 5, 7–10, 17–18, 18a, 19, 21), tips on liturgical usage of the texts (e. g. nos. 6, 11, 13, 16–17, 21, 26), summarizing notes (e. g. nos. 1, 7–10, 21, 40–41, 74–75), marks of text division into chapters (e. g. 18, 18a) and “zaczało”7 (e. g. nos. 18, 18a, 19–28). 7 The division of the New Testament into liturgical pericopes applied by the Eastern Church.

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

69

Editions of a polemical character published after 1551 constitute biblical prints offering the richest content. First of all, we should mention here Wujek’s translations (nos. 5, 21). The idea behind equipping the Bible with adequate aids was to provide readers with material to study texts, the results of which was to be of service in religious argumentation.

2.5.

Illustrative material

Illustrations in Polish biblical prints can be divided into three groups: heraldic, portrait-like, and connected with biblical text. Heraldic illustrations. The emblems of the addressees of the work had similar functions to dedications; in the case of printer’s marks, or emblems of other creators of books they constituted a kind of signature. The national emblem played a special role – Polish Eagle – it was imprinted in the New Testament of 1556 (no. 11), in the Wujek Bible of 1599 (no. 5). The national emblem was also connected with emblems of the kings (e. g. the Leopolita Bible of 1575 and 1577 – no. 2, 2a). It is a sign of the awakening of “a sense of national dignity” (Kossowska: 1968, 182). In this way the book was to have a solemn character and become a national book of a kind. Portraits were connected with heraldic elements. In the Leopolita Bible of 1561 (no. 2) we can see the bust of Sigismund Augustus. In Apocalypsis translated by Rej in 1565 (no. 139) one can find the bust of the author-translator, which plays the role of the signature of the translator and the commentator. Illustrations of biblical themes constitute the most numerous group. In the examined prints we can differentiate five ways of using them: – Illustrations on title pages which introduce the reading of the Bible, reminding readers of the principle of typology between the Old and the New Testament. The most-well-known illustration of the type is “The Table of Law and Grace” or “The Table of Law and the Gospel” applied in the Brest Bible (no. 3; see also nos. 1, 2, 2a, 4a, 5). – Some of the illustrations function in a symbolic way – placed at the beginning of individual books they become their symbol and summary (nos. 1, 2, 2a, 11, 13). For instance, the illustration of David praying had this very function (e. g. nos. 32, 110, 137), as David was immediately and explicitly associated with the Book of Psalms. – Pictures illustrating a biblical text were to harmonize with the content, facilitating understanding, remembering and triggering the imagination (nos. 13, 89, 135). Some illustrations suggested the key to the interpretation of a text to a reader.

70

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

– Illustrations of academic character were to make the study of the Bible easier (nos. 2, 2a, 3). – Maps were kinds of academic illustration, which can be found only in the Gdan´sk New Testament of 1606 (no. 26). In the Renaissance period woodcuts were all the range. Copperplates appeared for the first time in 1606 in the Gdan´sk New Testament (maps).

2.6.

Elements facilitating the use of the book

The Holy Scripture is a Book you dip into randomly. Such random usage of prints was particularly valid in polemics during which chosen quotations were applied. Different means were used to facilitate resorting to biblical texts: division of the text; running head, numeration of cards and pages; indexes and tables of contents. In Polish biblical prints the text was divided into chapters (since 1522 – no. 123) and verses. Szymon Budny used the word “rozdział” (“chapter”) for the first time in the New Testament of 1570 (no. 4). Hieronim Wietor pioneered the division into verses, the Kraków Psalter of 1532 (no. 30) – it was his own division. The printers of the the Brest Bible are indebted to Estienne for the division of the whole Bible into verses in 1563 (no. 3). In the Polish Bible the division into liturgical readings was present (pericopes and epistles). The division into “zaczało” was borrowed from the Eastern tradition with a view to attracting Orthodox readers. Wietor applied the numeration of cards for the first time in Eccl of 1522 (no. 123). Whereas, Januszewski is credited with the introduction of the numeration of pages for the first time in the Psalter of Jan Kochanowski of 1579 (no. 46). Helena Unglerowa was the initiator of using the running head in the King David Psalter in the translation of Walenty Wróbel of 1539 (no. 32). An opulent column heading with running head appeared in the Brest Bible (no. 3). The printer provides the titles of books in Latin and Polish, Arabic number of a card and the content of pages (the contents). In the translations of Wujek, the number of the chapter appears in running head, too (nos. 5, 21, 75). In the biblical prints in Polish we can come across several kinds of indexes and tables of content: the table of contents of chapters (no. 7); the list of the liturgical readings (e. g. nos. 1, 2, 2a, 6–11, 13, 16, 21–22, 29); subject index (e. g. nos. 3, 19, 21).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

3.

71

Functional development

In Polish biblical editing functional development can also be noticed. The biblical text availability function constitutes the fundamental function of each and every biblical text. Other functions bestowed on the book by its creators depend on the assumptions and realization of this very function. Making the text of the Holy Scripture availabe for a reader can stem from different icentives and may perform different functions. Among them there are: educational functions (upbringing and formation of moral attitudes; lessons in reading and interpretation of a text; getting acquainted with biblical history); ideological functions (biblical prints as tools used for spreading ideas: humanistic; religious, Reformation and CounterReformation – polemical-propaganda function; national); devout functions (assistance in personal religious life and assistance in experiencing the worship). Educational functions. Faith is the act of all human faculties: reason, will and emotions. The educational character of the prints is mainly connected with the influence on the first two faculties, though not solely. According to Erasmus of Rotterdam reading the Bible opens a way for a man to true wisdom – the philosophy of Christ, which is not a system of knowledge but the school of practical life. Therefore, the task of the Holy Scripture must consist in upbringing, or guiding an individual to gain true wisdom through reason, through accepting this truth by one’s will, to practise it in deeds (Buzzetti/Bravi: 1992, 28–29). Realization of this function can be observed in the early period of Polish biblical editorship, when wisdom books were often reached out for. Introductions which contained a list of beneficial aspects of the reading and summaries of chapters exposing the tropological sense and the text itself coming from historical-educational (e. g. Tob – nos. 93–95) and the wisdom part of the Holy Scripture (e. g. Eccl, Sir, Ps – nos. 30–37, 40–41, 123, 125–126) constituted tools which facilitated interpretation of the text in a humane-spirited way. After 1551, biblical prints still played the function discussed here, with a different aspect. Namely, there appeared scathing citicisms of the moral stance of the representatives of the Catholic Church, which explicitly presented the need for conversion and transition to the Reformation (e. g. 138, 138a, 139–141). The creators of biblical prints (translators, editors, printers) were fully aware of the difficulties which a reader aiming at the Holy Scripture comes up against. For this very reason they used to propose an appropriate key for interpretaion in the introductions, dedicatory letters and arguments placed before chapters and in commentaries, as a result of which these editions were like textbooks to study the word of God. One can find a lot of such hermeneutic keys in the researched copies, starting with Medieval allegorical interpretations and finishing with scholarly criticism of the text. The quite frequently applied actualization of the text in the aspect of contemporary religious situations belongs to interesting ways

72

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

of interpretation. Such interpretation of a text is very often proposed in reference to the commentaries on the Apocalypse of St John. (e. g. no. 139). Appropriate introductions, critical commentary, philological and scientific notes, descriptions of illustrations and maps assisted greatly the scholarly examination of the Bible. The subsequent educational function aimed at allowing a reader to become casually acquainted with the history of salvation. Almost all prints serve this function, with the emphsis put on anthologies of texts (e. g. no. 135). The ideological functions of the Bible constitute the most crucial ones over the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. The task of spreading humanist thought has been presented above. Now let me move on to the presentation of the polemical-propaganda function. As has already been mentioned above, this functon appeared in 1551 and continuously accompanied the biblical prints of the epoch. Many elements played their role in that: introductions, dedicatory letters, arguments, continual and marginal commentaries, critical notes, registers, attached catechisms, illustrations (e. g. illustrations for Rev, frontispiece), the technique of a translation itself, and often tedentious terminology. The typographic layout of a book was also of great importance and facilitated access to both the text and the commentaries. Besides that, there was the transparency of the page layout, the choice of scenes placed in ornamental title frames, the distinct division into chapters and verses, the placement of visible and heavily decorated column heading as well as distinguished, aesthetic and eye-catching typeface. Such elements as the size of the book and its format were also of some importance, and made it easier (or more difficult) to carry to religious congregations and to places of theological disputes happening in different locations. The function consisting in awakening and strengthening the sense of national identity is revealed in sole publishing of the texts in a national language. Other important elements were connected with linking individual editions with crowned heads by means of dedications and placing heraldic illustrations (the Polish Eagle, royal crests, the emblem of Cracow and the Cracovian Academy, etc.). Devotional functions. Biblical prints were adapted to the functions of prayer books and books for meditation in a different way. Psalters played the key role in this respect, which allowed for reciting psalms in the mode of breviary canonical hours (e. g. nos. 30–39, 44). Liturgical tips added to arguments, appropriate indexes, supplementing editions with biblical songs and Latin first lines of psalms constituted their indispensable package. Some psalters also served as books for contemplation as they contained appropriate commentaries and prayers (e. g. no. 32–41, 73–74). Other prints besides psalters such as the Ungler’s Evangeliary (no. 135) and Zywot y nauka Pana

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

73

naszego Iesu Christa [Life and Teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, no. 134] had similar functions. Many elements of the content of a book supported this function: introductions, arguments (sometimes suggesting using a text in given circumstances), summarizing notes, subject indexes, an added prayer and texts for meditation. Purely typographic elements, such as a small format (in 8°, 12°), small volume, clarity of composition, the application of various kinds of initials, writings, and illustrations encouraging prayer, played an important role. Mostly, the editions of the New Testament and the whole Bible were supplied with elements which made it possible to exercise the function of a lectionary and evangeliary. One can mention here liturgical tips, lists of readings, the application of columns and symbols marking the boundaries of pericopes, placing additions in the form of a choice of readings from the Old Testament in the New Testament. Some psalters could also play a liturgical function, especially those well-adjusted to saying canonical hours (e. g. nos. 32–39, 44) and containing musical notes (e. g. nos. 42, 72, 78–86). The first ones were of use for the Catholics: the secular ones, “monastic maidens” and “plain priests” (no. 32), the second ones for the Protestants singing psalms and songs during their congregation service and domestic service. Polish biblical editing aimed at producing multifunctional books from the very beginning. After 1551 we can observe a considerable increase in the function of the Bible, and the polemical-propaganda function becomes dominant here. The editions containing Jakub Wujek’s translations became the most multifunctional Polish Bibles of the epoch (especially: nos. 5, 21, 75). From the beginning of the 17th century, after pushing faith opponents to the background, the Catholics started to confine themselves to reprinting earlier editions in a limited, lower quality form.

4.

The causes of the development of Polish biblical editing

The data presented above show the dynamism of development of the biblical editing in Polish in the Renaissance period. Finally, it is worth trying to systematize them. In chronological order, the appearance and development of humanism became the root cause of the development of Polish biblical editing. The humanists searched for ancient wisdom, educational patterns and material for philological research in the Holy Scripture. The Bible also constituted the source of poetic inspiration for humanists. Humanists are also credited with the creation of in-

74

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

tellectual foundations, owing to which the translation and publishing of the Holy Scripture was possible. The development of the Polish language constituted an important factor which had an influence on the development of Polish writing (characters specific to the Polish language) and editing, including biblical editing, in the 16th century. We can observe it on several planes: a general increase in interest in Polish texts and readership; works on Polish orthography, and works on style and biblical vocabulary. Adequate economic conditions were indispensable for the development of the printing industry. Around the mid 16th century such conditions came to exist in Cracow. Printers from Kraków (the Scharffenbergers) were rich enough to finance the printing of the whole Bible. In the second half of the 16th century, the support for the Reformation provided by magnates led to the appearance of an economic base also beyond Cracow, which was crucial for the costly printing of the Bible (centres in Brest, Nesvitz, Łosk). The Brest Bible and Budny’s works appeared on this very economic foundation. However, it was a transitory foundation. At the beginning of the 17th century, when the economic conditions of the Reformation deteriorated, problems connected with the translation and printing of the Bible appeared (e. g. with works on the Gdan´sk Bible). The demand put forward by the faithful, who wanted to use the Holy Scripture during individual and public prayers, was an important reason for the emergence of biblical prints. Here again it is worth mentioning the factors connected with the production and usage of a book: the general development of the printing industry; the search for a linguistic and typographical model of the Bible, to meet the needs of given denominations; another equally important factor was the noticeable wear and tear of books as a result of their intensive usage, and a deliberate one stemming from religious actions, and worn out copies were to be substituted with new ones. Since the mid 16th century religious polemics was the most significant factor securing the development of the biblical editing in Polish. The emergence, development, divisions, and the twilight of the Reformation in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and continuous strengthening of the Counter-Reformation constitute the fundamental reasons for the appearance of new biblical translations. Transformations in denominations in Poland and in Lithuania are precisely reflected in the dynamics of the development of biblical editing. The need for faith polemics led to the emergence of biblical prints of complicated content, which became a kind of religious weapon equipped with all the necessary tools. The need to print such complicated books contributed to the widespread increase of the level of Polish typography.

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

75

Abbreviations Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellon´ska [Jagiellonian Library in Cracow] Kórnik, Biblioteka PAN [Kórnik Library of Polish Academy of Sciences] Warszawa, Biblioteka Narodowa [National Library of Poland in Warsaw] Cluj (Romania), Academia Annexa III (Collegium Unitariorum) Gdan´sk, Biblioteka PAN [Gdan´sk Library of Polish Academy of Sciences] Katowice, Biblioteka S´la˛ska [Silesian Library in Katowice] Kr BCz Kraków, Biblioteka Ksia˛z˙a˛t Czartoryskich [The Czartoryski Princes Library in Cracow] Kr PAN Kraków, Biblioteka PAN [Kraków Library of Polish Academy of Sciences] Lu Łop. Lublin, Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna im. Hieronima Łopocin´skiego [Hieronim Łopacin´ski’s Provincial Public Library in Lublin] Pa BN Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France Po BTPN Poznan´, Biblioteka Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk [The Library of Poznan´ Society of Friends of Sciences] Po BU Poznan´, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Poznan´ University Library] St WLB Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek Tor KK Torun´, Ksia˛z˙nica Kopernikan´ska [Kopernik Library in Torun´] Tor UMK Torun´, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Torun´ University Library] Up BU Uppsala, University Library Wa BPMS Warszawa, Biblioteka Publiczna Miasta Stołecznego [Public Library of the Capital City of Warsaw] Wa BU Warszawa, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Warsaw University Library] Wa BWMSD Warszawa, Biblioteka Metropolitalnego Wyz˙szego Seminarium Duchownego [Library of Metropolitan Higher Seminary in Warsaw] Wa Kras. Warszawa, Biblioteka im. Krasin´skich [Krasin´ski’s Library in Warsaw] (destroyed in 1944) Wa UKSW Warszawa, Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyn´skiego [Library of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyn´ski University in Warsaw] Wr BU Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Wrocław University Library] Wr PWT Wrocław, Biblioteka Papieskiego Wydziału Teologicznego [Library of Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Wrocław] ZNiO Wrocław, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich [The National Ossolin´ski Institute in Wrocław]

BJ BK BN Cluj U Gd PAN Ka BS´

76

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Bibliography Sources Translations of the whole Bible (in chronological order): Leopolita Bible 1. Biblia To iest. Kxie˛gi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu / na Polski ie˛zyk / z pilnos´c´ia˛ według Lac´in´skiey Bibliey od Kos´c´ioła Krzes´c´ian´skiego powssechnego przyie˛they / nowo wyłoz˙ona. Cum Gratia et Priuilegio. S. R. M., Kraków: Heirs of Marek Szarfenberger, 1561, 2° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.F.4065; 4084; 4087; BJ Cim. 8307; BK Cim.F.4058; 4059; Wa BU Sd. 612.60; Wa BPMS XVI.F.108; Wa BWMSD; St WLB Bb poln. 156101). 2. Biblia To iest: KSie˛gi STarego y NOwego Zakonu / na Polski ie˛zyk / według Lac´in´skiey Bibliey od Koscioła Krzes´c´ian´skiego powszechnego przyie˛tey: na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´c´ia˛ poprawiona / y figurami ozdobiona. Cum Gratia et Priuilegio. S. R. M., Kraków: Mikołaj Scharffenberger, 1575, 2° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.F.4176; 4178). 2a. Typographical variant of the 1575 edition with title pages and dedications changed: Biblia To iest: Kxie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu / na Polski ie˛zyk według Lac´in´skiey Bibliey / od KOs´c´ioła Chrzes´c´ian´skiego powszechnego przyie˛tey: na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´c´ia˛ poprawiona / y Figurami ozdobiona, Cum Gratia et Priuilegio. S. R. M., Kraków: Mikołaj Scharffenberger, 1577, 2° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.F.4109; 4329; Wr BU 437779).

Brest Bible (Radziwiłł Bible, Pin´czów Bible) 3. BJblia swie˛ta / Tho iest / Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu / własnie z Zydowskiego / Greckiego / y Lac´in´skiego / nowo na Polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ y wiernie wyłoz˙one, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk): [Stanisław Murmelius or Cyprian Bazylik(?)], 1563, 2° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd.612.65; ZNiO XVI.F.4013; Wr BU 437427; Wr PWT; Pa BN Rés. 458; St WLB Bb poln. 156301).

Nesvizh Bible (Budny Bible) and the New Testament and the Apocrypha, translated by Szymon Budny 4. Ks´ie˛gi ktore po Grecku zowa˛ Apokryfa / to iest kryiome ksie˛gi. Nowy Testament z Greckiego na polski ie˛zyk s pilnosc´ia˛ przełoz˙ony, Nieswiez˙ (Nesvizh): Daniel of Łe˛czyca, 1570, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2337). 4a. Biblia. To iest / ks´ie˛gi starego y nowego Przymierza / znowu z ie˛zyka Ebreyskiego / Grecskiego y Lac´in´skiego / na Polski przełoz˙one, [Nies´wiez˙ (Nesvizh), Zasław or Uzda (?)]:Maciej Kawieczyn´ski (printer: Daniel of Łe˛czyca), 1572, 4° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd.614.300; ZNiO XVI.Qu.2336; 2338; 2339; the printer used here about 91 % of the edition of the New Testament and the Apocrypha from 1570 – no. 4).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

77

Wujek Bible 5. BIBLIA TO IEST KSIE˛GI STAREGO Y NOWEGO TESTAMNETV WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO przekładu starego, w kos´c´iele powszechnym przyie˛tego, na Polski ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙one, Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO y Greckiego, y z wykładem Katholickim, trudnieyszych mieysc do obrony Wiary swie˛tey powszechney przeciw kacerztwóm tych czasów naleza˛cych: Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka z Wa˛growca, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Stolice Apostolskiey, a nakładem Iego M. Ks´ie˛dza Arcybiskupa Gniez´nien´skiego, etc´. wydane, Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1599, 2° (shelf marks: Wr BU 437771; Wr PWT; Wa BU Sd.612.49; ZNiO XVI.F.4289).

Gdan´sk (Danzig) Bible, translated by Daniel Mikołajewski 6. Biblia Swie˛ta: To jest, Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Przymierza z Zydowskiego y Greckiego Je˛zyka na Polski pilnie y wiernie przetłumaczone. Cum Gratia et Privilegio. S. R. M., Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1632, 8° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd. 713.819; ZNiO XVII-3245; 3246; 3248; Wr BU 328624; BJ 311273; St WLB B poln. 163201 adl.).

Translations of the New Testament (in chronological order): Königsberg New Testament, translated by Stanisław Murzynowski 7. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew: EVANGELIA SVVIETA PANA IESVSA CHRISTVSA Vedle Matthæusza Svietego / z Greckiego Iezyka na Polski przelozona. I wykladem krotkim a ku inszem Euangelistum potrzebnem, na wielu miescach obiasniona. Wczym wszystkiem dokładano s´ie˛ Lacin´skiego / i na kilka inszijch iezyków przełoz˙enia / i ktemu Starych i Nowych Pisma Swie˛tego Doctorów. Przytem iest przydana nauka czytania i pisania iezyka Polskiego / ku tym ks´iegam i inszem poz˙yteczna / I Regestr pilny a potrzebny, Jan Seklucjan (ed.), Królewiec Pruski (Königsberg): [Aleksander Augezdecki], 1551, 4° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd.614.82; BN XVI.Qu.218; 6471). 8. The First Part of the New Testament (Matt-John): TESTAMENTV NOVVEGO CZESC PIERVVSZA Czterzei Euangelistowie swiec´i MATTHEVSZ, MAREK, LVKASZ, I IAN, Z Greckiego iezyka na Polski przelozeni, i wykladem krotkiem obiasnieni.Wczym wszystkiem dokładano s´ie˛ / Lacin´skiego / i nakilka inszych ie˛zykow przełoz˙enia / i ktemu Starych i Nowych pisma s´wie˛tego Doctorow. Przytem przydana iest nauka czytania i pisania ie˛zyka Polskiego / ku tym ks´ie˛gam i inszem poz˙yteczna / I Regestr na wykład ktory przy s´. Mattheuszu / i na Ewangelje niedz´ielne i dniow ´swie˛tych, Jan Seklucjan (ed.), Królewiec Pruski (Königsberg): [Aleksander Augezdecki], 1551, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.3184; BK Cim.O.2742/1; BN XVI.Qu.218; Gd PAN Hd 15183; Kr BCz Cim.914/II; in this edition Augezdecki used 22 quires before printing it as part of the edition of Matt from 1551; he printed 45,75 new quires).

78

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

9. The Second Part of the New Testament (Acts-Rev): TESTAMENTV NOVVEGO CZESC VVTORA A ostateczna. DZIEIE I PISMA APOSZTOLSKIE. Z Greckiego ie˛zyka na Polski przełoz˙one, Jan Seklucjan (ed.), Królewiec Pruski (Königsberg): Aleksander Augezdecki, 1552, 4° (shelf marks: BK Cim.Qu.2742/2; Gd PAN Hd 15183; BN XVI.Qu.218; 6471). 10. The whole of the New Testament: Testament NoVVy ZVpełny. Z Greckiego ie˛zyka na Polski przeloz˙ony / i wykładem krotkiem obias´niony. Wczym wszystkiem dokładano s´ie˛ Lac´in´skiego / i natilka inszych ie˛zykow przełoz˙enia / i ktemu Starych i Nowych pisma s´wie˛tego Doctorow. Przytem przydana iest nauka czytania i pisania ie˛zyka Polskiego / ku tym ks´ie˛gam i inszem poz˙yteczna / J Regestr nalez´ienia Ewangeljiei i Epistoły na niedz´iele˛ i ´swie˛ta insze przes rok / i na wykład Mattheusza s´wie˛tego, Jan Seklucjan (ed.), Królewiec Pruski (Königsberg): Aleksander Augezdecki, 1552–1553, 4° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.Q.5484; BN XVI.Qu.6471; 218; in this edition Augezdecki used 84 previously printed quires in 1551 and 1552; he printed 36,75 new quires).

Kraków New Testament (Szarfenbergers’ New Testament) 11. Nowy Testament Polskim ie˛zykiem wyłozony / według doswiadssonego Lacinskiego textu / od Koscioła Krzesc´ianskiego prz˙yie˛tego. Ktemu przyłozono Lekcie y Proroctwa z starego zakonu wzie˛te / ktore przy Ewangeliach bywaia˛ czytane. Regestr dostateczny ku naydowaniu Ewangeliy y Epistoł / ktore w dni Niedz´ielne / y inssych swia˛t przes cały rok bywaia˛ czytane / thak tesz na powssednie dni Postne y Adwentowe. Cum Gratia et Priuilegio. S. M. R., Kraków: Marek Szarfenberg Heirs, 1556, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2982; 3035; 3058; BK Cim.Qu.2966; Wa BU Sd.614.303; 614.305).

Reprints of the New Testament from the Leopolita Bible 12. [Nowy Testament. To iest / Swie˛ta Pana Jezusa Christusa Ewangelia / od Ewangelistow y od innych Apostołow napisana, Kraków: Stanisław Szarfenberg, 1564, 8°] (lost). 13. Nowy Testament. To iest / Swie˛ta Pana Jezusa Christusa Ewangelia / od Ewangelistow y od innych Apostołow napisana, Kraków: Stanisław Scharfenberg, 1568, 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.256; 442; Kr BCz Cim.1093 I; ZNiO XVI.O.403; 404; 414; 415; 861; Wa UKSW 104167).

Reprints of the New Testament from the Brest Bible 14. Nowy Thestament z Greckiego na polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony, Nies´wiez˙ (Nesvizh): Daniel of Łe˛czyca, 1568, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.800; Kr BCz Cim. 1071/I; BJ Cim. 558; BN XVI.O.452). 15. Nowy Thestament z Greckiego na Polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony. Drukowano przed tem w Nies´wiz˙u / a po wtore drukowano przez Jana Karcana, [Łosk or Wilno (Vilnius)]: Jan Karcan, 1580, 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim. 1741; Kr BCz Cim. 996/I; BK Cim.O.253; BN XVI.O.552; 452).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

79

16. Domini nostri Jesv Christi NOVI TESTAMENTI PARS PRIMA. Pana naszego Jezusa Krystusa Nowego Testamentu Cz˙e˛s´c´ pierwsza. Z Greckiego na Polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony. D. N. J. C. NOVI TESTAMENTI PARS ALTERA. P. N. J. C. Nowego Testamentu Cz˙e˛´sc´ wtora, Torun´: Melchior Nering, 1585, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2507; Wa BU Sd.614.312; BK Cim.Qu.2468). 17. NOWY TESTAMENT Albo Ks´ie˛gi Przymierza nowego: Pana Jezusa Krystusa Syna Boz˙ego / Zbawic´iela s´wiata. Teraz z wielka˛ pilnos´c´ia y praca˛ przeyz´rzane y wydane, Wilno (Vilnius): Jan Markowicz, 1593, 4° (shelf marks: BN XVI.Qu.1934; BJ Cim.4810; Wa BU Sd.614.325; ZNiO XVI.Qu.2870; Up BU 55.V.33).

The New Testament, translated by Szymon Budny 18. Nowy Testament znowu przełoz˙ony / a na wielu mieyscach za pewnemi dowodami odprzysad przez Simona Budnego ocz˙ys´c´iony / y krotkiemi przypiskami po kraioch obias´niony. Przydane tez˙ sa˛ na kon´cu tegoz˙ dostatecz˙nieysze przypiski / ktore kaz˙dey iak miarz odmiany przyczyny ukazuia˛, Łosk: [Daniel of Łe˛czyca], 1574, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.191; BK Cim.O.261). 18a. Typographical variant of the edition 1574 with about 4.5 % pages changed: [the New Testament translated by Szymon Budny, Łosk: Feliks Bolemowski, about 1589], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.858).

The New Testament, translated by Marcin Czechowic 19. NOWY TESTAMENT. To iest Wszytkie pisma nowego Przymierza / z Greckiego ie˛zyka na rzecz˙ Połska˛ wiernie y szcz˙erze przełoz˙one. Przydane iest rozne cz˙ytanie na brzegach / ktore sie˛ w inszych ks´ie˛gach nayduie: y Reiestr na kon´cu, [Kraków]: Aleksander Rodecki, 1577, 4° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.Qu.1773). 20. NOWY TESTAMENT. To iest Wszytkie pisma nowego Przymierza / z Greckiego ie˛zyka na rzecz˙ Polska˛ wiernie y szcz˙yrze przełoz˙one, [Kraków]: Aleksander Rodecki, 1594, 8° (shelf marks: Kr BCz Cim.1645/I; BJ Cim.550).

The New Testament, translated by Jakub Wujek 21. Nowy Testament Pana naszego IESVSA CHRISTVSA. Z nowu z Lac´in´skiego y z Gre˛ckiego na Polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełoz˙ony : y Argumentami abo Summariuszami kaz˙dych Ks´ia˛g / y Rozdz´iałow / y Annotacyami po brzegach obias´niony. Przydane sa˛ Nauki y Przestrogi mało nie za kaz˙dym Rozdz´iałem: Porownanie Ewangelistow SS. Dz´ieie y drogi rozmaite Piotra y Pawła S. y Regestr rzeczy głownieyszych na kon´cu. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsa˛dek Kos´c´ioła S. Powszechnego Rzymskiego wszytko niech podle˛z˙e, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1593, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.3065; BK Cim.Qu.2729). 22. Nowy Testament Pana naszego Iesvsa christusa. Z nowu z Lac´in´skiego y z Græckiego na Polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełoz˙ony. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsa˛dek Kos´c´ioła S. Powszechnego Rzymskiego

80

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

wszytko niech podle˛z˙e, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1594, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.665). 23. —, [Kraków]: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1605, 8° (shelf marks: BK 1360; ZNiO XVII-727). 24. —, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1617, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-1525). 25. —, 1621/1622, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-2006; St WLB B poln. 162201).

Gdan´sk (Danzig) New Testament 26. NOVVY TESTAMENT PANA NASZEGO JEZVSA CHRYSTVSA z Greckiego na polski Je˛z˙yk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony: A teraz˙ znovvu przeizrzany y zdozwoleniem Starszych wydany, Gdan´sk: Guilhelm Guilmonthan’s Widow, 1606, 8° (shelf marks: BJ 35281; 390320; Kr BCz 24157/I; ZNiO XVII-1787; Wr BU 300296).

Raków New Testament 27. Nowy TESTAMENT: To iest, WSZYTKIE PISMA NOWEGO Przymierza, z Greckiego ie˛zyka na Polski z nowu wiernie przełoz˙one. Przez Niektore sługi Słowa Boz˙ego, taiemnic niebieskich, y ie˛zykow do takiey prace potrzebnych wiadome, y Starsze tych Zborow, ktore wyznawaia˛, z˙e nikt inszy, iedno Ociec Pana naszego Iezusa Christusa, iest onym iedynym Bogiem Izraelskim, a z˙e on człowiek Iezvs Nazaranski, ktory sie˛ z Panny narodził, a z˙aden inszy oprocz niego, abo prz˙ed nim, iest iednorodzonym Synem Bozym, Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1606, 4° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-1472). 28. NOWY TESTAMENT: To iest, WSZYTKIE PISMA NOVVEGO PRZYMIERZA, z Greckiego ie˛zyka na Polski znovvu vviernie przełoz˙one. Przez Niektore sługi Słowa Boz˙ego / taiemnic niebieskich / y ie˛zykow do takiey prace potrzebnych wiadome / y Starsze tych zborow / ktore wyznawaia˛ / z˙e nikt inszy / iedno Ociec Pana naszego Jezusa Christusa / iest onym iedynym Bogiem Jzraelskim, a z˙e on człowiek Iezus Nazaran´ski / ktory sie˛ z Panny narodził / a z˙aden inszy oprocz niego / abo prz˙ed nim / iest iednorodzonym Synem Bozym, Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1620, 12° (shelf marks: Kr BCz 25177/I; Cluj U R.1850; 1892).

Reprint of the New Testament from the Gdan´sk (Danzing) Bible 29. NOWY TESTAMENT Pana Naszego JEzusa Chrystusa, Z Greckiego jezyka na Polski wiernie przetłumaczony. Cum Gratia et Privilegio S. R. M. Pol. et Swet., Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1633, 24° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd. 711.130; BN XVII.1.104; ZNiO XVII-2144).

Translations of the Book of Psalms (in chronological order): Kraków Psalter 30. Psałterz albo kosc´ielne spiewanie / Krola Dawida / nowo pilnie przełoz˙ony / z łac´inskiego ie˛zika w polski / wedlug szcz˙erego textu, [Kraków: Hieronim Wietor], 1532, 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.907; BJ Cim. vol. 25).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

81

31. Psałterz albo kosc´ielne s´piewanie / Krola Dawida / nowo pilnie przełoz˙ony / z łac´inskiego ie˛zika w Polski / według szcz˙erego textu, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1535, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.1021; Kr PAN 62).

Z˙ołtarz Dawidów (the David Psalter), translated by Walenty Wróbel 32. Zołtarz Dawidow / przez Mistrza Valanthego Wrobla z Poznania na rzecz polska˛ wyłoz˙ony, Kraków: Officina Ungleriana, 1539, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.389; 481; 966). 33. Psalterium Dauidicum: Zoltarz Dawidow przez Mistrza Walentego Wrobla z Poznania na rzecz˙ polska˛ wyłoz˙ony, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1539, 8° (shelf marks: BK Cim.O.117; Kr BCz 1031/I). 34. Zoltarz Dawidow przez Mistrza Walentego Wrobla z Poznania / polska˛ mowa˛ wyłoz˙ony / Teraz zwie˛tssa˛ pilnosc´ia˛ pismem Lacin´skiem y Polskiem wydrukowany / ktemu tez˙ iest Regestr przydany / przez ktory łatwie moz˙e byc´ kaz˙dy Psalm naliez´iony, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1540, 8° (shelf mark: Wr BU 305158). 35. Psalterium Dauidis. Zołtarz Dawidow przez Mistrza Walantego Wrobla z Poznania na rzecz polska˛ wyłoz˙ony, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1540, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.576). 36. Psalterium Dauidis. Zołtarz Dawidow przez Mistrza Walantego Wrobla z Poznania na rzecz polska˛ wyloz˙ony, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1543, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.880; 881). 37. Psal. Davidis. Zołtarz Dawidow przez Mistrza Walantego Wrobla z Poznanya na rzecz Polska˛ wyłoz˙ony, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1547, 8° (shelf marks: Wr BU 300306; ZNiO XVI.O.724). 38. [Zołtarz Dawidow], Kraków, Officina Ungleriana, 1551, 8° (lost). 39. Zołtharz Dawidow / Przez Mistrza Walantego Wrobla / niekiedy kaznodzieie˛ Poznan´skiego / na rzecz˙ Polska˛ wyłoz˙ony, Kraków: Mikołaj Szarfenberg, 1567, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.273; 274; 848).

The David Psalter, translated by Mikołaj Rej 40. Psalterz Dawidow / ktory snadz iest prawy fundament / wssytkiego pisma krzesc´yjan´skiego / teraz nowo prawie na Polski ie˛zyk przełoz˙on / acz˙ nie iednakosc´ia˛ słow / co byc´ niemoz˙e / ale ysz wz˙dy połoz˙enie rzecz˙y wkaz˙dem wierssu wedlug łac´in´skiego ie˛zyka sie zamyka. Przytem tez˙ Argument to iest wyrozumienie rzeczy / oczem Prorok mowił iest / przed kaz˙dem Psalmem krotcze napisan. Przytem tez zakazdem Psalmem iest napisana modlitwa krotkiemi słowy wedlug podobienstwa onegoz Psalmu. Regestr tych kxia˛g: na kon´cu naidziesz czc´ic´ielu uczc´iwy / tobie potrzebnych, [Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg?, before about 1546], 8° (shelf marks: BK Cim.O.343; Kr BCz Cim.1039). 41. [Psałterz Dawidow…, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg?, ok. 1550], 8° (shelf marks: Po BTPN 100009; Wa BU Sd. 618.66).

82

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

The David Psalter, translated by Jakub Lubelczyk 42. Psałterz Dawida onego Swie˛tego / a wiecz˙ney pamie˛c´i godnego Krola y Proroka: teraz nowo na piosnecz˙ki po Polsku przełoz˙ony / a według Zydowskiego rozdzyału na pie˛cioro ksia˛g rozdzyelony. A dla lepszego zrozumienia / sa˛ przydane Argumenta y annotacyie / tho iest / krociuchne wypisanie / iz˙by wiedzyeli c´i co go uz˙ywac´ be˛da˛ / czo ktory Psalm w sobie zamyka. Tez˙ dla łacnieyszego znalezyenia / reyestr wszytkich Psalmow na kon´cu iest przydany, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta, 1558, 2° (shelf marks: BN XVI.F.505; Wa BU Sd. 612.232; ZNiO XVI.F.4081; BK Cim.F.4034; BJ Cim.8294; Tor KK 112469–112470.L.fol.; Po BTPN 59401).

Reprint of Psalter from the Brest Bible 43. Ksie˛gi Psalmow / abo pies´ni Dawidowych ktore pospolic´ie zowa˛ Psałterz, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk): [Cyprian Bazylik?], 1564, 4° (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim.1517/I).

Trent Psalter 44. PSALTERZ DAWIDOW, Porza˛dkiem Kos´c´ioła Swie˛tego / Powszechnego / Apostolskiego / według postanowienia S. Concilium Tryden´tskiego teraznieyszego na kaz˙dy dz´ien´ przez cały Tydz´ien´ / porza˛dnie rozłoz˙ony. Cum GRatia et PRiuilegio S. R. M., Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1579, 12° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.25; Tor KK 35).

The David Psalter, translated by Jan Kochanowski 45. [Psałterz Dawidów przekładania Jana Kochanowskiego], Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1578 [in fact about 1590–1593], 4° (shelf mark: Po BU S.D. 3620 I adl.). 46. PSALTERZ DAWIDOW. PRZEKLADANIA JANA KOCHANOWSKIEGO, Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1579, 4° (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim.1815/II). 47. —, 1583 (shelf marks: Kr BCz Cim. 2076/I; ZNiO XVI.Qu.3111 adl.; Po BTPN 12152/I). 48. —, 1585 [in fact about 1590–1593] (shelf mark: Gd PAN Dm 3443. 8° adl.). 49. —, 1585/1586 (shelf mark: BJ Cim.Qu.4495). 50. —, 1585/1586 [in fact about 1598 or about 1590–1598] (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd. 614.292; 614.298). 51. —, 1586 [in fact about 1598] (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2443; Wa BU Sd. 614.299). 52. —, 1586/1587 [in fact about 1594–1600] (shelf mark: BN XVI.Qu.1415). 53. —, 1586 [in fact about 1604] (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-7037; Wa BU Sd. 614.302). 54. —, 1586/1587 [in fact after 1590] (shelf mark: War. A: Kr BCz Cim.1841/II). 55. —, 1587 (shelf marks: BN XVI.Qu.1407 adl.; BN XVI.Qu.6954). 56. —, after 1587 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2301). 57. —, [in fact after 1590] (shelf marks: Lu Łop. 9589; BN XVI.Qu.931). 58. —, 1587 [in fact after 1590] (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim. 2031/I). 59. —, 1587 [in fact about 1590–1594] (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2301; BN XVI.Qu.6953). 60. —, 1601 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-2736). 61. —, 1606 (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-1346; Tor KK 110606).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

83

62. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf mark: Ka BS´ 10404/I adl.). 63. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf mark: Po BTPN 40105/I). 64. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf mark: Kr BCz 35741/II). 65. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf marks: Kr BCz 35739/II; Gd PAN 142/54. 66. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf marks: Chyrów; Königsberg; Wa Kras.). 67. —, 1606 [in fact after 1606; unknown printing house] (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-677). 68. PSAŁTERZ DAWIDOW. Przekładania JANA KOCHANOWSKIEGO, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1610/1611 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-811 adl.). 69. —, 1612/1614 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-1221). 70. —, 1617 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-1337). 71. —, 1629 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-2738).

Psalter music (for David’s Psalter by Jan Kochanowski), by Mikołaj Gomółka 72. MELODIÆ Na Psalterz Polski, przez Mikolaia Gomólke vczynione, Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1580, 4° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd. 614.11; Gd PAN 476/54).

The David Psalms, translated by Paweł Milejewski 73. [PSALMY Dawidowe / na modlitwy Chrzes´c´ijan´skie przełoz˙one. Przydana iest k temu rozmowa o modlitwie / y modlitwy ludz´i s´wie˛tych z Bibliey wybrane, unknown place and printer, about 1563–1578, probably 12°] (lost). 74. PSALMY Dawidowe / na modlitwy Chrzes´c´ijan´skie przełoz˙one. Przydana iest k temu rozmowa o modlitwie / y modlitwy ludz´i s´wie˛tych z Bibliey wybrane, [Kraków]: Aleksander Rodecki, 1587, 12° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.409).

Psalter, translated by Jakub Wujek 75. PSALTERZ DAWIDOW. Teraz znowu z Lac´in´skiego / z Græckiego / y z Zydowskiego / na Polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony / y Argumentami / y Annotacyami obias´niony. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsa˛dek Kos´c´ioła S. powszechnego Rzymskiego wszytko niech podle˛z˙e, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1594, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2659; 3095). 76. PSAŁTERZ DAWIDOW Z Lac´in´skiego / z Gre˛ckiego / y z Zydowskiego na Polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´c´ia˛ przełoz˙ony. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Teraz znowu / na z˙a˛danie wiela Panien zakonnych Lac´in´skiego ie˛zyka nieumieja˛cych / a Psałterz mowic´ pragna˛cych / bez argumentow y annotaciy przedrukowany, Kraków: Drukarni Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1616, 12° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-3012; BK 126877). 77. —, 1626 (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-2525).

84

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

David Psalms, translated by Maciej Rybin´ski 78. Psalmy Dawidowe: Przekladania X. Macieia Rybinskiego. Na Melodye Psalmow Francuskich vrobione, W Roku Panskim, 1605. Pod Rozsa˛dek Koscioła Prawowiernego Wszytko niechay podle˛z˙e, [Raków]: Sebastian Sternacki, 1605, 4° (shelf marks: BN XVII.W.1.2373; BJ 311043/I; Kr BCz 24047; Tor KK 103992). 79. Psalmy Dawidowe: Przekladania X. Macieia Rybinskiego. Na melodye Psalmow Francuskich vrobione, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1616, 8° (shelf mark: BK 1426). 80. Psalmy Monarchi y Proroka S. Dawida: Przekladania X. Macieja Rybinskiego. Znowu Przeyzrzane y Wydrukowane, Torun´: Augustyn Ferber, 1617, 4° (shelf mark: Kr BCz 24075). 81. Psalmy Monarchi y Proroka S. Dawida: Przekładania X. Macieja Rybinskiego. Znowu Przeyzrzane y Wydrukowane, Torun´: Augustyn Ferber, 1618, 12° (shelf marks: Kr BCz 24662; Wr BU 372669). 82. Psalmy Dawidowe, z Hymnami. Piesni Duchowne. Katechizm Mnieyszy y Vvietszy. Z składami davvnemi VViary Katolickiey: MODLITW OSOBLIWYCH STO. Z wielka˛ pilnos´c´ia˛ / y potrzebna˛ wydane / na cze˛s´c´ y chwałe˛ Boga w Troycy jedynego / a na poz˙ytek kos´c´ioła powszechnego Apostolskiego / na Panie Jezus´ie Christus´ie jedynym fundamencie Słowem Boz˙ym zbudowanego, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1619, 8° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-1425 adl.; 1426 adl.). 83. Psałterz Dawidow, Przekladania X. Macieia Rybinskiego, Na Melodie Psalmow Francuskich / z Argumentami X. Iana Turnovvskiego Superintendenta Wielgop: uczyniony. Teraz znowu na z˙a˛danie wiela ludzi poboz˙nych / poprawiony / y przedrukowany : z przydaniem na kon´cu kilku Pies´ni naboz˙nych, Raków: [Sebastian Sternacki], 1624, 8° (shelf mark: BK 12264). 84. Psalmy Dawidowe Przekładania X. Mac´ieja Rybinskiego, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1628, 24° (shelf mark: Wr BU 541298). 85. Psalmy Dawidowe Przekładania X. Mac´ieja Rybinskiego, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, [1632], 8° (shelf marks: BJ 311274 adl.; BK 1748; Kr BCz 24128; ZNiO XVII4330; Wr BU 328624 adl.; St WLB B poln. 163201 adl.). 86. Psalmy Dawidowe Przekładania X. Mac´ieja Rybinskiego, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, [1636], 24° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVII-2298; St WLB 3228005 adl.).

Reprint of the Psalter from the Gdan´sk Bible (the Gdan´sk Psalter) 87. Psalmy Dawidowe Cum Gratia et Privilegio S. R. Majest. Polon. et Sveciæ, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1633, 24° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-2577).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

85

Small Biblical Prints (in canonical order): Single biblical books (except the Book of Psalms), collections of biblical books, fragments and anthologies of biblical texts The Creation of Heaven and Earth Story, translated by Krzysztof Pussman (fragments of Gen and Sir) 88. [Histhoria barzo cudna…, Kraków], 1543, [8°] (lost). 89. Histhoria barzo cudna y ku wiedzieniu potrzebna o stworzeniu nieba y ziemie y innych wszytkich rzecz˙y ktore y z˙ywa˛ na swiecie / y iako potym pan Bog cz˙lowieka to iest Jadama y Jewe˛ s kosc´i iego stworzył / a iako z˙ywota swego na tym swiecie dokonali etc. Theraz nowo na Polskie s pilnoscia˛ wyłoz˙ona, Kraków: Hieronim Szarfenberg, 1551, 8° (shelf mark: BK Cim.450). 90. [Historya barzo cudna…, Kraków, after 1551?], 8° (shelf mark: BJ Cim.769).

The Joseph Patriarch Story… 91. Jstorya o swie˛thym Jozefye Patryarsse starego zakonu ktorego byli bracya zaprzedali, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1530, 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.103; BK Cim.O.300). 92. [Istoria o Swietym Jozefie Patriarsze starego zakonu którego byli bracia zaprzedali, Kraków: Officina Ungleriana, 1540, 8°] (lost).

Tobias Patriarch of the Old Testament 93. Tobias Patriarcha starego zakonu z łaczinskiego ie˛zika na polski / nowo a pilnie przełoz˙ony, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1539, 8° (shelf marks: BK Cim.O.118; Kr BCz Cim.1127/I; Tor UMK Pol.6.II.1937). 94. Tobiasz z łacinskiego ie˛zyka na polski przełoz˙ony, Kraków: Officina Ungleriana, 1540, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.1016). 95. Tobiasz z łacinskiego ie˛zyka na Polski przełoz˙ony, Kraków: Marek Scharfenberg, 1545, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.660).

Tobias translated by Wojciech Ulatowski 96. TOBIASZ Z pisma s´wie˛tego wyie˛ty, Polskim wierszem napisany. Przez X. WOYCIECHA VLATOWSKIEGO, Braciey Pustelnikow porza˛dku S. Pawła pierwszego pustelnika, Konwentu Czestochowskiego. Z dozwoleniem Starszych, Kraków: Szymon Kempini, 1615, 4° (shelf marks: Kr PAN St.dr.13436; Kr BCz 37689/I).

The Book of Job, translated by Jakub Lubelczyk 97. [Joba onego sprawiedliwego me˛z˙a cierpliwos´c´ y wiara, nowo po polsku przełoz˙ona, z ksia˛g pisma Boz˙ego wyie˛ta, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta, 1559, ?°] (lost).

86

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Editions of single psalms or collections of psalms (in chronological order):

98. Pros´ba o ducha Swie˛tego. Druga pies´n o S. Duchu. Veni creator Spiritus. etcet. I Psalm xlvi., without place and year of printing, 8° (shelf mark: Kr BCz 1626 I adl.). 99. Psalm Dawidow Xiij. z notami / z łac´in´skyego ye˛zyka na Polski przełoz˙ony. B. W[ojewódka], Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1546, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.96 adl.). 100. Pies´n przy pogrzebie Człowieka krzescijan´skiego. Przyłoz˙on tez˙ iest Psalm Pierwssy. Beatus vir qui non abijt in consilio impiorum. &c., trasl. [Andrzej Trzecieski], [Kraków]: Łazarz Andrysowic, 1556, 8° (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim.1631/I adl.). 101. Psalm DAWIDOW LXXXV. Inclina DOmine aurem tuam. &c. M. R[ej]., Kraków: Łazarz Andrysowic, [after 1550 or about 1556], 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.846). 102. [Psalm XIII (Rzekł niema˛dri w ser. swoim)], [transl. Bernard Wojewódka], Kraków: Łazarz Andrysowic, [about 1556], 8° (shelf mark: BJ Cim.O.513). 103. Psalm CXXVII. Beati omnes qui timent Dominum. &c. B. W.[ojewódka], Kraków: Łazarz Andrysowic, [about 1556], 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.936). 104. Piesn przy pogrzebie Cz˙łowieka Krzescianskiego. Przyłoz˙on tesz iest Psalm pierwssy. Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, &c., [transl. Andrzej Trzecieski], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, [about 1558–1561], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.285 adl.). 105. Psalm. XXXVI. Noli æmulari in malignantibus, neque zelaueris facientes iniquitatem. Ku poc´iesse cz˙łowieka Krz˙escianskiego / wiernie przy Panu swym trwaia˛cego. Po Polsku uczyniony. J. L.[ubelczyk], [Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.281 adl.). 106. PSALM XLV. DEVS NOSTER REFVGIVM. Ktorym sobie koscioł swie˛thy mysl dobra˛ czyni / w ninieissym porusseniu. AP, Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.276 adl.). 107. Psalm Dawidow L. Miserere mei deus secundum magnam misericordiam tuam &c. B. V.[ojewódka], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.280 adl.). 108. Psalm Dawidow Lxx. In te domine speraui &c. S.[tanisław] K.[leryka], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.277 adl.). 109. Psalm Lxxix. DEVS, venerunt gentes in hæreditatem tuam, polluerunt templum sanctum tuum: posuerunt Ierusalem in pomorum custodiam. &c. Po polsku ku spiewaniu przełoz˙ony. Jak.[ub] Lub.[elczyk], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.282 adl.). 110. [Psalm LXXXV. Inclina Domine aurem tuam &c. M. R[ej], [Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.273 adl.). 111. Psalm Dawidow C.ij. z łac´inskiego ie˛zyka na Polski ku spiewaniu Przełoz˙ony, [transl. B. Wojewódka], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.279 adl.). 112. Psalm Dawidow. CXIII. Jn exitu Jsrael de Egipto. M. R.[ej], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, [ok. 1558], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.272 adl.). 113. Psalm Dawidow. C.XVI. Laudate DOMInum omnes gentes. &c., [transl. Mikołaj Rej], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.274 adl.). 114. Pies´n o zmartwychwstaniu Pan´skim. W kthorey sie zamyka sposob usprawiedliwienia naszego. Przydany iest ktemu Psalm cxxiij, Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, [about 1558–1561], 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.263 adl.). 115. Psalm Dawidow. CXXVII. Beati omnes qui timent Dominum. &c. B. W.[ojewódka], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.275 adl.).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

87

116. Psalm. Cxxix. De profundis clamaui ad te Domine, [transl. B. Wojewódka], Kraków: Mateusz Siebeneicher, 1558, 8° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.278 adl.). 117. Psalm Dawidow / CXIII. In exitu Israel de Egipto. M. R.[ej], Kraków: Stanisław Szarfenberg, [after 1565, about 1573?], 8° (shelf mark: Wa BU Sd. 618.64). 118. SIEDM PSALMOW POKVTNYCH JANA KOCHANOWSKIEGO. Cum Gratia et Priuilegio S. R. M., Kraków: Officina Lazari, 1579, 4° (shelf mark: BK Cim.Qu.2249). 119. [Siedem psalmów pokutnych translated by M. Rej, Kraków, before 1547, 4° lub 8°] (lost). 120. Niektore Psalmy Dawidowe Cz˙e˛sc´ia˛ Poprawione Cz˙e˛sc´ia˛ z nowv przelozone Na Stare Noty. Od Salomona Rysinskiego. za zleceniem starszych, Lubcz nad Niemnem (Lubecae Lithvanorum; Lubcz-on-the-Niemen): Piotr Blast, 1614, 4° (shelf mark: Tor KK TN 23017 adl.).

Proverbiorum Salomonis, translated by Józef Domaniewski 121. PROVERBIORUM SALOMONIS: versio Poëtica. Iosephi Domanevii, Lubcz nad Niemnem (Lubecae Lithvanorum; Lubcz-on-the-Niemen): Piotr Blast Kmita, 1623, 4° (shelf mark: Tor KK TN 23018 adl.). ´ I SALOMONOWE: Przekładania Iozefa Domaniewskiego, Lubcz 122. PRZYPOWIES´C nad Niemnem (Lubecae Lithvanorum; Lubcz-on-the-Niemen): Piotr Blast Kmita, 1623, 4° (shelf mark: BN XVII 3.5840).

Ecclesiastes, translated by Hieronim of Wielun´ 123. ECCLESIASTES Xyegi Salomonowe / ktore polskim wykładem kaznodz´ieyskye myanuiemy. Bowyem ten kaznodz´ieyca Salomon ma˛dry / przez ninieysse xie˛gi naucza nas wzgardz´yc´ ten s´wiat marny. Gdz´ie wie˛c iesli pilnie przeczytac´ be˛dz´yemy / nyemały poz˙ytek y pociessenie nasse wez´miemy, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1522, 4° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2891).

Ecclesiastes, translated by Jan of Sanok 124. ECCLESIASTES Ks´ie˛gi Salomona Krola Jzrahelskiego / Po Polsku Kaznodzieyskie nazwane, [Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk], 1590, 4° (shelf mark: BK Cim.2490).

The Book of Jesus son of Sirach…, translated by Piotr of Poznan´ 125. Kxiegi Jesusa Syna Syrachowego / Ecclesiasticus rzeczone / ktore wssytkich cnot nauke zamykaia˛ w sobie, [Kraków: Florian Ungler?, 1535], 8° (shelf mark: Up BU 55.XI.136). 126. Xiegi Jesusa Syna Syrachowego Eklesiastycus: rzeczone: ktore wssytkich cnot nauke zamykaia wsobie, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, 1541, 8° (shelf mark: Wr BU 328626; ZNiO XVI.O.632).

88

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Anthologies of the New Testament’s texts, translated by Jakub Wujek:

127. EWANGELIE Y EPISTOLY tak Niedz´ielne iako y Swia˛t wszytkich / ktore w Kos´c´iele Katholickim według Rzymskiego porza˛dku przez cały rok czytaia˛. Przez D. IAKVBA WVYKA Societatis IESV przełoz˙one. Przydane sa˛ y Modlitwy Kos´c´ielne na kaz˙da˛ Niedziele˛ y na kaz˙de Swie˛to, Kraków: [Andrzej Piotrkowczyk], 1593, 12° (shelf mark: BJ Cim.995; 996). 128. —, 1611, 16° (shelf mark: Wa BU; see E XXXIII, p. 384). 129. —, 1616, 4° (lost; see E XXXIII, p. 384). 130. —, 1617, 16° (shelf mark: Wa BU; see E XXXIII, p. 384). 131. Ewangelie Y Epistoly tak Niedzielne iako y wszytkich Swia˛t, ktore w Kos´c´iele Katholickim, według Rzymskiego porza˛dku przez cały rok czytaia˛. Przez D. Jakvba Wvyka Sociatatis Iezu, przełoz˙one. Przydane sa˛ Modlitwy Kos´c´ielne na kaz˙da˛ Niedz´iele˛ y na kaz˙de Swie˛to, Kraków: [Andrzej Piotrkowczyk], 1626, 12° (shelf mark: BJ 37376 adl.). 132. EWANGELIE Y EPISTOŁY na dni Postne powszednie, y na niektore inne Swie˛ta, w pierwszey Postylce opuszczone. Przez D. JAKUBA WVYKA Societatis IESV, przełoz˙one. Przydane sa˛ Modlitw[y Ko]s´cielne na Swie˛ta y…, Kraków: [Andrzej Piotrkowczyk], 1626, 12° (shelf mark: BJ 37377 adl.). 133. Ewangelie y Epistoły na dni postne powszednie, y na niektore inne s´wie˛ta w pierwszey Postylce opuszczone, przez D. JAKUBA WVYKA S. J. przełoz˙one. Przydane sa˛ y modlitwy kos´cielne na s´wie˛ta i dni powszednie, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1636, 12° (lost; see E XXXIII, 384–385). 134. ZYWOT Y NAVKA PANA NASZEGO IESV CHRISTA. Albo EWANGELIA ZE CZTERECH IEDNA. Na sto y pie˛c´dz´ies´ia˛t Rozdz´iałow z Modlitwami porza˛dnie rozłoz˙ona. Kaz˙demu Krzes´c´ianinowi ku ustawicznemu rozczytaniu y rozmys´laniu nie tylko barzo poz˙yteczna / ale y potrzebna. Nowo zebrana y wydana przez D. Jakuba Wuyka Theologa Societ. IESV, Kraków: Jakub Siebeneicher, 1597, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.490).

The Ungler’s Evangeliary (fragments of the Gospels and Pentateuch) 135. [So called The Ungler’s Evangeliary, Jan of Sa˛cz (Sandecki-Malecki) (ed.), Kraków: Florian Ungler, 1527/1528], 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.863).

The beginning of the Gospel according to St John 136. POCZAVTEK SWIÆTE EVANIELIE podług swiætegho Iaana, in: Septem canonice epistole beatorum apostolorum Jacobi. Petri. Joannis et iude, [Kraków: Jan Haller, 1518/ 1519], folio 18v (D6v), 4° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.Qu.3064).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

89

The Biblical Commentaries (in chronological order): On Ps 50 137. Psalm dauidow piecdziesty / ktory sie˛ pocz˙yna Smiłuy sie na demna˛ boz˙e / według prawey historiey iego. Od chwalebnego biskupa Carpentorackiego wyłoz˙ony a zwykładu iego y wyrozumienia ynnich doktorow swie˛tych na polski ie˛zyk spilnoscia˛ przełoz˙ony, Kraków: Florian Ungler, 1531, 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.19; ZNiO XVI.O.494).

Hozeasz [Book of the prophet Hosea], ed. by Mikołaj Rej 138. Kommentharz / albo wykład na Proroczthwo Hozeasza Proroka / ktorego pisma / ku dzisieyszym cz˙asom ostatecz˙nym / własnie sie przydac´ a przytrefic´ moga˛. Teraz nowo po Polsku ucz˙yniony, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk) [in fact: Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta], 1559, 4° (shelf marks: Kr BCz Cim.830/II; ZNiO XVI.Qu.1651; 1652). 138a. Hozeasz Prorok Z wykładem zacnego Me˛z˙a a Doktora w pismie swie˛tym przedniego / zebranym jak go zindeksowac´? Ktorego Proroka pisma / ku dzisieyszym cz˙asom ostatecz˙nym własnie sie przydac´ a przytrefic´ moga˛. Z Lac´in´skiego na Polski ie˛zyk przełoz˙ony / y nad pirwsze wydanie pilniey przezrzany / y teraz nowo wyrobiony. Pełny poboz˙nych a Krzes´c´ian´skich nauk / y pociech zbawiennych. Przednieysze a zacnieysze mieysca / ze wszytkiego Proroctwa Hozeaszowego / dla łatwieyszey pamie˛c´i / krociuchno zebrane / na kon´cu znaydziesz, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk) [in fact: Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta], 1559/1567, 4° (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim.1403/II).

Apocalypsis, ed. by Mikołaj Rej 139. Apocalypsis. To iest. Dziwna sprawa skrytych taiemnic Pan´skich / ktore Janowi swie˛temu / gdy był wygnan prze wyznanie wiary swie˛tey na wysep kthory zwano Patmos / przez widzenia y przez Anyoły rozlicz˙nie zwiastowane były, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta, 1565, 4° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.4633; ZNiO XVI.Qu.2087; Tor KK 103991 (L.4° 86)).

Commentaries on the Gospels, by Tomasz Falconius 140. Sprawy y słowa Jezusa Krystusa Syna Boz˙ego / ku wieczney poc´iesze wybranym Boz˙ym napisane przez ´swiadki y pisarze na tho od Boga zrza˛dz˙one / a tu wykłady krotkiemi sa˛ obias´nione, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk): [Cyprian Bazylik], 1566, 2° (shelf marks: Kr BCz Cim.787/III adl.; ZNiO XVI.F.4098 adl.).

Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, by Tomasz Falconius 141. Wtore ksie˛gi Lukasza s´wie˛tego / ktorych napis iest / Dz´ieie abo Sprawy Apostolskie / krotkiemi wykłady obias´nione, Brzes´c´ Litewski (Brest-Litovsk): [Cyprian Bazylik], 1566, 2° (shelf marks: Kr BCz Cim.788/III adl.; ZNiO F.4099 adl.).

90

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Commentary on John 1, by Walenty Szmalc 142. Krotki wykład na poczontek Ewanieliey Iana S´wie˛tego, Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1607, 4° (lost; see A. Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1974, 276, no. 230). 143. Krotki wykład na poczontek Ewanieliey Iana S´wie˛tego, Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1613, 4° (lost: see A. Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1974, 276, no. 231).

Prints left as summaries: Fragments of the New Testament (Matt 1–3), translated by Jan Sandecki-Malecki 144. Nowy Testament z przełoz˙enia Erasma Roterodamskiego w ye˛zik Polski prawie a własnemi słowy s wielka˛ pilnoscia˛ przełoz˙ony, Lyccae (Ełk): Joannes Maletius, 1552, 8° (shelf marks: University Library in Lviv 188616 II; old catalogue number of University Library in Warsaw: Wa BU 28.2.4.5; the print consists of four leaves and comprises Mt 1– 4).

Reprints of the New Testament from the Brest Bible (Nüremberg: Elias Hutter, 1599) 145. NOVVM TESTAMENTVM DNI: NRI: IESV CHRISTI. Syrice, Ebraice, Græce, Latine, Germanice, Bohemice, Italice, Hispenice, Gallice, Anglice, Danice, Polonice. Studio et Labore ELIÆ. HVTTERI. Germani, 2 vol., Noribergae: Elias Hutter, 1599–1600, 2° (shelf marks: Wr BU 370964; 401897 I–II; 435063; ZNiO XVI.F.4331). 146. SANCTVS MATTHÆVS, Syrice, Ebraice, Græce, Latine, Germanice, Bohemice, Italice, Hispanice, Gallice, Anglice, Danice, Polonice. Ex Dispositione & Adornatione, Noribergae: Elias Hutter, 1599, 4°. SANCTVS MARCVS, Syrice, Ebraice, Græce, Latine, Germanice, Bohemice, Italice, Hispanice, Gallice, Anglice, Danice, Polonice. Ex Dispositione & Adornatione, Noribergae: Elias Hutter, 1599, 4° (shelf mark: BJ Cim.Qu.5641).

Polish “Hortulus animae” with biblical fragments 147. [Hortulus animae, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, about 1527], 8° (shelf marks: BJ Cim.217; 1556). 148. [Hortulus animae, Kraków: Hieronim Wietor, about 1530], 8° (shelf mark: BJ Cim.218). 149. [Hortulus animae, Kraków: Mikołaj Scharffenberger, after 1585], 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.737). 150. [Hortulus animae], Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1636, 8° (shelf mark: BJ 311160/I).

Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance

91

Cantionals containing the psalms (some examples) 151. Cantional Albo Ksiegy chwał Boskych / to iest Piesni Duchowne…, transl. from Czech Walenty of Brzozów, Królewiec (Königsberg): Aleksander Augezdecki, 1554, 2° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.4047; Gd PAN 1791/64). 152. CANTIONAL, Albo: Pies´ni Duchowne / z Słowa Bozego słoz˙one: dla Chwały iedynego Pana Boga, w Troycy Błogosławioney, y poz˙ytku Koscioła Krzes´c´ian´skiego, w Je˛zyku Polskim zas´ odnowione, obyas´nione, a Wydrukowane, transl. from Chech Walenty of Brzozów, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta, 1569, 4° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2131; Kr BCz Cim.1564 I). 153. CANTIONAL: ALBO Piesni Duchowne / z Pisma S. ku cz˙c´i a chwale samemu P. Bogu w Troycy iedynemu: Y tez˙ pomnoz˙eniu kos´c´ioła iego s´. porza˛dkiem dobrym a staroz˙ytnym sporza˛dzone. Z wie˛tsza˛ pilnos´c´ia˛ niz˙ przed tym wyrobione / z przydaniem Pies´ni niektorych / y Psalmow nowotnych, Torun´: Melchior Nering, 1587, 8° (shelf mark: Kr BCz Cim.1579 I). 154. Psalmy. — Pies´ni, [Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1610], 12° (shelf mark: Cluj U R. 1863 adl.). 155. CANTIOAL PIESNI DUCHOWNYCH, Hymnów y Psalmow Swie˛tych / NA WIECZNA WIELKIEGO BOGA, OICA, SYNA, Y DUCHA SWIETEGO CHWALE: A JEDNOTY PRAWOWIERNEGO KOSCIOLA BOZEGO POZYTEK POSPOLITY, Torun´: Augustyn Ferber, 1611, 4° (shelf mark: Kr BCz 24011 II). 156. Psalmy. — Pies´ni, [Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, between 1614 and 1620], 12° (shelf mark: Cluj U R.1851 adl.). 157. PIESNI DUCHOWNE Według porza˛dku Wyznania wiarey powszechnej krzes´c´ian´skiej…, Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1619, 8° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVII-1426 adl.). 158. Cantional, to iest: Pies´ni Krzes´c´ian´skie: ku Chwale Boga w Troycy Jedynego / y pociesze Wiernych Jego: porza˛dkiem nie tylko słusznym / ale tez˙ z pilnos´c´ia˛ wielka˛ / nad pierwsze wydania / nie bez Correctury znacz˙ney / wypuszcz˙one. Z Przydatkiem Psalmow y Piosneczek teraz nowo zebranych: wie˛c y Modlitw niemało, Torun´: Augustyn Ferber, 1620, 8° (shelf marks: Kr BCz 24594 I; BK 11351; ZNiO XVI.O.948; Gd PAN XX B o 379; 204/54). 159. PSALMY DAWIDOWE Z Evvangelia˛ Pana Christusovva˛ zgodne. Do ktorych sa˛ przyła˛czone PIESNI pobozne, z Pism Svvie˛tych vvzie˛te, Raków: Sebastian Sternacki, 1620, 32° (shelf mark: BN XVII.1.499). 160. PSALMY Niektore Krola Dawida, Proroka Boz˙ego, z Ewanielia˛ Pana Christusowa˛ zgodne. Do ktorych sa˛ przyła˛czone Piesni poboz˙ne, z Pism s´wie˛tych wz´ie˛te, [Raków]: Sebastian Sternacki, 1625, 12° (shelf marks: BK 118; Cluj U R.1865).

Studies Buzzetti, Carlo/Bravi, Giulio Orazio (1992), Edizioni della Bibbia versioni nelle lingue parlate con particolare riferimento all’Italia, in: Rinaldo Fabris (ed.), La Bibbia nell’epoca moderna e contemporanea (La Bibbia nella storia), Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 23–41.

92

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1974), Arian´skie oficyny wydawnicze Rodeckiego i Sternackiego: dzieje i bibliografia. Imprimeurs des antitrinitaires polonais Rodecki et Sternacki : histoire et bibliographie, Wrocław/Genève: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich/Droz. Kossowska, Maria (1968), Biblia w je˛zyku polskim, vol. 1, Poznan´: Ksie˛garnia s´w. Wojciecha. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2015), Hebraica veritas in the Brest Bible, RRR 17, no. 1, 44–62. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2016), Biblia Polonorum. Historia Biblii w je˛zyku polskim, vol. 1: Od pocza˛tku do 1638 roku, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Pallotinum.

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content in the Oldest Polish Printed Bible Translation

As observed by Maria Kossowska, the followers of each religious denomination were united in their ambition to have their own Bible translation “confessionally marked” through individualized comments, published always with a “layout tailored for the denomination”. Its objective was not only to be “the help on the way to God but also […] a necessary and well-functioning weapon against a denominational enemy” (Kossowska: 1968, 151). The title pages are still a part of a less discussed elements of the so-called “book’s architechtonics”, although they are a very valuable and significant source of knowledge about the given printed matter (Socha: 2011, 109. Cf. Komza: 1978; Juda: 2002, 77). They should be understood as “a sort of an intermediary between the book and its recipient” (Komza: 1978, 52), because they were functioning as “a book’s advertisement” (Komza: 1978, 51, 58; Juda: 2002, 68; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 364; Socha: 2011, 109), and sometimes they functioned as a synthesis of the whole printed matter (Komza: 1978, 58). The analysis of merely the title cards of the Bible editions published during the golden age of the Polish print proves that they reflected “the diversity and variability of religious and social beliefs” of the then Republic of Poland (Kossowska:1968, 90f). By magnificently presenting the title of the work they simultaneously announced its content, brought forward the translator, the method and the basis of translation works. Frequently they also specified the function and objective of the work at the same time certifying its confessional provenience (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 354)1.

1 See also the text of this author in this volume, p. 59–91 [editor’s note].

94

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

1.

The Leopolita Bible (1561, 2nd edition 1575, title edition 1577)

The title is positioned in the center of the title page of the Bible published in 1561 in the publishing house of the Scharffenbergs and it is surrounded by three levels of woodcut illustrations on biblical subjects2 (fig. 1). At the bottom of the page there are three small engravings filling the width of the page presenting scenes from Jesus’ life: the Adoration of the Shepherds (on the left)3, the Baptism at the River Jordan as well as the Last Supper (on the right)4. The last engraving contains the signature “IB” and the date 1560 visible at the feet of Judas seating opposite Jesus, on the left hand side of the observer. Next to the title there are two full-figure representations: of Jesus as the Good Shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders (on the left) and Moses holding the Tables of the Law in his right hand (opposite). At the top of both woodcuts, inscribed in ornamental cartouches, there is a verse from the Gospel of John in the Vulgate version “Gra¯ et. veritas p·Je// su Chru˜m facta est” (over the figure of Jesus), “Lex per Moy// sen data est” (over the figure of Moses, John 1:17). The composition is completed by the woodcut filling the width of the page presenting the allegory of the Law and the Gospel5. The composition is traditionally divided down the center by a tree – on the one side barren, on the other side blooming – with a naked man sitting underneath it. On the barren side of the tree symbolizing the World of the Law there is the Prophet Isaiah, behind him there are other typical elements of the panel: the scene of the Original Sin, the Death’s sarcophagus, and further in the background the scene of the elevation of the bronze serpent as well as the scene where Moses is given the Tables of the Law. 2 Biblia: Printed by the Szarffenberger 1561. On the history of its translation see Kossowska: 1968, 199–224; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 215–231; Kwilecka: 2003a, 29–38; Kwilecka: 2003b, 129; Kwilecka: 2003d, 201. On the subject of title pages of all Leopolita’s Bible editions see also Socha: 2011, 114ff. 3 The same engraving appears as an illustration in Luke 2, p. 489. In its background two events are presented simultaneously: the shepherds receiving Good News and their travel to the Bethlehem crib. 4 The same engraving appears again as an illustration to the Gospel of St. Matthew. 5 Klaudia Socha wrote that “On many 16th century Bible title pages the main composition motif on which the whole page is based is a representation of a tree.” (Socha: 2011, 111). However, in reality those pages do not present a tree but are the representations of Law and Gospel panel. Although very often it was designed on the whole surface of the page, there are examples of its positioning as one of smaller illustrations as in the case of the Leopolita Bible. A similar approach is presented in the French Bible of Lefèvre d’Etaples from 1530. Illustration available at https://oratoiredulouvre.fr/patrimoine/plan-17–construction.php [accessed on 07. 04. 2016]. On the subject of Law and Gospel panel, its origins, rules of composition and ideological undertones of two of its types see e. g. Andersson: 1981; Amon: 1994; Badstübner: 2003; Ehresmann: 1967; Fleck: 2010; Foerster: 1909; Koepplin: 2006; Koerner: 2008; Lagaude: 2010: Noble: 2009, 27–66; Ohly: 1985; Pettegree: 2000; Poscharsky: 2015; Reinitzer: 2006; Schulze: 2004; Thulin: 1955; Weimer: 1996; Weimer: 1999.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

95

Illustration 1: The Leopolita Bible 1561, title page. Reproduced courtesy of Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4065.

96

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

On the other side of the picture we see John the Baptist with his right hand on the shoulder of the naked man and pointing with his left hand (similarly to the Prophet Isaiah) to the crucified Christ. In the right hand corner of this woodcut there is the figure of Christ trampling the devil with the empty grave in the background, behind him there is the Lamb of God carrying the resurrection vexillum. At the top of the picture we can see Christ Emmanuel descending from heaven with the cross on his shoulders to Mary standing on the top of a hill with the Shepherds Receiving Good News in the background. The reverse of the title page contains the portrait of Sigismund II Augustus, king of Poland, to whom the Bible was dedicated, with an elaborately decorated architectonical frame6 (fig. 2). The royal portrait is framed by a heraldic representation of Poland and Lithuania. On the sides of the portrait there are putti holding the royal insignia and above them there are two representations: of Faith holding a cup in her right hand and supporting the crown with heraldic symbols with her left hand, and of Charity with a little baby in her arms. At the bottom there are two lions standing on their hind legs holding the inscription panel with the royal coat of arms7. On the entablature above the royal portrait there is a signature “CS” and the date “1561” (Muczkowski: 1845, 33; Chojecka: 1978, 189ff; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 227), on the basis of which the authorship of the royal portrait on the back of the title page is attributed to Kryspin Scharffenberg8. The title page of the New Testament presents a motive of the Tree of Jesse9 (fig. 3), and the typical Wittenberg workshop style clearly indicates the patterns 6 Due to the character of this article whose objective is to understand the role of the title page as the denominational testimony of the printed matter, the most attention is paid to an obverse of each title page. Their reverses, title pages of the New Testament, the Book of Psalms or their next editions (in case of the Leopolita Bible) shall be anyhow mentioned to familiarize the reader with them and to assure the possibility of comprehensive overview of the title pages under this research. 7 The inscription panel reads: “SIGISMVNDVS AVGVSTVS DEI// GRATIA; REX POLONIAE, MA// gnus Dux Lithuaniae, Ruβiae, Prussiae, Pomeraniae. Sama// gitiae ac Mazouiae, et c. Dominus et Haeres// Anno Do: MDLXI. AEtatis XXXXI.” 8 Chojecka supposes that the portrait of the king staying since 1551 in Wroclaw could have been completed by the artist at the Cracow publishing house commission (Chojecka: 1978, 190f.). Cf. Pietkiewicz: 2002, 227. 9 On the axis of the title there is a representation of Baby Jesus with a cross in his hand, with his right hand raised in blessing. Over his head there is the Holy Spirit in a form of a dove and on the sides – the symbols of four Evangelists. The engraving is signed with the monogram “ES” and a poorly visible date. This engraving was made from the same printing plate as the title page of the New Testament of the Czech Bible published in 1537, Biblij Czˇeská: 1537. Both in the Czech Bible and the Scharffenberg edition from 1577 are signed with ES monogram and poorly visible, due to the wear of the printing plate, already on the Cracow title page date 1528. The same printing plate was used for the title page of the New Testament in the Scharffenberg Bible from 1575 and 1577; Cf. Biblia: Mikołaj Scharffenberger 1575; Biblia: Mikołaj Scharffenberger

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

97

Illustration 2: The Leopolita Bible 1561, the reverse of the title page. Reproduced courtesy of Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4065.

98

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 3: The Leopolita Bible 1561, title page of the New Testament. Reproduced courtesy of Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4065.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

99

used by the printers of the Cracow Bible. The research has confirmed that in the case of the Scharffenbergs print it is not only the question of inspiration with the engravings created in another art center but also the use of whole sets of woodcut blocks bought from other publishers10. In the Czech Bibles we do not find, however, the engraving illustrating the title page of the Leopolita Bible, maintained in a completely different style than the woodcut opening the New Testament or the reverse of the mentioned page11. The signature and the date 1560 incorporated in the bottom part of the page presenting the Last Supper does not preclude the fact that all woodcuts this page contains were created in the Cracow publishing house12. Two different signatures at the front and back of the page as well as a completely different way of their development indicates that the title page is the effect of work of at least two authors. Nowadays it is difficult to determine if all woodcuts on the obverse of the title page have been created by the same person. The thesis about the creation of woodcuts by a local artist seems to be supported by the analysis of the title pages of following editions of the Bible by the Scharffenberg printing house. In the 1575 edition of the Bible all known engravings from the first edition were preserved but the representations of Jesus and Moses surrounding the title were enriched by the Polish translation of the Bible quote from the top part of the composition, “Laska y prawda przez// JEzu Chrystá sta=// łá sie iest.” at the feet of Christ, and “Zakon przez Moi=//zeßa dan iest” at the feet of Moses (fig. 4–5)13.

10

11

12

13

1577. In next editions of the Czech Bible, starting from 1549, on the title page of the New Testament appears an identically positioned engraving presenting the Tree of Jesse but printed from a different printing plate, signed with the monogram GS and the date XLIX. See title page of the New Testament of Biblij Czˇeská from 1549; Biblij Czˇeská: 1549. For more on this subject see the article by Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss in this volume, p. 167–186 [editor’s note]. Cf. Tschepius: 1742, 789, Muczkowski: 1845, 26; Chojecka: 1961, 10–14; Chojecka: 1975, 107f., Pietkiewicz: 2002, 226–230. According to some researchers it were the circumstances in which the translation was performer that influenced the printer to use someone else’s engravings, not minding their denominational origins, Kossowska: 1968, 203. Muczkowski: 1845, 32f. Engravings presented in the foreground of the title page, characterized by simple hatching, difficulties in capturing movement of characters or anatomical shortcuts (with the exception of a well-captured central group of Christ’s baptism) show low artistic quality and might suggest that they were created by a local engraver. They distinctly differ from the reverse where an individualized royal portrait on a magnificent, dynamic background with diverse representations gives away the hand of an artist of superior abilities and exceptional talent. According to Kwilecka, the title page of the Leopolita Bible contains the specimen of engravings created in renowned German printing houses. However, the researcher does not specify which engravings and whose printing houses she has in mind, Kwilecka: 2003a, 34. Doubtlessly they cannot be compared with impressive engravings originating from the Cranach’s workshop which decorate each book of the Kraków edition. The reverse of the title page present the coat of arms with a dedication for Henry III de Valois, king of France (in Polish: Henryk Walezy) by Jan Pone˛towski, cf. Muczkowski: 1845, 28f.

100

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 4: The Leopolita Bible, 2nd ed. 1575, title page. Reproduced courtesy of Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4178.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

101

Illustration 5: The Leopolita Bible, 2nd ed. 1575, the reverse of the title page. Reproduced courtesy of Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4178.

102

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 6: The Leopolita Bible, title edition 1577, title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 437779.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

103

Illustration 7: The Leopolita Bible, title edition 1577, the reverse of the title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 437779.

104

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

In the frontispiece of the title edition of 1577 (fig. 6–7, dimensions 20,5 × 32,7 cm) some of the engravings were replaced by new woodcuts14. Instead of the representation of Moses next to the title, there is a representation of John the Baptist holding, in his right hand, a book on which there is a figure of the Lamb with the resurrection vexillum and pointing to the representation of Christ with his left hand. In this edition the representation of Jesus as the Good Shephard was abandoned. Above the head and at the feet of the figure, similarly to the edition of 1575, there are inscriptions of biblical verses: “Ecce§Agnus·DEI” at the top, below “Ecce qui tollit peccata mu(n)di” on John’s side and “Ego·sum·lux·mundi” as well as “Ego·sum·Via, Verit(a)s·&·Vita” at the bottom, on Jesus’ side. Below the two figures, correspondingly to previous editions, there is a composition of three smaller woodcuts. The scene of Jesus’ baptism at the River Jordan15 was placed on the right hand side, while the Last Supper scene was replaced by the representation of the Adoration of the Magi16. The comparison of the new engravings with the woodcuts from previous editions highlights the lowering of artistic quality. We can guess that the engraver, who could not match the skills of the author of woodcuts from the first edition of the Leopolita Bible, using the old engravings and imitating the style of the work tried to preserve the stylistic unity of the page. The change of the biblical quote on the woodcuts must have resulted from their adjustment to the representation of John the Baptist. The words inscribed on the side of the last of the prophets were uttered by him when pointing to Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:29), which is the source of John’s function of directing people to Jesus which is strongly stressed in the panel Law and Gospel. This corresponds to the words of the Messiah himself when he indicates to his interlocutors that He is “the light of the world” (John 8:12), “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6)17. All three versions of the title page of the Leopolita Bible present a simple and readable iconographic program based on the biblical representations and re14 The reverse of the title page (fig. 7) presents the coat of arms with a jewel surrounded by a magnificent and richly decorated frame. Below there is a dedication by a Cracow professor Jan Wielogórski for king Stefan Batory. The title page of the New Testament (32,7 × 20,5 cm) contains the same engraving of the Tree of Jesse as the previous edition prepared from the same printing plate. The reverse of the page presents the crest of the kingdom together with the jewel of the Sforzas and the dedication for queen Anne by Andrzej Trzecieski. Cf. Muczkowski: 1845, 30f. 15 The same engraving appears as an illustration to Matt 3, p. 606. 16 The change in the order of presented scenes might be dictated by the need to maintain chronological order of the events of Christ’s life. The engraving presenting the scene of the Last Supper, signed with the initials IB and the date 1560, known from the title page of the 1561 edition was used as an illustration of Matthew 26, so the replacement of the engraving cannot be explained by wear of the printing plate (cf. Biblia: Mikołaj Scharffenberger 1577, p. 622). 17 All biblical quotes after: the King James Bible, www.biblegateway.com.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

105

ferring to inspirational verses. Comparing them to subsequent translations of the Bible to Polish, especially to the second Catholic translation (the Jakub Wujek Bible), one can notice no sharp polemical character in it. As written by Pope John Paul II, in the Cracow Bible “there is (…) no place for a polemic, it is delivering the Church teaching” (John Paul II: 1988, [6]. Cf. Kwilecka: 2003a, 34), without interdenominational disputes, emphasizing the differences or manifesting beliefs. The title page of this edition is in a way the introductory chapter into the history of the Polish title pages which with time will be more and more rich in denominational content, thus designating engravings presented in the frontispieces a role of a weapon in the fight against the opponents or space for presenting the truths of the faith professed by the members of the given denominational group. The use of Law and Grace panel without any intervention allows us to presume that its content has not been determined as inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which is in a way confirmed by the text of the Summa added to this edition18. Its author when writing about the meaning of grace and faith for the salvation observes: “It is through the faith in Lord Christ, the faith which [makes a man – A.Z.] do [good – A.Z.] deeds, and shows through the results of love, [that we are – the author’s note] justified and sanctified.”19 Reprint of the Summa in the Brest Bible from 1563, as written by Rev. Rajmund Pietkiewicz confirms that “such delivery of the truths revealed in the Bible (in this case the ideas on justification) was acceptable for both Catholics and Protestants” (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 223). The example of the title page of the Leopolita Bible and subsequent editions of the Bible translations persuades us that its pictorial representation – Law and Grace panel – was interpreted in a similar way.

2.

The Brest Bible (1563)

Dedicated to Sigismund II Augustus king of Poland, the Brest Bible, also called Radziwiłł from the name of the founder or Pin´czów, the place where its translation took place, was published in 1563 in Brest-Litovsk less than two years after the Scharffenberger Bible20. As mentioned by Irena Kwilecka its creation “is 18 Summá wβystkiego Pismá swie˛=// tego/ Stárego y Nowego Zakonu/ bárzo krotko// a nadobnie zabrána. The Cracow printing house made efforts to eliminate harsh anti-Catholic overtone visible in the illustrations of the Book of Revelation adopted from the Luther Bible. About the process of removal of papal tiaras see Muczkowski: 1845, 32f; Kossowska: 1968, 218; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 230; Socha: 2011, 111; article of Krzak-Weiss in this volume, p 167–186. 19 “Przez to tedy dufanie w Pána Chrystusa y wiáre˛// która przez miłos´c´ uczynki spráwuje/ (…) a okazuie sie˛ przez skutki miłos´ci// [sprawia z˙e – the author’s note] bywamy usprawiedliwieni y pos´wie˛ceni.” Quote after Biblia: Mikołaj Scharffenberger 1577, Summa, 2v. 20 On the history of translation see Kossowska: 1968, 226; Szwejkowska: 1975, 130; Kwilecka:

106

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

strictly connected to the development of Calvinism in Poland and is a fruit of the cooperation between the Polish, French and Italians” (Kwilecka: 2003c, 217) which in my opinion has influenced not only the content but also the graphic design. The Prague version of Law and Grace panel presented on the Bible title page is inscribed in an exceptionally splendid and sophisticated architectural frame which allowed the unknown author to clearly space each element as well as to shift the significative accents, which becomes visible when compared to the Lutheran depictions of the subject, which in turn allowed the adjustment of the adopted motif for the presentation of the reformed idea of justification (fig. 8). In the bottom part of the title page, around the centrally located group consisting of the sinner sitting under the tree and the Old Testament prophets standing next to him (on the left) and John the Baptist (on the right hand side of the observer) there are other representations typical for this panel. Behind the impressive baldachins supported by composite columns we can see the devil driving a sinner into hell fire towards the death waiting for him (on the left) and the representation of the Resurrected Christ trampling the death and the devil with an empty grave in the background (on the right-hand side of the observer). In the background of the bottom part of the title page, on both sides of the tree dividing the composition into two parts we can see other scenes: the elevation of the bronze serpent (behind the group of prophets) as well as the shepherds receiving Good News (behind John the Baptist). The title is framed by two slender composite columns supporting an arch which is crowning the whole composition. Behind them there is a representation of the Original Sin (on the left, with the death’s sarcophagus in the foreground) and the Crucified Christ with the pierced side from which a large stream of blood is flowing (on the right). At the feet of the cross there is the Lamb with the resurrection vexillum. Under the semicircular arch richly decorated with flower motives and masks there are scenes of the transfer of the Tables of the Law to Moses21 and opposite – the scene presenting Christ Emmanuel’s descend from heaven, surrounded by angels, with the cross on his shoulders to Mary standing on the top of a hill with the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove flying towards her. According to some researchers the Gotha version of the panel, constructed as a diptych, corresponded to Luther’s concept of “two forms of knowledge, two Testaments. The first one – the Law gives (…) the knowledge of sin, while the Gospel redeems it.”22 It seems that the Brest Bible is based on the Prague version 2003e; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 231–239. There are three surviving iconographic variants of the title page (fig. 9): see Katalog poloników: 1992, vol. 1, 87. 21 The face of the Creator handing over the Tables of the Law is covered by clouds, similarly to the Prague panel. Cf. Reinitzer: 2006, Kat. nr 576, fig. 54. 22 “Scriptura divina peccatum nostrum tractat duobus modis, uno per legem die, altero per Euangelium dei. Haec sunt duo testamenta dei ordinata ad salutem nostram (…).” WA 1,8,

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

107

Illustration 8: The Brest Bible (Brest-Litovsk, 1563), title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 437427.

108

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 9: The Brest Bible (Brest-Litovsk, 1563), title page, the variant “B”. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Jagiellon´ska Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego w Krakowie / Jagiellonian Library of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Shelf mark: Cim. 8324.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

109

Illustration 10: The Nies´wiez˙ Bible (1572), title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Kórnicka Polska Akademia Nauk / The Kórnik Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Shelf mark: Cim.Qu.2754. 103. Cf. Weniger: 2004, 119. According to Karl Amon “the new motives of the Gotha panel fit so well to Luther’s theology and piety that it can be assumed that the reason for the evolutions from the Prague to Gotha [version – the author’s note] was Luther’s new and strong influence – through the sermons or prints.” [“Die neuen Motive des Gothaer Bildes passen so gut zu Luthers Theologie und Frömmigkeit, daß man hinter der Entwicklung von Prag zu Gotha

110

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

of the panel because due to the composition focused on the figure of the naked sinner in the center between the two worlds it presented, in a better way than its Gotha version23, the theological unity of both Testaments, underlined by Calvin, where each of them in a different way indicates (!) One God to the believers24. Despite the adoption of the Prague version of the panel, the Brest Bible title page contains also motives familiar from its second version but modified in a significant way. And thus the man sitting on the axis of the composition is accompanied by a group of the Old Testament prophets which is a familiar motif in the Gotha version of the panel25. Usually centrally located Moses with the Tables of the Law was removed from the prominent position and his place was taken by the Prophet Isaiah foretelling the chosen people the figure of the Virgin to give birth to a Son (Is 7:14), Messiah – the Lamb of God whom the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Is 53:6), who carried our sorrows (Is 53:4) and for the price of his own passion shall justify many (Is 53:11)26. In the engraving the prophet, with his extended arm, points the man sitting under the tree towards, presented on the opposite side, Christ on the cross who was foretold by his prophecy. The analogical gesture is performed by John the Baptist standing on the other side. The depiction of the group between two magnificent baldachins clearly distinguishes them from all the other scenes presented at the bottom of the page and makes it a focal point of this part of the composition. The extension of the group of prophets, which in the Prague version is limited to Isaiah, serves the strengthening of the Old Testament group. The positioning of Moses in the background of this scene results in the fact that his gesture of pointing to the Tables of the Law is not dominant for the whole group while it definitely corresponds to, reinforced by its repetition, the leitmotiv of pointing to Christ. Such depiction of the discussed group seems to refer to the third, or positive use of the Law, assumed by Jean Calvin. As emphasized by the Genevan reformer,

23 24

25

26

einen neuerlichen kräftigen Einfluß Luthers – etwa über Predigten oder Druckwerke – als Ursache vermutet darf.”] Amon: 1994, 56. See footnote 5. Calvin: 1559, 2.9.4; 2.10.2. Cf. Bünker/Friedrich: 2007, 36–39. This fragment is a summary of a more comprehensive interpretation of the page program in reference to the ideas of Martin Luther and John Calvin which I have published in Reformation & Renaissance Review, see Zdun´czyk: 2015. Here I would like to express my thanks to Dr Simon J.G. Burton (University of Warsaw, the Faculty of “Artes Liberales”) and prof. Ian Hazlett (School of Critical Studies University of Glasgow) for their help, comments and guidelines provided during my work on this article. It rarely appeared in Prague version, especially in illustrations. It sometimes appeared in epitaphs, see the epitaph of mayor Christoph Wins, 1554, St. Gertrude Church, Frankfurt/O. Reinizter: 2006, vol. 2, fig. 104, Kat. Nr. 227; Georg von Zedlitz‘ epitaph – unretained (d. 1552), Reinizter: 2006, vol. 2: fig. 107, Kat. Nr. 514; Steinborn: 1967, Kat. nr. 34, 96, fig. 24. Isaiah appeared very often next to the sinner under the tree in the Prague version of the panel, cf. Reinitzer: 2006, vol. 2.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

111

the story of Adam27 shows who a man is in a very meaningful way. It shows us the original God’s gift and the profundity of the fall into sin. The fundamental aspect of the reformist understanding of the Law and the Gospel was the fact that people belong to God who himself is providing justification28. While it is true that a Christian soul is tainted, the believers should not forget that God who performed the act of creation allowed also for his fall. Following the rule of double predestination for those whom God destined for the justification through “instilled righteousness” presented by him (“justification of the justified through active righteousness”), through God’s grace, despite sin, it is possible to deny oneself, yield your own will up to God’s and in this way to reach Communion joining a believer with Christ (Frey: 1991, vol. 1, 50–57). As it was summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism, a man is justified by God without any merit, merely as a result of God’s grace through the atonement of Christ. A man could not please God by being righteous by faith only (Olevianus/Ursinus, Catechesis Religionis Christianae: 1563, part 2, question 60 and 61). As assumed by Calvin, the third, or positive, use of the Law directs the faithful to Christ. By giving a Christian the knowledge of sin and the consciousness that it results in damnation, “it encourages a man to look upon Christ” because it is in Communion with Him that a man obtains justification29. Exactly this aspect – the act of Adam looking upon Christ through the Law (symbolized by the figures of the Old Testament prophets and the Tables held by Moses) – has been highlighted on the Brest page. The page also includes a quite significant, and rarely appearing in the Prague version30, Gotha motif of the stream of blood flowing from the Crucified Christ’s side. However, against customary representation, neither on the title engraving nor on the vignette of the subsequent pages of the Pin´czów Bible is it linked to the figure of the sinner31. The stream of blood is not flowing onto the head of the

27 The man sitting under the half-barren, half-green tree was interpreter as Adam, see Reinitzer: 2006, vol. 1, 33–36. 28 Quote Barth: 1924, in the translation of the author after: Reinizter: 2006, 39. 29 Frey: 1991, vol. 1, 50–57. Here is where the ways of reformation and reformed understanding of the question of justification of man meet. As written by Luther, a Christian “should not look upon his sins but upon Christ […] who took the sins out of our hearts and consciences and took them upon himself […]. [Say:] I have a lot of sins and good deeds but I do not look upon them, I look upon Christ himself.” [“ich meine Sünden nicht in mir, sondern in Christus ansehen soll. […] Christus hat die Sünden auf unserm Herzen und Gewissen hinweggenommen und auf sich gelegt […]. Ich habe wohl Sünden und gute Werke, ich seh sie aber nicht an, ich sehe allein Christus an.”] Luther: 1529, 354ff; cf. WA, vol. 29, 254–323. 30 See the epitaph of Georg von Zedlitz (d. 1552), where the stream of blood from the Christ’s pierced side flows on the head of the sinner under the tree, Epitaph unretained, il. in Steinborn: 1967, 96, fig. 24. 31 As it was the case in the title page of Melanchthon’s Loci Theologici from 1545 (Melanchthon: 1545, 1v.), the woodcut created in the Cranach workshop in 1529 (see illustration Koerner:

112

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

sinner sitting under the tree32 or standing under the cross33 as it is presented in the Lutheran versions of this motif because it is not its purpose to present justification by the power of faith itself, which is one of the basic principles of Lutheranism (sola fide). According to Rafał Marcin Leszczyn´ski, the saturation of the Brest Bible with the theological thought of Jean Calvin has been definitely influenced by the presence of his collaborators or followers among the people engaged in the translation works conducted in Pin´czów (Leszczyn´ski: 2003, 20f. Cf. Kwilecka: 2006, 112; Kwilecka: 2003e, 335; Kwilecka: 2003c, 218; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 234). The Genevan reformer has firstly encouraged the start of the works and later attentively followed their progress34. The analysis of the program of the Brest Bible title page and the shift of significative accents in the motif adopted from the Lutheran art allows us to conclude that his teachings have not only permeated the translation but were also presented using visual representations on the Bible’s title page. The intervention into the adopted composition by the unknown author is certainly not significant. It should be seen an evidence of the process of assimilation of the adopted motif which is optimally tailored it to the ideological content desired in the given denomination and we can see this process continuation in the title page of the next Bible translation into Polish.

3.

The Nies´wiez˙ Bible (1572)

The title page of the Bible in the translation of Szymon Budny published in Nies´wiez˙ in 1572 presents the panel of Law and Grace in its Gotha version (fig. 10). At the bottom, on the barren tree side symbolizing the world of the Law we can see a group of the Old Testament prophets. Moses, the leader of the group, directs the Tables of the Law he is holding towards the sinner who is driven by the devil and the death into hell fire shown at the edge of the page. Above we can see the scene of the Original Sin and further above Jesus Christ sitting on the globe, surrounded by a cloud gloriole with a putto blowing the trumpet. In the background there is a scene of the elevation of the bronze serpent. Opposite, on the Gospel side, other scenes are presented. At the bottom we can see the crucified Christ with the stream of blood gushing from his side onto the head of the sinner 2008, il. 93) or the central panel of the altarpiece from St. Peter and Paul Church in Weimar (Poscharsky: 2015, 274–295). 32 See the mentioned Zedlitz’ epitaph. 33 See the altarpiece by the Cranachs from Weimar. 34 This is confirmed by the correspondence between him and other Swiss theologists, Kwilecka: 2003c, 217f; Leszczyn´ski: 2003, 18–22.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

113

Illustration 11: The Luther Bible (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft 1545), title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 362120.

standing under the cross. John the Baptist accompanying the man is pointing to the figure of Jesus with his left hand and with his right hand – to the Lamb with

114

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

the resurrection vexillum. Above that scene there is the Resurrected Christ trampling the death and the devil whose head is crushed with the staff of the resurrection vexillum. At the very top there is the scene of Christ Emmanuel’s descent from heaven, who is presented as a child with a cross on his shoulders, approaching Mary standing on a mountain with shepherds receiving Good News in the background. Szymon Budny was one of the European translators who were experts on the biblical literature of those days (Kwilecka: 2003c, 226. Cf. Moszyn´ski: 2003, 41; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 253–270) and during his work he was using numerous translations of the Bible. As he assured the reader in the foreword to his translation, he paid the most attention to “[…] the admonitions of the learned men such as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Castalion, Beza and others”35 and from foreign translations of the Bible he most frequently referred to Martin Luther’s translation (Kwilecka: 2003c, 226). This Bible edition was also a source of inspiration for the title page of the Nies´wiez˙ Bible as it faithfully renders the pattern of the panel created by the Cranach’s Wittenberg workshop used, for example, on the title page of the Bible translated by Luther published in 154536 by presenting exactly the same choice of scenes composed in an identical way (fig. 11)37. Despite such clear analogies, a more detailed study of both title pages allows us to notice differences which are minor yet crucial for the meaning and denominational testimony of both works. On the title page of the Nies´wiez˙ Bible there is no scene of the Ascension (visible in the Lufft’s version in the top right hand corner) nor the representation of the damned suffering eternal tortures of hell fire visible in the Wittenberg woodcut in the scene presenting sinners driven to hell38. Taking into account the theological ideas of the author of the Nies´wiez˙ translation allows us to observe that the changes introduced to the composition

35 The translator assures that he has reviewed the Apocrypha “with diligence and made corrections where necessary on the basis of the Greek books” (Melanchthon’s edition) [“z pilnos´cia˛ przeirzał/ a wedle// Greckich ksiag (Melanchthonowego wydania) cz˙ego było// potrzeba/ poprawiłem.”] Budny: 1572, 6r. 36 Luther Bible: Hans Lufft 1545. The same engraving decorates the title page of Luther: Die Propheten 1550 [Hans Lufft]. According to Klaudia Socha the composition of the Nies´wiez˙ page refers to the Luther’s Bible published by Lufft in Wittenberg in 1562, Socha: 2011, 111. 37 Little differences in the composition of the top part of the page may result from a different manner of closing the title area: straight in Lufft’s and semicircular in the Nies´wiez˙ Bible. 38 The Wittenberg engraving features this motif, quite frequent for polemic prints as well as decorations of altarpiece in Evangelical churches, where among the damned we can find figures of a pope in a tiara and a monk. See the wing of the altarpiece from Scheenberg, the back of the predella in the city church in Wittenberg as well as the engraving by Lucas Cranach the Younger Der predigende Luther, Abendmahl der Protestanten und Höllenfahrt des katholischen Klerus, ca. 1546, il. in Schulze: 2004, 35.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

115

Illustration 12: The Jakub Wujek Bible (Kraków: Officina Lazarii 1599), frontispiece. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Warszawie / Warsaw University Library. Shelf mark: BU Sd. 612.49 (Mikr. 13460).

116

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

were designed to tailor it to the needs of the presentation of the doctrine followed by the translator39. All factions of the early Arianism agreed on the rejection of the dogma of the Holy Trinity (Ogonowski: 1991, 12. Cf. Budny: 1576b, 8; Budny: 1576c, 8f; Budny: 1576d, 9). Szymon Budny, a member of the Polish Brethren and the leader of the Lithuanian Brethren (Moszyn´ski: 2003, 41f. On the subject of Budny see Kamieniecki: 2002; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 253f), was a supporter of “a radical Unitarian doctrine called nonadorantism, […] which said that Jesus, because he was a man, should not be worshipped.”40 In Przedniejsze artykuły Budny wrote: “Christ, first promised and then given by God, is neither [according to Budny – the author’s note] another divine person nor equal to God, nor pre-existent. [He is] a man, just like other people, exceeding them only in the fact that he was conceived without sin in his mother’s womb through the Holy Spirit, he lived without sin, he was loved by God more than other people and was presented with more spiritual gifts than other pious [men]. [He was] awakened after death, endowed with immense power and made the head of all people and angels, appointed Lord and God [and] in the end placed at the right hand of God in heaven to be the judge of the living and the dead.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód trzydziesty czwarty 101ff, 102f.)41 It is through him that “God is to resurrect and judge all so that everybody receives a fair reward for their deeds, bad or good.” (Budny: 1576c, 9)42. This idea is illustrated in the Nies´wiez˙ Bible title page, repeated after the Wittenberg engraving, by the figure of Christ – the Judge descending at the end of time to, at the sound of the trumpet of God, judge all people (1 Thess 4:16). In the Nies´wiez˙ Bible the scene of the Ascension of Christ was omitted because, as Budny argued “that what is said about the ascension into heaven is a despicable fabrication.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód szesnasty, 59–65, 64)43. Christ’s words re39 The Nies´wiez˙ woodcut presents low artistic quality which suggests that it was created on the basis of a foreign pattern by a local artist who was commissioned by a person responsible for this Bible edition (possibly Budny himself) to introduce the mentioned changes. Cf. Pietkiewicz: 2002, 269. 40 The Christological ideas adopted by the Socinians were different in some aspects from the views followed by the representatives of the early Unitarianism (including Budny), for more on this subject see Ogonowski: 1991, 24f. 41 “Chrystus, którego Bóg wprzód obiecował, a potem dał, nie jest ani wtóra osoba bóstwa, ani równy Bogu, ani przedwieczny, ale człowiek tylko szczyry jako ini ludzie, tym jacy je przewyszaja˛cy, z˙e sie˛ bez grzechu w z˙ywocie u matki sprawa˛ Ducha S´. zacza˛ł, bez grzechu z˙ył, od Boga wie˛cej niz˙ ini wszytcy ludzie umiłowan i duchownymi darami nad insze zboz˙ne obdarowan, od ´smierci obudzon, władza˛ niezmierna˛ uraczon, wszem ludziom i anjołom głowa˛, Panem i Bogiem uczynion, a na ostatek po prawicy Boz˙ej na niebiesiech posadzon, a se˛dziem z˙ywym i zmarłym posatwion.” Cf. Budny: 1576a, 103–176; Budny: 1576c, 8f. 42 “Bóg ma wszystki ludzie wskresic´ i ose˛dzic´, aby kaz˙dy za uczynki swe, ba˛dz´ złe, ba˛dz´ dobre, słuszna˛ nagrode˛ odniósł.” 43 “co o wzie˛ciu do nieba mówia˛, tedy to nikczemny wymysł.”

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

117

ferring to the ascent into and the descent from heaven (John 3:13) concern, in his opinion, the necessity of rebirth. “And he begun thus: ‘[…] no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ Because it is impossible to be reborn without being humble and denying oneself, here […] Lord Christ teaches us about being humble by saying […] that ‘no one shall be exalted by God or admitted to his kingdom who has not denied himself so that he thought nothing of himself.’ Since to ascend into heaven means to be exalted by God and to descend from heaven means to humble oneself or to demean oneself and not to be proud of one’s position but as Lord Christ said elsewhere ‘to deny oneself.’” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód dziewia˛ty, 42f)44. What is more, in Budny’s opinion, it should be explained in correspondence to the story of Elijah as otherwise “it would contradict the well-known story of Elijah’s ascension into heaven and would close the road to heaven for all of us, so [those words] should be understood not else than as by analogy.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód dziewia˛ty: 42, 43)45. It seems that by the same token the scene of Christ Emmanuel’s descent from heaven should also be omitted on the Nies´wiez˙ title page. However, as Budny wrote, the verse referring to this event (John 6:38) “should not be understood literally.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód dziesia˛ty: 43–46, 44)46. As God has not promised a Spirit, an angel or a God equal to him but a Messiah who will be of Abraham’s semen, the fruit of David’s hips, “not from heaven but from brethren, from Bethlehem […] born and like us in all things (except sin). […] For those words ‘I have descended from heaven’ do not mean anything else than as if the Son of God said: ‘I have been sent by God, I have not come on my own.’” The reader has to take into account that “‘heaven’ in the Bible does not always mean the place where God and holy angels resides but also the air, as written by Moses, Yahweh rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from heaven, etc. [In this context] heaven means air from which it rains, snows, hails […]. Since it is sure that rain and other splashes do not come from heaven which is God’s capital but from the air.” One should also understand that “what is from heaven does not come from men because Christ considers those things as contrary. What is from men is not from 44 “Bo tak pocza˛ł: ‘[…] jes´li sie˛ kto nie odrodzi z wody i z Ducha, nie moz˙e wnis´c´ do królestwa Boz˙ego.’” “A iz˙ odrodzenie bez uniz˙enia a bez zaprzenia samego siebie byc´ nie moz˙e, przeto tu […] Chrystus Pan o tym to uniz˙eniu nauke˛ daje, mówia˛c: […] jakoby tak rzekł: ‘Z˙aden od Boga nie be˛dzie wywyszon ani do królestwa jego przyje˛t, chyba kto by sie˛ drzewiej uniz˙ył, a siebie by za nic miał.’ Bo do nieba wsta˛pic´ jest od Boga byc´ wywyszonym, a z nieba zste˛pic´ jest uniz˙yc´ sie˛ albo nisko o sobie rozumiec´, niehardym z godnos´ci swej byc´, a jako na inym miescu Chrystus Pan mówi: ‘zaprzec´ sie˛ siebie.’” Cf. Budny: 1576a, Dowód jedenasty, 46ff. 45 “walczyłoby z ona˛ jawna˛ historyja˛ o wsta˛pieniu Helijaszowym do nieba, nadto zamykałoby I nam wszem droge˛ do nieba, przeto nie inaczej ma byc´ rozumiane, jedno przez podobien´stwo.” 46 “nie ma byc´ prosto, jako słowa brzmia˛, rozumiane.”

118

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

heaven and what is from heaven is not from men. [Also in this context the word] “heaven” means that Jesus was not like other people but was a holy [person], pleasing to God and sent [by God].” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód dziesia˛ty: 43–46, 44f)47. It is therefore required to believe in Him in such a way “…as not to look for support [in the faith in Christ] but, through his teachings, to find God himself.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód trzydziesty wtóry, 96–100, 99).48 This is the context in which we should decipher the scene of Christ’s descent from heaven to Mary standing on a hill as well as John the Baptist’s gesture of pointing to Christ presented on the Nies´wiez˙ title page. The rejection of the motive presenting the damned suffering tortures in hell fire persuades us that the program of the Nies´wiez˙ Bible title page was undoubtedly influenced by Budny’s eschatological concept. Such modification of the adopted scene corresponds to his view that “it is a mistake what people think of souls that they live after death, suffer torments or experience delight. It is certain that when God shall resurrect and judge all people some shall be damned to eternal tortures and others designated for eternal life. […] Therefore it is clear that a soul is nothing else than man’s life, or his body, but for any souls to live after death, suffer or rejoice, it is pure rumors.” (Budny: 1576a, Dowód dwudziesty pia˛ty, 84–88, 88)49. Merczyng supposed that Budny translated the Apocrypha and the New Testament in the spirit of his nonadorantistic views. As a result, the Bible in this form was not approved for printing (Merczyng: 1913, 45–48. Cf. Pietkiewicz: 2002, 258). The character of changes to the composition adopted from the Cranachs’ workshop seems to indicate that the title page of the Bible was also prepared under Budny’s instructions50. As written by Leszek Moszyn´ski “…if one wanted 47 “nie z nieba tez˙, ale z pos´rzodku braciej, z Betlehema. […] urodzonego, nam we wszem (oprócz grzechu) podobnego. […] Bo te słowa: ‘Zsta˛piłem z nieba’ nic inego sa˛, jedno jakoby tak Syn Boz˙y powiedział: ‘Jestem od Boga posłan, nie przyszedłem sam od siebie.’” “‘niebo’ w Pis´mie S´. nie zawz˙dy sie˛ o onym miescu, gdzie Bóg osobliwie i s´wie˛ci anjołowie mieszkaja˛, rozumie, lecz tez˙ niebawem Pismo zowie powietrze, jako gdzie Mojz˙esz pisze, z˙e Jehowa spus´cił siarke˛ i ogien´ z nieba na Sodome˛ etc. Tu ‘niebo’ oto to powietrze, ska˛d deszcz, s´nieg, grad na ziemie˛ padaja˛ […]. Bo to pewna, iz˙ deszcze i ine takie pluskoty nie z nieba onego, które jest stolica˛ Boz˙a˛, ale z powietrza […] padaja˛.” “to jest z nieba, co nie jest z ludzi, bo to dwoje Chrystus za przeciwne miedzy soba˛ rzeczy ma. Co jest z ludzi, to nie jest z nieba, a co z nieba jest, to z ludzi nie jest. A tak i tu przez ‘niebo’ rozumie sie˛, iz˙ Jezus nie był jako ini ludzie, ale był s´wie˛ty, Bogu miły i od niego posłany.” 48 “…z˙eby sie˛ nie tam oprzec´, ale z˙eby przezen´, to jest przez nauke˛ jego, do samego Boga trafic´.” 49 “to bła˛d, co pospolicie ludzie rozumieja˛ o duszach, z˙eby po s´mierci z˙yły, me˛ki cierzpiały albo pociech uz˙ywały. Pewna rzecz, z˙e to az˙ naonczas be˛dzie, gdy Bóg, przez Syna swego wszystkie ludzie wzbudziwszy, osa˛dzi, gdy jedni pójda˛ w me˛ki wieczne, a drudzy do z˙ywota wiecznego. (…) A tak samo sie˛ ukazuje, z˙e dusza nic inego jest, jedno albo z˙ywot człowieczy, albo ciało jego, ale z˙eby jakie dusze po s´mierci były albo sie˛ me˛czyły lub w niebie rados´ci uz˙ywały, to szczyre sa˛ plotki.” 50 Modifications introduced in the adopted composition are fully deciphered only after the

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

119

to order Polish renaissance Bible translations according to the level of their denominational interpretation (…) than the first place, before the Catholic Jakub Wujek Bible from 1599, would belong to Budny’s translation” (Moszyn´ski: 2003, 41). A detailed analysis of changes introduced by the author of the Nies´wiez˙ title page into the pattern adopted from the Bible in Luther’s translation allows us to assess the researcher’s opinion as very accurate.

4.

The Jakub Wujek Bible (1599)

Only a couple of copies of the Bible in the translation by the Jesuit Jakub Wujek, published for the Catholic Church in 159951, with a magnificent frontispiece of a rich ideological program have survived to our times (fig. 12)52. As described by Klaudia Socha, it presented the most critical, fundamental for the Catholic faith, dogmatic content which made the title page a catechism understandable for “not only theologians but also for a less learned reader” (Socha: 2011, 117f). However, looking at this engraving, contemplating its richness and the amazing complexity of the program unfolded through numerous intertwined representations, it is difficult to share the researcher’s opinion. The comprecomparison with the original. This might be the reason why the publishers did not object the use of the composition created on the basis of the Wittenberg model. 51 The work was published after the translator’s death by the clergymen of the Society of Jesus and dedicated to Sigismund III (See dedication letter in the Wujek’s Bible: 1599, 2r–3v.). On the origins and the significance of the translation see, e. g. Kossowska: 1968; Langkammer: 1998; Chrostowski: 2000, 100–125; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 279–296; Słowin´ski: 2013. 52 Most often the preserved copies contain only the title page (fig. 13, dimensions 31,5 × 21,3 cm) with the title spread on the whole Surface of the page: BIBLIA// TO IEST// KSIE˛GI STAREGO// Y NOWEGO TESTAMENTV,// WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO// przekłádu stárègo, w kos´ciele powsze-// chnym przyie˛tego, na Polski// ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛/ przełoz˙onè,// Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO// y Gréckiégo, y z wykłádem Kátholickim, trudniey-//szych mieysc, do obrony Wiáry swie˛téy powsze-// chnéy przeciw kácérztwóm tych czásów// naleza˛cych: PRZEZ D. JAKVBA WVYKA Z Wa˛GROWCA,// THEOLOGA SOCIETATIS IESU.// Z DOZWOLENIEM STOLICE APOSTOLSKIEY,// á nakłádem Ie° m. Ks´ie˛dzá Arcybiskupá Gniéz´nien´-// skiego, etc´. wydáné.// W KRAKOWIE// W Drukárni Łázárzowéy, Roku Pánskiégo,// M. D. XC IX. The reverse of the page (fig. 14) contains the coat of arms with a jewel and a large inscription on top: “SIT DOMINVS TVVS BENEDICTVS, QVI// VOLVIT TE ORDINARE SVPER THRONVM SVVM,// REGEM DOMINI DEI TVI.” On the left: “[….] DE ET REGNA.” On the right: “INTENDE PROSPERE” Below: “QVIA DILIGIT DEVS ISRAEL, ET VVLT SERVARE// MIN AETERNVM: IDCIRCO POSVIT TE SVPER// […] REGEM, VT FACIAS IVDICIA ATQVE IVSTITIAM.// 2. Par: 9.” On the sides of the eagle in the center of the heraldic composition there i san inscription: “VIRTVS”, opposite “VNITA”. The title page of the New Testament apart from the title of the book “NOWY// TESTAMENT// PANA NASZEGO// IESVSA// CHRISTVSA” contains a decoration in the form of the flower ornament at the top and bottom. On the subject of the illustrations in this edition see Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss’ article in this volume, p. 167–186 [editor’s note].

120

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 13: The Jakub Wujek Bible (Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599), title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 437771.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

121

Illustration 14: The Jakub Wujek Bible (Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599), the reverse of the title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 437771.

122

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 15: The Gdan´sk Bible (Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeld 1632), title page. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 300313.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

123

hensive deciphering of the program’s content, created by an unknown, but surely well theologically educated author, is quite a challenge, as it was rightfully noticed by Rev. Rajmund Pietkiewicz. Its interpretation would go beyond the possibility of this summary and this frontispiece alone could become a subject of a monograph53. Each scene and figure on the title page has been marked with a letter or two, they are there to give a reader the sequence which allows them to decipher its program (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 294). This might lead to a question of whether the original woodcut was accompanied by a key which allowed a reader to unequivocally interpret each scene54. The composition of the title page consists of two parts. The representations visible in the inner rectangle are surrounded by further scenes on the edges of the illustration which serve as a frame. The page presents Biblical scenes from the Genesis and the Redemption of man, matched in pairs on both sides of the composition. They are divided on the vertical axis at the bottom by a cartouche which contains an inscription providing the place and year of the Bible edition: “W KRAKOWIE,// W DRUK: [arni] Lázárzowéy Roku// Pánskiégo, M.D.XCIX.”, and at the top by two angels. They hold in their hands the wreath of life promised by Christ to those who were faithful to him until death (Rev 2:10) and the apocalyptical symbols connected to Messiah and the final judgement: a sword and a lily (Rev 1:16; 2:16). On both sides of the composition there are eight scenes from the Genesis (on the left: three scenes completed by the scene of the Great Flood) and the redemption of man (on the right). In the top right hand corner we can see the depiction of Christ’s birth (A), opposite – the creation of man (B). The scene of the Last Supper (right, C) corresponds to the scene of the Original Sin (D). The Crucifixion (E) is juxtaposed with the scene of the first parents’ banishment from Paradise (F). At the bottom we can see the Resurrected Christ throwing death and devil into the abyss (G) and opposite the mentioned scene of the Great Flood (H)55. The described scenes are separated from the central representations by a narrow frame. On the vertical axis of the composition, below the cartouche decorated with a swirling ornament with the shortened title of the book “BIBLIA// SWIE˛TA” there is a personification of the Church as a woman in a wind53 Pietkiewicz: 2002, 294. The author of this article realizes the limitations to the comprehensive reading of the ideological meaning of the page in such a short study. By referring to it she would like to bring this fascinating work out of obscurity, bring it forward to a wide range of recipients and thus reintroduce it into the academic discourse. 54 The publishers of the Bible stressed the need for the correct understanding of the text. The translator’s comments were designed to help the readers. 55 The scenes from the external part of the composition were presented in an unchronological order as if, based on the principle of counter-figuration, the events from the New Testament corresponded to the scenes from the Old Testament, with a visible predominance of the New Testament representations.

124

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

blown robe, with long, loose hair whose head is crowned with a papal tiara (AA). Her right hand is placed on the Tables of the Decalogue (CC) and in her left hand she is holding two books of different sizes (BB). There is a triangle pedestal at her feet with two metal rings on the sides with rope tied through them and leading to figures presented on the sides of the woman. To her right there is a signaturemonogram of the artist consisting of letters LEM (or LFM)56, and next to it there is a sarcophagus of death (T) and the elevated bronze serpent (S). Behind them there is water gushing from a rock and the staff (R) with which Moses hit the rock at the instruction of Yahweh to quench the thirst of the murmuring people (Exod 17:1–7). Above we can see an altar (N) on which there is a burnt offering of a kid (Lev 6:1–6) behind which there is a visible outline of the Ark of the Covenant (M). Above there is a representation of Moses with the staff in his right hand, pointing with his left hand to the Tables of the Law which are held by the personification of the Church with her right hand. The representations of: Moses who presented the Law to the Israelites (Deut 33:4), the Tables on which it was written down, the burnt offering resulting from its provisions as well as the scenes referring to the events that took place during the exodus journey of the Israelites to the Promised Land all together illustrate the world of the Law. The sarcophagus of death presented in its foreground seems to exhibit the thought expressed by St. Paul: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:// Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.// But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.// For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:12, 14f, 17) On the frontispiece opening the Wujek Bible Christ’s divinity, denied by Szymon Budny and his fellow believers, is clearly highlighted for at the top of the central part of the composition there is a figure of God in the majesty of his glory surrounded by angels (on the left hand side of the observer) and opposite – the Son of God “who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb 1:3). On the axis of the title there is a representation of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, thus completing the illustration of the Holy Trinity, also the triangle pedestal on which the personification of the Church is standing 56 Pietkiewicz attributes the authorship of the page to Jost Amman referring to the attribution made by Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1983, 88 (see also Pietkiewicz: 2002, 293f). It is, however, contradicted by the visible signature and the artist’s date of death (1591). The page seems to be a singular work, created specifically for the Jakub Wujek Bible translation so it is difficult to assume that it was based on some previous composition.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

125

refers to the fundamental for the members of the Catholic Church faith in three divine persons (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 294). The presentation of the Holy Spirit as a dove on the axis of the title might also suggest that solely this translation of the Bible is the sacred text and is inspired by God57. On the sides of the dove there are two groups of men. In the foreground of the group on the side of the Law we can see King David with the harp and the prophet Jonah with a whale spitting water from his nostrils next to him (I). On the other side there is a group consisting most probably of the Apostles and Evangelists (K). In the foreground we can see a figure holding the writing tablet and next to him traditional symbols of evangelists Luke and John: an ox and an eagle58. On the axis of Christ, opposite Moses, there is St. Peter to whom Christ entrusted his Church and keys to the kingdom of heaven (presented in the illustration in the apostle’s right hand, Matt 16:19). His presentation in such a prominent position as well as the size of his representation must have served as an emphasis of Peter’s predominance, which was denied by the representatives of the Reformation. With his left hand Peter points to the books held by the personification of the Church. While according to the first article of the Lutheran Formula of Concord “We believe, teach and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged, is the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament alone […]”59, in the hand of Ecclesia there is also a second book. We could interpret it as the book of papal bulls, the writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church, i. e. the whole tradition cultivated by the Catholic Church, the value of which Rev. Wujek emphasized in the comments to his Bible translation60 and which was rejected by the reformers. 57 Cf. Archbishop Karnkowski’s opinion on the mistakes and heresies in heretic translations of the Bible into Polish and the consequent need for the Catholic translation, in: APPARATVS SACER: 1599, 7v–17r, 13r–v. 58 The group consists of fourteen men so it cannot be a representation of only the Twelve Apostles. 59 http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php [accessed on 06. 05. 2016]. 60 In a collection of commentaries titled “Lessons and Warnings” which served the goal of “confirming the Catholic faith” and “refuting subversive heretic teachings” Rev. Wujek often referred to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, doctors of the Church and other recognized early Christian authorities. Chrostowski: 2000, 117. Cf. Archbishop Stanisław Karnkowski in the foreword addressed to the reader stressed the importance and significance of the Vulgata but also of decrees, canons, and laws of the ordinary, local and other Synods of the Bishops (ratified by the Hole See) as well as the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Karnkowski: 1599, 4v–5r. We could contrast this representation with the scene of Luther removing papal documents (Exsurge Domine bull issued against him and decrees in the form of a bulky book) from the Church – the Lord’s Vineyard – using a rake which is presented on the central part of the altarpiece by the Cranachs’ workshop in post-Franciscan church in Salzwedel. Harasimowicz: 2015a; Harasimowicz: 2015b.

126

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Below there is a depiction of the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, in a magnificent monstrance, displayed on an altar with two burning candles (L). The presentation of the body of Christ under the form of bread, offered on the cross for the people’s sins61 opposite the Old Testament offering shows that Christ’s death brings the abolishment of the Old Covenant. As it was explained by St. Paul: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.// For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.// And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:.//” (Heb 10:1, 4, 11). The Son of God following the Father’s wish undertakes the work of redemption – “He taketh away the first [offering – the author’s note], that he may establish the second.// By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb 10:9f). The emphasis on the cult of the Eucharist using the depiction of the adoration of the Host by the faithful is quite striking – even taking into the account the apologetic character of the page. It is possible that the stress on this aspect of the Catholic doctrine is an echo of extensive disputes conducted on the subject of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar62. In front of the altar in the bottom part of the composition there is a group of kneeling adorers, among whom we can recognize the kneeling pope in a tiara holding a thurible and a group of the faithful. It is led by a king in a closed crown (P) who might be identified as Sigismund III Vasa, king of Poland, to whom the Bible was dedicated. Behind him there are other kings and laymen, paying homage to Christ. In the foreword by archbishop Stanisław Karnkowski, Sigismund III Vasa was described as a “sign of special God’s grace”, “a Christian Lord” and the defender of Catholic faith (Karnkowski 1599, 6r–6v). This special depiction of the king and the pope, kneeling together before the Blessed Sacrament, may depict a specific concept of the Church based on the power of the pope but simultaneously supported by a secular arm. It can also bring to mind the engraving decorating Quincunx by Stanisław Orzechowski from 1564. It shows the figures of the king and the pope kneeling on the sides of the personification of the Republic of Poland with the depiction of the crucified Christ over her head63. 61 The scene of Crucifixion has been positioned next to the Host placed on the altar illustrating the belief that the Body of Christ adored in monstrance is the same Body which was crucified ages ago. 62 For the approach of the representatives of the Reformed churches to the Holy Communion see Wandel: 2005; Wandel: 2014. 63 Orzechowski: 1564, 199. Cf. Górska: 2005, 185–195, 409f. In this engraving the king and Pope Pius IV were presented similarly to the frontispiece of the Bible as the adorers of the Blessed

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

127

Orzechowski’s work was published by the Cracow publishing house in Łazarz Andrysowicz’ times, whose successors published Wujek’s translation of the Bible. We can thus assume that the engraving from 1564 was familiar to the author of Wujek’s frontispiece and it could serve as an inspiration for the development of the discussed group64. Below the altar, on the axis of the monstrance, there is an enigmatic presentation of people suffering in flames (Q)65, in the opinion of some researchers an image of souls condemned to damnation or maybe even of the reformers (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 294). This image, together with accompanying representations, can be also interpreted as the picture of the purgatory fire which cleanses the souls of the deceased faithful, as it is believed by the members of the Catholic church – as opposed to the followers of the Reformed denominations. This representation may bring to mind the images of the purgatory souls appearing at the feet of the altar in the scenes depicting the Mass of Saint Gregory66. The discussed Bible translation is accompanied by an extensive commentary of Stanisław Karnkowski, archbishop of Gniezno, which corresponds to the ideological program of the page. Its author discusses in detail the numerous examples of grace granted by God to the Church – his Bride – in order to defend her against the representatives of “[…] the heretics of three main sects: / Confesionistów/ Sákrámentarzów// y Nowochrzczen´ców/ [as archbishop Karnkowski describes the Lutherans, the Calvinists and the Anabaptists] agree on one thing, which is to attack the Roman Catholic faith with all their might.” (Karnkowski: 1599, 3v.)67. The Almighty defending his Bride, personified in the fron-

64 65

66

67

Sacrament presented on the altar. Górska: 2005, 190f. On the paten covering the chalice there is the Host with the representation, similar to the one on the discussed title page, of the Crucified Christ with Mary and John standing under the cross and similar to the representation in the very same illustration – on the page of the open Missal on the altar, next to the chalice. On the title page of the Bible the representation of the Crucified Christ is replaced with the representation of the Host but with visible outline of the cross and the figures of Mary and John underneath it. The scenes presented in the central part of the composition should be read in the following order: the group of men led by David and Jonah (I), Apostles and Evangelists (K), the altar of the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (L), the Ark of Covenant (M), the offering altar (N), the figure of the pope (O) and the king (P), water from the rock, the staff (R), Bronze Serpent (S), the sarcophagus of death (T), souls in flames (Q). See, e. g. Bartholomäus Bruyn the Elder (school), Mass of Saint Gregory, ca. 1515, Bösensell, Kr. Coesfeld, Haus Alvinghof, Sammlung von und zur Mühlen. Il. in: http://gregorsmesse.unimuenster.de/objektanzeige.php?ID=33250&-skip=30¤tQuery=Show [accessed on 03. 05. 2016]. Meister der Revaler Passion, Altarpiece with Mass of Saint Gregory (Schlutuper Altar), ca. 1500. Lübeck, St. Annen-Museum. Wegmann: 2003, 269–270, Kat. 5.8 Il. “…kácerstwá trzech sekt głównieyszych/ Confesionistów/ Sákrámentarzów// y Nowochrzczen´ców/ (które – przyp. aut.) w tym zgodné sa˛, z˙e wβystkié iákoby sprzy=//s´ia˛gβy sie˛/ ná wiáre˛ S. powβechna˛ Rzymska˛/ moca˛ wβytka˛ iáda˛ y sturmuia˛.”

128

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

tispiece, has not allowed for the foundation, the rock on which he built the Christ’s Church to be disturbed. This foundation comprised of all truths of the faith, unwaveringly professed by the members of the Catholic church and questioned by the followers of different factions of the Reformed churches. It is symbolically depicted by the visual link between the scenes presenting them and the foundation on which Ecclesia is standing. The analogical motif of combining a personification of the Church with different representations on her sides appeared in the allegory of the Church by Stanislaus Hosius, the so-called Typus Ecclesia. It is connected with the person of Hosius (Chrzanowski: 1978), with whose work Confessio fidei catholicae (published in 1553 in Cracow) Rev. Wujek was undoubtedly familiar (Chrostowski: 2000, 103). Jakub Wujek in his youth familiarized himself with the works of the Reformers, inclined towards Lutheranism and could have undergone conversion – as written by Rev. Chrostowski (Chrostowski: 2000, 102. Cf. Bien´kowska: 2013, 29–40). He certainly knew the form and character of the engravings opening the Reformation writings as well as their potential and influence. It is then possible that we should identify him as the author of the ideological program of the title page. As written by Hugolin Langkammer, the main goal of his translation work was to “popularize the Bible, but in such a version that it would expose the errors of the heretics and accurately present the principles of the Catholic faith” (Langkammer: 1998, 59). The analysis of the scenes presented on the title page confirms that such was indeed the ideological function of the presented apologetic and ecclesiological program.

5.

The Gdan´sk Bible (1632)

As written by Zbigniew Nowak, in the first half of the 17th century “the character of the Polish Reformation was highly diverse. Frictions and conflicts occurred between individual denominational groups and even within the same denomination. The provisions of the so-called Sandomierz Agreement68 were not followed by anyone.” (Nowak: 1968, 43). The Brest Bible, with time perceived as “the flagship work of the Reformation in Poland” has become a very rare book “due to the lack of the copies lost through the jealousy of people or time”, its high price and large and unhandy dimensions made it unfit to become the Bible of daily use for an average recipient (Kwilecka: 2003e, 345). Those circumstances triggered an idea for a common edition of the Bible dedicated for the followers of three denominations: the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession, the Evan68 See in this volume W. Kriegseisen, p 19–38 [editor’s note].

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

129

gelical Reformed Church and Czech Brothers69, but this subject was also a source of disagreement of “attitudes and beliefs”70. The timing of the initiative for the new Bible edition was exceptionally difficult, as the successes of the CounterReformation led to the liquidation of all printing houses working for Protestant denominations71. . The circumstances concerning the publishing of this Bible edition show how difficult the situation of Andrzej Hünefeld who undertook the task of printing it “practically at his own cost and commercial risk” was. His economic existence depended on whether those copies would sell (Nowak: 1968, 43f). Therefore, he had to be very careful “in order not to discourage any of the denominational groups or districts and thus limit the range of future buyers of the Bible”72. The title page of the book served as a showcase whose goal was to inspire “the spirit of cooperation”, to draw aside the disputes on doctrine and present common, accepted by all, truths of faith73. The engraving measuring 10,5 × 16,5 cm signed by a Dutch engraver working since 1640 in Leiden and later in Amsterdam, Cornelius Claessen Duysend74, which served as a frame of the title of the Gdan´sk Bible (fig. 15) is a copy of the composition used by Hünefeld in 1624 for the title page of the Bible in German75. Its composition has been divided into three parts by distinct entablature76. At the 69 The Bible was dedicated to the king Władysław IV and similarly to the first Protestant translation it was placed under the protection of “the leader of the Lithuanian religious dissidents” – Krzysztof Radziwiłł, see Kwilecka: 2003e, 347; cf. dedication to Radziwiłł: Biblia: Andrzej Hünefeld 1632, The letter of the Superintendents and Pastors of Evangelical Communities to Christopher Radvila [List superintendentów i pasterzy Zborów Ewangelickich do Krzysztofa Radziwiłła] therein. See in this volume M. Jarczykowa, p. 187–201 [editor’s note]. 70 While the Protestant churches of Greater Poland wanted the Brest Bible to be revised, the churches of Lesser Poland and Lithuania insisted on strictly following the translation from 1563 – from philological perspective and taking into account the structure, elaboration and comments to the biblical text. Nowak: 1968, 43. 71 Nowak: 1968, 35. More on the history of the Gdan´sk Bible see Szeruda: 1932; Sipayłłówna: 1934. 72 Precautionary measures employed by Hünefeld during the work on this Bible edition are described in details by Nowak: 1968, 35–53. 73 Although the Gdan´sk Bible at the beginning was not appreciated by the representatives of the Protestant churches due to its deviations from the Brest Bible, with time it has become “the official Evangelical Bible” which was reprinted many both in Poland and abroad. See Kwilecka: 2003e, 345–348. This article discusses only the title page of the first edition of the Gdan´sk Bible. 74 Duysend supplied the Dutch printing house of the Elzervir so we can assume that it is through the works of this publishing house that Hünefeld became familiar with the works of the artist whom he commissioned to create the engravings for his prints. Nowak: 1968, 45. 75 The engraving from 1624 is a little smaller and does not contain the author’s signature. Nowak: 1968, 47. According to Socha the scenes presented on the page refer to the Antwerp edition by Plantin 1569–1573. Socha: 2011, 119. 76 The Bible also contains the title page of the Book of Psalms (fig. 16, 11 × 17.3 cm) in the

130

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Illustration 16: The Gdan´sk Bible (Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeld 1632), title page the Book of Psalms. Reproduced courtesy of Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wroclaw University Library. Shelf mark: BUWr OSD 300313.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

131

bottom, on both sides of the page there are two full-figure representations: on the left hand side of the observer there is Moses holding the Tables of the Law with his right hand and the staff in his left, opposite – Aaron in a priest’s robe with a thurible in his hand. Behind them there is a depiction of a scene illustrating a verse from Isaiah’s prophecy, referred to with siglum at the bottom of the composition (“Iesaia. 11:6.”) 77. In the foreground on the left hand side of the observer we can see a boy driving a lion and two oxen with a stick. On his left side there is a depiction of a child holding a snake in his arm. In the background we can see other animals grazing or lying in their pens, a man holding an animal similar to a basilisk by its back and a fragment of town buildings at the back. In the second strip of the composition located in front of the axis of the title there are personifications of three theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Charity in the scene of the liberation of the first parents, behind whom there is a depiction of a tombstone whose shape resembles the Tables of the Law held by Moses and on the internal side of which there is Latin inscription “LEX” (Law). Hope, depicted as a woman with an anchor by her feet, gives her hand to Eve looking at her.78 Faith, wearing a helmet, with a shield with a cross79 at her feet helps Adam, with an apple as the symbol of the Original Sin by his feet, to stand up. The third of the virtues, Charity, depicted as a woman with a child in her arms and a radiant nimbus around her head, is making, already familiar to us, a gesture of pointing, similarly to other personifications. Gestures performed by each of the personifications are crucial for the interpretation of the title page program. Hope is directing with her extended right hand the foremother Eve’s gaze to the edge of the page towards the depiction of a scene presenting the shepherds’ adoration of the baby Jesus sitting on the lap of his mother, the new Eve – Virgin Mary. Both Charity and Faith direct the first parents’ gaze to the opposite scenes – of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ. In the top strip on both sides of the title there are two more scenes. On the left hand side of the observer we can see two men carrying harvest resembling a translation of Rev. Maciej Rybinski containing, among others, representations of king David playing the harp, personifications of Love and Hope (on both sides of the title), God’s name inscribed in the finial, surrounded by heavenly host, including two putti holding a sash with the word SANCTUS repeated three times. 77 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” (Isa 11:6). 78 St. Paul in his Letter to the Hebrews describes hope as “an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast” (Hbr 6:18f). 79 The Catholic faith used to be presented as a woman with a chalice, see Ripa: 2013, 198f. The personification of Faith on the title page of the Gdan´sk Bible as a woman wearing a helmet, with a shield by her feet might refer to the words of St. Paul in his Letter to Ephesians “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God (…).// Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.// And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:” (Ef 6:13;16f).

132

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

bunch of grapes80 on a long pole. At their feet there is a biblical siglum “Levit. 26.3”, referring the reader to the following words: ”If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them, then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit”, as we read in the next verse (Lev 26:4). The scene located opposite presents a lonely figure of a woman looking over her shoulders at the burning city behind her. This image brings to mind Lot’s wife who disobeyed the Lord’s command when leaving with her family Sodom and Gomorrah doomed for destruction and she looked over her shoulder, which resulted in her being turned into a pillar of salt. Below this scene there is an another siglum “Levit. 26.15”, referring to the following verse: “and if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:”, after which there is an announcement of punishments, which would be the consequence of the chosen people’s disobedience against the Law of God (Lev 26:16–39). Biblical scenes together with verses referred to by sigla are symbolically illustrating the blessing, prosperity and abundance which were to be brought through obedience to the Law of God and on the contrary, damnation causing death and destruction resulting from the disobedience against the Law of God (Cf. Nowak: 1968, 47; Komza: 1978, 60f; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 318; Socha: 2011, 119f). The finial of the composition at the axis of the title presents two personifications:81 Justice as a woman with a sword in her hand (on the left hand side of the observer) and next to her Peace holding a palm branch82. The women embracing each other are surrounded by parting clouds through which bright light is shining and above them there is an inscription of God’s name. The analysis of the representations depicted on the title page of the Gdan´sk Bible persuades us that the thought which consistently permeates all parts of the composition and is the main theme of its ideological program is the redemptive character of Christ’s death who “hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (Gal 3:13)83. The symbolic representation of this belief is illustrated by the 80 The engraving presents the scene when Moses sent men for reconnaissance to the land of Caan “The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.” (Num 13:24). Cf. analogical representation in the Czech Bible, Biblij Czˇe=/ská: 1577, Num 13. 81 In line with the opinion of some researchers, there is an allegorical representation of justice at the top of the title page. Nowak: 1968, 47. Komza: 1978, 61. 82 It has been already observed by Socha: 2011, 119. 83 The title page could present the illustration of the Messianic peace taken from Isaiah’s prophecy (Socha: 2011, 119) or may contain “in its composition overloaded with the contents (…) both literal illustrations of the biblical verses and allegorical generalizations of the ideas contained therein.” (Komza: 1978, 60).

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

133

scene of the liberation of the first parents from the tombstone with LEX, i. e. the Law, inscription on it (Col 2:13f). The theological virtues indicate the work of redemption of man in Christ, in which the believer achieves total victory over sin and death. Thanks to Him the believer can cherish deep hope, symbolically presented on the Gdan´sk Bible title page through illustrations and complementary biblical verses, for the imminence of salvation and the eternal happiness in the messianic kingdom, where The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.// And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.// And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.// They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (Isa 11: 6–9.)

As foreshadowed by the psalm announcing imminent salvation of all God-fearing, at that time “that glory may dwell in our land” (Ps 85:9), “righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps 85:10), “Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.// Yea, the Lord shall give that which is good; and our land shall yield her increase.” (Ps 85:11f. Cf. Socha: 2011, 119f).

6.

Conclusion

The Polish engraving of the end of the 16th and the 17th century was an art genre especially sensitive to all artistic changes taking place abroad. The transportation of the printed paper page was not cumbersome, therefore it was exceptionally easy for the inspirations to be transmitted from one environment to another. An amazing development of print resulted in the fact that it was engraving that became a new and remarkably strong “means of mass visual communication” (Chojecka: 1978, 181). The title pages are a particularly interesting research material allowing us to follow the process of adopting patterns and the travels of printing blocks through European countries as well as the very interesting and creative modifications of adopted themes and motives (Socha: 2011, 109f). Apart from the engravings created locally or brought from Germany, there are especially intriguing “copies and borrowings of foreign patters created in the process of assimilation of the foreign works into the Polish tradition” (Chojecka: 1978, 182f. For more on this subject see Chojecka: 1977; Chojecka: 1978). Looking at those works we ask ourselves why this very model was used? (Chojecka: 1978, 182f). Why was it modified in this and not the other way? And although our

134

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

deliberations will not go beyond subjective interpretation, they will never cease to surprise and fascinate us. We do not know how Law and Grace panel found its way to Poland, neither can we unambiguously determine why it was used for the Catholic translation of the Bible. We can assume that the panel became known in Poland through the prints of religious dissidents coming from abroad as it very often decorated their title pages and frontispieces of the Bible translated by Luther which was, as we know, used by the Polish translators (Kwilecka: 2003c, 226. Cf. Budny: 1572 Przedmowa do czytelnika, 6r; Pietkiewicz: 2002, 255). We know for sure that already in 1546 it decorated Diarium, i. e. a calendar edited by a local astrologer, Piotr from Proboszczowice (ca. 1509–1565) with the illustrations by Kryspin Sharffenberg (ca. 1520–1576), published by Marek Szarfenberg in Kraków in 1546 (Piotr z Proboszczowic/Marek Scharffenberg; 1546, Diarium)84. The example of the Scharffenberg edition of the Bible contradicts the assumption that the German Protestant Bibles were a source of inspiration only for the Polish translations created within the Reformed churches (Cf. Socha: 2011, 110). Undeniably the panel has acquired not only a cross-border but also a cross-confessional character and it has become almost an “obligatory” element of the Bible title pages for all denominations present in Poland. Sometimes it has been a subject to slight or considerable, but always conscious, modifications in order to adjust the adopted motif to the confessional doctrine of the given denomination. With time, the publishers of the Polish Bibles abandoned this model for more complex compositions which used not only typology but also counter-figuration introducing also personifications and allegories to ideological programs of the title pages. Gradually the Polish title pages seem to lose the clarity which Martin Luther found desirable and which allowed a proverbial Everyman to understand the truths of faith presented using commonly understood illustrations, not only through the panel of Law and Grace but also other works of art (See Luther’s opinion on paintings, i.a. WA vol. 50, s. 649; Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von der Bildern und Sakrament, WA vol. 18, 80–83. Cf. Stirm: 1977, 17–129). A distinctive example of this trend is the Wujek Bible title page whose interpretation still remains cumbersome. Comparing it with the woodcuts surrounding the title of the Scharffenberg Bible we can notice how the polemic significance of the engravings discussed in this study grew stronger with time as they evolved into “the basic instrument propagating the new political and religious ideas” (Juda: 2002, 67) and which allowed to “stress the religious beliefs

84 Law and Grace panel in the Gotha version is signed by the initials CS, which led to its attribution to the above–mentioned Kryspin Scharffenberg. Chojecka: 1978, 189, ill. 14.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

135

very strongly” and present fundamental for the given group truths of the faith (Socha: 2011, 111)85. Translated by Małgorzata Socha

Bibliography Bibles Biblia swieta// Tho iest// Ksiegi Starego y// Nowego Zakonu/ wlasnie z// Zydowskiego/ Greckiego/ y// Lac´inskiego/ nowo ná// Polski iezyk z pil=// nos´ia˛ y wiernie// wyloz˙one.// Brzes´c´ Litewski: 1563. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437427. BIBLIA SWIE˛TA:// To jest,// KSIE˛GI STAREGO Y NO-// WEGO PRZYMIERZA Z ZY-// dowskiego y Greckiego Je˛zyka// na Polski pilnie y wiernie// przetłumaczone.// Cum Gratia & Privilegio S.R.M. WE GDANSKU// W Drukarniey Andrzeja// Hunefelda// Roku MDCXXXII. Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeld 1632. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 300313. Biblia.// To iest/ ks´ie˛=//gi stárego y nowego// przymierza/ z nowu z// iezyka Ebreyskiego/ Grec=// skiego y Łac´in´skiego/ na// Polski prze=// łoz˙one., Nies´wiez˙: Daniel z Łe˛czycy / Kawe˛czyn´ski, Maciej 1572. In: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, shelf mark: Sd XVI.Qu.2339. Biblia// To iest.// Ksie˛gi Stharego y// Nowego Zakonu/ na Polski iezyk// z pilnos´cia˛ według Łacin´skiey Bi// bliey od Kos´cioła Krzes´c´ian´skiego po=// wssechnego przyiethey// no=// wo wyłoz˙ona. Kraków: Drukarnia Szarffenbergerów 1561. Online version Il. at: http:// digital.fides.org.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=14. In: Biblioteka Seminarium Metropolitalnego Archidiecezji Warszawskiej (Public domain). BIBLIA// TO IEST// KSIE˛GI STAREGO// Y NOWEGO TESTAMENTV,// WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO// przekładu stárègo, w kos´ciele powsze-// cnym przyie˛tego, na Polski// ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛/ przełoz˙onè,// Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO// y Gréckiégo, y z wykłádem Kátholickim, trudniey-//szych miejsc, do obrony Wiáry swie˛téy powsze-// chnéy przeciw kácérztwóm tych czásów// naleza˛cych: PRZEZ D. JAKVBA WVYKA Z WA ˛ GROWCA,// THEOLOGA SOCIETATIS IESU.// Z DOZWOLENIEM STOLICE APOSTOLSKIEY,// á nakłádem Ie° m. Ks´ie˛dzá Arcybiskupá Gniéz´nien´-// skiego, etc´. wydáné.// W KRAKOWIE// W Drukárni Łázárzowéy, Roku Pánskiégo// M. D. XC IX. Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu/ Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437771. BIBLIA// TO IEST// KSIE˛GI STAREGO// Y NOWEGO TESTAMENTV,// WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO// przekładu stárègo, w kos´ciele powsze-// cnym przyie˛tego, na Polski// 85 I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Marcin Wisłocki from the Wrocław University for his kind assistance in the writing process of this article – for his many valuable clues and helpful suggestions.

136

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛/ przełoz˙onè,// Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO// y Gréckiégo, y z wykłádem Kátholickim, trudniey-//szych miejsc, do obrony Wiáry swie˛téy powsze-// chnéy przeciw kácérztwóm tych czásów// naleza˛cych: PRZEZ D. JAKVBA WVYKA Z WA ˛ GROWCA,// THEOLOGA SOCIETATIS IESU.// Z DOZWOLENIEM STOLICE APOSTOLSKIEY,// á nakłádem Ie° m. Ks´ie˛dzá Arcybiskupá Gniéz´nien´-// skiego, etc´. wydáné.// W KRAKOWIE// W Drukárni Łázárzowéy, Roku Pánskiégo// M. D. XC IX. Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Warszawie / Warsaw Univeristy Library, shelf mark: Sd. 612.49 (Mikr. 13460). Biblia// To iest:// Ksie˛gi Starego y// Nowego Zakonu/ na Polski ie=// zyk według Łacin´skiej Bibliey/ od KO=// ´scioła Chrzes´cian´skiego powszechnego przyie˛tey;// na wielu miejscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawio=// na/ y figurami ozdobiona.// Cum Gratia & Priuilegio S. R. M.// Kraków: Mikołaj Szarffenberger 1577. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437779. Biblia// To iest:// Ksie˛gi Stárego// y NOwego Zakonu/ ná Polski// ie˛zyk/ według Łácin´skiey Bibliey od Koscio=//łá Krzes´c´ián´skiego powszechnego przyie˛tey;// ná wielu mieyscách z pilnos´cia˛ poprá=//wioná/ y figurami ozdobioná.// Cum Gratia & Priuilegio S. R. M.// Kraków: Mikołaj Szarffenberger 1575. In: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.4178. Biblia: das ist:// Die gantze heilige// Schrifft: Deudsch// Auffs new zugericht.// D. Mart. Luth.// Begnadet mit Kur=// fürstlicher zu Sachssen Freiheit.// Gedruckt zu Wittem=// berg/ Durch Hans Lufft.// MDXLV. Wittenberg: Hans Lufft 1545. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 362120. Biblij Czˇe=//ská./ to gest/ wsse=// cka Swata Pijsma/ obogij=// ho Starého y Nowého záko=// na/ ope˘t w nowe˘ wy=// daná a// Wytisstená w Starem Me˘/ ste Prazˇskem/ pracý a Nákladem Gi=// r´ýho Melantrycha z Awentýnu.// Létha/ MDLXXVII.// Cum Gratia & Priuilegio Cae(…), 1577. Praha: Melantrich z Aventina, Jirˇí 1577. In: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.13.774. Biblij Czˇeská. Biblia. Testamentum Vetus et Novum. (Bible Severýnova. 2 ed.), Praha: P. Sewerýn z Kapij Hory 1537. In: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.13.700. Biblij Czˇeská.// Cum Gratia et Privilegio Sacrae Re=// giae Maiestatis ad Decenuium.// M. D. XLIX. Praha, wytiss. u B. Netholicského, nakł. G. Melantrycha Rozˇdalowského, 1549. (Biblia Melantricha), Praha: Melantrich z Aventina, Jirˇí 1549. In: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, shelf mark: Sd XVI.F.13794. Die Propheten// alle Deudsch.// D. Mart. Luth.// Gedruckt zu Wittem=// Berg/ Durch Hans Lufft.// 1550. Wittenberg: Hans Lufft 1550. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 362120 II. King James Bible (1611), Cambridge University Press. Online version at: www.biblegateway.com. ´ IEJÁ RY.//BINSKIEGO.// WE GDANPSALMY// DAWIDOWE// Przekładánia// X. MÁC SKU// Drukował Andrzyi// Hünefeldt. [The Book of Psalms. A Translation by Rev. Maciej Rybinski], in: BIBLIA SWIE˛TA:// To jest,// KSIE˛GI STAREGO Y NO-// WEGO PRZYMIERZA Z ZY-// dowskiego y Greckiego Je˛zyka// na Polski pilnie y wiernie// przetłumaczone.// Cum Gratia & Privilegio S.R.M. WE GDANSKU// W Drukarniey Andrzeja// Hunefelda// Roku MDCXXXII. Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeld 1632. In: Bib-

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

137

lioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 300313.

Sources APPARATVS SACER TO IEST Przygotowánié Do pozytecznégo czytánia Pismá S., in: BIBLIA// TO IEST// KSIE˛GI STAREGO// Y NOWEGO TESTAMENTV,// WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO// przekładu stárègo, w kos´ciele powsze-// cnym przyie˛tego, na Polski// ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛/ przełoz˙onè,// Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO// y Gréckiégo, y z wykłádem Kátholickim, trudniey-//szych miejsc, do obrony Wiáry swie˛téy powsze-// chnéy przeciw kácérztwóm tych czásów// naleza˛cych: PRZEZ D. JAKVBA WVYKA Z WA ˛ GROWCA,// THEOLOGA SOCIETATIS IESU.// Z DOZWOLENIEM STOLICE APOSTOLSKIEY,// á nakłádem Ie° m. Ks´ie˛dzá Arcybiskupá Gniéz´nien´-// skiego, etc´. wydáné.// W KRAKOWIE// W Drukárni Łázárzowéy, Roku Pánskiégo// M. D. XC IX. Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu / Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437771. Budny, Szymon (1572), Poboz˙nemu cz˙ytelni=//kowi/ Symon Budny tych ksiag tłu=// macz˙/ laski y pokoiu od Boga oyca naβe// go/ y Pana Jezusa Christa z˙ada, in: Biblia.// To iest/ ks´ie˛=//gi stárego y nowego// przymierza/ z nowu z// iezyka Ebreyskiego/ Grec=// skiego y Łac´in´skiego/ na// Polski prze=// łoz˙one. Nies´wiez˙. Online version at: http:// www.wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra/applet?mimetype=image/x.djvu&sec=false&handler= djvu_html5&content_url=/Content/120458/cim-qu-2754.djvu. Budny, Szymon (1576a), Obrona wyznania wiary prawdziwej o Bogu Jedynym, o Synie Jego i o Duchu S´wie˛tym przeciw trójczakom, tryboz˙nikom i wszech przedwiecznikom, in: Budny, Szymon: O przedniey=//szych wiáry Christian´=// skiey Artikulech/ To iest// o Bogu iedynem/ o Synu ieo // y o Duchu Swie˛tem// Wyznanie proste z pisma s´wie//tego/ przez Symona˙ Budnego kro=// tko spisane/ á za˙ zezwoleniem Brac´iey niektorey w Li=/ twie y ná Rus˙i wy=/ dáne.// Ktemu Obrona tegoz˙ wyzna//nia bronia˛ca/ przez tegoz˙ nápisana. Łosk: Jan Kracan z Wieliczki: Maria Maciejewska/Lech Szczucki/Zdzisław Zawadzki (ed.) Warszawa: PWN 1989, Biblioteka Pisarzy Reformacyjnych 16, 10–200. Budny, Szymon (1576b), Wyznanie o Bogu Jedynym, in: Budny, Szymon: O przedniey=// szych wiáry Christian´=// skiey Artikulech/ To iest// o Bogu iedynem/ o Synu ieo // y o Duchu Swie˛tem// Wyznanie proste z pisma s´wie//tego/ przez Symona˙ Budnego kro=// tko spisane/ á za˙ zezwoleniem Brac´iey niektorey w Li=/ twie y ná Rus˙i wy=/ dáne.// Ktemu Obrona tegoz˙ wyzna//nia bronia˛ca/ przez tegoz˙ nápisana. Łosk: Jan Kracan z Wieliczki: Maria Maciejewska/Lech Szczucki/Zdzisław Zawadzki (ed.) Warszawa: PWN 1989, Biblioteka Pisarzy Reformacyjnych 16, 8. Budny, Szymon (1576c), Wyznanie o Synu Boz˙ym, in: Budny, Szymon: O przedniey=// szych wiáry Christian´=// skiey Artikulech/ To iest// o Bogu iedynem/ o Synu ieo // y o Duchu Swie˛tem// Wyznanie proste z pisma ´swie//tego/ przez Symona˙ Budnego kro=// tko spisane/ á za˙ zezwoleniem Brac´iey niektorey w Li=/ twie y ná Rus˙i wy=/ dáne.// Ktemu Obrona tegoz˙ wyzna//nia bronia˛ca/ przez tegoz˙ nápisana. Łosk: Jan Kracan z Wieliczki: Maria Maciejewska/Lech Szczucki/Zdzisław Zawadzki (ed.) Warszawa: PWN 1989, Biblioteka Pisarzy Reformacyjnych 16, 8–9.

138

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Budny, Szymon (1576d), Wyznanie o Duchu S´. in: Budny, Szymon: O przedniey=//szych wiáry Christian´=// skiey Artikulech/ To iest// o Bogu iedynem/ o Synu ieo // y o Duchu Swie˛tem// Wyznanie proste z pisma s´wie//tego/ przez Symona˙ Budnego kro=// tko spisane/ á za˙ zezwoleniem Brac´iey niektorey w Li=/ twie y ná Rus˙i wy=/ dáne.// Ktemu Obrona tegoz˙ wyzna//nia bronia˛ca/ przez tegoz˙ nápisana. Łosk: Jan Kracan z Wieliczki: Maria Maciejewska/Lech Szczucki/Zdzisław Zawadzki (ed.) Warszawa: PWN 1989, Biblioteka Pisarzy Reformacyjnych 16, 9. Calvin, Jean (1559), Institutio christianae religionis, Geneva: Oliua Roberti Stephani. Princeton Theological Seminary Library, Online version at: Internet Archiv: https:// archive.org/details/institutiochrist1559calv. Karnkowski, Stanisław (1599), Czytelnikowi łáski Bozéy, in: BIBLIA// TO IEST// KSIE˛GI STAREGO// Y NOWEGO TESTAMENTV,// WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO// przekładu stárègo, w kos´ciele powsze-// cnym przyie˛tego, na Polski// ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´c´ia˛/ przełoz˙onè,// Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO// y Gréckiégo, y z wykłádem Kátholickim, trudniey-//szych miejsc, do obrony Wiáry swie˛téy powsze-// chnéy przeciw kácérztwóm tych czásów// naleza˛cych: PRZEZ D. JAKVBA WVYKA Z WA ˛ GROWCA,// THEOLOGA SOCIETATIS IESU.// Z DOZWOLENIEM STOLICE APOSTOLSKIEY,// á nakłádem Ie° m. Ks´ie˛dzá Arcybiskupá Gniéz´nien´-// skiego, etc´. wydáné.// W KRAKOWIE// W Drukárni Łázárzowéy, Roku Pánskiégo// M. D. XC IX. Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa 1599. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu/ Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437771. Luther, Martin WA (1883–2009), D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar. Luther, Marthin (1529), Erste Predigt vom Ostersonntagvormittag, den 28. 3. 1529, in: Erwin Mülhaupt (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, vol. 5: Die Passionsund Ostergeschichten aus allen vier Evangelien, 4ed. , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969. Melanchthon, Philip (1545), Loci theologici recens recogniti. Wittenbergae 1545. Wittenberg: Seitz. In: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Online version at: http:// digital.onb.ac.at/OnbViewer/viewer.faces?doc=ABO_%2BZ182001108. Olevianus, Caspar/Ursinus, Zacharias (1563), Catechesis Religionis Christianae, Qvae Traditvr In Ecclesiis Et Scholis Palatinatvs (Heidelberg Catechism), Heidelberg M. Schirat & I. Mayer. Online version at: http://hardenberg.jalb.de/display_page.php? elementId=9284, in: Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden, Sammlung Albert Ritzaeus Hardenberg, shelf mark: VD 16, P 2183. Orzechowski, Stanisław (1564), Qvincvnx, tho iest wzor Korony Polskiey na cynku wystawiony przez Stanisława Orzechowskiego […] y za kole˛de˛ posłom koronnym do Warszawy […] roku […] 1564 posłany. Kraków: Łazarz Andrysowic. Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/11681915/198/. Piotr z Proboszczowic, Marek Szarffenberg (1546), Diarium cu[m] electio[n]ibus Petri a Probossczowice Artium Magistri celebris studij Cracouien[sis] professoris astrologie ordinarij: ad annu[m] Christiane salutis 1546 embolismalem diligenter ordinatu[m][…] Kraków: Marek Szarffenberg. Online version at: http://jbc.bj.uj.edu.pl/ dlibra/doccontent?id=143975. Summá wβystkiego Pismá swie˛=// tego/ Stárego y Nowego Zakonu/ bárzo krotko// a nadobnie zabrána. In: Biblia// To iest:// Ksie˛gi Starego y// Nowego Zakonu/ na Polski ie=//

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

139

zyk według Łacin´skiej Bibliey/ od KO=// s´cioła Chrzes´cian´skiego powszechnego przyie˛tey;// na wielu miejscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawio=// na/ y figurami ozdobiona.// Cum Gratia & Priuilegio S. R. M.// Kraków: Mikołaj Szarffenberger 1577. In: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu/ Wrocław University Library, shelf mark: OSD 437779. Tschepius, Samuel Ernst (1742), Polnische Bibel-Historie oder einige historische Nachrichten von den mancherlei Uebersetzungen der Heiligen Schrift in der Polnischen Sprache, In: “Preussische Zehenden” 2: 835–96, 3: 195–288, 579–672, 755–844.

Studies Amon, Karl (1994), Die Bildkomposition “Gesetz und Gnade” vor Lukas Cranach d. Ä, in: Rudolf Zinnhobler/Dieter A. Binder/Rudolf Höfer/Michaela Kronthaler (ed.), Kirche in bewegter Zeit. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kirche in der Zeit der Reformation und des 20. Jahrhunderts. Festschrift für Maximilian Liebmann zum 60. Geburtstag, Graz: Styria–Medien–Service, 45–62. Andersson, Christiane D. (1981), Religiöse Bilder Cranachs im Dienste der Reformation, in: Lewis W. Spitz/Otto Büsch/Bodo Rollka (ed.), Humanismus und Reformation als kulturelle Kräfte in der deutschen Geschichte, Berlin/New York 1981, 43–173 [bardzo prosze˛ usuna˛c´, Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission zu Berlin 51]. Badstübner, Ernst (2003), «Gesetz und Gnade» Über einige Veröffentlichungen im vergangenen Jahrzehnt zur lutherischen Rechtfertigungslehre im Bild, Wartburg-Jahrbuch, 31–46. Barth, Karl (1924), Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie, München: Chr. Kaiser. Biblia. Tłum. pol., tzw. “Brzeska”, dictionary entry in: Marian Malicki/Ewa Zwinogrodzka (ed.) (1992), Katalog poloników XVI wieku Biblioteki Jagiellon´skiej. vol. 1, A-Ł, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski, 87–88. ´ kowska, Danuta (2013), Geneza Wujkowych translacji biblijnych w s´wietle biografii Bien autora, in: Roman Słowin´ski (ed.), Biblia Jakuba Wujka w z˙yciu i kulturze narodu polskiego. Artykuły opracowane na podstawie referatów wygłoszonych na sesji naukowej pt. “Biblia Jakuba Wujka w z˙yciu i kulturze narodu polskiego”, w Poznaniu, w dniu 25 paz´dziernika 2012 r. Poznan´: Polska Akademia Nauk WDN, 29–40. Bünker, Michael/Friedrich, Martin (2007), Gesetz und Evangelium. Eine Studie, auch im Blick auf die Entscheidungsfindung in ethischen Fragen. Ergebnis eines Studienprozesses der Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Europa, Frankfurt am Main: Lembeck. Chojecka, Ewa (1961), Deutsche Bibelserien in der Holzstocksammlung der Jagellonischen Universität in Krakau, Baden-Baden/Strasbourg: Heiz Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, vol. 321. Chojecka, Ewa (1975), Znaczenie kulturowe grafiki polskiej XVI w., in: Stanisława Grzeszczuk/Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa (ed.), Dawna ksia˛z˙ka i kultura. Materiały mie˛dzynarodowej sesji naukowej z okazji pie˛c´setlecia sztuki drukarskiej w Polsce, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdan´sk: Wydawnictwo Zakładu Narodowego im. Ossolin´skich, 86–114.

140

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Chojecka, Ewa (1977), Zur Frage künstlerischer Beziehungen zwischen der polnischen und europäischen Renaissancegraphik, in: Gutenberg Jahrbuch 1977, 251–270. Chojecka, Ewa (1978), Zwia˛zki artystyczne polskiego drzeworytu renesansowego z grafika˛ europejska˛. Kryspin i Wendel Scharffenbergerowie, in: Kazimiera Maleczyn´ska (ed.), 500–lecie polskiego słowa drukowanego na S´la˛sku. Materiały sesji naukowej 9–11 X 1975 Wrocław, Wrocław: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, No 364. Bibliotekoznawstwo VII, 181–193. Chrostowski, Waldemar (2000), Geneza i oddziaływanie Biblii ks. Jakuba Wujka, in: Waldemar Chrostowski (ed.), Pan moim s´wiatłem. Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa dla Ksie˛dza Profesora Jerzego Chmiela w 65. Rocznice˛ urodzin. Warszawa: Vocatio, 100–125. Chrzanowski, Tadeusz (1978), «Typus Ecclesiae» – Hozjan´ska alegoria Kos´cioła, in: Hanna Fruba (ed.), Sztuka pobrzez˙a Bałtyku. Materiały sesji SHS Gdan´sk, listopad 1976, Warszawa: PWN, 275–308. Ehresmann, Donald L. (1967), The Brazent Serpent, a reformation motif in the works of Lucas Cranach the Elder and his workshop, Marsyas. Studies in the History of Art 13, 32–47. Fleck, Miriam Verena (2010), Ein tröstlich gemelde. Die Glaubensallegorie ››Gesetz und Gnade‹‹ in Europa zwischen Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Korb: Didymos-Verlag. Foerster, Richard (1909), Die Bildnisse von Johann Hess und Cranachs “Gesetz Und Gnade”, Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift 5, 117–143. Frey, Christofer (1991), Etyka protestantyzmu od reformacji do czasów współczesnych, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Górska, Magdalena (2005), Polonia – Respublica – Patria. Personifikacja Polski w sztuce XVI–XVIII wieku, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Harasimowicz, Jan (2015a), Die Arbeiter im Weinberg des Herrn, Epitaph für Paul Eber (+ 1569) und seine Familie, in: Jan Harasimowicz/Bettina Seyderhelm (ed. im Auftrag der Evangelischen Stadtkirchengemeinde Wittenberg), Cranachs Kirche. Begleitbuch zur Landesausstellung Sachsen-Anhalt Cranach der Jüngere 2015, Beucha/Markkleeberg: Sax Verlag, 101–112. Harasimowicz, Jan (2015b), Die Reformatoren im Weinberg des Herrn. Das Wittenberger Epitaph für Paul Eber im Kontext der “lutherischen Kampfbilder” der Reformationszeit, in: Bettina Seyderhelm (ed.), Cranach-Werke am Ort ihrer Bestimmung. Tafelbilder der Malerfamilie Cranach und ihres Umkreises in den Kirchen der Evangelischen Kirche in Mitteldeutschland, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 297–309. John Paul II (1988), Geleitbrief von Papst Johannes Paul II, in: Reinhold Olesch/Hans Rothe (ed.), Leopolita. Faksimile der Ausgabe Krakau 1561, Hauptband Paderborn– München–Wien–Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh [Biblia Slavica, Serie II: Polnische Bibeln, Bd. 1], [6–7]. Juda, Maria (2002), Karta tytułowa staropolskiej ksia˛z˙ki drukowanej, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, XLVI, 67–78. Kamieniecki, Jan (2002), Szymon Budny – zapomniana postac´ polskiej reformacji, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1983), Januszowski, Jan, dictionary entry in: Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa (ed.), Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, vol. 1: Ma-

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

141

łopolska, part 1: Wiek XV–XVI, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich/Wydawnictwo PAN, 69–99. Koepplin, Dieter (2006), Zu Holbeins paulinischem Glaubensbild von Gesetz und Gnade, in: Christian Müller (ed.), Hans Holbein d.J. Die Jahre in Basel 1515–1532. Katalog der Ausstellung Hans Holbein d.J. Die Jahre in Basel 1515–1532 Kunstmuseum Basel, 1. April bis 2. Juli 2006. Mit Beiträgen von Christian Müller, Stephan Kemperdick u. a. München/Berlin/London/New York: Prestel Verlag, 79–95. Koerner, Joseph Leo (2008), The Reformation of the Image, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Komza, Małgorzata (1978), Zdobione karty tytułowe (Wprowadzenie do typologii na przykładzie siedemnastowiecznej ksia˛z˙ki gdan´skiej), in: Studia o ksia˛z˙ce, vol. 8, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 51–67. Kossowska, Maria (1968), Biblia w je˛zyku polskim, vol. 1, Poznan´: Ksie˛garnia s´w. Wojciecha. Krasˇovec, Jozˇe (2011), Die alten Bibelübersetzungen in Mitteleuropa, in: Vincenc Rajsˇp/ Karl W. Schwarz/Bogusław Dybas´/Christian Gastgeber (eds.), Die Reformation in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge anlässlich des 500. Geburtstages von Primus Truber, Ljubljana: Zalozˇba ZRC, ZRC SAZU/Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 63–80. Kwilecka, Irena (2003a), Biblia Leopolity i Biblia brzeska. Tradycja a nowoczesnos´c´ przekładu, in: Irena Kwilecka (ed.), Biblie staropolskie. Teksty wykładów wygłoszonych na sympozjum naukowym zorganizowanym przez Komisje Slawistyczna˛ Oddziału Polskiej Akademii Nauk w Poznaniu 28 paz´dziernika 2002 roku, Poznan´: Os´rodek Wydawnictw Naukowych, 29–38. Kwilecka, Irena (2003b), O nowe spojrzenie na staropolski przekłady Biblii, in: Irena Kwilecka: Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny; Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Slawistyki, Studia i materiały 66, 127–129. Kwilecka, Irena (2003c), Staropolskie przekłady Biblii i ich zwia˛zki z biblistyka˛ europejska˛. Zarys problematyki in: Irena Kwilecka: Studia nad staropolskimie przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny; Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Slawistyki, Studia i materiały 66, 209–229. Kwilecka, Irena (2003d), S´redniowieczna Biblia czeska a staropolskie przekłady biblijne (zarys problematyki badawczej), in: Irena Kwilecka: Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny; Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Slawistyki, Studia i materiały 66, 199–207. Kwilecka, Irena (2003e), Z dziejów przekładu pierwszej polskiej Biblii protestanckiej, in: Irena Kwilecka: Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny; Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Slawistyki, Studia i materiały 66, 335–352. Kwilecka, Irena (2006), Biblia brzeska jej dzieje i znaczenie, Nauka 3, 111–121. Lagaude, Jenny (2010), Der Cranach-Altar zu St. Wolfgang in Schneeberg. Ein Bildprogramm zwischen Spätmittelalter und Reformation, Leipzig/Berlin: Kirchhof & Franke. Langkammer, Hugolin (1998), Polski przekład Biblii Wujka na tle zmagan´ i potrzeb religijno-teologicznych ówczesnego Kos´cioła w Polsce, Bobolanum, 9, 53–63. ´ ski, Rafał Marcin (2003), Kalwin a Biblia brzeska, Jednota 3, 18–22. Leszczyn

142

Aurelia Zdun´czyk

Merczyng, Henryk (1913), Szymon Budny jako krytyk tekstów biblijnych, Kraków: Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. ´ ski, Leszek (2003), Biblia Szymona Budnego. Charakterystyka przekładu, in: Moszyn Irena Kwilecka (ed.), Biblie staropolskie. Teksty wykładów wygłoszonych na sympozjum naukowym zorganizowanym przez Komisje˛ Slawistyczna˛ Oddziału Polskiej Akademii Nauk w Poznaniu 28 paz´dziernika 2002 roku, Poznan´: Os´rodek Wydawnictw Naukowych, 41–48. Muczkowski, Józef (1845), O Janach Leopolitach w XVI wieku z˙yja˛cych i Bibliach Szarfenbergerowskich, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytecka. Noble, Bonnie (2009), Lucas Cranach the Elder. Art and Devotion of the German Reformation, Lanham/Boulder/New York/Toronto/Plymouth: University Press of America. Nowak, Zbigniew (1968), Andrzej Hünefeld jako nakładca i drukarz Biblii gdan´skiej z 1632 roku, in: Libri Gedanenses. Rocznik Biblioteki Gdan´skiej Polskiej Akademii Nauk za rok 1967, 35–53. Ogonowski, Zbigniew (ed.) (1991), Mys´l arian´ska w Polsce XVII wieku. Antologia tekstów. Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Ohly, Friedrich (1985), Gesetz und Evangelium. Zur Typologie bei Luther und Lucas Cranach. Zum Blutstrahl der Gnade in der Kunst, Münster: Aschendorff, Schriftenreihe der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, N. F. vol. 1. Pettegree, Andrew (2000), “The Law and the Gospel”. The Evolution of an evangelical pictorial theme in the Bibles of the Reformation, in: Orlaith O’Sullivan (ed.), The Bible as book the Reformation, London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press 2000, 123–135. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2002), Pismo S´wie˛te w je˛zyku polskim w latach 1518–1638. Sytuacja wyznaniowa w Polsce a rozwój edytorstwa biblijnego. Praca doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem prof. dr. hab. Krzysztofa Migonia, Instytut Bibliotekoznawstwa, Wydział Filologiczny, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wrocław. Online version at http:// digital.fides.org.pl/Content/728/Pietkiewicz-Doktorat.pdf. Poscharsky, Peter (2015), Von Wittenberg nach Weimar – Die Rolle des Altars von Lucas Cranach d. J. bei der Schaffung einer neuen Residenz, in: Seyderhelm, Bettina (ed.), Cranach–Werke am Ort ihrer Bestimmung. Tafelbilder der Malerfamilie Cranach und ihres Umkreises in den Kirchen der Evangelischen Kirche in Mitteldeutschland, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 275–295. Reinitzer, Heimo (2006), Gesetz und Evangelium: über ein reformatorisches Bildthema, seine Tradition, Funktion und Wirkunggeschichte, 2 vol., Hamburg: Christians Verlag. Ripa, Cesare (2013), Ikonologia, Ireneusz Kania (transl.), Kraków: Universitatis. Schulze, Ingrid (2004), Lucas Cranach d.J. und die protestantische Bildkunst in Sachsen und Thüringen. Frömmigkeit, Theologie, Fürstenreformation, Bucha bei Jena: Quartus Verlag. Sipayłłówna, Marja (1934), W sprawie genezy Biblji Gdan´skiej, Reformacja w Polsce 6, 144–161. ´ ski, Roman (ed.) (2013), Biblia Jakuba Wujka w z˙yciu i kulturze narodu polskiego. Słowin Artykuły opracowane na podstawie referatów wygłoszonych na sesji naukowej pt. “Biblia Jakuba Wujka w z˙yciu i kulturze narodu polskiego”, w Poznaniu, w dniu 25 paz´dziernika 2012 r. Poznan´: Polska Akademia Nauk WDN.

The Iconographic Program and Title Pages’ Ideological Content

143

Socha, Klaudia (2011), Ideologia wyraz˙ona w szacie graficznej ksia˛z˙ki na przykładzie stron tytułowych Biblii, in: Dariusz Kuz´mina (ed.), Bibliologia polityczna/Political Bibliology, Warszawa/Warsaw: Wydawnictwo SBP, 109–122. Steinborn, Boz˙ena (1967), Malowane epitafia mieszczan´skie na S´la˛sku w latach 1520– 1620, Roczniki Sztuki S´la˛skiej, 4, 7–137. Stirm, Margarete (1977), Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte XLV, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Szeruda, Jan (1932), Geneza i charakter Biblji gdan´skiej, Warszawa: Drukarnia “Głosu Ewangelickiego”. Szwejkowska, Helena (1975), Ksia˛z˙ka drukowana XV–XVIII w. Zarys historyczny, Wrocław/Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Thulin, Oskar (1955), Cranach-Alta¨ re der Reformation, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Wandel, Lee Palmer (2005), The Eucharist in the Reformation. Incarnation and Liturgy, Cambridge: University Press. Wandel, Lee Palmer (ed.) (2014) A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 46, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Wegmann, Susanne (2003), Auf dem Weg zum Himmel. Das Fegefeuer in der deutschen Kunst des Mittelalters, Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau. Weimer, Christoph (1996), Reformatorische Bildgedanken – die Zusammenarbeit von Theologe und Künstler: Martin Luther und Lucas Cranach, in: Kraus, Jutta/Schuchardt, Günter (ed.), Aller Knecht und Christi Untertan. Der Mensch Luther und sein Umfeld. Katalog der Ausstellung zum 450. Todesjahr 1996 – Wartburg/Eisenach: Wartburg– Stiftung. Weimer, Christoph (1999), Luther, Cranach und die Bilder – Gesetz und Evangelium – Schlüssel zum Reformatorischen Bildgebrauch, Arbeiten zur Theologie, vol. 89, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Weniger, Matthias (2004), »Durch und durch lutherisch«? Neues zum Ursprung der Bilder von Gesetz und Gnade, Münchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 3, vol. LV, 115–134. ´ czyk, Aurelia (2015), Pan-confessional character of the doctrine of justification Zdun and its visualization on the example of the title page of the Bible of Brzes´c´, Reformation & Renaissance Review vol. 17/1(2015), 97–109.

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible in the Second Half of the 16th Century

The practical problem of editing, concerning whether or not to include glosses, comments, introductions and various types of secondary text over the course of work on the search engine of parallel verses1, was the starting point for these textological and genealogical considerations related to translations of The Holy Bible printed in the second half of the sixteenth century. Editors concentrate their efforts on the primary text, which is self-evident, while secondary textual elements, which are called meta- or paratext, or in the Polish tradition of studies of the book – the editorial literary frame, are frequently omitted in editions of historical translations of The Holy Bible. The decision to include or omit them during editing is arbitrary and depends on publishing assumptions. Omission of the original academic apparatus (glosses) and commentary on chapters is the norm in modern versions of historical translations of The Holy Bible, for example the editions of The Bible in Jakub Wujek’s translation compiled by Rev. Janusz 1 Working materials found on the website of the Szesnastowieczne przekłady Ewangelii project [Sixteenth century translations of the Gospel] www.ewangelie.uw.edu.pl are used in this article. The site also includes a full characterization of translations constituting the basis of the edition, which was compiled under my editorship. Further in this article, translations will be designated by the year in which they were published, i. e.: 1551 Ewangelia według ´sw. Mateusza [The Gospel according to St. Matthew], translated by Stanislaw Murzynowski, Königsberg; 1553 Nowy Testament zupełny [The complete New Testament], ascribed to Jan Seklucjan, Königsberg; 1556 Nowy Testament Scharffenbergera [Scharffenberger’s New Testament], Kraków; 1561 Nowy Testament z Biblii [The New Testament of the Bible], translated by Jan Leopolita, Kraków; 1563 Nowy Testament z Biblii brzeskiej [The New Testament of the Brest Bible], Brzes´c´; 1572 Nowy Testament z Biblii [The New Testament of the Bible], translated by Szymon Budny, Nies´wiez˙; 1577 Nowy Testament [The New Testament], translated by Marcin Czechowic; 1593 Nowy Testament [The New Testament], translated by Jakub Wujek, Kraków; 1599 Nowy Testament [The New Testament], from Jakub Wujek’s translation of The Bible, Kraków. More about the Polish Bibles cf. Pietkiewicz (2002) and in this volume p. 59–91 [editor’s note].

146

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Frankowski (1999) or Peter Krolikowski’s Biblia brzeska [the Brest Bible] (2003). This is because these components are anachronistic from the perspective of modern biblical studies. In some cases, study involves only commentaries and records as examples of a past academic style or rhetoric of commentary, as demonstrated in Joanna Sobczykowa’s study (2012), or Katarzyna Meller’s studies (2012). In an edition oriented towards gathering historical linguistic data, as in the case of the aforementioned search engine, every textual component constitutes philological documentation of the Polish language as it was written in the past. This in itself would justify the inclusion in the edition of all of the book’s textual components, since they are part of the linguistic heritage of the Polish language (cf. Frick 1989). A comparison of ten translations reveals a certain feature of translations, namely that interjections are situated in the body text, while in others, the same passus is found in the margins, as shown in the illustrations below:

Illustration 1: Matt 6:11–13 in the copy of the catholic Leopolita’s Bible, with glosses in round parentheses in the primary text, including one instance containing a doxology being the subject of many translators’ disputes, which was struck out by the user of copy BN XVI. F. 188 (time of correction unknown).

Elz˙bieta Belcarzowa (2006) in her studies devoted to Leopolita’s translation stated that that it closely resembles so-called free translations on account of the glosses included with the main text, among other elements of the book. In the Jesuit, Jakub Wujek’s translation the commentaries are placed in the margin, where they form a kind of a secondary text.

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

147

Illustration 2: Matt 6:11–13 in Jakub Wujek’s NT translation 1593.

As shown in illustration 3 (below), the textual elements making up the critical apparatus disrupt the linear order of the main text, and some of them even begin in the main text and end in the margins. These are short passus signaled in the main text by means of round parentheses ( ) and brackets [ ], clubs ♣, the combination of an asterisk with a bracket * ] in the main text, and the * ♂ or ♀ corresponding to them in the margin, which mark a literal translation. Moreover, concordances, i. e. short substantive or exegetic commentaries, are marked in the margins, and various delimitations and liturgical guidelines are signaled in the main text.

Illustration 3a: Stanisław Murzynowski’s (Lutheran) translation of The Gospel According to St. Matthew (cap. 22) 1551.

Illustration 3b: with interjections in the form of *wézwanych = proszonych [*the summoned = the invited], *zaste˛py] *wojska [*hosts] *armies], the letter A, and brackets or clubs ♣.

148

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

The translator marked systemic differences between Polish and Greek by means of a bracket and clubs. The bracket contained forms that are not present in Greek but were necessary due to the requirements of the Polish language, and clubs denoted the opposite: forms that were present in the Greek source but were removed from the Polish text.

Illustration 4: Jakub Wujek’s (catholic) translation of The Gospel According to St. Matthew 22 (1593).

Regardless of the differences between specific typographic arrangements, some of The Holy Bible’s printed translations are complex arrangements in which the primary text – first in the hierarchy – is tangled in a “web” of additional textual components of varying size, genealogical quality and origin. Some texts are directly linked to the primary text, while others are appended as additions. The entire system gained a semiotic significance – becoming a determinant of a new style of translation. This structure was linked together by the aforementioned connectors, which are derived from text types known in antiquity and popularized in humanist printed editions of The Holy Bible. The segmentation of the central text, which was appropriately divided into ksie˛gi (books), and these, in turn, into capitula || kapituły, rozdzielenia || rozdziały, and sometimes the arrangement of books gained a semiotic significance, as did as the further division into sections, paragraphs and/or verses, which, although purely technical in character, also became a sign of the times, be it of modernity or traditionalism (Frick 1989). For example, in Catholic printings, we find a different arrangement of books than in the Brest Bible and the Arian translations of Szymon Budny, which arose from a different understanding of canon but also for philological reasons – as in the case of Budny, who changed the traditional sequence of the Gospels of John and Luke in successive editions of the New Testament. A paragraph-based arrangement is encountered in printings before the publication of the Brest Bible (1563), but after its publication, a

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

149

division according to verses is predominant, adopted from R. Estienne’s (Stephanus’s) literary edition. In certain translations, these arrangements overlap. Examples demonstrate that the problem of text boundaries in translations of The Holy Bible, considered on the basis of ten examples, goes beyond the technical definition of editorship of historical texts. Tackling this problem requires reference to textological determinations, relating to the theoretical foundation of editorship, and other issues, such as the organization and methods by which the main text is displayed, its relationship with the critical apparatus, as well as the presence of additional supporting texts in volumes conceptualized as an integral whole. In turn, the problem of linguistic and stylistic form is linked to this, and this issue is generally considered to be an indicator of textual and genre relationships (Bartmin´ski, Niebrzegowska-Bartmin´ska: 2009). The subject matter of the book “as text” and the book “as artifact” is integrated in studies of vernacular Bibles printed in the sixteenth century. When considering the development of genres, the problems of the book cannot be ignored, and the role of the buyer and reader in the process of shaping the book and actualizing the text as it was read must also be remembered. In some instances, several texts were combined in one binding. The typographical factor was also significant – the text is presented so as to activate different “modes” of reading, on several levels, by means of special signaling characters. The method of the text’s presentation in the book indicates that, in some way, the printed book realized the medieval concept of written text as a score to be played. Critical type-text and commentaries made up a text secondary to the translation proper, making it possible to read the text in the proper context. Thus, it seems justified to undertake an attempt to identify entire textual and genre structures of historical translations of The Holy Bible in the natural communication (sending-reception) scenario for these translations, with consideration of different levels of the text’s organization, on the basis of ten translations of The Gospel printed in the years 1551–1599. However, neither a description of biblical genres nor a characterization of additional textual elements as autonomous forms of genres is the object here, because these have been described in secondary sources2, but rather indicating the potential methods of 2 The study of Joanna Sobczykowa (2012) must be mentioned here, above all. This Silesian researcher categorized the style of translations utilizing philology and textual criticism from the contemporary perspective, the categories of the academic style in this case, to establish the appropriateness of specific stylistic categories at different developmental stages of the Polish language. The perspective of insight (i. e. the method of projecting modern stylistic categories onto historical texts), adopted by the researcher therefore had an influence on her conclusions. We reach somewhat different conclusions, though not contradictory to Sobczykowa’s, when we make Renaissance stylistic categories and the communication relationships of that time

150

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

their co-existence in new arrangements and textual and genre constellations within a printed book, according to the function assigned to The Bible in the teachings of Western Christian churches during the early modern period. The subject of this article are the various types of textual and genre structurizations in native vulgates, including those that exist in the book as potential genres that were ultimately “constituted” by the reader over the course of reading. However, the question arises of what status individual textual components had in a translation understood as a holistic message. Moreover, can one even discuss a holistic structure on a level higher than the sum of its individual components in this case? The undertaken subject matter is of interest to several disciplines: linguistics, particularly studies of metatext, textology and genealogy as well as stylistics, as well as sciences related to historical books. Genealogical approaches, particularly Maria Wojtak’s (2011) monographs and detailed works on the prayerbook as a genre in the form of a collection, cannot be ignored3. Thanks to Gérard Genette’s (e. g. 1992, 1997) work, theoretical works dedicated to different aspects of intertextuality, meta- and paratext are particularly helpful, although they are lacking in that they do not account for the nature of a historical book. In Poland, metatextual problems were undertaken in linguistic studies on meta- and paratext. In turn, Renarda Ocieczek (1990) and her coworkers deal with subject matter revolving around paratextual issues in their bibliological work within the framework of studies on the editorial literary frame. An editorial literary frame is defined as a “set of written elements added to the text of the primary work, introducing or concluding that work” (Ocieczek: 1990, 7), present regardless of the authorship of such elements. The definition of the editorial literary frame partially overlaps with the concept of paratext introduced by Gérard Genette. In his concept, all components such as the title, subtitle, crossheading; preambles, epilogues, introductions, publisher’s comments, notes on the margin, at the bottom of the page, at the end; mottos, illustrations, etc. However, the approach and objectives of Genette’s analyses diverges from the (sender, function of the text, addressee) our point of reference, determined on the basis of documents from the life of the church (e. g. church guidelines concerning teaching of The Bible in national languages), rhetorical guidelines, introductions and declarations of translators, parallels in countries that served as inspiration, or finally, studies of historical books, based on which one can attempt to approximate the target audience. Elements of the academic style that are encountered in native vulgates are subordinated to their superordinate didactic function and remain in agreement with the strategy and method of teaching adopted in education or church teaching, which is why the didactic and formative function, not the academic function, is considered to be the superordinate function of native vulgates. 3 M. Wojtak’s (2011) concept of a collection as a genre signifies the simultaneous co-existence of specific isofunctional elements: the collection of texts must be subordinated to a superordinate purpose. According to M. Wojtak, who introduced the concept of collection as a genre into Polish genology, the isofunctionality of collections is a feature that distinguishes a collection from a silva rerum, i. e. a set of texts with varying functions.

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

151

Silesian researchers of historical books. The latter are methodologically closer to source analysis methods typical for history, while studies on paratext are methodologically grounded in literature theory Textology and linguistic stylistics benefit broadly from them and develop in connection to the problem of intertextuality, the problem of text boundaries and the dialogism of literature. Gérard Genette elaborated upon the problem of paratext in more detail, introducting the concepts of peritext – to define elements surrounding the work, among which he included the author’s surname, title, dating, introductions, dedications and mottos, and of epitext – external messages that were not published with the text to which they make reference (e. g. publisher’s note, information about the book, interview with the author). In Genette’s approach, paratext is defined as the “threshold” between the primary text and all that is beyond it. Unfortunately, this researcher does not take a position on the issue of whether this “threshold” is an integral component of the text’s “structure”, or whether this threshold is itself external. A similar question must be addressed in studies of sixteenth century translations of The Holy Bible. The differences between the layout of a historical book and the concepts of para-, peri- and epitext based on observation of its modern successor can be perceived without difficulty, however. Many elements now epitextual with respect to a book were directly incorporated into it in the past. In printed translations of The Holy Bible some textual components do not refer to the main text, i. e. The Holy Bible, but to a book, a marketed product intended for a specific recipient, such as poems and letters of dedication, wood engravings with portrait of a dedication’s addressees, dedications and preambles of publishers or translators to their lords. Efforts were made to curry favor for a work, and the patronage of the king, a magnate or bishop were highly valued. Certain translations, such as Marcin Czechowic’s 1577 and 1594 editions (Polish Brother or Arian), as well as the translations of his co-religionist, Szymon Budny, and even Jakub Wujek’s translations of The New Testament (1593, 1594) have brief preambles in comparison to the 1599 edition. This indicates the modesty of the editorial undertaking. This had an effect on how the work was perceived, as it circulated among a narrow circle of recipients, which could have been a stigma in the case of Arian printings (however it is accepted that modest Arian printings were created for the needs of co-religionists). Introductions written by the publisher containing tips of all sorts to guide the reader, were also popular. Letters of dedication and letters authenticating the translation are defined as peritext in Genette’s approach and according to the definition of an editorial literary frame in the works of historical book scholars. These elements are of lesser importance in studies on the genre structure of historical translations, however they are very helpful for describing the communication context of the book.

152

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Typographic elements such as – a page header, tables of contents suggesting the text’s segmentation, types of abbreviations of biblical books referring to the Greek or Latin source, and even errata and orthographic corrections in printings from Königsberg, bound the text into one whole. Deep thought over the concept of the works stood behind the sequence and arrangement of books, divisions of books according to the canon, depending on the source text of the translation, the titles of the books themselves, or the different numbering of psalms depending on the source text of the translation. It is difficult to overlook the supportive role of arguments, summae, and additional segmentation of the text according to liturgical readings, including in the Eastern Church (ruskie zaczała) as we can see in illustration 4 (i. e. zacza: 89). Typographic elements served for direct organization of reading and made it possible to activate the proper style and mode of reading. For example, ordinary reading without the philological apparatus was possible (“goły tekst” or “bare text”), but more difficult reading with activation of elements of textual criticism – philological and hermeneutic reading – was also available. Another mode in which the text was used can be described as “pastoral”, i. e. in the system of the liturgical calendar (counted from Advent), or an annual reading (counted from January) as intended by the publisher of the Brest Bible. Typographic elements guided the book’s user, indicated the communication scenario in which the text could have been used, and actually co-determined the specific genre for the purposes of a potential scenario indicated in the book by means of typographic guides4. When defining the entire textual and genre structure, modern textology emphasizes the role of the title. Thematic cohesion is considered to be one of a text’s features, and the title of a work generally indicates its subject. Genette calls the title and subtitle a privileged area of the pragmatic dimension of the work, meaning its action on the reader – specifically an area defined as the genre contract or genre pact (1992: 320). We can find out much about such a pact from the titles of books. With respect to translations of The Holy Bible publishers/ printers made certain that titles exhaustively informed readers of the subject and content of a book, usually more broadly than a translation of The Holy Bible itself. Here are some examples of titles indicating that printed Polish vulgates

4 The Bible is not a liturgical book according to the strict definition of a set of prayers and orders of the ceremonies accompanying them; however, it constitutes the starting point for the development of forms and genres, including euchological forms – texts of prayers adopted in liturgies, responsorial psalms, antiphonies, paraphrases of psalms as church hymns and prayers – pacierz (pater noster) or the larger collections already mentioned, such as evangelaries and and evangelions, lectionaries, postils, evangelical harmonies, etc. – all forms that present the text of The Holy Bible in a specific way.

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

153

were sets of texts that contained other, equally important texts besides the translation proper. For example, in the Königsberg version of The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1551), it was no accident that the translation itself was prominently displayed, with information about the Greek source of the translation, which was a novelty in itself, as well as containing the type of translation, literary in this case. Information about the didactic function of the commentary book, interpreting and clarifying the text, can also be found on the title page: Ewanjelija s´wie˛ta Pana Jesusa Christusa wedle Matheusza S´wie˛tego, z Greckiego Je˛zyka na Polski przełoz˙ona. I wykładem krotkim a ku inszem Ewanjelistum potrzebnem, na wielu mies´cach objas´niona (1551). Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew, translated from the Greek language into Polish: with a short comment to other needful Evangelists, explained in many places.

Analyzed Catholic translations also had expanded titles. In Scharffenberger’s printings of 1556 and 1561, the tradition of the Vulgate (dos´wiadszony łacin´ski tekst) was a guarantee of orthodoxy, which it was why it was featured, and there is also no mention of philological novelties in the form of critical apparatus (this is expounded in the introduction): “Nowy Testament Polskim je˛zykiem wyłoz˙ony, według dos´wiadszonego Łácin´skiego tekstu, od Kos´ciołá Krzes´ciján´skiego przyje˛tego.” [The New Testament into the Polish language translated, according to a credible/well-established Latin text accepted from the Christian Church]. Below this, there is mention of other components of the book, e. g., lessons and prophecies from The Old Testament according the liturgical calendar: K temu przyłoz˙ono Lekcyje i Proroctwa z starego zakonu wzie˛te, ktore przy Ewánjelistach bywały czytane. Rejestr dostateczny ku najdowaniu Ewanjelij, które w dni Niedzielne, i inszych s´wia˛t przez cały rok bywały czytane, tak tez˙ na powszednie dni Postne i Adwentowe. Cum Gratia & Priuilegio S.R.M. (1556). To this end, Lessons and Prophecies of the Old Testament, oft read to the Evangelists, have been applied. A register sufficient for finding Gospels read on Sundays and other feast days as well as on ordinary days of Lent and Advent. Cum Gratia & Priuilegio S.R.M. (1556).

Significantly, lessons and prophecies from The Old Testament were included in the 1556 edition, which brings this printing closer to pastoral genres, e. g., The Gospels and Epistles published in the form of standalone printings, whose superordinate aim was to present The Bible in the parts read according to the liturgical calendar. This same arrangement was repeated in the 1568 edition. This mode of reading was also assumed by the Leopolita Bible, as indicated by the

154

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

distinctive register of liturgical readings, created in the old traditional way, with the beginning of the reading marked in the index. The title of Jakub Wujek’s New Testament (1593) shows that we are not just dealing with a translation, but with a real compendium of biblical knowledge, as he has mentioned that the translation was new, accurate, made from Latin and Greek, equipped with all possible critical apparatus, with arguments, summae, and commentaries. The text is approved by the Superiors. Nowy Testament Páná naszego Jesusa Christusa. Z nowu z Łácin´skiego i z Greckiego ná Polskie wiernie á szczyrze przełoz˙ony: i Argumentámi ábo Summáryjuszámi kaz˙dych Ksia˛g, i Rozdziałow, i Annotacyjámi po brzegách objas´niony. ¶ Przydáne sa˛ Náuki i Przestrogi máło nie zá káz˙dy(m) Rozdziáłem: Porownanie Ewánjelistow SS. Dzieje i drogi rozmaite Piotrá i Páwłá S. i Rejestr rzeczy głowniejszych ná kon´cu. Przez D. Jakuba Wujka, Teologá Societatis Iesu. Z dozwoleniem Stárszych. Pod rozsa˛dek Kos´ciołá S. Powszechnego Rzymskiego wszystko niech podlez˙e (1593). The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithfully and sincerely translated anew from the Latin and from the Greek into Polish: and with Arguments or Summae of every Book and every Chapter, and with Annotations in the margins explained. ¶ Teachings and Admonitions are provided after nearly every Chapter: Comparison of Evangelists. The acts and various paths of Peter and Paul S. and Register of more prominent things at the end. By Doctor Jakub Wujek, a Theologian of the Societatis Iesu. With the permission of the Elders. May its entirety be subject to the reason of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (1593).

The titles of Arian translations were less developed, however they are not lacking in additional textual components, such as various lessons and a register that organized readings: “Nowy Testáment. To jest wszystkie Pismá Nowego Przymierza, z Greckiego je˛zyká ná rzecz Polska˛ wiernie i szczerze przełoz˙one.” The New Testament. [All Scriptures of the New Covenant faithfully and sincerely translated from the Greek language into the Polish matter]. And below that: “Przydáne jest rozne czytánie na brzegach, które sie˛ w innych ksie˛gach nájduje: i Rejestr ná kon´cu” (1577) [Various reading found in other books is provided in the margins: and a Register at the end (1577)]. The titles of Szymon Budny’s translations are modest in comparison. The translator limits himself to information on the variation of nomenclature and the assurance that his translation is verified and accurate. The title page informs of the arrangement of apocryphal books, which he adopted from the Brest translators, in which he demonstrates his novel approach to biblical canon: “Ksie˛gi Nowego Przymierza, Które pospolicie Nowym Testamentem zowa˛, teraz znowu z wielka˛ praca˛, i z pilnym popráwieniem, z Greckiego ná Polski je˛zyk, przetłumaczone.” [Books of the New Covenant, that commonly the New Testament is called, again with exorbitant effort and diligent corrections from the Greek into the Polish language translated]. And below that: “Ktorych porza˛dek ná drugiej

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

Illustration 5. The register of the Gospels and Epistles in the Leopolita Bible (1561).

155

156

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

stronie tej kárty masz połoz˙ony” (1572). [The order of which (i. e. books – IWG) on the second page has been positioned]. Theoretical and literary considerations raise (the problem), the problem of the relativity of structures defined as a text, above all, difficulties determining its boundaries (e. g., a verse is treated as standalone text but also as a component of the volume, which, at a certain level, can also be treated as a purposeful, appropriately structured holistic message, etc.). The problem of the relativity of text boundaries also concerns medieval linguistic artifacts, such as glosses that are incorporated into the text, as well as printed native. For Renaissance translators, commenting on and adding to the content of The Bible was considered be a virtue, while in printed vulgates, comments of various genres were placed in the margins or other parts of the book. Certain translations are so encumbered by scholia that the main text appears as a metatextual commentary to the text of the source of translation and its variants. (This particularly pertains to translations from Königsberg, but also to Wujek’s translations of 1593 and 1599.). As I have mentioned, this apparatus was consciously abandoned in Scharffenbereger’s printings (1556 and 1561) as well as in the second edition of Jakub Wujek’s and Marcin Czechowic’s New Testament. Some elements making up the critical apparatus that are physically situated outside of the main text are organically linked to it and are not autonomous in terms of content since they cannot function without the main text. Non-autonomous components include literal translations of Greek expressions based in the hermeneutics of the time, such as the glosses in Murzynowski’s translation (1551) visible in illustration 3. The *wézwanych (the summoned/those called upon) form in the main text co-exists with the *proszonych (the invited) gloss found on the margin. The gloss *proszonych (the invited) corresponds to the fragment: aby wezwali *wézwanych. These forms render the polysemy of kekle¯menous in Greek, meaning “those who are invited” (lit. “those who are summoned/called upon”). The translator signals that the participle form of wezwanych (those who are summoned/called upon) is formally linked to the verb kalesai, “to summon/call upon”, present earlier in the text. In The Gospels, this verb is also present in Matt 9:13, Mark 2:17 and Luke 5:32, where it has the meaning of “summon/call upon”, not “invite/ask” (przyszedłem wezwac´ sprawiedliwych ale grzeszników do nawrócenia – I have come to call upon the just but sinners to repent). As it appears, Murzynowski renders the polysemy and cites two terms that appeared here in Polish translations, as demonstrated by a comparison of several translations of The Gospel (Matt 22:2): wzywác´ wezwánych (1556), áby wezwáli onych co byli wezwáni á proszeni (1561), wzywac´ tych ktorzy byli proszeni (1563), przyzwác´ wezwánychi (1570), wzywác´ wezwánych (1577), wzywác´ záproszonych (1593). Essentially, only Murzynowski (1551) and Leopolita (1561) reflected upon the meaning of Polish equivalents of the polysemic Greek original, however each of them did so differently. Stanisław Murzynowski

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

157

used asterisks *, clubs, parentheses, and so on, symbols, not stabilized and interposed neologisms, as the humanists did. The introduction of a verbally expressed commentary would bring his translation closer to a free translation, in which additions of this type are abundant, as exemplified in the Leopolita Bible. The existence of glosses, whether marginal or in the main text, was part of philological tradition. Murzynowski’s translation has an excess of them in comparison to other translations, and in this regard, he is rivalled only by Jakub Wujek’s Bible (editions of 1593 and 1599). Jan Sandecki-Malecki, a harsh critic of the Königsberg editions, accused the translator of excessive pedanticism, writing in Herezje i błe˛dy (Heresies and errors): wypełnilis´cie wariantami bardziej niz˙ trzeba i nader cze˛sto bez powodu (you have written more variants than necessary and too often without reason). This is why this edition will serve as an illustration of the function of glosses relating to linguistic matters. An expression in the main text marked with an asterisk and bracket can be linked to a marginal gloss with an expression like: dosłownie mówia˛c (literally speaking), innymi słowy (in other words) or by means of so-called metathextual commentary.5 Several types of metatextual expressions are distinguished in studies of metatext, among them metatextual commentaries, which are present on the surface of the text in the form of abbreviated sentences, in contrast to metatextual operators or individual lexemes, usually as participial expressions, e. g., krótko mówia˛c, podsumowuja˛c, włas´ciwie powiedziawszy (in short, in summary, in proper terms). These expressions can be independent or interjected into a message. It seems that we are dealing with a non-verbally-expressed critical apparatus, signaled by metatextual commentary, in such printings. They could not appear directly in translations imitating literary editions, so they were marked by means of characters used in textual criticism. 5 In Polish linguistic studies, the concept of metatext generally signifies a text about text, e. g., the expression ogólnie rzecz ujmuja˛c (generally speaking). It comprises messages that are present in the text and serve for commenting on a message and clarifying its meaning. In linguistics, units from levels of an organization lower than that of the text (which is understood as a suprasentential structure) are frequently the level of metatextual observations, primarily particles, conjunctions and operators in discourse, as well as interjections. Metatextual commentaries are revealed at the textual level. Polish scholars also draw attention to certain divergences in usage of the concept of metatext in the works of literature theorists and the linguists. The concepts of metatext and metatextual function in the works of Polish literature theorists and linguists have certain elements in common, namely the assumption that the message is dialogical. Linguistics applies metatext to a communication scenario, characterize it as “mini-utterances in the first person, in the form of direct expressions of the speaker (any sender) to their recipient, something like general instructions that help to properly understand what is being spoken of. These “utterances” are intended to clarify the sender’s intentions and warn the recipient against potential incorrect assumptions. It is like a stenogram of a particular mini-dialogue between interlocutors, facilitating communication” (Wajszczuk: 2005, 7, cf. Witosz: 1996, 2001).

158

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Special connectors like *] replace a sentence but do not interfere in the main text directly. Metatextual commentaries are signaled by means of symbols, including by means of brackets or clubs that indicate the systemic differences between the Greek source and the Polish translations. These symbols provide the translated text with the hallmarks of a dialogue conducted between the source language, the Polish language, and the native translating tradition. Parentheses appear as an exception in the printing of 1561, according to the old tradition. According to the humanist slogan of a return to the origins, the aim of certain translations is not so much to deliver translated text but to show the native text in its relationship with the source, displaying as many variants of the text as possible, while literal translations are noted on the margin. Thus, intertextuality becomes a significant feature of these translations, and the expanded critical apparatus becomes the pillar that ties together the original source with the Polish vulgate. It can be said that the most original and creative character of translation is demonstrated here. Exegetical, historical and substantive clarifications exhibit more autonomy, although they are also placed near the main text. Commentaries of this type were translated and added to translations. Besides characters for textual criticism and brief exegetic and substantive annotations, moral teachings, which are found in the main text itself or in direct proximity to it, longer commentaries, discussions and warnings, substantive registers, lists of contents related to the main text, have a clarifying, catechetic, polemical or persuasive function, constituting evangelical harmonies. They are typographically distinguished as independent textual units and are not “organically” immersed in the main text and its immediate proximity. As I have already mentioned, Scharffenberger’s printings of 1556 and 1568 in Kraków include, exceptionally, lessons from The Old Testament, which were explained during services (The Holy Bible was read in Latin in the Catholic Church). This arrangement fostered the use of these printings in the function of pastoral paraliturgical books, intended for church teaching, with potential ad hoc segmentation according to the system of readings in the liturgical calendar. Liturgical markers served this function, including the division into zaczała. The beginning of readings was signaled either in the margins, the end in the main text being marked by means of a characteristic hand (icon), or only in registers. The relationship of Polish vulgates with pastoral literature is unjustly marginalized by researchers of historical translations of The Holy Bible. Popular editions in the national languages became hybrids in terms of genre, and a translation of The Holy Bible published in a specific sequence contained guidelines allowing for transformations of the text and similarities to forms of presentation of The Holy Bible with segmentation into Gospels and Epistles,

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

159

evangeliaries, Gospel books and postils, which were popular among preachers at the time.6 In relation to the outlined differences between translations of The Holy Bible in the sixteenth century, the question must be posed whether stylistic and genre conventions were created in more than twenty7 editions of the Polish translation of The Holy Bible. It is problematic to assign books of this type to a specific genealogical group or classify them among books related to worship or church teaching, or even to link them – as Joanna Sobczykowa does – to academic literature. In churches birthed from the Reformation, they belonged to the group of liturgical books, and more broadly, represented the formative (didactic) book in the early modern period. They were conceived as products for universal use, for the priesthood and for schools (gymnasia and colleges). Thanks to aggregation of elements, they could be transformed into popular evangeliaries and postils, and erudite parts were expanded. However the academic element appeared in them within the scope in which filologia sacra was used in religious teaching and propaganda. More than seven translation variants of The New Testament can be distinguished in the second half of the 16th century, and they are designated by their year of publishing: 1551–1553, 1556, 1561, 1563, 1570, 1577, 1593. They were printed in over 20 editions and re-editions. In Poland, German printings were undoubtedly the initial point of reference for biblical editorship, and with time, the Brest translation – modeled on French achievements – replaced them, and 6 In the Catholic Church, during mass, The Bible was read in Latin but explained in Polish, which is why the Gospels and Epistles, sometimes called postils, which seems characteristic, were popular pastoral literature. A small work published by Wirzbie˛ta in 1572 indicated that these genres were sometimes equated, and it was titled Postilla Polska, to iest Lekcyje, Epistoły y Ewanjelije przez cały rok: Przydane sa˛ nad kaz˙da˛ Argumenta i miejsca niektore pamie˛ci godne […] Historyje Me˛ki Pana naszego Jezusa Kristusa od czterzech Ewanjelistow wypisane z wie˛tsza˛ pilnos´cia˛ niz´li przed tym wyprawione: Z tychz˙e czterzech jedna porza˛dnie zebrana s krociuchnym wykładem miejsc niektorych w ktorych sie˛ zdadza˛ byc´ niezgodni Ewanjelistowie. (Polish Postil, that is Lessons, Epistles and Gospels for the whole year: There are appended Arguments and certain places worth remembering [….] the Histories of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from four Evangelists written out and prepared with bigger diligence than before: From those four [Gospels] one is in orderliness collected with short explanations of some places in which the Evangelist seem to be diverged). Certain translations of The Holy Bible contained similar parts. The relationships between certain translations with preachers’ publications related to postils and preachers’ editions of the Gospels and Epistles are clear. Such relationships are made apparent by secondary segmentation (i. e. superimposed on the continuous division according to chapters). Clarification of the Word of God in the national language began with translation of a given reading, so there was a high demand for preachers’ literature. 7 In combined enumerations of sixteenth-century editions of The Holy Bible, I account for translations of both the Old and New Testament, however I do not include preaching and liturgical genres of messaging of The Holy Bible nor pericopes in postils, Gospels and Epistles, harmonies, commentaries, or parts of The Bible in catechisms and canticles.

160

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

from a long-term perspective, Wujek’s translations became the point of reference. The Brest Bible clearly left its mark on the form of the second edition of the Leopolita Bible and directly on the translations of Czechowic and Budny8. It is difficult to unambiguously and accurately answer the question concerning the genre structure of printed translations of the Bible, if only because it was easy to transform them as needed thanks to the aggregation of elements surrounding the text. A translation of The Holy Bible always displayed a part of a larger set of strictly related texts. The holistic arrangement was not accidental but was motivated by the hermeneutics. The whole translation can be treated thus as a sort of a hermeneutic commentary of the proper (original) text. The co-existence of the primary text (subjected to genre qualification specific to biblical genres) with additional textual components making up the secondary text, as required for institutionalized messaging compliant with the teachings of churches, is to be considered as a feature formally constituting Polish translations. This is why, in the case of translations of The Holy Bible, the whole is to be considered as a set of related texts, and all components are characterized by thematic unity despite having a different formal and genre structure. Many genre forms existed as potential forms “activated” by the reader, and the sequence and method of reading was arbitrary. I consider an institutionalized doctrinal message to be the proper holistic message, in which the translation of The Holy Bible occupies a central role, and not only the style and linguistic form of the Polish vulgate were responsible for the orthodoxy of its reading but also support from secondary material. Therefore, I place translations of The Holy Bible within the scope of didactic literature. In certain translations, the academic aspect is also subordinate to the achievement of this superordinate objective. The text was shaped so that it could serve as the basis of church teachings as well as individual religious formation, conducted by churches remotely according to the method of autoformation or within the framework of so-called household pastoralism. The Brest Bible was the first Polish translation that consciously assumed autoformation. In terms of potential analogies between printed translations of The Holy Bible and prayer books as genres in the form of collections, it must be emphasized that, while they share a similar function, their formal shape generally differs. The texts gathered in prayer books, similarly as in printed Polish vulgates, are formative (didactic) books (they are isofunctional in this respect), and they differ in this from silvae rerum as well as from books sharing a binding. The formal shape and 8 However, New Testaments based on the Brest Bible published in the second half of the sixteenth century abandoned many editing elements initiated in this printing. They returned, for example, to the system of readings according to the liturgical year, but not according to the calendar year. Some of them were not divided according to verses, and zaczała were written in by hand in other copies.

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

161

arrangement of texts in prayer books and Polish vulgates are generally different. Polish vulgates do not consist of micro-collections9, but of the translation proper accompanied by non-autonomous textual components, including purely linguistic glosses as a metatextual commentary on the translation as well as various types of more or less autonomous supportive texts, which cover clearly distinct textual units in the book’s structure: przypiski, przestrogi, wykłady (footnotes, warnings, discussions), substantive considerations, i. e. substantive registers, lists of church readings, or even lessons, i. e. parts used in so-called po sztuczce (frustulatim, with exceptions). It happens, however, that certain editions of the Bible are a hybrid similar to a genre in the form of a collection. The Gdan´sk Bible has such a form, with added catechetical elements typical of canticles and catechisms (Psalms, Hymns, Summa of Learning, and particularly so-called Upomnienia [Admonitions], or so-called Tablice domowe [Household boards], short moral teachings based on The Holy Bible taken from Luther’s small catechisms). Sometimes, the New Testament was included along with marked readings in evangelical catechisms in the form of a micro-collection. The factors determining the genre, linguistics, stylistics and composition of a text are its function and purpose, which are determined on the basis of the sender and addressee of a work. In the case of didactic texts, there can be several addressees: the direct addressee – teacher and target recipient, whom the message reaches via a preceptor. I consider the didactic, or formative, function to be the superordinate function of printed translations of The Holy Bible announced in print, and this function is superior to all other functions of these texts. Martin Luther assumed that The Holy Bible is to become a sermon, and both the language and form of translation were to be subordinated to this function. John Calvin also expounded on this idea and undertook great efforts to make it a reality, assuming that the Bible was to be the fundamental book in the life of a Christian. Announcement in print of the native vulgate, particularly in evangelical printings, served to fulfill the rule of sola scriptura, regardless of whether a believer learned The Holy Bible in an ex auditu congregation or by independent reading in a socalled household Church. This is why, in the considerations undertaken here, I treat native vulgates published in print as didactic genres, oriented toward religious formation, related to postils, commentaries and even catechisms, in particular. As a rule, similarly to such vulgates, translations of The Holy Bible were to contain an institutionalized message and cited methods and techniques of 9 They are constitutive for prayer books as genres in the form of collections. In the catechisms and canticles I have analyzed, we find that micro-collections are distinctly demarcated by titles. In the catechistic part, these are: lesser catechism, but usually the lesser and greater catechism, as separate micro-collections; pastoralism (sometimes divided into household and congregational) with appropriately arranged prayers, hymns and instructions for household worship); and in the canticle part, psalms and hymns.

162

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

teaching developed in churches, including hermeneutic methods adapted to teaching needs, which became a pillar of reformed church rhetoric in evangelical churches, known as genus didascalicum. For this reason, translations of the Bible took on academic features in the scope in which philology served exegesis and church teaching, and “proper understanding” was the key to them. It should be remembered that these editions were not academic editions in the strict sense. Such qualities as the basis of translation, style of translation, innovative or traditional language, etc. became elements with semiotic significance. When linking translations of The Holy Bible with institutionalized doctrinal teaching, I assign them to popular theology, which was conducted in the national language for the purposes of church teaching.10 Christian rhetoric of the Renaissance and the ecclesiastical class (genus ecclesiasticum) were faculties of popular theology11. In a work dedicated to the theory of church oratory authored by the preachers of the king Stefan Batory (Stephen Báthory), Stanisław Sokołowski, Wojciech Ryczek (2011, 82) places a question mark in the section dedicated to the ecclesiastical genus. He perceives the roles of both Erasmus of Rotterdam and Philip Melanchton in the development of the ecclesiastical class, where the latter distinguished genus didascalicum, which encompasses preachers’ sermons, in the work Elementorum rhetorices libri duo of 1531. In the context of preparing church sermons, invention and searching for the subject (matter) of the sermon were ascribed a special role, which was performed by careful reading and multi-directional interpretation of books of The Holy Bible and through the use of loci communes, while lesser weight was given to elocution. Martin Luther had a critical approach to rhetoric, however this pertained to a decorative style, whereas he appreciated the docere area of rhetoric applied in 10 The translations of Szymon Budny, which partially overstep the bounds imposed by popular theology, could be an exception here. On the other hand, however, this cognitive maximalism and academic approach to the text arises from the general doctrinal and ideological assumptions of the Polish Brethren, which involved the programmatic elimination of differences between these varieties of theology. The concept of denominational polemics based on the exchange of views, with reference to academic arguments, is linked to this method of realizing church didactics. 11 As Wojciech Ryczek (2011, 85) writes: Rhetorica christiana. Teoria wymowy kos´cielnej Stanisława Sokołowskiego: “Wysta˛pienie kaznodziei miało nie tylko objas´nic´ wiernym dopiero co odczytana˛ perykope˛, ale takz˙e wskazac´ godne zalecenia wzory poste˛powania i nakłonic´ do cia˛głego podejmowania trudu ich realizacji w codziennym z˙yciu. […] Wobec tematycznej róz˙norodnos´ci kazan´, powoduja˛cej takz˙e wielos´c´ ich kompozycyjnych wzorów, pojawiły sie˛ propozycje, aby wydzielic´ oddzielny rodzaj wymowy […] przez wprowadzenie genus ecclesiasticum (rodzaj kos´cielny).” (A preacher’s sermon was not only meant to explain a pericope that had just been read to the faithful, but also to indicate models of behavior worthy of recommendation and to encourage continuous effort in achieving such behavior in daily life. […] In light of the thematic diversity of sermons, which also resulted in a multitude of compositional formulae, there were proposals to separate this separate type of oratory […] by introducing a genus ecclesiasticum).

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

163

church teaching. Melanchton, however, drew attention to and recommended use of the rhetorical potential of the Bible itself. In admonitions and instructions, or “sermons” transposed from oral practice to the printed word in a book, decorative elements were reduced, and the message was subjected to greater rigor. It was dominated by a substantive, academic style, abbreviated by necessity. What we associate with rhetoric, i. e. elocution, was reduced, and emphasis was placed on invention. In the Lutheran Church, systematic church teaching also encompassed regular interpretation and teaching of the Bible, translated appropriately into the vernacular. Martin Luther first recommended convincing the populace to change on the basis of the Word of God, followed by their gradual introduction to worship. The first article of the Prussian Ustawa [Act] (1525) follows this reasoning, ordering that the populace learn the Bible directly and accurately. This objective was served by matins and vespers, during which it was mandated to read a translation of The Holy Bible, by chapters and with explanation of the parts that were read, accompanied by teaching of catechism. This obligation was upheld in later acts (Wojak 1993). This is why discussions in chapters in Stanisław Murzynowski’s translation of The Gospel According to Matthew (1551), given according to the sequence of chapters, could have performed a function analogous to that of a postil, where pericopes were present according to the system of the liturgical calendar. The Holy Bible was becoming a multi-functional book, and the system of postils was achievable thanks to markers in the text. In reformed religiosity, emphasis was placed on the proper method of reading and teaching The Holy Bible during services. Preachers were to be educated to teach the righteous and sincere word of God and also to be taught languages, rhetoric and dialectics. Therefore, does the aforementioned hypothesis concerning use of printed translations for church teaching stand in contradiction to the generally accepted determination of the layman addressee of translations of The Holy Bible? Not necessarily, particularly since the problem must be considered from a dynamic perspective, and denominational differences related to the organization and operating principles of congregations must be accounted for, along with the progress of education in the second half of the sixteenth century. To summarize, it should be stressed that the problem of text boundaries in translations of The Holy Bible, considered on the basis of ten examples, goes beyond the technical definition of editorship of historical texts. Methodological support from many disciplines, from linguistics through textology and literary theory, is to be sought for detailed studies. The integrated nature of a historical book “as text” and “as an artifact” must also be taken into consideration. The basic concepts of “text” and “genre” are often considered as theoretical entities, models abstracted from texts, which is understandable when we are dealing with

164

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

texts that have long traditions and developed genre forms. However, in reference to forms in statu nascendi, because this is what we are dealing with in the case of the sixteenth-century translations of The Holy Bible, the paradigms of the popular vulgate as a formative book only formed as a result of the creative transposition of academic tradition for the purposes of the popular printed book. Translated by Sebastian Skowron

Bibliography ´ ski, Jerzy/Niebrzegowska-Bartmin ´ ska, Stanisława (2009), Tekstologia, Bartmin Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (2006), Polskie i czeskie z´ródła przekładu Biblii Leopolity, Kraków: Lexis. Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII wieku. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Warszawa/ Wrocław/Kraków: Ossolineum. Frankowski, Janusz (1999), Biblia w przekładzie Jakuba Wujka, Warszawa: Vocatio. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the CounterReformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Genette, Gérard (1992), Palimpsestsy, in: Henryk Markiewicz (ed.), Współczesna teoria badan´ literackich za granica˛. Antologia, vol. 4, part 2, Aleksander Milecki (transl.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 317–366. Genette, Gérard (1997), Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation, Jane E. Lewin (transl.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [original edition: genette, gérard Seuils, Paris 1987: E˙ditions du Seuil]. Krolikowski, Peter (2003), Biblia brzeska 1563, Clifton/Kraków: Kalwin Publishing/ Collegium Columbinum. Meller, Katarzyna (2012), Słowa jak ziarna. Reformacyjne idee, ksia˛z˙ki, spory, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza. Ocieczek, Renarda (1990), O literackiej ramie wydawniczej w ksia˛z˙kach dawnych, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2002), Pismo S´wie˛te w je˛zyku polskim w latach 1518–1638. Sytuacja wyznaniowa w Polsce a rozwój edytorstwa biblijnego, Wrocław: PDF online: http://digital.fides.org.pl/Content/728/Pietkiewicz-Doktorat.pdf. Ryczek, Wojciech (2011), Rhetorica christiana. Teoria wymowy kos´cielnej Stanisława Sokołowskiego, Kraków: UNUM. Sobczykowa, Joanna (2012), O naukowej polszczyz´nie humanistycznej złotego wieku. Wujek – Budny – Murzynowski, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Wajszczuk, Jadwiga (2005), O metateks´cie, Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Textual and Genre Problems of Printed Translations of The Holy Bible

165

Witosz, Boz˙ena (1996), Metatekst w utworze literackim. Problemy teoretyczne, in: Eugeniusz Czaplejewicz/Edward Kasperski (ed.), Literatura a heterogenicznos´c´ kultury, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo TRIO, 139–149. Witosz, Boz˙ena (2001), Metatekst w opisie teoriotekstowym, stylistycznym i pragmalingwistycznym, in: Boz˙ena Witosz (ed.), Stylistyka a pragmatyka, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego, 73–81. Wojak, Tadeusz (1993), Ustawy kos´cielne w Prusach Ksia˛z˙e˛cych w XVI wieku (1525– 1568), Warszawa: Chrzes´cijan´ska Akademia Teologiczna. Wojtak, Maria (2011), Współczesne modlitewniki w oczach je˛zykoznawcy. Studium genologiczne, Tarnów: Biblos.

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Words of God Cut in Wood. Some Remarks about the Illustrations in Polish Renaissance Editions of the Bible

The need to enrich biblical texts with artwork emerged already in early Christianity. It was at that time when the oldest versions of the Bible were created, their text accompanied by a more or less elaborate painting decorations. The aim of such ornaments was not only to embellish the manuscript, but also strengthen its content and thereby strike a deeper cord with the readers. Whereas words carried fides ex auditu, images completed them with fides ex visu (Knapin´ski: 2004, 133; Szymik: 2011). Yet they both had the same objective – to familiarise readers with the tenets of their faith. For the widest scope of impact, there was hardly any better way to achieve this objective than through printed texts with decorative woodprints. I want to discuss precisely such illustrations and demonstrate how the printers of the first translations of the Bible published in the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth managed the task of carrying the biblical message across through text and image (especially the latter). As the material is extensive, I will only focus on those editions which encompass the entire text of the Bible, skipping biblical fragments (such as Eccclesiastes or Psalms) which were published at the same time and often by the same houses as well as the New Testament printed as an independent book. Hence, the study covers six editions, the first of which left the printing press in 1561, the last – in 1599.

1.

Cracow, Mark Szarfenberg Heirs (1561)

The first Polish edition of the Bible, which is also one of the most interesting from the editing point of view, was printed in the workshop of Mikołaj and Stanisław Szarfenberger who at the time still worked together as Mark Szarfenberg Heirs. It was after their family name that the edition was called the Szarfenberger Bible (Kawecka-Gryczowa/Man´kowska: 1983, 259–264). However, the names of the two brothers appear only in the colophon as it was Mikołaj himself who initiated the efforts to have the two Books of the Scripture published and only he signed the

168

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

included dedication to King Sigismund Augustus. Mikołaj was also the one to express his dissatisfaction with the quality of the edition which he considered far from ideal and, at any rate, falling short of his expectations. He gave vent to his resentment in the book itself right after the preface by its editor, Jan Kasprowicz Nycz, called the Leopolita (incidentally, this is how the edition acquired its second name – the Leopolita Bible): Dear Reader, please do not be offended that this present Bible has not been executed with uniform figures, some being larger, others being smaller. To describe the reason therefor would be to offend those who stand behind it. Hence, I leave what they have done, causing my irredeemable loss and great expense, to Our Lord and their conscience (or whatever they have of it) (Bible: 1561, f. A4r).

This inscription is intriguing in itself, mainly because, since Mikołaj recorded his reservations about the quality of the artwork on the folios of his own book, we may presume that both the artwork and the general aesthetic quality of the edition were very important to him. Interestingly, he put all the blame for what, to him, was a poor final result on unidentified contractors even though he himself must have been responsible for buying and selecting the material as well as for the overall design of the book. But was there really a reason for him to offer such excuses? In order to answer this question, we need to look closer at Mikołaj’s work or works, to be more precise, as the 1561 edition was published in two variants1. In both cases, the publication is monumental indeed. The Szarfenberger Bible contains 584 numbered and 20 unnumbered2 folios in the 2° format. It was printed on a paper of good quality mostly with black paint, red being only used for the title folio3. The text is set in a Fraktur font and arranged in two blocks with the exception of several printed folios containing, inter alia, the dedication, prefaces and register at the end. In each of the folios text blocks are surrounded by single lines making a simple border with clearly separated vertical strips intended for marginalia. The edition is also decorated with many woodcut initials and 284 illustrations executed in the same technique (Muczkowski: 1849).

1 The two variants are mentioned already by Estreicher: 1894, vol. XIII, 13. His finding is rarely mentioned in the literature, but it was confirmed by Komender/Mieczkowska: 1988, 310–312. In both publications, individual variants are differentiated by the presence or lack of the date 1554 in the printer’s mark in the colophon. In my opinion, however, there are more distinctive features resulting from the choice of illustrations. Since the problem requires further research, I will only point it out in this article to return to it in later publications. 2 Of the total number of folios, 231 are devoted to the Old Testament, 63 to the New Testament and eight for the register (Estreicher: 1894, vol. XIII, 13). 3 As this volume contains a separate text on title folios in the Polish editions of the Bible by Aurelia Zdun´czyk, p. 93–143 [editor’s note]. I will not discuss their decorations. It is worthwhile to mention, however, that the topic of title folios in the Bible was also explored by Socha: 2011.

Words of God Cut in Wood

169

The main feature of the initials used in the Szarfenberger Bible is that they are diverse enough to be broken down into at least several smaller series4. One of them is made up of the initials which are the largest (but not identical in size), the most ornamental and thus the most representative. Their function is to highlight the most important parts of the Szarfenberger Bible. The initials in this series are characteristic for their basic decorative motif of a geometric braid. Among other initials, the group includes: B – from the title in the title folio, Z – opening the Leopolita’s preface, G – initiating St. Gerome’s letter and W – beginning the St. Gerome’s Preface to the Pentateuch. The D opening the dedication to Sigismund Augustus is typologically similar to the initials listed above although its dimensions are much different. Other series of initials, much smaller and less ornamental, serve as highlighters of a slightly lower rank. Their role is to emphasise fragments which are contained in the sections opened by the initials from the first series. The initials serving this function can be categorised in not just one but several series due to the stark differences in ornamentation, their size (they are usually four lines high) being relatively similar. It is worthwhile to point out that the series do not complement but overlap one another, which can be seen in the case of the initials P, Tand A. This means that the reason several sets were used at the same time was not that some of them were incomplete. Rather, when preparing to print the Bible, Mikołaj must have taken from his type cases whatever he happened to have at hand to achieve a specific objective without worrying too much about the final, consistent appearance of the whole work. The illustrations decorating the Szarfenberger Bible are similarly diverse. They are in fact a compilation of works from several woodcut series which were, additionally, made by different artists in different workshops (Muczkowski: 1845, 385–387; Kawecka-Gryczowa/Man´kowska: 1983, 263). Out of the 284 woodprints ornamenting the first edition of the Leopolita Bible, the most interesting belong to the group made up of 87 prints, some of which were copied more than once. Due to their size (108 × 148 mm), they are perfectly integrated with the text block, spreading across the width of two columns. Executed with delicate, natural strokes suggestively imitating the effects obtained in chalcography, they bear testimony to the artist’s considerable skill in the art of 4 As the Szarfenberger Bible was published in two variants which, according to my research, are different not only in terms of their printer’s marks (see footnote 1), but also their artwork, I need to underline that this analysis is based on the copy from the Jagiellonian Library collection (Shelf mark: Cim. 8307) which I chose because of its very good condition and availability in the Polona National Digital Library. The other variant is an excellent facsimile of the same Bible edition published in 1988 in “Biblia Slavica”. It is a reproduction of the copy held in the Herzog August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel which is identical with the copy at the University Library in Łódz´, to name but one (Shelf mark: 1022605).

170

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

engraving. His craftsmanship is also confirmed by the evident ease with which he differentiates one line from another making his representations legible even when, as is often the case, the entire box is filed in. Notably, before the woodcuts appeared in the Szarfenberg print, they had decorated several editions of the Lutheran Bible (sic!) starting with the one published in 1534 (Chojecka: 1961, 10– 14) through 1535, 1536, 1539, 1541 to 1545 (Muczkowski: 1845, 385–386; Muczkowski: 1849, 2–3). All these editions were made in the Wittenberg publishing house of Hans Lufft (Schramm: 1923, 22–27; Schmidt: 1962, 179–215) who, having used the printing blocks – most of which were made5 according to a design of Monogrammist MS6 (Chojecka: 1961, 10–11) – for his own purposes resold them as was commonly done at the time to partially offset the cost of purchasing them. Before the blocks got to Cracow, some of them were used for the Czech editions of the Bible made in 1537 in Prague by Pavel Severin of Kapí Hory as well as 1549 and 1560 by Bartolomeˇj Netolicki of Netolice and Jirˇí Melantrich of Aventino (Muczkowski: 1849, 2; Voit: 2013, 146–160). This journey is best illustrated by a woodcut depicting two witnesses (Luther and Melanchton) and the apocalyptic beast whose head was originally crowned with the papal tiara reworked in the Netolicki’s edition into a double crown (with an empty spot for what was previously the upper part of the tiara). It was also in this censored form that the woodblock was printed by Szarfenberger7. The modification not only records the journey made by the block since it was created, but it also helps understand how it was possible to use the work conceived for a dissenter Bible in its Catholic editions. Other full-page woodprints of the Genesis and Ezekiel’s Vision have made a similar journey to Cracow from the Wittenberg through Czech editions of the Bible. Another work which arrived at the Szarfenberger’s via the Czech publishing houses is the Tree of Jesse incorporated into the vignette of the title page for the New Testament. It was made in 1528 by one of the most eminent Nuremberg artists, Erhard Schön, whose signature can be seen in the lower left-hand corner of the woodcut8 (Chojecka: 1961, 12–13; Voit: 2013, 142–144). 5 According to some researchers, Monogrammist MS should be identified with Melchior Schwarzenberg, whereas others decipher the initials as Martin Schaffners or Moritz Schreiber (Chojecka: 1961, 10) It should be mentioned that, according to Phillip Schmidt, all illustrations made for the Wittenberg Bible published in 1534 are by Lucas Cranach the Younger (Schmidt: 1962, 179–195). 6 Another artist, signing his works as HB, stands behind representations of St. Paul the Apostle and St. John. 7 The woodcut depicting the Whore of Babylon was similarly reworked (Pietkiewicz: 2011, 165– 167). 8 Schön’s work was used for the first time in the Bible published by Pawel (Paul) Severin in 1529 (Chojecka: 1961, 13).

Words of God Cut in Wood

171

Illustration 1: Biblia, to iest Xie˛gi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ według łacin´skiey Bibliey… nowo wyłoz˙ona, Kraków, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs 1561.

172

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Foreign origins can also be traced for most of the other woodcuts used by Szarfenberger, including the 94 works making up the most numerous group. Measuring 60 × 70 mm, they are perfectly matched to the width of a single column thanks to which they harmonise with it ideally regardless of whether they were placed at the top, at the bottom or in the middle. They were also executed with a soft and fluent stroke and deftly applied hatching achieving the effect of chiaroscuro modelling, which suggests that their author must have been talented and well versed in the art of woodcut printing. Undoubtedly, the artist was better than the one behind the following set of 84 engravings. These are quite coarse and much inferior to the rest of the artwork. The feeling of mismatch is only exacerbated by the panels which were added on all four sides of the prints to adjust their small size (40 × 53 mm) to the width of the column. Notably, the same works were used by the Szarfenberger brothers to illustrate the New Testament published in 1556 (Muczkowski: 1845, 386)9. In the same book, they also use the scenes of Annunciation and Prayer in Gethsemane with which they had already decorated the Hortulus animae prayer book published probably around 1551 by Mark Szarfenberg Heirs (Krzak-Weiss: 2014, 208–243), as well as Lamentation and Crucifixion with Mary and St. John. Yet another scene which was transferred from the same edition of the New Testament to the Szarfenberger Bible is the Visitation previously used in the Hortulus printed 1546 by Mark Szarfenberg’s Heirs (Krzak-Weiss: 2014, 226). When analysing the illustrations ornamenting the first edition of the Leopolita Bible, we cannot omit the full-page woodcut with the image of Sigismund Augustus10 printed on the verso of the title folio. Surrounded by a frame of rich ornamentation and symbolism, the print depicts the bust of the King who was 41 at the time as is evidenced by the inscription on the plaque. More importantly, the work is signed by the author with initials CS and the date 1561, which enabled Ewa Chojecka to ascertain some decades ago that the woodcut was probably made by Kryspin Scharffenberg (Chojecka: 1978, 190–191). The above analysis of the artwork in the first edition of the Leopolita Bible shows that the set of illustrations is in many respects very inconsistent. Since the works differ in quality and style as well as size leading to discrepancies in the way they are fused with the text, the impression is of a book which was poorly finished and ill–conceived as a whole. They create a genuine feeling that the edition was published in a great hurry and under an enormous pressure as its authors were

9 Nowy Testament polskim ie˛zykiem wyłozony: według… lacinskiego textu od koscioła krzescianskiego przyietego… (The New Testament in the Polish Language According to the Latin Text Taken from the Christian Church), Cracow, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs [after 6.1.] 1556. 10 The same woodcut was used again in the Statutes of Jan Herburt (1570) published by Mikołaj Szarfenberger.

Words of God Cut in Wood

173

Illustration 2: Biblia, to iest Xie˛gi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ według łacin´skiey Bibliey… nowo wyłoz˙ona, Kraków, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs 1561.

174

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

aware that a different publishing house worked simultaneously on yet another, this time non-Catholic, edition of the Bible.

2.

Brest-Litovsk, Mikołaj Radziwiłł (1563)

The second Polish edition was published only several years later in Brest-Litovsk in a publishing house created and financed by the then starost, Marshal and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny, a propagator of Calvinism in Lithuania and sponsor of this first Polish translation based on original versions. Thanks to his efforts, in addition to being called the Brest Bible, the 1563 edition acquired two other names – the Radziwiłł Bible and the Pin´czów Bible (rarely used today) from the town of Pin´czów where a team of translators worked on the version11. What is interesting, we cannot determine precisely who printed the edition as the title folio does not bear the publishing address whereas the colophon only mentions its sponsor. The usually used term is therefore the “Radziwiłł Publishing House” which corresponds to source records saying that, in his letter to Prince Albrecht from Königsberg attached to the copy of the Bible he was sent, Mikołaj Radziwiłł Czarny proudly stated that the work was published “ex mea Brzestensi typographica officina” (Kawecka-Gryczowa/Korotajowa/Krajewski: 1959, 212)12. It is beyond any doubt, however, that the Bible printed in Brest is the most beautiful of all the sixteenth-century Polish editions. Published in the folio (2°) format, it is monumental in scope, containing 24 unnumbered and 722 numbered folios (579 devoted to the Old and 143 to the New Testament) which are nonetheless sophisticated and finished down to the last detail13. It was printed on a carefully chosen paper of very good quality with the use of black paint only. Its text was set in an elegant Gothic font and arranged into two columns with the exception of a few initial folios – including the dedication and preface – and final folios containing the register. The margins contain comments and explanations which were printed in a slightly smaller font, covering as much as the entire side bar of some folios. It is worthwhile to point out that when a folio needed to accommodate very extensive comments, its layout was smoothly transformed 11 For more information about the team of translators working on the Brest Bible cf. Kwilecka: 2003, 217–224. 12 It is unclear why the description in the Polish Bibliography contains information according to which the Brest Bible was printed by Bernard Wojewódka (Estreicher: 1894, 16), who had died in 1554, that is nine years before it was published. 13 This analysis is based on the copy from the collection at the National Ossolin´ski Institute (shelf mark: XVI.F.4016).

Words of God Cut in Wood

175

into the Medieval modus modernus thanks to which the comments are always located next to the fragments they refer to. The novelty introduced in the Brest Bible is that it divides the text into numbered lines. The solution was inspired by a French Bible published by Robert Estienne in 1553 (Kwilecka: 2003, 213–223, 336). The illustration in the Radziwiłł edition is also different from the ones already known from the Szarfenberger Bible. First and foremost, it is much more modest as it only contains fourteen woodcuts including the title vignette which was printed twice (at the beginning of the book itself and the New Testament)14. Despite being of different sizes, all twelve illustrations do make up a very homogeneous whole, evidently looking as if there were made by the same artist, unfortunately anonymous, who was quite adept at woodcutting techniques and able to achieve results similar to chalcography. The works used in the Brest Bible are also different in that they represent a type of illustrations of a scientific and didactic nature which were totally new in Poland but typical of Calvinist Bibles (Kwilecka: 2003, 213, 336)15. This means that each of them is not so much a graphic equivalent of the text as a sort of scientific complement additionally enhanced with a legend. It is enough to look at the print entitled: Attire of the High Priest located just by the mention of Aaron being appointed priest in the Second Book of Moses16 (f. 48r). It is accompanied by a relevant list of individual elements in the attire of a person serving this function. Even though the specific nature of the illustrations and their modest number resulted from John Calvin’s clear position on the presence of images in religious life, their use in the Brest Bible in this way was not only determined by the need to follow the convention typical for Bibles intended for Calvinists, but also the distinct and strong influence of Robert Estienne’s edition. Just like the numbered lines mentioned above, all of the engravings ornamenting the Brest book show visible traces of being inspired by Estienne’s Bible where this type of illustration was first used in 1540 (Kwilecka: 2003, 213). They copy Estienne’s artwork faithfully with rare subtle simplifications or mirror images – as in the case of the Attire or the representation of the Copper Tub (f. 50v). Imitating this particular edition (nota bene to the extent going far beyond illustrations and line numbering) is easy to explain. On the one hand, the team working on the Polish edition of the Bible was closely linked with Calvinistic centres in Paris and 14 This does not apply to copies where the woodcut vignette depicting the Law and Grace was printed only on the title folio of the New Testament, whilst the title folio of the entire book was decorated with a repeated frame made up of multiplied typographic ornaments (cf. copy in the collection of the Jagiellonian University, shelf mark: Cim. 8324). 15 According to Pamela Merill Brekka, to look for prototypes of such illustrations, one should consult Postylla litteralis super totam bibliam by Nicholas of Lyra (2015, 224). 16 Exod according to the modern terminology.

176

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Illustration 3: Biblia swie˛ta, tho iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu… na polski ie˛zyk… wyloz˙one…, Brzes´c´, ed. M. Radziwiłł 1563.

Words of God Cut in Wood

177

Geneva, and on the other, the founder of the Polish edition wished to make the book as magnificent as possible which meant drawing inspiration from the best editions available in the market of the time. Yet, the beauty of the Brest edition is the effect of more than just its stylistically consistent illustrations of good quality. The attractive final outcome is also largely the result of carefully chosen initials, expanded vignettes opening some of the books (e. g. the First Books of Moses17 – f. 1r), minor graphic elements and, last but not least, a well thought-out typographic layout. It is due to this last element that it was possible to arrange the multitude of all the necessary elements (two columns, engravings, line numbering) into a legible and effective whole.

3.

Nies´wiez˙, Daniel z Łe‚czycy (1572)

Unfortunately, the following Polish Bible published only several years later, i. e. in 1572, cannot match the beauty of the Brest edition. It was printed with the funds from Maciej Kawe˛czyn´ski by Daniel of Łe˛czyca in Nies´wiez˙ (to be finished in Zasław). According to Szymon Budny, the author of its translation and preface, it was made mainly because many readers of the Brest Bible complained about its size and weight which prevented them from transporting it, to say nothing of carrying Biblia: 1572, f br.). The reasons behind preparing another non-Catholic edition of the Bible were actually much more complex, but the ones mentioned above are of crucial importance for our reflections on artwork. Equally important was their excessive price criticised as in the case of the Radziwiłł edition. In response to these complaints, the new edition, called the Budny or Nies´wiez˙ Bible was printed in a smaller, more convenient quarto (4°) format and deprived of any illustrations to cut the costs of printing and, consequently, publication. Its only decorative elements are the title vignette, not very sophisticated initials and small graphic details in the form of single flowers and leaves mainly used as vignettes. The entire book is printed on average-quality paper predominantly with black paint and a little amount of red used to highlight the main title of the work and the titles of the New Testament. The text is set in Gothic font mainly in two columns (with the exception of the dedication for Duke Mikołaj Radziwiłł and the preface) each of which is bordered with a single line designating a space for marginalia and line numeration introduced into the Budny Bible from the Brest edition. Nevertheless, both the lines and the marginal comments set in the font of the same size as the one used for the main body of the text make the folios look crammed which has a negative impact on the comfort of reading and the aesthetic quality of the book. 17 Gen according to the modern terminology.

178

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Illustration 4: Biblia, to iest ksie˛gi starego y nowego przymierza znowu z ie˛zyka Ebreyskiego, Greckiego, Łacin´skiego na polski przełoz˙one, Nies´wiez˙, Daniel Łe˛czycki 1572.

Words of God Cut in Wood

4.

179

Cracow, Mikołaj Szarfenberger (1575 and 157718)

Also, there isn’t much that can be said for the editorial quality of the second edition of the Leopolita Bible which was printed by Mikołaj Szarfenberger alone in 1575. We need to admit, however, that it looks better than the first edition. Although Mikołaj did not go far enough to harmonise the artwork, he changed the general concept of printing achieving a result which was much better than the first time round. It was enough that he gave up on borders which were to be found on each folio in the original edition marking off the space for marginal comments and set the text with more care in one instead of two columns. The initials are also more consistent than before. Conversely, the illustrations which were already very varied in the first edition became even more diverse in 1575. As a result, 296 woodcuts were printed on eighteen unnumbered and 760 numbered folios of the second edition of the Leopolita Bible – 153 larger and 143 medium and small. The group of larger woodcuts is definitely more interesting. It can be divided into three smaller sub-groups. The first comprises 72 works known from the 1561 edition and originally cut for Martin Luther’s Wittenberg Bible. The second set is made up of 64 woodcuts which had not been used by Szarfenberger before. These were strongly influenced by illustrations made by Jost Amman, as designed by Johann Bocksperger, which decorated the Neuwe Biblische Figuren published in 1564 in Frankfurt by Sigmund Feyerabend (Muczkowski: 1895, 386; Chojecka: 1961, 15–21, 199–207; Schmidt: 1962, 245–247). The woodprints from the Cracow book are such incredibly faithful copies of these works that they might be mistaken for originals, the only clue suggesting that they are not being the monogramms of their copists put on some of them – “h”, still anonymous, and “WS”, identified as Wendel Scharffenberger (Chojecka: 1978, 171). The copies they made are perfect in the way they imitate the typically Amannish delicate, skillfully differentiated and light strokes which make even the most packed representations legible. They also offer faithful depictions of the figures appearing in different scenes characterised by their elegant poses and somewhat theatrical gestures. Yet another set is comprised of thirteen woodcuts which differ in size, but are stylistically consistent and, what is more, present the same type of illustration. The nature of all of the works in the group is scientific and didactic, a style already known from the Brest Bible which, together with its model, the Estienne’s Bible, are their explicit point of reference. 18 As it was already established by Muczkowski, the 1577 edition is in fact only a reworking of the edition published two years before, with changed title folios and dedication (Muczkowski: 1845, 381–384).

180

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Illustration 5: Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk według łacin´skiey Bibliey… na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawiona y figurami ozdobiona…, Kraków, Mikołaj Szarfenberger 1575.

Words of God Cut in Wood

181

Illustration 6: Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk według łacin´skiey Bibliey… na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawiona y figurami ozdobiona…, Kraków, Mikołaj Szarfenberger 1575.

182

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Thus, one edition of the Bible contains woodcuts taken from two different Lutheran editions and one Calvinist. Even though the former were stripped of any anti-papist overtones typical of protestants and the latter were characterised by a scientific rather than ideological character, the fact that all of them were simultaneously used in the same Catholic (sic!) edition is quite surprising. It seems, however, that this was caused by the sheer visual attractiveness of the illustrative material. Mikołaj Szarfenberger must have considered this quality important enough to totally outweigh the drawback of having been taken from non-Catholic editions. The following Polish edition of the Bible published almost a quarter of a century later offers the best proof that books do not need rich illustrations to be beautiful.

5.

Cracow, Officina Lazari (1599)

It is no coincidence that the edition which provides such excellent evidence left the Lazari Publishing House run at the time by Jan Januszowski, one of the most outstanding Polish typographers of the sixteenth century and also one of the few who could successfully compete with foreign craftsmen. Besides being the first edition of the new translation by Jakub Wujek, the Bible he published is both monumental – being printed in the folio format containing 46 unnumbered folios and 1480 numbered pages – and beautiful although all of its artwork is the frontispiece folio (which has not survived in many copies), one border, a coat of arms, cul-de-lampe vignettes and several series of initials. The high aesthetic quality, however, is not the result of the quantity of graphic material, but its quality combined with the excellent paper and printing paint as well as the beautiful cut of the fonts. What is also important is the harmonious layout of text blocks. The text is predominantly set in two columns bordered with single lines marking off the space for headlines, marginalia and separate columns for line numbering. Due to the careful choice of font size and differentiation of font cuts into regular and italicised, Januszowski’s edition is much clearer and more elegant compared to other editions where a similar layout was adopted. One can sense a strong inspiration by the works of Christophe Plantin, a printing master from Antwerp, whose Bible editions were counted among the most beautiful of the time. The Antwerpian’s influence is also visible in the way the titles are arranged on two different folios – the frontispiece and the proper typographic title folio. Admittedly, the frontispiece in Plantin’s work was engraved on copper while in the Cracow edition it is a woodprint. Nonetheless, it was very well executed as it was cut by Jost Amman who could perfectly imitate the intaglio technique.

Words of God Cut in Wood

183

Poprawic´ z Illusttration na Illustration 7: Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Testamentu według łacin´skiego przekładu starego… na polski ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´cia˛ przełoz˙one, z dokładaniem textu z˙ydowskiego y greckiego, Kraków, Officina Lazari 1599.

184

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

The above analysis of the Bible editions printed in the sixteenth century in Polish publishing houses presents a picture which is full of contrasts. On the one hand, there are beautiful editions such as the Brest Bible, or the 1599 edition, whose publishers were clearly aware the final result is not determined by rich graphic material, but rather by ensuring high quality of all the different components from paper to printing paint to artwork (which did not necessarily have to be very elaborate). On the other hand, however, there are editions like the Nies´wiez˙ Bible which are printed without much thought given to aesthetics, evidently in a hurry to supply readers with a specific translation in a handy and cheap version as quickly as possible. But there are also editions such as the one published by Szarfenberger which must be located somewhere in the middle because of their specific approach to print aesthetics consisting primarily in using the richest possible artwork without paying attention to the stylistic consistency of illustrations. As a result, both the first and second editions of the Leopolita’s Bible might be richly illustrated, but they still look as if their typographer had carried out a stock taking exercise. We should not forget, however, that it was thanks to such not necessarily fortunate actions that Polish editions were equipped with one of the best foreign graphic series. It is hardly important that they reached Poland with a delay. What really counts is that Polish readers had an opportunity to watch beautiful and fashionable illustrations on the folios of their books whereas Polish engravers obtained the best models for their own work. Translated by Krzysztof Gajda

Bibliography Sources Biblia, to iest Xie˛gi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ według łacin´skiey Bibliey… nowo wyłoz˙ona, Kraków, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs 1561. Biblia, to iest Xie˛gi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ według łacin´skiey Bibliey… nowo wyłoz˙ona, Kraków, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs 1561. Biblia swie˛ta, tho iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu… na polski ie˛zyk… wyloz˙one…, Brzes´c´, ed. M. Radziwiłł 1563. Biblia, to iest ksie˛gi starego y nowego przymierza znowu z ie˛zyka Ebreyskiego, Greckiego, Łacin´skiego na polski przełoz˙one, Nies´wiez˙, Daniel Łe˛czycki 1572. Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk według łacin´skiey Bibliey… na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawiona y figurami ozdobiona…, Kraków, Mikołaj Szarfenberger 1575.

Words of God Cut in Wood

185

Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Zakonu na polski ie˛zyk według łacin´skiey Bibliey… na wielu mieyscach z pilnos´cia˛ poprawiona y figurami ozdobiona…, Kraków, Mikołaj Szarfenberger 1575. Biblia, to iest Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Testamentu według łacin´skiego przekładu starego… na polski ie˛zyk z nowu z pilnos´cia˛ przełoz˙one, z dokładaniem textu z˙ydowskiego y greckiego, Kraków, Officina Lazari 1599. Nowy Testament polskim ie˛zykiem wyłozony: według… lacinskiego textu od koscioła krzescianskiego przyietego…, Kraków, Marek Szarfenberg Heirs [po 6.I.] 1556.

Studies Bandtkie, Jerzy Samuel (1815), Historya drukarn´ krakowskich, od zaprowadzenia druków do tego Miasta az˙ do czasów naszych, wiadomos´cia˛ o wynalezieniu sztuki drukarskiey poprzedzona, Kraków: Drukarnia Gröblowska Józefa Mateckiego. Brekka, Pamela Merill (2015), Picturing the ‘Living’ Tabernacle in the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, in: Walter S. Melion/Bret Rothstein/Michael Weemans (ed.), The Anthropomorphic Lens. Anthropomorphism, Microcosmism and Analogy in Early Modern Thought and Visual Arts, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 205–230. Chojecka, Ewa (1961), Deutsche Bibelserien in der Holzstocksammlung der Jagellonischen Universität in Krakau. Mit 173 Faksimiles, Baden-Baden/Strasbourg: Verlag Heitz Gmbh. Chojecka, Ewa (1978), Zwia˛zki artystyczne polskiego drzeworytu renesansowego z grafika˛ europejska˛. Kryspin i Wendel Scharffenbergerowie, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 364, 181–193. Chojecka, Ewa (1980), Ilustracja polskiej ksia˛z˙ki drukowanej XVI i XVII w., Warszawa: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza. Estreicher, Karol (1894), Bibliografia polska, t. 13, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. ´ kowska, Anna (1983), Szarfenberga Marka dzieKawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia/Man dzice, in: Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa (ed.), Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, vol. 1: Małopolska, part 1: Wiek XV–XVI, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia/Korotajowa, Krystyna/Krajewski, Wojciech (1959), Radziwiłłowska Drukarnia Brzes´c´, in: Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa/Krystyna Korotajowa/Wojciech Krajewski (ed.), Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, vol. 5: Wielkie Ksie˛stwo Litewskie, Wrocław/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 211–214. ´ ski, Ryszard (2004), Biblia pauperum – rzecz o dialogu słowa i obrazu, Nauka 4, Knapin 133–164. Komender, Teresa/Mieczkowska, Halina (1998), Katalog druków XVI wieku w zbiorach Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej w Warszawie, Acta Bibliothecae Universitatis Varsoviensis, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskigo.

186

Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss

Krzak-Weiss, Katarzyna (2014), W ogrodzie duszy. Studia nad wyposaz˙eniem graficznym polskich edycji modlitewnika Hortulus animae, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Kwilecka, Irena (2003), Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny. Muczkowski, Józef (1845), O Bibliach Szarfenbergerowskich, Dwutygodnik Literacki 2, 374–393. Muczkowski, Józef (1849), Zbiór odcisków drzeworytów w róz˙nych dziełach polskich w XVI i XVII wieku odbitych a teraz w Bibliotece Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego zachowanych, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytecka. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2011), Historia Polski historia˛ Biblii pisana, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 2, 153–174. Schmidt, Phillip (1962), Die Illustration der Lutherbibel 1522–1700. Ein Stück abendländische Kultur- und Kirchengeschichte mit Verzeichnissen der Bibeln, Bilder und Künstler, Basel: Verlag Friedrich Reinhardt. Schramm, Albert (1923), Die Illustration der Lutherbibel, Leipzig: Verlag von Karl W. Hiersemann. Socha, Klaudia (2011), Ideologia wyraz˙ona w szacie graficznej ksia˛z˙ki na przykładzie kart tytułowych Biblii, in: Dariusz Kuz´mina (ed.), Bibliologia polityczna, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP, 109–122. Szymik, Stefan (2011), Fides ex visu – perspektywa biblijna, in: Ryszard Knapin´ski/Agata Kramiszewska (ed.), Fides ex visu, Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, 11–24. ´ czyk, Stanisław (1988), Zu dieser Ausgabe, in: Olesch Reinhold/Rothe Hans Urban (hrsg.), Leopolita, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 21–24. ˇ eská a neˇmecká reformace v ilustraci cˇeské knihy prvni poloviny 16. Voit, Petr (2013), C století, in: Katerˇina Hornícˇková/Michal Sˇroneˇk (ed.), In puncto religionis: konfesní ˇ ech a Moravy, Praha: Artefactum, 137–162. dimenze prˇedbeˇlohorské kultury C Waltos´, Stanisław (1990), Dzieje klocków drzeworytniczych, wykonanych dla Biblii Lutra z 1534 r., in: Curia maior. Studia z dziejów kultury ofiarowane Andrzejowi Ciechanowieckiemu, Warszawa: Zamek Królewski w Warszawie, 58–63. Zimmermann, Hildegard (1924), Beiträge zur Bibelillustration des 16. Jahrhunderts (Illustrationen und Illustratoren des ersten Luther-Testamentes und des Oktav-Ausgaben des Neuen Testamentes in Mittel-, Nord- und Westdeutschland), Strassburg: Verlag von J. J. Ed. Heitz.

Mariola Jarczykowa

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

Published in 1632, the Gdan´sk Bible occupies a unique place among Evangelical translations of Scripture; hitherto, it has been published more than 20 times. Initially, nothing foretold it would gain such popularity – in the 17th century the Brest Bible was still regarded as the only basis for religious teachings in the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession (Tworek: 1973, 169–170). The sixteenth-century translation of the Scripture was the fruit of collaboration amongst theologians, philologists, and writers (Szeruda: 1985, 8). It was published in 1563 under the patronage of Mikołaj “the Black” Radziwiłł, who allocated 3 000 ducats to its issue and brought a printer – Bernard Wojewódka – from Cracow to Brest especially for the purpose. The role of the Lithuanian magnate was highlighted clearly on the first pages of the book, in a poem on the Tra˛by coat of arms1 as well as in the preface written by the authors of the translation. Subsequently, in his dedication addressed to King Sigismund II Augustus, Radziwiłł recommended the translators as learned people, and encouraged the king to read the translation offered to him. His argumentation, corroborated by examples from the Old Testament, was to convince the monarch to recognize the merits of the Reformation and to lend his support to the Book published in Brest (Nastulczyk: 2014, 40–45). The polemic delivered by the leader of Lithuanian Protestants (Evangelicals) was set against Roman Catholics, and particularly against the Pope. After Mikołaj the Black’s death, his son – Mikołaj Krzysztof “Sierotka” – converted to Catholicism and fought against the Evangelical translation of the Bible. However, in the Birzhai line2 the Brest Bible enjoyed a great authority – its copies, richly bound, can be found in the library registers of the following members of the Radziwiłł family: Janusz (d. 1620) (Rejestr rzeczy: 1617, 3), and his nephew, also Janusz, (d. 1655) (Rejestr ksia˛g: 1628, 324). In 1624 Prince 1 Eng. “Horns” or “Bugle horns” – coat of arms of the Radziwiłł family. 2 The Birzhai line – the second line in the Radziwiłł family, who were granted the title of Dukes of Birzhai (Polish: Birz˙e, hence the name of the line) and Dubingiai (Polish: Dubinki) in Lithuania.

188

Mariola Jarczykowa

Krzysztof Radziwiłł sent the Brest Bible to Frédéric Maurice de La Tour d’Auvergne, Duke of Bouillon, with a handwritten Latin inscription, which stated that he was thus offering that neatly printed work, which had hitherto belonged to his ancestors, to the Sedan Library (Kwilecka: 2006, 120). In the first half of the 17th century the authority of the Bible published in Brest was not undermined, only some efforts were made to introduce the most necessary corrections in the text resulting from the new findings in the biblical studies (Tworek: 1973, 167). Already since 1600 an update and reissue of the Radziwiłł’s Bible had been postulated (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 144–151) in view of the fact that, as Janusz Maciuszko explained, the sixteenth-century translation was treated as a kind of monument to the glorious days of the Reformation in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (Maciuszko: 2002, 58). In addition to the Brest Bible, the name of Radziwiłł was connected with the Nesvizh Bible (also known as Niasvizh or Nies´wiez˙ Bible) dedicated to Mikołaj “the Red” Radziwiłł. It was translated by Szymon Budny and mainly intended for the Polish Brethren (the Antitrynitarians). Its dedication to Voivode of Vilnius emphasized his significance as the leader of dissenters in Lithuania, especially after Mikołaj the Black’s death. The authors of the dedication, Hektor and Albrecht Kawieczyn´ski, praised Radziwiłł’s religious commitment and requested that he defend dissenters against persecution. Offering the translation to the Lithuanian magnate constituted a breach of tradition, because so far old Polish editions of the Scripture had been dedicated to kings. Despite the dedication to Radziwiłł, the Nesvizh Bible was not recognized by the members of the Birzhai line due to the translation’s Antitrynitarian character. Another edition of the Scripture, which directly referred to the version of Brest, was the Gdan´sk Bible. It was given two dedications: Krzysztof Radziwiłł’s to the king and Evangelical ministers’ to Prince Krzysztof. Initially, the hetman3 was opposed to the new issue of the Scripture, because of the authority of the Brest Bible, but in the end not only did he agree to publish a new version of the translation and recommend it to the Lithuanian churches (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 148), but he also wrote a dedication himself. Previous research on the origins of the Gdan´sk Bible indicated Władysław IV Vasa, who had just ascended the throne, as the one to whom the translation was dedicated, which the edition of 1632 seemed to reflect. It turns out, however, that originally Prince Krzysztof gave the book to Władysław IV’s father, Sigismund III Vasa. Evidence of this can be found in the Central Archives of Historical Records where one can find a dedication rewritten in the manuscript originating from the Birzhai office (K. Radziwiłł: 1632B, 3–7). A letter addressed to Voivode of Vilnius 3 Hetman – the main military commander in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (15th to 18th century).

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

189

(Starszy dozorcy i bracia zborów ewangelickich, 8. 11. 1632) has also been copied there. Radziwiłł’s dedication, dated April 1632, was prepared just before Sigismund III’s sudden death (30. 04. 1632) of a stroke (Kaczorowski: 1986, 25). In his dedicatory epistle, Prince Krzysztof clearly referred to the Brest edition as well as to his ancestor, who had presented the Bible to King Sigismund Augustus. The prince pointed out that 69 years had passed since that event and suggested that his choice of addressee was well-thought-out. Sigismund III was compared to the last Jagiellon because of the similar love shown by him to his subjects and the same virtues worthy of a king. Radziwiłł also argued that dissenters felt the same trust in the then reigning monarch as in his deceased uncle. The praise of Sigismund Augustus, however, emphasized that the Jagiellon treated dissenters with respect, on equal terms with all his other subjects, although he was not obliged to do so by his coronation oath. In this allusive way, the leader of Evangelicals reminded Sigismund III Vasa of the Warsaw Confederation Act, which obliged the king to respect the principles of religious equality. Moreover, he wrote with appreciation about Sigismund I, comparing the happy period of the monarch’s reign with his own contemporary times. The hetman characterized the new translation as free from religious controversy and, refuting a potentially critical assessment of Sigismund III’s advisors, reminded the aged ruler of his personal responsibility for respecting the word of God, and for the preservation of religious peace. He also drew the monarch’s attention to the commitment to shared values, including the doctrine of the Trinity, which united Catholics and Reformed Evangelicals. Emphasizing this argument explicitly referred to the Anti-Trinitarians, from whose views Calvinists wanted to detach themselves. Knowing that the pious Catholic King might be reluctant to accept his gift and anticipating his objections, Prince Krzysztof wrote that the book comprised no controversial or suspicious content. He even used this argument to prove that if he had chosen another addressee of his dedication, it might have raised suspicions of heresy. Thus, the king was to provide protection against critical opinions and condemnation of the Bible. Still, the dedication was not devoid of polemical accents. Radziwiłł warned Sigismund III against bad advisors, who could blight any attempt at his righteous evaluation of the book. His – repeated thrice – appeal to the king to rethink his attitude served the same purpose. At the same time the leader of the Lithuanian Evangelicals reminded the king that each sovereign bears his individual responsibility for his decisions and actions before God. Biased advisors not only badly influence the king, but also persecute Evangelicals, destroy their churches and books, and contribute to religious wars, as shown by the examples of other countries. The protector of dissenters also mentioned religious discrimination in the Commonwealth, did not conceal the persecution of dissenters, and asserted that despite all that the king could be sure of their fidelity and loyalty. The

190

Mariola Jarczykowa

polemical accents of this edition could also have been strengthened by the prefaces from the Brest Bible, since – as Prince Krzysztof averred – they were to be reprinted in the new edition. In 1632, as the leader of Evangelicals, Radziwiłł spoke not only in his own name, but guaranteed the faithfulness and goodwill of his co-religionists. For the purpose, he used an eloquent metaphor of the king, who can rest his head peacefully against the bosom of his subjects. On more personal note he added that, like his ancestor before him, he wanted to express his own faithful allegiance and goodwill towards the monarch, and wished him further prosperous reign. The significance of the gift justified the choice of such a high-ranking recipient, because the Bible is considered the most important among books, not only by Evangelicals, but also by the prince himself. He described it as a gift worthy of the king, and for himself personally – a work that is dearer and more precious than all the riches, and valued even higher than health itself. Parenthetically, he emphasized the veneration the Bible enjoyed among Evangelicals as the only source of knowledge about God. To strengthen the meaning of his gift, he used the topos of a book, which finds its way to the recipient on its own. Sigismund III died, however, before receiving the Evangelical gift, so during the election sejm4 in Warsaw (27.09.–13. 11. 1632) the Reformed Evangelicals decided to dedicate the Bible to Władysław IV (Sipayłło: 1983, 582–583). The choice of a new recipient was not Radziwiłł’s individual decision; neither was the content of the dedication. When we compare its versions – the manuscript and the printed one – it must be noted, using today’s textual terminology, that they do not constitute editorial varieties of the same work, but rather two different texts that contain a lot of common elements. The differences resulted primarily from the description of the situation in which the book was presented to the recipient. Radziwiłł clearly referred to the elections and choosing Władysław IV to ascend the Polish throne; also, at the end of the dedication, there appeared wishes offered to the newly-chosen monarch embedded in the context of the whole dynasty. In both dedications, of April and of early December 1632, similar motives appear regarding: reassurances of the absence of controversial passages, a reminder of the circumstances in which Sigismund Augustus had been presented with the Brest Bible, a mention of the persecution of Protestants (stronger, however, in the hand-written version of the dedication), a cautioning against listening to bad advisors, and a retelling of the story of Vespasian, the Roman emperor. This exemplum referred to Apollonius of Tyana, who – in order to demonstrate a certain conduct – pointed to an artist who used to send his students to observe incompetent musicians to show them how not to play. The 4 Sejm – the lower chamber of the Polish parliament.

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

191

emperor was said to have acted in the same manner by considering examples of bad reigns, not to repeat mistakes of other rulers. The mention of this ancient exemplum was not to refer to the Polish king, because – as Radziwiłł argued – he did not need such clear warnings. Thus, the rhetorical figure of praeteritio was used in the dedication, that is a declaration of deliberate omission. Those among king’s own ancestors who sat on the Polish throne were enumerated to serve as positive examples of conduct. Diplomatically, the senators were also praised as the ones who, while running the state, do not expose its subjects to any danger. Krzysztof Radziwiłł was drawing the king’s attention to the negative effects of inept reigns and handling of subjects in other countries in the earlier parts of the dedication. He wrote there about opponents of Evangelicals outside the Commonwealth, who not only persecuted his co-religionists and combated their views, but also destroyed books and Protestant churches. The juxtaposition between the manuscript and the printed text proves that in both cases Krzysztof Radziwiłł justified the choice of the crowned patron for the new edition of the Bible in a different manner. In the latter case, the dedication to Władysław IV, and expression of joy on the occasion of his accession to the Polish throne, emphasized the commemorative nature of the gift, because the book was offered as a gift to celebrate the happy conclusion of the election. Whereas in the former case, the dedication to Sigismund III – a zealous Catholic, with whom the hetman did not maintain as friendly relations as with his son – lacks references to a specific situation when the gift was to be given to the recipient. In addition to Krzysztof Radziwiłł’s dedication, the seventeenth-century edition of the Bible was provided with a dedicatory epistle addressed to the hetman himself. In the manuscript, the dedication to the Birzhai prince was signed by the “Superintendents and the Brethren of Evangelical Churches.” In the printed copy, however, the signature was slightly changed and narrowed down to the Evangelical ministers of the Greater Poland. This caused dissatisfaction in other voivodeships as it was generally felt they had been significantly overlooked (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 149). The hand-written dedicatory epistle of 1632 addressed to Prince Krzysztof explicitly refers to the sixteenth-century edition of the Scripture. The authors argued a new edition was necessary as the Brest Bible had been out-of-print and its copies unavailable; at the same time, they stressed that only Krzysztof Radziwiłł as a representative of the Birzhai line and as a continuer of Mikołaj the Black’s merits could be the addressee of the dedication. Recalling the name of hetman’s ancestor was to expound the reasons for selecting Prince Krzysztof as the patron of the new edition and an envoy to the throne. The example of Voivode of Vilnius, who in the sixteenth century did not grudge either cost or effort to gain the best translation of the Scripture from oriental languages, and recom-

192

Mariola Jarczykowa

mended it to the churches in the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was to be emulated by his descendant. The ministers assured Prince Krzysztof that his pious efforts to popularize the new edition would bring him not only a reward after death, but would also ensure abundance and grace in this earthly life. At the same time they emphasized the great merits of Krzysztof Radziwiłł as the patron of the Evangelical Reformed Church. Citations from the Scripture often appear in the dedication; in the manuscript version, they correspond to verses from the Brest Bible, whereas in the printed one – from the Gdan´sk Bible. Those citations have been specifically tailored to the recipient and the publication date of the given edition. For instance, psalm 85 is quoted which, according to the authors of the dedication, relates well to the restless, full of confusion modern times. Certainly, this description referred to the religious conflicts in the 17 th century. David’s words encouraged true believers (i. e. Reformed Evangelicals) to wait for God’s reward for persisting in their religious beliefs and cautioned them against following the “folly” which can be understood as a warning against changing their hearts. Prince Krzysztof, the patron of the new edition of the Bible, and his family were promised God’s blessing by recalling – after the second book of Samuel – the graces for the house of Obed-Edom, where the ark of the covenant was kept. The ministers referred to the biography of the dedication’s recipient, praising him for bearing adversities bravely. In this allusive way, the readers were reminded of the conflict between the hetman and Sigismund III Vasa, when as a result of being repeatedly overlooked in nominations Radziwiłł withdrew from the court and politics in the capital city. The final reconciliation of the king and the prince took place no sooner than in 1632 which was recorded by Albrycht Radziwiłł in his diary in an entry dated 5.04. (Radziwiłł: 1980, 105). Prince Krzysztof ’s speech delivered on that occasion has been preserved to the present times; it stated, inter alia, that his falling from Sigismund III’s grace was punishment for his sins, and that the God’s anointed could be a tool in the hands of punishing Creator (K. Radziwiłł: 1632a, 27 recto). Mentioning the Book of Proverbs in their dedication, the ministers used a similar argument. They stated, however, that God so directed the monarch’s heart that he, in spite of envy, restored the prince to his favour. Thanks to Providence, Krzysztof ’s merits and virtues could shine, and the reward for them would be a blessing extended also onto his family. Promises of prosperity for the Radziwiłłs were strengthened with words from the Second Book of Samuel in which God assured he should reward faithful believers, and despise those who despise him. The warning against disregard for the Scripture was added a remark stating certainly it would not refer to the prince or his family.

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

193

The dedication contains no comments on the translation itself, which the ministers explained by stating that the Brest translators had already spoken on the topic at length in their preface. At the same time their assurances that the translation was free from controversy and would not cause any indignation were repeated. Perhaps those references to the preface of 1563 attest that the original Gdan´sk edition was to contain the very preface as well. In the 17th century, Evangelical ministers argued there had been a great esteem for the Brest Bible. They recollected it had a good reception in the Commonwealth, where it was loved and esteemed, while abroad it received high praise; and with opponents it aroused a desire to compete. The recollection was probably an allusion to the publication of the Catholic translation of the Scripture by Jakub Wujek presented to Sigismund III Vasa by the Jesuits in 1599. Comparing the manuscript and the printed dedications addressed to the Birzhai prince, one can find small differences, mostly stylistic and complementary in their nature. In print King Władysław IV is mentioned, which obviously could not be expected in the manuscript. The dedication of the clergy in the publication by Andrzej Hünefeld is dated as follows: “Torun´, November 18, Anno Domini 1632,” while in the manuscript the same place is given without specifying either day or year. Tadeusz Wojak decided that chronologically earlier is the second preface and that Radziwiłł signed the dedication to the king in Orle in early December 1632 (Wojak: 1985, 26). The manuscript indicates, however, April as the time of the first version of the hetman’s dedication addressed to Sigismund III. According to Maria Sipayłło’s findings, the print of the Bible was completed in the last days of 1632 and it came out in the following year Sipayłłówna:1934,149). The publication was addressed to a wide audience, which is why it was decided to release it in the in-octavo format, unusual for the then practice of printing the Bible. This allowed to reduce the price of the book and fit the whole text in one volume (Nowak: 2002, 67). The book was not as impressive as the issued in folio, beautifully embellished copies of the Brest Bible. Mirosław Patalon claimed that Prince Krzysztof personally handed in the translation of the Scriptures to Władysław IV (Patalon: 2000, 45), while Henryk Wisner presented a hypothesis on how in 1633 this copy, specially bound in velvet and silver, might have been given to the king by Prince Krzysztof ’s trusted servant – Piotr Kochlewski (Wisner: 2009, 139). This hypothesis is confirmed by a letter of 14. 03. 1633, sent by Kochlewski to Radziwiłł from Cracow, in which he informed the hetman about good reception of the gift by the monarch (Kochlewski: 1633, 52). Despite the positive reaction to the specially prepared gift, on 15.10. 1633, in response to the public address of Abraham Wojna, the bishop of Vilnius, the king publicly stated that he had no knowledge about Krzysztof Radziwiłł’s dedication, and thus he could not lend the book his authority (Wisner: 2009, 139).

194

Mariola Jarczykowa

Neither was the new edition of the Scripture received well even among Protestants. As Stanisław Tworek indicates, despite the recommendations to introduce the new edition to the churches, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania the Brest Bible was still regarded as the only and official basis of teachings for the Calvinist church – it was appreciated, guarded and publicly recognized, as evidenced by book inventories and records from provincial synods (Tworek: 1973, 169–170). In 1634 the synod in Vilnius resolved to react to printer Hünefeld’s complaints, regarding a lack of interest in the publication. A better organized sale of the Protestant translation of the Scripture was ordered, the ministers were to acquire it and use in their own homes (Liedke, Guzowski: 2011, 118). Apart from not very good sales and interest in the Gdan´sk Bible, a printing error cast a shadow on its reception. In Matt 4:1, instead of the words: Jesus “was tempted of the devil,” as a result of transposing letters the phrase came out as “was tempted to the devil.” It became an excuse for Catholics to discredit the edition completely. Primate We˛z˙yk issued a harsh letter in which he prohibited reading and dissemination of this translation under the threat of being cursed. He also stated that he respected tolerant laws of the Commonwealth, but the issue of the Scripture without the Roman Catholic Church’s consent was a violation of applicable laws. As a result, a mass destruction of the publication ensued (Wojak: 1985, 25). Despite such unfavourable circumstances surrounding its first publishing in print, the Gdan´sk Bible turned out to be the most prestigious edition in the Protestant circles for many centuries. Prince Krzysztof ’s contemporaries also appreciated his patronage of this release. In his funeral speech delivered at Mikołaj the Black’s grave, after having praised the merits of the deceased patron of the Brest Bible, Fryderyk Starchius emphasized that the next edition, in a smaller format, was published thanks to the support of Prince Krzysztof. The speaker expressed his conviction that the clear sign of the divine approval were the blessing and incredible guardianship that seemed to have kept the hetman safe from many dangers of life (Starchius: 1641:f. G3 r). He thus confirmed the words of the ministers’ dedication, which assured the prince of the reward that awaited him for patronage over the edition and commitment to its popularization. Despite the initial aversion towards the Gdan´sk Bible, the book was reissued several times in different places in Europe, including Amsterdam, Berlin, Königsberg, Leipzig, Warsaw, and Vienna. In the 17th and 18th centuries, at the forefront of these editions there appeared dedications of both Krzysztof Radziwiłł to Władysław IV and of the Evangelical ministers to the prince. Still, the genesis of these dedicatory epistles is worth recalling, as well as their original recipients. The Annex contains a list of dedicatory epistles to the Gdan´sk Bible included in the manuscript kept in the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw,

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

195

the Branicki Family Collection from Sucha S-38–M, 3–11. In the transcription of the text modern system of punctuation and rules of writing small and capital letters were applied. The spelling of o, ó, and u was standardized according to the present form. The written record of the following letters was modernized: i, j, and s. The endings of instrumental and locative cases in singular number of masculine and neuter grammatical genders were modernized, as well as the instrumental case plural endings (-em, -emi) to (-ym, -ymi).

Annex I.

Dedication by Krzysztof Radziwiłł

Najjas´niejszemu i najmoz˙niejszemu Monarsze a Panu, Panu Zygmuntowi Trzeciemu z łaski Boz˙ej Królowi polskiemu, wielkiemu ks[ie˛]ciu litewskiemu, ruskiemu, pruskiemu, z˙mudzkiemu, mazowieckiemu i inflandzkiemu, a szwedzkiemu, godskiemu, wandalskiemu dziedzicznemu Królowi, wielkiemu ks[ie˛]ciu finlandzkiemu etc. Panu, Panu memu miłos´ciwemu Najjas´niejszy Miłos´ciwy Królu, Panie, Panie mój miłos´ciwy Bylibys´my nieprawi i W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], Panu naszemu m[iło]s´ciwemu, i samym sobie, kiedy by ta Pism s´wie˛tych Ksie˛ga, która w polskim je˛zyku przed szes´dzia˛sia˛t i dziewie˛cia˛ lat pod imieniem nies´miertelnej pamie˛ci wuja i przodka W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] króla Zygmunta Augusta na s´wiat była wyszła, teraz nie insza˛, ale tylko nowa˛ szate˛ na sie˛ biora˛c, miała sie˛ ´swiatu bez imienia W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], pana naszego m[iło]s´ciwego prezentowac´. Waszej Królewskiej M[iło]s´ci krzywda była by w tym, z˙eby mógł kto rozumiec´, iz˙ W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] albo nie masz takiej u wiernych poddanych swoich ba˛dz´ ufnos´ci, ba˛dz´ weneracyjej, jaka w przodkach naszych ku ´swie˛tej pamie˛ci królowi Zygmuntowi Augustowi była, z˙e nawet i z tego, co o najwyz˙szym Boskim Majestacie uczyc´ i wierzyc´ im było trzeba niejaki hołd i upominek z˙yczliwego swego ku ziemskiemu pomazan´ca Boz˙ego majestatowi afektu ochotnie czyniły. Albo jakobys´ W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] poddanych swoich ewangelików, których król Zygmunt August bez wszelakie[g]o przysia˛g obowia˛zku z samej wrodzonej królewskiej cnoty i z ich zasług miłował, szanował, bronił i takim ich pocztom przyste˛pny bywał. Jakobys´, mówie˛, W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´]c´ lubo z tymi poddanymi ´swia˛tobliwa˛ przysie˛ga˛ jak jakim szlubnym piers´cieniem na szcze˛s´liwej koronacyjej swojej zwia˛zany i spojony jestes´, przecie˛ ich od siebie odstawiac´, odstraszac´ i bezpieczen´stwo im odejmowac´ miał, aby sie˛ W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] z takimi jako przodkowie ich wujowi W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] upominkami nie waz˙yli naraz˙ac´. Siebie zas´ skrzywdzilibys´my z tej miary, z˙eby sta˛d mógł kto o statecznos´ci naszej przy tej, która˛ w Boga w Trójcy S´wie˛tej Jedynego wyznawamy wierze wa˛tpic´, gdyby nas miał byc´ wstyd z ta˛ Ksie˛ga˛ is´c´ i stana˛c´ przed monarchy i nawie˛ksze tego s´wiata potentaty. Mógłby tez˙ podobno te˛ poboz˙na˛ i niewinna˛ braciej naszej praca˛, w jakich błe˛dach i nowos´ciach obwinic´ i za podejrzana˛ udac´, gdybys´my sie˛ z nia˛ wiadomos´ci i oczu W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], pana n[aszego] miło[s´ciwego] chronili.

196

Mariola Jarczykowa

A przetoz˙, skoro mi dano znac´, z˙e ci poboz˙ni ludzie, którzy za pros´ba˛ i poruczeniem zborów ewangelickich, pod szcze˛´sliwym W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] panowaniem w ojczyz´nie naszej be˛da˛cych, juz˙ te˛ nowa˛ Bibliej s´wie˛tej edycja˛ dla niedostatku pierwszych brzeskich egzemplarzów pospieszaja˛ i z swej ku mnie miłos´ci do mnie one˛ dyryguja˛, tedym zaraz za rzecz i powinna˛, i słuszna˛ rozumiał taka˛ Ksie˛ge˛, która w sobie zakon Boz˙y obojego przymierza zawiera, ozdobic´ imieniem W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], którego Bóg i zakonu, i ludu swojego stróz˙em i obron´ca˛ w tych krajach miec´ chciał. Bo to ma byc´ s´wiadectwem nies´miertelnym, z˙e my Wasze˛ K[rólewska˛] Miłos´[c´], pana naszego miłos´ciwego nie tylko wzgle˛dem panowania i władzy nad nami królewskiej, ale tez˙ wzgle˛dem ojcowskiej ku poddanym swym miłos´ci i inszych wysokich cnót tronowi królewskiemu nalez˙a˛cych w takiej cenie mamy, w jakiej przodkowie naszy króla Zygmunta Augusta mieli. Ma to byc´ s´wiadectwem, z˙e W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´], pan nasz m[iło]s´ciwy Diuturnita te Imperii (która zwykła bywac´ próba˛ pan´skiego ku poddanym i poddanych ku panu zachowania) nie naprzykrzyłes´ sie˛ ludowi swojemu, ale owszem doszedłes´ onej rzadkiej szcze˛s´liwos´ci, która˛ sie˛ dziad W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] król Zygmunt Pierwszy cieszył i Aemulationi nabogatszych skarbów i namoz˙niejszej inszych monarchów potencyjej one˛ przekładał. Iz˙ choc´ poddanych masz in Religione dissidentes, w wierze jednak i statecznos´ci ku W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] tak masz concordes, z˙e chociaz˙ im tez˙ ( jako to W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] nietajno) dzieja˛ sie˛ passim gravamina prae iuditia w religiej, przecie˛ na łonie kaz˙dego z nich mógłbys´ W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] bezpiecznie głowe˛ swoje˛ połoz˙yc´ i zasna˛c´. Czego doznałes´ W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] niedawno in servis Reipub[licae]; Doznałes´, potym in omnibus Civium ordinibus, doznasz na koniec, jes´li to Bóg przejrzał, w królewskiej swojej potomnos´ci. A na ostatek ma to byc´ s´wiadectwem, z˙e nas ewangelików nie tylko za przedrukowanie Biblijej nie wstyd, ale tez˙ nie wstyd nas z nia˛ is´c´ na pałace królewskie i dac´ kaz˙demu poczet tej wiary i wyznania, które nie z z˙adnych nauk i tradycyj ludzkich, ale z tych samych Ducha s´wie˛tego pism wzia˛wszy, statecznie trzymamy. Połoz˙ywszy tedy te powinnos´ci, dla których nie godziło sie˛ ta˛ edycja˛ W[asza˛] K[rólewska˛] M[iłos´c´], pana naszego m[iło]s´ciwego pomijac´, uniz˙enie prosze˛, abys´ W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] te˛ Ksie˛ge˛ z tymi wszytkimi, z którymi przedtym wydana była prefacjami do W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] ida˛ca˛, przyja˛c´ M[iłos´]ciwie raczył. A jako na on czas przodek mój Radziwiłł, którego kosztem i staraniem pierwsza Biblia była wyszła, w swej do króla Zygmunta Augusta przemowie P[ana] Boga sobie brał na s´wiadectwo, z˙e nad to wie˛kszej poczty dla króla, pana swego nie miał i z˙e przy onej dedykacyjej wszelakiego zbawiennego i doczesnego szcze˛s´cia panu swemu szczyrze z˙yczył i winszował, tak i ja tejz˙e krwie, tegoz˙ domu potomek os´wiadczam sie˛ Panem Bogiem, tajemnice serca mego przegla˛daja˛cym, z˙ec´ nie na jaka˛ daremna˛ ceremonia˛, ale na znak wiernego poddan´stwa i szczyrej z˙yczliwos´ci te˛ Ksie˛ge˛ jako nadroz˙szy i nad wszytkie moje dostatki, nawet nad zdrowie i nad krew moje˛ milszy upominek W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], panu memu m[iłos´]ciwemu swym i wszytkich zborów ewangelickich imieniem ofiaruje˛ i spólnie z nimi P[ana] Boga za zdrowie i długie a szcze˛s´liwe W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] panowanie zawz˙dy w pospolitos´ci i szczególnie prosze˛. A lubo tego o z˙adnym polskim i litewskim sercu przy boku W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] mieszkaja˛cym nie rozumiem, aby zapomniawszy praw, krajów i czasów, w których z˙yjemy, miał to niewinne podarze moje wespół i z religia˛ nasza˛ ewangelicka˛ przed W[asza˛] K[rólewska˛] M[iłos´cia˛] ohydzic´, gdyz˙ tu nie masz z˙adnych kontrowersyjej,

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

197

nie masz swarów i uszczypliwych przymówek, które by kogo irytowac´ miały, wszakz˙e jes´liby sie˛ kto obcy tak nieche˛tny znalazł, tedy W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] racz sobie pomys´lic´, z˙ec´ Zakon Boz˙y z czyjejkolwiek re˛ki podany u pomazan´ca Boz˙ego wzgardy i odrzucenia ponosic´ nie ma; Racz sobie pomys´lic´, z˙e gdy król Najwyz˙szy wzowie przed sie˛ wszytkich królów i gdy z tego a nie z inszego statutu rachowac´ sie˛ z nimi o chwałe˛ swoje˛ Boska˛ i o rza˛d ludu powierzonego be˛dzie, tedy tam wszyscy odbiega˛ asystentowie, a kaz˙dy pojedynkiem sam za siebie odpowiadac´ musi. Racz na koniec pomys´lic´, z˙ec´ tacy nieche˛ci królewskich przeciwko ewangelikom podz˙egacze i pospolitej zgody gubicielowie niewiele dobrego w inszych pan´stwach swoim na osoby, nauki, ksie˛gi i zbory ewangelickie naste˛powaniu (czego sie˛ P[anie] Boz˙e poz˙al) zbudowali. Przetoz˙ jako Wespazjanowi, rzymskiemu cesarzowi domownik i kochanek jego imieniem Apollonius powiadał, z˙e jeden muzyk, choc´ był w swej profesyjej arcymistrz, przecie˛ uczniów swoich cze˛sto do nieumieje˛tnych i ledajakich muzykantów posyłał, aby sie˛ od nich uczyli nie jako grac´, ale nie grac´ mieli i potym to przytoczył do cesarza, chwala˛c go, z˙e on tez˙ z tych, którzy z´le panowali nauczył sie˛ jako nie panowac´ miał, tak i ja zaz˙yłbym tu tego przykładu, abym oczy W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] obrócił na tych, którzy z pomienionych przyczyn albo swe pan´stwa stracili, albo na nich ledwie z wielkim krwie przelanim osiedzieli. Zaz˙yłbym, mówie, tego przykładu, kiedy bym nie wiedział, z˙e W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] nie cudzymi przygodami, ale własnymi swymi cnotami i chwalebnymi przodków swych przykładami nabyłes´ takiej szcze˛s´liwego panowania eksperiencyjej, jaka potomnym wiekom pro norma moderati et tranquilla Imperii zostawiona byc´ moz˙e; kiedy bym przy tym nie wiedział, z˙e W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] dał P[an] Bóg taki senat, takich konsyliarzów, którzy non alienis naufragiis, ale propria Prudentia et Constanti in patriam fide ostrzegaja˛ sie˛, aby nawy ojczyzny naszej, choc´by tez˙ nie wiedziec´ jakie pogodne wiatry po sobie mieli, na tak skaliste i opoczyste miejsca nie nape˛dzali. A zatym juz˙ be˛da˛c tej nadzieje pełen, z˙e W[asza] K[rólewska] M[iłos´c´] pan mój m[iło]s´ciwy tym szczyrym serca me[g]o pokłonem, któremu samo Imie˛ Boz˙e ceny przydaje, gardzic´ nie be˛dziesz, wierne poddan´stwo z uniz˙onymi posługami moimi oddaje˛ do m[iłos´]ciwej łaski W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci], pana mego m[iło]s´ciwego Dan z Orla, Aprill 1632 W[aszej] K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] pana, pana mego m[iło]s´ciwego wierny poddany i uniz˙ony sługa Krzysztof Radziwiłł

II.

Dedication by Evangelical ministers

Os´wieconemu Ksie˛ciu a Panu Jego Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] panu Krzysztofowi Radziwiłłowi, s´wie˛tego Pan´stwa Rzymskiego i na Birz˙ach i Dubinkach ksie˛ciu, hetmanowi polnemu W[ielkiego] Ks[ie˛stw]a L[itewskieg]o, nam wielce m[iło]s´ciwemu panu i dobrodziejowi Os´wiecone m[iłos´]ciwe Ksia˛z˙e˛, nam wielce m[iło]s´ciwy panie i dobrodzieju Gdy ta Pism s´wie˛tych Ksie˛ga dziesia˛tego w polskiej szacie dope˛dzaja˛c klimakteryku dla niedostatku egzemplarzów, ba˛dz´ ludzi, ba˛dz´ czasów zazdros´cia˛ wygubionych odnawiac´ sie˛ w druku pocze˛ła, ani było trzeba, ani sie˛ godziło szukac´ jej przytuliszcza w inszym domu i pod inszym imienim, jeno z czyjego przedtym na s´wiat była wyszła. Radziwiłł był, który

198

Mariola Jarczykowa

( jako sam o sobie s´wiadczy i wszytkie chwalebne jego poste˛pki w tym i w potomnym wieku toz˙ o nim mówic´ be˛da˛) z poboz˙nej swej zawis´ci i ku Panu Bogu powinnos´ci swym staranim i nakładem one˛ z orientalnych je˛zyków przetłumaczyc´ i drukowac´ dał, a potym nie tylko do uz˙ywania zborów Boz˙ych w Koronie i w W[ielki]m Ks[ie˛stwi]e Lit[ewski]m zgromadzonych, ale tez˙ do pałaców i re˛ku pomazan´ca na on czas Boz˙ego wiernym i z˙yczliwym onej był przewodnikiem. Do Radziwiłła tedy jako nieodrodzonego cnych przodków swych potomka teraz sie˛ garnie i przez niego do K[róla] J[ego] M[iłos´ci] pana naszego i do wszytkich tej R[zeczypospoli]tej stanów zalecenie otrzymac´ tuszy. A jako przedtym temu zacnemu ksia˛z˙e˛cemu domowi z´le sie˛ była nie zachowała, owszem u swych miłos´c´ i powaz˙enie, u postronnych pochwałe˛ i wielka˛ estymacyja˛, u adwersarzów aemulationem tak znamienitego przykładu, u potomnych na koniec podziwienie i nies´miertelna˛ pamia˛tke˛ z soba˛ jako wniesienie jakie była przyniosła, tak i dzis´ obiecuje to po sobie, z˙e wysokich Radziwiłłowskich ozdób nie poszpeci, ale moca˛ onego Boskiego przywileju, którym poboz˙nos´c´ i w tym, i w przyszłym z˙ywocie nagrode˛ ma zapisana˛, te˛ która w przyje˛ciu onej pokazana be˛dzie ludzkos´c´ wprzód dobrego sumnienia pociechami, a potym doczesnego szcze˛´scia obfitos´cia˛, hojnie oddaruje. A toc´ sa˛, Os´wiecone M[iłos´]ciwe Ksia˛z˙e˛, własne i prawdziwe przyczyny, które jako od nas mówia˛ czemus´my te˛ S´wie˛ta˛ Ksie˛ge˛ pod W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] imienim wydac´ byli powinni, tak i na W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] swoim jakoby prawem wymagaja˛, abys´ one˛ wdzie˛cznie przyja˛c´ raczył. Jakoz˙ mamy wszyscy te˛ nadzieje˛, z˙e u W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] i ona sama, i afekt nasz, od którego pochodzi, nie be˛dzie pogardzany. Bo pojrzyszli W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] na rzeczy, które w sobie zawiera, te sa˛ pisma starego i nowego Zakonu Boz˙e[g]o, w nich Bóg do nas mówi, w nich wole˛ swoje˛ i zbawienie nasze podaje i teraz pewnie to nie darmo czyni, z˙e jeszcze w tym schyłku wieków szalonych i z˙ałosnego zaburzenia pełnych, nie odejmuje nam słowa swojego, ale owszem sposobów i moz˙nos´ci do zage˛szczenia onego w ojczyz´nie naszej uz˙ycza. Zaczym moz˙esz tu W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] rzec z onym królem i prorokiem Boz˙ym Dawidem “Usłysze˛, co be˛dzie mówił Pan Bóg. Abowiem opowie pokój ludowi swojemu, a miłos´nikom swym, aby sie˛ nie udawali za głupstwem, zaiste-c´ blisko jest wybawienie tym, którzy sie˛ go boja˛, przeto iz˙ trwa chwała jego w ziemi naszej” [Psalm 85:10]. Moz˙esz W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] przywłaszczac´ sobie one˛ obietnice˛ Boz˙a˛ przez wszytkie wieki pełniowa˛: “Na kaz˙dym miejscu, gdzie be˛dzie pamia˛tka imienia mego, tedy do ciebie przyde˛, a be˛de˛ cie˛ błogosławił” (Exod 20:24). Moz˙esz W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] wspomniec´ na skutek tej obietnice nad domem Obed Edomowym, które mu Pan dla przyje˛tej Arki w krótkim czasie hojne błogosławien´stwa dawał (2 Sam. 6:11). Pojzrzyszli tez˙ W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] na pozwierzchny tej Ksie˛gi ubiór, przypomnisz sobie, z˙e ta polska szata kosztem i nakładem Radziwiłłowskim na mie˛ jest włoz˙ona, a zatym jako płód poboz˙nos´ci Radziwiłłowskiej mile od Radziwiłła ma byc´ przyje˛ta. Na koniec, jes´li W[asz]a Ks[ia˛z˙e˛c]a M[iłos´]c´ pojzrzysz na nas, ubogich bogomodlców swoich, przyznasz, z˙e W[asz]ej Ks[ia˛z˙e˛c]ej M[iłos´]ci jako nie tylko naszemu, ale zborów Boz˙ych dobrodziejowi i patronowi m[iło]s´ciwemu niczym wie˛tszym uc´c´ic´ nie moz˙emy jako z˙e te˛ Ksie˛ge˛, która˛ Kos´ciół Boz˙y przez wszytkie wieki za najdroz˙szy skarb i za jedyny od Boga powierzony depozyt sobie poczytał, W[asz]ej Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] za obowia˛zek z˙yczliwos´ci i powolnos´ci naszej dedykujemy. A tu by był podobno plac dac´ W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] sprawe˛ o pracy naszej w przejrzeniu i przedrukowaniu tej Bibliej podje˛tej, ale z˙ebys´my sie˛ szyrokos´cia˛ nie uprzykrzyli, tedy sie˛ krótko odwoływamy w tej mierze na prefacyja˛ przy edycyjej brzeskiej do czytelnika

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

199

krzes´cijan´skiego połoz˙ona˛, odwoływamy sie˛ na pros´by i os´wiadczanie tamecznych brzeskich interpretów, w których pobudke˛ i niejaki bodziec ad recognitionem Sacrorum Bibliorum posteritati zostawili, odwoływamy [sie˛] na przykłady wszytkich pan´stw, wszytkich je˛zyków, tak w religiej z nami zgodnych jako tez˙ rozróz˙nionych, z˙e takie prace, takie odnowione edycje od nagany i od kawillacjej wolne były, nie rzka˛c, z˙eby zgorszenie jakie za soba˛ prowadzic´ do Kos´cioła Boz˙ego miały. Raczz˙e juz˙ tedy W[asza] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca] M[iłos´c´] wdzie˛cznie i łaskawie przyja˛c´ te˛ praca˛ nasza˛, a przyje˛cim onej racz os´wiadczyc´, z˙e W[asz]ej Ks[ia˛z˙e˛]cej M[iłos´ci] nie wstyd za słowo Boz˙e, nie wstyd za te˛, która˛s´ dota˛d me˛z˙nie i statecznie na sobie nosił prawdziwego ewangelictwa profesyja˛. A lubo s´wiat w tym jest mniemaniu, z˙e ci, którzy przy ewangelijey stoja˛ i w niebie sa˛ zapomnieni, i tu na ziemi w z˙adnym szcze˛s´ciu doczesnym działu nie maja˛, Bóg jednak prawa na sie˛ od stworzenia nie bierze, ani dopus´ci, aby rady ludzkie jego ku wiernym chwalcom dobrotliwos´ci granice˛ zamierzac´ miały. On przez te czasy tak w to ma˛dros´cia˛ swoja˛ ugadzał, z˙e w rozmaitych trudnos´ciach i przeciwien´stwach purpura ksi[a˛] z˙e˛ca na W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] nie zblakowała; On potrafił, z˙e serce K[ról]a J[eg]o M[iłos´]ci, pana nasze[g]o M[iło]s´ciwego, którym On jako strumieniem wód włada i kieruje [Prov 21:1] na złos´c´ niezbe˛dnej zazdros´ci, z wielka˛ sława˛ ku W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] obrócone. On sprawił, z˙e merita i wysokie cnoty W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] jes´li kiedy tedy teraz blaskiem swoim jednych oczy perstringunt, drugich in Amorem et Venerationem W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] pertrahunt; Onz˙e i na potym sumnienia, sławy, zdrowia i wszytkich pociech W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] tak be˛dzie strzegł i dogla˛dał, iz˙ i na W[asza˛] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca˛] M[iłos´c´], i na wszytkim zacnym Radziwiłłowskim domostwie znac´ be˛dzie, one˛ Jego obietnice˛ “Tych którzy mnie czcza˛ c´cic´ be˛de˛, a którzy mnie wzgardzaja˛ be˛da˛ tez˙ i sami wzgardzeni” [1 Sam 2:30]. A ona zas´ przegróz˙ka daleka be˛dzie od wszytkiego domu W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci]: “Iz˙es´ zapomniał zakonu Boga Twego, ja tez˙ zapomnie˛ synów twoich” [Hos 4:6]. Tegos´my Pana i Boga nasze[g]o Trójcy S´wie˛tej Jedynego, prosimy, aby Kos´ciół swój pod szcze˛´sliwym Je[g]o K[rólewskiej] M[iłos´ci] naszego m[iłos´ciwe[g]o panowanim pokojem darował, a w nim W[asza˛] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛ca˛] M[iłos´c´] i wszytkich zacnych i poboz˙nych patronów szcze˛s´cił i błogosławił. A tym juz˙ bogomodlstwem naszym kon´cza˛c, oddajemy sie˛ do m[iłos´]ciwej łaski W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci], naszego m[iłos´]ciwego pana i dobrodzieja[.] Datt z Torunia W[aszej] Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci], naszego wielce m[iłos´]ciwego pana i dobrodzieja z˙yczliwi bogomodlcy i słudzy uniz˙eni Starszy dozorcy i bracia zborów ewangelickich

Bibliography Sources Biblia ´swie˛ta, to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Przymierza z z˙ydowskiego i greckiego je˛zyka na polski wiernie przetłumaczona (1632), Gdan´sk: Andrzej Hünefeld.

200

Mariola Jarczykowa

Biblia ´swie˛ta, to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Zakonu, włas´nie z z˙ydowskiego, greckiego i łacin´skiego, nowo na polski je˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ i wiernie wyłoz˙one (1563), Brzes´c´: Stanisław Murmelius or Cyprian Bazylik. Kochlewski Piotr (1633), Letter to Krzysztof Radziwiłł. Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Archiwum Radziwiłłów, V, 6956. Liedke, Marzena/Guzowski, Piotr (ed.) (2011), Akta synodów prowincjonalnych Jednoty Litewskiej 1626–1637, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Radziwiłł, Krzysztof (1632a), Mowa […] w Warszawie na sejmie, gdy przepraszał króla Jego M[iłos´]ci Zygmunta III. Biblioteka Naukowa NAN Ukrainy we Lwowie im. Wasyla Stefanyka, ms 231, 27r–28r. Radziwiłł, Krzysztof (1632b), Najjas´niejszemu i najmoz˙niejszemu Monarsze a Panu, Panu Zygmuntowi Trzeciemu z łaski Boz˙ej królowi polskiemu. Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Zbiór Branickich z Suchej, S–38–M, 3–7. Rejestr ksia˛g Ks[ie˛]cia Jego M[iłos´]ci Janusza Radziwiłła, które sie˛ do cudzych krajów biora˛ i które Ks[ia˛]z˙e˛ Jego M[iłos´c´] Pan Hetman Ks[ie˛]ciu Januszowi darował. Ksie˛gi dawne Ks[ie˛]cia Jego M[iłos´]ci Janusza (1628), Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Archiwum Radziwiłłów, XI, 37, 324. Rejestr rzeczy Ksia˛z˙e˛cia Jego M[iło]s´ci, które przy Pe˛kalskim zostały w Frankforcie nad Odra˛ roku 1617 die 13 July. Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Archiwum Radziwiłłów, XXVI, 15, 3. Starckius, Fryderyk (1641), Sermo funebris inclytae memoriae Christophori Radzivil…, Elbingae: Typis Wendelini Bodenhausii. Starszy dozorcy i bracia zborów ewangelickich (1632), Os´wieconemu Ksi[ie˛]ciu a Panu Jego Ks[ia˛z˙e˛cej] M[iłos´ci] Panu Krzysztofowi Radziwiłowi, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Zbiór Branickich z Suchej, S–38–M, 8–11.

Studies Kaczorowski, Włodzimierz (1986), Sejmy konwokacyjny i elekcyjny w okresie bezkrólewia 1632. Opole: Instytut S´la˛ski/Instytut Naukowo-Badawczy w Opolu. Kwilecka, Irena (2006), Biblia brzeska, jej dzieje i znaczenie, Nauka, vol. 3, 111–121. Maciuszko, Janusz Tadeusz (2002), Wprowadzenie w historie˛ wydania Biblii Gdan´skiej, Mys´l Protestancka 3/4, 51–59. Nastulczyk, Tomasz (2014), List dedykacyjny Mikołaja Radziwiłła jako program ideowy Biblii Brzeskiej. Wokół humanistycznych kontekstów i uwarunkowan´ studiów biblijnych, Tematy i Konteksty 4, 36–45. Nowak, Zbigniew (2002), Biblia Gdan´ska jako przedsie˛wzie˛cie typograficzne, Mys´l Protestancka 3/4, 60–68. Patalon, Mirosław (2000), O trudnych pocza˛tkach Biblii Gdan´skiej, Rocznik Teologiczny 2, 21–47. Radziwiłł, Albrycht Stanisław (1980), Pamie˛tnik o dziejach w Polsce, vol. 1. Adam Przybos´/Roman Z˙elewski (ed.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Sipayłłówna, Maria (1934), W sprawie genezy “Biblii gdan´skiej”, Reformacja w Polsce, vol. 21–24, 144–151.

Dedications in the Gdan´sk Bible, between Religion and Diplomacy

201

Sipayłło, Maria (ed.) (1983), Akta synodów róz˙nowierczych w Polsce, vol. 3, Małopolska (1571–1632), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 582–583. Szeruda, Jan (1985), Geneza i charakter Biblii Gdan´skiej. Z problemów reformacji, vol. 5, Warszawa: Zwiastun, 7–16. Tworek, Stanisław (1973), Z dziejów Biblii kalwinów litewskich w XVII wieku, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 167–176. Wisner, Henryk (2009), Władysław IV Waza, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Wojak, Tadeusz (1985) Studium o Biblii Gdan´skiej, Z problemów reformacji, vol. 5, Warszawa: Zwiastum, 17–47.

III. Intersections

Robert Dittmann, Jarosław Malicki

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

1.

Introduction

The two most developed Slavic-speaking cultures with written records in the Early Modern Period in East-Central Europe1, the Polish and the Czech ones, enriched and inspired each other at that time. From the beginning of Christianity which penetrated into what would become the Polish-speaking area from Great Moravia and later Bohemia they were closely interwoven.2 As a result, around 70 % of Polish Christian religious terminology is of Czech origin3. The Czech language influenced phonology, morphology, word formation and vocabulary of the Polish language. So much so, that J. Siatkowski rightly states that the “Rola je˛zyka czeskiego w kształtowaniu polszczyzny literackiej była ogromna” [“The role of the Czech language for forming of the Standard Polish was immense”] (Siatkowski: 1996, 244). The number of medieval and Early Modern Czech loanwords, excluding their further derivations, exceeded one thousand six hundred4, reaching about eight hundred in the 15th century and dropping to about four hundred in the following century5. From the 14th century onwards the 1 The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to Dr Izabela Winiarska-Górska and Martin Veselka, M.A., for their kind and generous help during gathering secondary sources for the present study. The contribution originated due to the support of the project Program rozvoje veˇdních oblastí na Univerziteˇ Karloveˇ cˇ. P12 Historie v interdisciplinární perspektiveˇ, podprogram Spolecˇnost, kultura a komunikace v cˇeských deˇjinách. 2 Let us only remind in this respect of St. Adalbert, the second Prague bishop (died 997), and his half-brother St. Gaudentius, the first Polish archbishop, residing in Gniezno. 3 According to scholars such as M. Karplukówna and E. Klich, see Orłos´: 1993, 15. A very different opinion was recently formulated by D. Sikorski, cf. Matla: 2012, 218. 4 The dictionary of Bohemisms in Polish prepared by Basaj and Siatkowski comprises more than seventeen hundred entries, cf. Basaj/Siatkowski: 2006, 5. 5 Siatkowski: 1996, 217, 222, 223. The maximal number estimated by Siatkowski for the 15th and 16th centuries, counting even exceptional occurrences, is about two thousand loanwords, cf. Siatkowski: 1996: 227. For comparison, the number of loans in Czech from German is estimated at over five hundred between 1350 and 1500 and over seven hundred between 1350 and 1650 (including uncertain cases), cf. Newerkla: 2011, 249–352, Bláha 2015: 98.

206

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

two states even became closely connected through their legendary Slavic preˇ ech (the forefather of the Czechs) and Lech (the decessors, namely the brothers C forefather of the Poles), as first depicted in the official chronicle of Prˇibík Pulkava of Radenín (Neˇmec et al.: 1980, 278), who had firm links to the Roman Emperor Charles IV and his ruling circle. This motif was later popularized by the widely spread chronicle of the Catholic priest Václav Hájek of Libocˇany (died 1553), (cf. Orłos´: 1993, 16). The subordinate and mostly heavily receptive position of Polish written culture in relation to the Czech lands during the whole Middle Ages and in the first half of the 16th century (cf. Malicki: 2013b, 148) manifested itself among other fields in biblical translations. However, the situation significantly began to reverse around the mid-16th century6 as the Polish language gradually became the more advanced one. This is also evident in the quantity and quality of Bible translations into Polish (cf. Łuczak: 2001, 171).

2.

The prestige of medieval and Early Modern Czech

The first translation of the complete Bible into the Slavic language, namely Old Czech, was acquired around the mid-14th century. At that time, Old Czech ranked third among national languages in Europe after French and Italian. An incunable Czech Bible, printed for the first time in 1488, was the fifth among national European languages, and the first among Slavic-speaking countries (Bartonˇ: 2010, 53). The amount of biblical translations into medieval Czech7 is stunning and unrivalled among living Slavic languages. Twenty-five, more or less complete, Czech manuscript medieval Bibles have survived to the present day. One other is partially preserved (the Old Czech Glagolitic Bible), with three missing or destroyed but of which some parts are available due to the existence of copies. Furthermore, there are seventeen, more or less complete, Old Testaments, thirteen partially preserved Old Testaments and fifty-eight Old Testament fragments. In addition, there are the six copies of separately preserved Book of Tobias and psalters, of which there are thirteen manuscripts, one more missing and eight fragments. From before 1500 there are also forty, more or less complete, Old Czech New Testaments, three more are partially preserved, one is missing and twenty-seven fragments exist. Nine Old Czech evangeliaries (two more are missing), two lectionaries and ten fragments complete the picture8. These 6 Cf. Pánek: 2014, 31; Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 274, 276. In Silesia, the Czech influence was prolonged by several decades, cf. e. g. Macu˚rek: 1955, 247. 7 We owe thanks to Dr Katerˇina Voleková (private communication, 26th April 2016) of the Institute for Czech Language of the Czech Academy of Sciences for an overview of current total numbers of Czech manuscript biblical translations in this paragraph. 8 For earlier overviews see Ryba/Kyas: 1952; Kyas: 1971; Kyas: 1997.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

207

numbers total two hundred and thirty-nine. To this number we can also add mamotrects and dozens of short Latin-Czech biblical dictionaries (Voleková: 2015). In contrast, the Polish medieval manuscripts include only one incompletely preserved Bible, two psalters, a translation of four gospels and two Latin-Polish biblical dictionaries (mamotrects) and some other fragments (Kwilecka: 1990, 74), some of these translations draw heavily on Czech sources (cf. Voleková: 2015, 99; Jansen [= Jakobson]: 1998, 94). Indeed, converting the sacred Scriptures into the two national tongues may be considered to be a subtle indicator of the mutual influence that existed in the most prestigious layers of the languages. The unique position of Old Czech among living medieval Slavic languages, being as it was the only well-developed standard language (Havránek: 1936, 44), predisposed it to expand its reach, to substitute or heavily influence other Slavic languages in prestigious usages and to function as a model for both neighbouring, and to lesser extent even nonneighbouring, Slavic languages (cf. Havránek: 1998, 103–116; Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 272). The Czech Hussite movement of the 15th century brought singularity to the whole western Church during the High Middle Ages, even predating the reformational 16th century, with the partial use of the Czech vernacular in liturgy, i. e. in the most prestigious function imaginable (Holeton: 2006, 50), with Czech later being attested to this function in Slovak regions, and in Poland we have evidence that a Polish index was attached to a Czech Bible to enable one to find pericopes (cf. Dorul’a: 1977, 39; Kwilecka: 1990, 76). During the period of Old Czech, the opinion was voiced more times that the Czech language occupied first place among Slavic languages. This opinion was also adopted in the 16th century by the translators of Czech New Testaments, Benesˇ Optát (Orłos´: 1993, 26) and Jan Blahoslav9, and also by their Polish colleague, Jan Sandecki-Malecki, who stated “lingua polonica ex lingua Bohemica orta est” (Siatkowski: 1996, 223; Malecki: 1547, 52; Rospond: 1938, 49). The Slavic-speaking countries were said to be united by “bohemorum lingua” (Jansen [= Jakobson]: 1998, 95) whereby for some time Czech was possibly even intended to gradually substitute Latin among Slavs (Neˇmec et al.: 1980, 277, 286). The prestigious position of Old Czech meant that it served as a model for high style Polish, functioning as a criterion for competing phonological, morphological or lexical candidates for settling in Standard Polish (Stieber: 1955, 33). What is also of interest, is that Czech was the language of choice in the highest echelons of Polish society, even being spoken at the king’s court during the reign 9 BlahGram, fol. 348a: “Quamvis parum abest quin inter omnes constet, boëmicam dialectum excultissimam tum elegantissimam esse. A i mneˇˇt se také tak vidí zˇe cˇeská rˇecˇ jest i nejvypulerovaneˇjsˇí i nejlibeˇjsˇí” [“(…) And I also think that the Czech language is the purest and sweetest”].

208

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

of Jadwiga and Jagiełło, and later too. There are mentions of Bohemopoloni10, and language snobism, as documented in Łukasz Górnicki’s Dworzanin polski (1566), in which he generally mocks Czechization but nevertheless admits that Czech is considered to be the nicest or most perfect (“najcudniejszy”) language in Poland (Havránek: 1998, 110; Orłos´: 1993, 25; cf. Malicki: 2013b, 161). The high degree of influence of Old Czech is evident in written records, especially in translations of the Bible. However, to speak of a Polish redaction of Standard Czech would be too much of an exaggeration11, even though, for example, the manuscript of Fragments of Evangeliary of Kraków Regular Canons (about 1420) is written “je˛zykiem mieszanym polsko-czeskim” [“in a mixed Polish-Czech language”] (Rzepka/Wydra: 1986, 92, cf. Wydra/Lewaszkiewicz 2017) and the language of first Polish prints is rightly identified as being “gmatwanina dwuje˛zykowa” [“a bilingual mixture”] (Jansen [= Jakobson]: 1998, 96). The Old Czech biblical translations were used in Poland, possibly – as some interpretations of unclear hagiographic hints would have it – from as early as the 13th century (cf. Kyas: 1977, 56). According to S. Urban´czyk, Bohemisms appear in the famous Kazania ´swie˛tokrzyskie of the mid-14th century (cf. Schenker: 1978, 575–576). It is also assumed that the presumably largest Old Polish translation Biblia królowej Zofii (1455) was translated or rather Polonized (Kyas: 1953, 124) by the best member of the team of its translators, Andrzej of Jaszowice, directly from Czech. This has recently been confirmed by scholars on the basis of misinterpretations of Czech homographous aorist forms, other misunderstandings and translators’ explanatory glosses, faithfully reproduced by the Polish scholar and disrespectfully of the Vulgate (Wanicowa: 2009, 76–92; Deptuchowa: 2008, 137–138; cf. Urban´czyk: 1946, 44). Both Old Polish psalters, the older Psałterz florian´ski (turn 14/15th c.) and the younger Psałterz puławski (turn 15/16th c.)12 as well as the mamotrects and some prayer books also show varying degrees of dependence on Czech sources (Siatkowski: 1996, 51–90, cf. Borowiec/Kuz´micki/Masłej 2015). The Czech biblical translations seem to have influenced the first fragments of printed Polish biblical translations which started to appear at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries (Urban´czyk: 1988a, 26). Even slavica in early Polish Latin manuscripts show traces of Czech (Jansen [= Jakobson]: 1998, 94; Urban´czyk: 1988a, 25). The influence of the Czech language is well documented by Czech manuscripts and prints, including biblical translations, preserved in Polish li10 Orłos´: 1993, 21; Malecki: 1547, 66. Górnicki: 1566, 85–86, commemorates: “i pomne˛ ja, kiedy u dworu takiego mowce˛ chwalono, który w swa˛ rzecz najwie˛cej czeszczyzny mieszał” [“and I remember when such orators at the court were most praised who most heavily mixed their speech with Czech”]. See also in this volume, p. 50 [editor’s note]. 11 To a certain degree the later situation of the biblicˇtina, i. e. the Czech of Slovak Protestants, in Upper Hungary may be considered to be similar, cf. Dorul’a: 1977, 43; Dorul’a: 1993, 57–59. 12 Cf. Kyas: 1977, 59; Kyas: 1962; Orłos´: 1993, 18; on the role of Czech cf. Cybulski: 1992.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

209

braries (Brodský: 2004; Havránek: 1998, 108). For example, Biblioteka Raczyn´skich in Poznan´ treasures copies of Czech Bibles of 1540 and 1549 with Polish marginal glosses (Kwilecka: 1990, 75). Unfortunately, some Czech Bibles were lost in Poland. One example is a manuscript Czech Bible (“Biblí cˇeská pergamínová”), which was transported into exile together with two Prague Bibles of 1488 and many other items from the former library in Kralice13 and it was destroyed during the burning of Leszno in 1656. During the mid-16th century, however, this situation changed radically: it was Polish which finally “took place of Czech as a lingua franca in the Slavophone areas of Central Europe” (Kamusella: 2015, 55) across parts of present-day Estonia and Romania, including Eastern Slovakia (cf. Dorul’a: 1977, 48–53). Whereas the number of complete Bible editions printed in Czech reached nine before the first complete Polish Bible was printed in 1561, and Czech influenced both written and spoken Polish in the first half of the century, reaching the peak of its power accelerated by quick spread of Czech prints and translations from Czech (Orłos´: 1993, 24–25), in the decades to follow the Czech Bible would basically be printed in two versions, the Melantrich version and the Kralice version (printed illegally until 1609), whilst the Poles managed to print five Bible versions (Leopolita, Brest Bible, Budny, Wujek, Gdan´sk Bible) from various confessional backgrounds. The mutual relations were enriched in the second half of the 16th century by a few translations from Polish, as well as by the activities of Bartolomeˇj Paprocký of Hloholy (died 1614) and later by translations and works of John Amos Comenius who spent almost three decades in Leszno (Orłos´: 1993, 29–30). It would be unsatisfactory to suggest that the mutual influences were restricted to biblical translations only, yet the Polish-Czech and Czech-Polish relations in this field deserve the attention because they lie, to varying degrees, behind such linguistic masterpieces as the Polish Gdan´sk (1632) and the Czech Six-Volume Kralice Bible (1579–1594), both of which were paradoxically connected to the exclusive religious minority of the Unity of the Brethren which ceased to exist in both Poland and the Czech lands. In the second half of the 16th century, with Counterreformation intensifying, the mutual biblical exchange between Poles and Czechs was limited due to large incompatibility of audiences. In around 1600 the Catholics only formed ten to ˇ echura: 2009, 342), whereas the fifteen per cent of populace in the Czech lands (C vast majority of Poles were inclined to Counterreformation. Within this context, it is therefore natural that mutual relations are best attested between confessionally identical or close products such as Optát14 and Gzel’s New Testament

13 Danˇková 1951: 54. 14 Optát had some ties to radical Protestant currents and showed sympathy for radical Refor-

210

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

and Jan Sandecki-Malecki, the Calvinist Brest Bible and Calvinizing Unity of the Brethren’s Kralice Bible, the Melantrich Bible anchored basically in the Vulgate tradition and the Leopolita Bible, Kralice Bible and Gdan´sk Bible.

3.

Bible polemics surrounding Standard Czech and Polish

The crucial position of the Bible in medieval and Early Modern society is reflected also in the fact that it was biblical translations which aroused the first larger linguistic polemics about the style of prestigious Czech (Vykypeˇlová: 2008, 172) and Polish. In the Czech lands this was represented by the confrontation between the Unity of the Brethren’s Bishop Lukásˇ of Prague, its very prolific author and a decisive figure of the first quarter of the 15th century, and the mainstream. In the Polish milieu, it was the polemics of the 1540s between Jan Sandecki-Malecki and Jan Seklucjan about the character of Standard Polish and its dependence on Czech models. Sandecki-Malecki attempted to revive Polish heavily burdened by Czech models15 and argues in his Defensio verae translationis corporis Catechismi (1547) that nobody is able to translate the Scriptures into Polish correctly and precisely unless they know Czech translations (“nemo vere ac proprie polonice loqui nescit, nisi Bohemicae linguae non ignarus fuerit”, see Siatkowski: 1996, 223; Frick: 1989, 18; and further “neminem unquam literas sacras in linguam polonicam vere ac proprie vertere posse, sine adminiculo linguae Bohemice, et sacrarum literarum lingua Bohemica editarum”, see Malecki: 1547, 21). Bohemisms were perceived by him as features of standard language formed by Czech preachers (“a Bohemicis concionatoribus”, see Malecki: 1547, 60; Rospond: 1938, 49–50) and that they should ensure restitutio and correctio of corrupted language (Malecki: 1547, 53–54, 63) and make up for deficiencies in Polish.16 He claims that he who does not know Czech is not able to speak correct Polish either (see above and cf. Havránek: 1998, 110). These opinions are echoed in his son Hieronim’s Postylla domowa (1574), who states that a proper translator should know Czech, and he considers Czech and Polish to be dialects of the same language17, much in the same vein as Jan Blahoslav mation ideas but he was also strongly influenced by Erasmian mild Christian humanism, cf. Just in Dittmann/Just: 2016, 12. 15 In words of Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 274 – ,Czech of Polish redaction‘. 16 Cf. Malecki: 1547, 62: “in multis locis scripturae sacrae Bohemis dictionibus nobis maxime opus est, quando videlicet polonicae dictiones ad aliquam dictionem latinam propria vertendam deferint.” 17 In Hieronym’s words: “musi [tłumacz] i czeski je˛zyk umiec´, a to dlatego, z˙e i polski i czeski je˛zyk jednaka mowa jest […]” [“(The translator) must know also Czech because Polish and Czech are the same language”], see Rospond: 1948, 115, cf. Orłos´: 1993, 26. Closeness between Polish and Czech occurs naturally earlier, for instance a report of 1455 about a priest Sta-

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

211

(BlahGram, fol. 347a–347b) and Ladislav the Elder Popel of Lobkovice (Pánek: 2004, 160). In 1550, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski also expressed the opinion that Czech biblical translations should serve as the recommended model for Polish ones and that Czech and Polish are two dialects of a single language (Macu˚rek/ Kyas: 1964, 275; cf. Frick: 1989, 47). In the Czech lands the polemics about the character of the biblical style was at least partially connected to confessional background: the Utraquists, who authored the Námeˇsˇˇt Grammar of 1533, favoured forms closer to the spoken language, which was almost certainly co–inspired by Luther’s approach to biblical translations. The opposing opinion of exclusive, high-style and more archaic biblical language was held by the Unity of the Brethren, as demonstrated by Bishop Lukásˇ of Prague’s approach and by the rules formulated and applied by his successor, Jan Blahoslav. It seems that the discussion with regards to Polish ran intraconfessionally in the 1540s and 1550s: Jan Sandecki-Malecki, advocator of Polonized biblical Czech, referred to the lengthy and therefore conservative Czech tradition, whilst young Stanisław Murzynowski, the author of a New Testament translation who intentionally avoided Bohemisms, were both Lutherans. Similarly, whereas Catholic Marcin Bielski’s New Testament (1556) exploited ties to traditional Czech biblical language, his co-religionist, a Benedictine monk of Lubin´ Tomasz Łysy of Zbrudzewo, in finished parts of his manuscript Old Testament translation (around the mid-16th century) carefully hid the direct influence of Czech by applying a contrastive method (Kwilecka: 1967, 95–100; Kwilecka: 1990, 79–80; Malicki: 2013a, 12), even though his surviving manuscript notes often quote from Exodus 26 onwards from the Czech Bible of Pavel Severin of Kapí Hora published in 1529, submitting Czech readings under the phrases bohemus habet and bohemicalis expositio habet (Kwilecka: 1990, 80). It is only when the first complete Polish printed Bibles appeared in the early 1560s (Catholic Leopolita’s Bible of 1561 and Calvinist Brest Bible of 1563) that the dynamic modernization of the biblical style became connected to nonCatholics, further supported by Budny’s later achievements. This happened hand in hand with the acceptance of the orientation on original languages being the primary sources of non-Catholic translations. In the Czech lands, such sources were largely reflected in the Six-Volume Kralice Bible (1579–1594), but in contrast this bible favoured the mildly archaic and conservative biblical style defined by Jan Blahoslav. The first grammars originated in the 16th century in connection to biblical translations: the authors of all Czech published and preserved grammars between the Námeˇsˇˇt Grammar of 1533, the first grammar of a Slavic language, and the nisław, accused of the Hussite heresy, records questioning him “an docuisset aliquem virum aut mulierem lecturam vulgarem aut Bohemicalem”, see Leszczyn´ski: 2001, 133.

212

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

mid-17th century are connected in some way to biblical translations. This biblicity seems to be a typical feature of earlier Czech grammatography (Keipert: 2015, 18– 19), which was further strengthened by Jesuit authors in the latter half of the 17th century. According to Jan Sandecki-Malecki and his Defensio, the Námeˇsˇˇt Grammar should be applied as a model for Polish, too. It is for this reason that he suggested Czech paradigms as models (Malecki: 1547, 52–54, 71) and preferred forms closer to Czech such as jenz˙ instead of który, twe instead of twoje, dufanie instead of ufanie, wielmi instead of wielce, pieczliwy instead of troskliwy because they were more original. The first real Polish grammar, issued in 1568, was authored by the immigrant French Calvinist, Petrus Sartorius (cf. Stankiewicz: 1984, 35), a member of the team of translators who prepared the Brest Bible of 1563. The Czech orthography, marked in the Czech lands confessionally in its innovations already from the time of the diacritical reform of the 15th century, and then in the so-called Brethren orthography (bratrský pravopis) from the Ivancˇice and Kralice print-shop, was stabilized for centuries to come by biblical usage in the 16th and early 17th centuries. Ortografia polska by the Lutheran, S. Murzynowski, the first consequent and compact orthographic system for Polish (Małłek: 2001, 167), was published in Jan Seklucjan’s prints of biblical translations (Stankiewicz: 1984, 34).

4.

Early Modern Polish inspirations for Czech Bibles

The rapidly developing literary Polish and Polish biblical studies found their appreciation among Czech intellectuals. Mikulásˇ Konácˇ of Hodisˇkov (after 1480–1546) recommends in a foreword to his posthumously published translation Judyth (fol. N2v) – be that for whatever reason (cf. Meˇsˇˇtan: 1998, 73) – that Czechs should follow the example of advanced Polish literature18. Jan Blahoslav, a brilliant Brethren scholar, claims in an often quoted passage of his grammar finished in 1571, probably in reaction to the publication of the Polish Brest Bible in 1563 (BlahGram, fol. 353a–353b): Toto toliko o Polácích dím, zˇe teˇchto cˇasu˚ pocˇna […], tak sobeˇ rˇecˇ svou rozsˇírˇili, mnozˇství knih azˇ i svatá Písma (lépe nezˇli v cˇesˇtineˇ zpravená) jazykem svým vydavsˇe, zˇe ˇ echu˚m jest zacˇ se postydeˇti, zˇe sou v té veˇci tak sˇeredneˇ se jest cˇemu podiviti. Ba C oblevili, mrzuteˇ, od slovoutné snazˇnosti a udatnosti prˇedku˚ svých tak daleko odsˇedsˇe, s zadu s lenochy a nedbalci zu˚stali. [About the Poles I will say only so much that in our times […], they have so much developed their language, having printed in their language a number of books including 18 See the copy of the National Library of the Czech Republic, shelf mark 54 B 36. Cf. Orłos´: 1993, 29.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

213

the Scriptures (made better than in Czech), that it is admirable. The Czechs should feel rightfully ashamed that they have in this respect so terribly slackened, having sullenly departed so much from the famous efforts and boldness of their predecessors and lagging behind with idlers and the negligent.]

However, the first Czech translations from Polish only came later, since the 1570s onwards. They were very rare and mostly restricted to Catholic writers and counterreformational polemicists who had rather limited audiences in the predominantly Protestant Czech lands of the period. It was only Bartolomeˇj Paprocký of Hloholy, a gradually bilingual Polish nobleman, who in the 1580s settled at the Bishopric Court in Olomouc and subsequently at other noble family seats in Bohemia and Moravia, who importantly intermediated between the two cultures. Careful attention was devoted to Polish history in Kalendárˇ hystorycký by Daniel Adam of Veleslavín. The Polish language was reflected by Jan Blahoslav (see below) and in an etymological work by Matousˇ Benesˇovský – Philonomus (1587). Also worthy of note within this context is Peter Loderecker’s seven-language dictionary (1605), which was the first Czech-Polish dictionary (Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 277–278; cf. Becˇka: 1955, 149–187, Meˇsˇˇtan: 1998). For the minority of Catholic adherents in the Czech lands, the Silesian town of Nisa, which today lies in Poland (Nysa), functioned as the capital of the county of the same name, but also as the centre of Catholicism in Silesia under the Habsburg rule at that time. A German to Czech Catholic translation of the New Testament is said to have been published in this strongly Catholic Silesian Rome in overwhelmingly Lutheran Silesia (Vorel: 2008, 382–383), however, no surviving copy exists. In fact, the very existence of this translation, which was allegedly published in 1566, is very uncertain and disputable. It is reported to have been a translation of the German version prepared by Hieronymus Emser, which was a translation based on Luther’s New Testament but corrected according to the Vulgate. It seems more probable that this is an issue of mere misinformation that has been passed down from 19th century sources (on the debate see Vykypeˇlová: 2013, 282–285). The Catholics, or rather their hierarchy, worked for a long time to create a truly Catholic, Vulgate-based counterreformational translation of the Bible. The powerful and politically skilful Cardinal Dietrichstein (died 1636) asked a certain P. Franciscus Polonus of the Capuchin Order to prepare a translation of the Bible into Czech. The Polonus was Frantisˇek of Rozdrazˇov, a counterreformational priest of Polish noble ancestry. The translation, or rather a revision of an older Czech translation, took more than eight years to complete. The process continued even after Dietrichstein’s death. The completed manuscript came equipped with (also finished?) annotations and expositions in unclear and controversial places. Regretfully, no surviving textual trace of the manuscript

214

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

translation is known to us19. It is not even mentioned by Jesuit translators who were preparing the Saint Wenceslas Bible (1677–1715) a generation later, which nonetheless followed a similar strategy: a revision of an older tradition according to the Vulgate, accompanied by marginal notes and commentaries on controversial points. Neither do we know whether Polonus or the Jesuits made use of the translation by the Polish Jesuit Wujek, whose Postylla mniejsza was translated into Czech at the end of the 16th century and published first in Litomysˇl in 1592 (dedicated to the Bishop of Olomouc, Stanislav Pavlovský, of a Polish mother) and then in Prague in 1629.20 Unsurprisingly, the pericopes in the 1592 Czech translation of the Postil follow closely, according to our findings, the text of the Melantrich Bibles with only detail modifications. Polish priests and monks, who could usually master Czech, flooded Silesian and Moravian monasteries and parishes, as also observed by the Brethren bishop of Ivancˇice, Jan Blahoslav21. This wave reached its peak in the 1580s under Bishop Stanislav Pavlovský, only dropping slowly in the following decades (Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 268–270). The tightest relations to Poland in the second half of the 16th century were probably maintained by the Unity of the Brethren. Its establishing Polish branch could soon boast dozens of parishes, important educational centres such as Leszno, Koz´minek and Ostroróg, and influential intellectuals such as Jirˇí Izrael, Sˇimon Bohumil Turnovský or Maciej Rybin´ski. In 1554, the printer Alexandr Oujezdecký, who also printed works of Seklucjan and Murzynowski, printed a Polish translation of Roh’s hymnbook22 and other Brethren literature, his most important Czech print being the famous hymnbook of Szamotuły entitled Piesneˇ chval Bozˇských (1561), see Voit: 2017, 367, 418–419, 426–431; Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 268, 275–276. It was from Oujezdecký that the Unity of the Brethren acquired some printing equipment for their print shop in Ivancˇice. Blahoslav relates in the Acta Unitatis fratrum: “[z] Polsky vzata impresí na Moravu” [“the printing press was taken from Poland to Moravia”] Fialová: 1968, 19), yet the process of origin of the Brethren print-shop was more complicated (Voit: 2017, 431–432). Polonisms penetrated into some Czech Brethren prints. This is evident in Jan Blahoslav’s criticism, formulated in his grammar, for the translation of 19 See Vykypeˇlová: 2013, 285–318, on the translation by Polonus. 20 Postylla Aneb Kázanij Ewangelitská […], Knihopis No. 17059, 17060. Cf. Jungmann: 1849, 216. A textual comparison of the 1629 edition with a Polish source remains still a task for the future. ˇ echách a po Moraveˇ nemalo se jich vídá. 21 BlahGram, fol. 353a: “blízko máme Poláky, a po C ˇ echa nebo Moravce, kázati nebo msˇi Zvlasˇteˇ nyní v klásˇterˇích, kdezˇ témeˇˇr spísˇ Poláka nezˇli C slouzˇiti uslysˇísˇ […]” [“the Poles are close to us and in Bohemia and Moravia you can see many of them. Especially now in monasteries it is nearly more likely that you will hear a Pole preaching or celebrating the mass rather than a Czech or a Moravian”]. On Polish priests in Bohemia in the 15th century cf. Sˇmahel: 2014, 85. 22 Cf. Voit: 2017, 367.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

215

psalter from Latin, printed in Prosteˇjov in 1562 and authored by his bishop ˇ ervenka, who “díl cˇasu zˇivota svého strávil […] v Polsˇteˇ” colleague Mateˇj C [“spent a part of his life … in Poland”], see BlahGram, fol. 281a, and whose Osveˇdcˇení a ocˇisˇteˇní se jednoty bratrské (1558) was the very first Czech print undoubtedly printed in Poland (Voit: 2006, 701; 2017: 423, 426). Blahoslav conˇ ervenka such as divné úcˇinky (for skutky), ocˇi moje, demns the renderings of C ˇ ˇ osoblíve, pospolite, pravdivý and pravdiveˇ, velemocné, trudneˇ, see fols. 281b, 335b–338a, 353b, 354a. Blahoslav’s grammar, finished after two decades in 1571, is not only an important source on opinions about the Polish language – for example, he adduces some etymologies (177a), rejects uncontracted forms of pronouns (moje instead of mé, 259a), reports about Polish speech (49a, 176a, 207a, 239a, 240a, 270a, 273b, 348b, 354b, 355a), its trends (105b) and orthography (352b), includes Polish among Slavic dialects (347b, 350b, 351a, 353a–353b), and voices admiration for Polish biblical work (353a–353b). It is only natural that the nasal vowels in the Polish language sounded somewhat unpleasant to Blahoslav23, which is mirrored by a similar opinion of Czech expressed by Łukasz Górnicki24. ˇ ervenka’s psalter was not accepted into the Kralice After Blahoslav’s criticism, C Bible. The translators also showed respect for Blahoslav’s language criticism of Polonisms. This is evident from lack of words or word forms such as pospoliteˇ, trudneˇ, velemocný, moje etc., even though pravdivý does occasionally appear, for example, in a marginal note reading pravý, pravdivý as a synonymous rendering of pravdomluvný in John 8:26. Furthermore, this occurrence is overtaken from Blahoslav’s New Testament of 1568, whereas its first edition of 1564 reads only pravý. As previously mentioned, Blahoslav held Polish biblical work in high esteem, triggered by the Brest Bible. He shows that he is acquainted with some Polish Bible, certainly the Brest Bible again, in his Naucˇení mládencu˚m: “má–li kdo tak mnoho cˇasu, mu˚zˇe cˇísti podle registrum nové Biblí polské” (Just: 2007, 135). It is not excluded that the Polish Calvinist Brest Bible, the first printed Polish Bible to be grounded on original languages, theologically quite close to the Unity of the Brethren and financed by Mikołaj Radziwiłł, gave a strong impetus for biblical scholarship in the Unity and more precisely for the project of the Six-Volume Kralice Bible, financed by Jan the Elder of Zˇerotín (cf. Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 276; Kyas: 1997, 173). There are indeed interesting parallels: not only the same 23 BlahGram, fol. 348b: “[cˇeská rˇecˇ] nepotrˇebuje nepeˇkného skrze nos mluvení; nebo Poláci jakýms nám neprˇíjemným huhnáním, velmi sobeˇ svu˚j hovor kazí” [“(Czech) does not use any ugly speaking through the nose; since the Poles spoil their speech by some nasalizing unpleasant for us”]. 24 Cf. Górnicki: 1566, 91: “Czeski je˛zyk jest pie˛kny, ale jakoby troszke˛ pieszcza˛cy a me˛z˙czyz´nie mało przystojny […]” [“The Czech language is nice but as if somewhat affectionate and not very appropriate for males”]. See also in this volume, p. 50 [editor’s note].

216

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

theological shaping in the Calvinist line25, but also the application of the ad fontes rule, existence of a cosmopolitan team of about ten translators, financed by a nobleman, placing the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments (supported by other prints of the period), innovative typography and glossa circumscripta supplying the metatextual apparatus (using alphabet letters and similar typographical signs for concordances, i. e. cross-references to parallel biblical versets), the introduction of verset numbering and of lengthy marginal notes, and the exploitation of the best Latin Bibles available26. However, the language style is quite different: dynamically modernising as in the Brest Bible versus the mildly archaic of the Kralice version (cf. Malicki: 2013a, 16), which is reflected among other things in the radically modernising versus conservative approach to biblical proper nouns. Evidence of a clear direct influence of the Brest Bible on the Kralice Bible has not been detected (Michálek: 1994, 46–48), with the Bibles showing both similarities and differences (Malicki: 2013a, 16). The Kralice Bible is nevertheless closely connected to Silesia: two important members of its team of translators came from there, namely Master Nicolaus Albertus of Kamének, the greatest expert on Old Testament languages, and Lukásˇ Helic of a converted Jewish family in Poznan´. Master Nicolaus was also among those entrusted with the revision resulting in the single volume Kralice Bible of 1596. It is not excluded that one orthographical feature applied among Czech Early Modern prints, most consistently in Brethren orthography (bratrský pravopis) in Ivancˇice, Kralice and Leszno prints, namely the discerning of l and ł representing two phonemes, was, as suggested already by Josef Dobrovský, among other things influenced by the close ties of the Unity to Poland (Vykypeˇlová: 2013, 176). A list of books transported into exile proves that in the Kralice library there was an unidentified Polsky Zˇaltarˇ (Danˇková: 1951, 54). This might have been a versed psalter published in 1598 and authored by Maciej Rybin´ski who composed it in line with Brethren tradition (Macu˚rek/Kyas: 1964, 275), drawing on the Czech version by Jirˇí Strejc (S´lizin´ski: 1959, 84; Rott: 2002, 92–93).

25 The confessional background of the Polish Bible is more complex, cf. Kwilecka: 2001b, 146– 148; Leszczyn´ski: 2001, 139. 26 For the Brest Bible, it was the Stephanus’ 1556–1557 edition comprising Beza’s New Testament translation and further Beza’s translation also published in 1559 and 1560 in Zurich and Geneva, cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1553. The influence of both of these sources is also attested in the Kralice translation (in the New Testament, Stephanus comprised the first version of Beza), which used furthermore Tremellius & Junius for the Old Testament and Beza’s later versions for the New Testament, apart from other aids.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

5.

217

Early Modern Czech influence on Polish Bibles

The previous contrastive research of Czech and Polish Bibles of the Humanism and Renaissance period confirmed that considering Czech translations as direct sources would be an oversimplification. In the first half of the 16th century Czech words and forms were already perceived much more critically. This is evident in the refusal to mechanically overtake grammatical or lexical features. The domestic effort especially manifested itself in psalter translations (cf. Belcarzowa: 2006, 18–45). The Bohemisms in, for example, Kraków Psalter (1532) belong, despite frequent, in particular to earlier domesticated loanwords and to the traditional medieval style of Polish. Such Bohemisms occur also in other contemporaneous Polish psalters (Woz´niak: 2002, 155–157; cf. Kyas: 1997, 172–173; Belcarzowa: 2006, 18–45; Kyas: 1962, 103). In the Ecclesiastes translated by Hieronim Spiczyn´ski of Wielun´ and printed in 1522, the Czech Bible translations, alongside with Italian and German ones, are presented as a model for Polish biblical translation efforts (Pietkiewicz: 2002, 100–101). Around the mid-16th century, the two tendencies, i. e. growth of domestic translations and the vast reception of Czech models, collided as modernising and conservative trends and were metalinguistically reflected. While the Evangeliary (1528) by Jan Sandecki-Malecki, full of Bohemisms (Orłos´: 1993, 26) and deeply rooted in the Middle Ages, and also his New Testament (1556) made little progress in this respect (Janów: 1928, 4–6), the Lutheran New Testament (1551) by Stanisław Murzynowski preferred modernised language and intentionally avoided Czech forms. Its patron, Jan Seklucjan, formulated it in the following way: “Nobis non opus est Bohemicis, sed polonicis verbis” (Rospond: 1948, 62). Sandecki-Malecki drew heavily on Czech New Testament of 1533 by Benesˇ Optát and Petr Gzel and recommended this translation to his opponent (Frick: 1989, 17; Malecki: 1547, 69–71; Wodecki: 1998, 1223). In his criticism of Matthew in Seklucjan’s print (Haereses et errores […], 1551), Sandecki-Malecki mentions a Bohemicus translator (i. e. Optát and Gzel’s translation) at Matthew 1:1: “Bohemicus translator, equidem vir doctus in sua lingua sic vertit: Knihy o rodu Jesu Krista. Cuius versio quantum licet, ac fieri potest nobis imitanda est.”27 In his Defensio, Sandecki-Malecki argues that ecclesia should be translated as zbór krzes´cijan´ski (Klemensiewicz: 1974, 390), the rendering zbor being very typical for the New Testament of Optát and Gzel. In fact also Murzynowski seems to have been influenced by this Czech translation of Latin Erasmian New Testament of 27 Berlin, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, shelf mark XX.HA.Hs 28, fol. 16v. Cf. Hess: in print. We thank Dr I. Winiarska-Górska for a consultation of the manuscript. The reading perfectly corresponds to the Optát & Gzel New Testament, whereas the Czech Bibles of 1529, 1537, 1549 read Kníha rodu Jezˇísˇe Krysta (1549 Rodu). See Nowy Testament […], Knihopis No. 17099; Biblij Czˇeska […], Knihopis No. 1098, 1099, 1101.

218

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

1522: “Murzynowski cited the Czech New Testament in the annotations to his work”, says David A. Frick (1989, 32). The marginal note to Matthew 1:2 in Murzynowski’s translation indeed praises Czechs for sploditi as an equivalent to the Greek counterpart28. It was, however, Murzynowski’s approach which proved to be generally more adequate for the contemporary situation. This is evidenced by the exploitation of his text in the Leopolita Bible (Belcarzowa: 2006, 64), even though Czech Bibles continued to be viewed as relevant aids for Polish translators in the following decades. Indeed, it seems that the publishers of Czech Bibles also counted with foreign customers or at least with the impact of their prints abroad. We can interpret the foreword of the Czech Venetian Bible (1506) within this context, which was printed so that the good “netoliko v cˇeském národeˇ, ale vsˇude jinde mohlo [by] se rozsˇirˇovati” [“(could) spread not only across the Czech nation but everywhere else”] (Florovskij: 1940–1946, 153; cf. also Meˇsˇˇtan: 1998, 69–70). The first Polish printed Bible, the Leopolita Bible (1561, further ed. 1575, 1577), took on its final form in tight connection to the Czech Melantrich Bible. This official and most widespread Czech version was printed five times in the 16th century, the earliest version dating back to 1549 is the joint work of Netolický and Melantrich. Deriving from the Vulgate and drawing on an earlier translation, the Polish translator knew the Czech version well. This is evidenced by the fact that there are about three hundred textual matches, as identified by E. Belcarzowa (2006). However, he also took into consideration the Polish New Testament of Murzynowski and other Polish texts. This Bible is closely related to the Melantrich Bible also in term of its typography (Rachlík: 1930, 51–52) and illustrations because the woodcuts used as late as the Czech third edition (1560–1561) were “in letzter Minute” (Urban´czyk: 1988b, 23) sold to Kraków at the end of 1560 and used in the Leopolita and its re-editions (cf. Voit: 2017, 604).29 However, it is not a mechanical translation from Czech so that Szymon Budny in a preface to his New Testaments of 1574 and 1589 (fol. C3r) could claim that had the Leopolita translators followed the Czech Bible more closely, they would have avoided plenty of serious mistakes. Among the Czech translations, most matches to the Leopolita were detected by E. Belcarzowa in the Netolický Bible of 1549. The Leopolita shares some deviations from the traditional Vulgate text, accepts Bohemisms (Belcarzowa: 1989, 12–21; Belcarzowa: 1988, 45–52), and also contains matches in the Third Book of Maccabees, which only appeared in Czech for the first time in the Netolický Bible. In some very rare cases the Leopolita even reflects changes carried out between Netolický Bible of 1549 and the Melantrich 28 Łuczak: 2001, 175. The rendering zplodil is frequent in Czech translations at this place. 29 Voit: 2013, 489. Even the depiction of a Revelation scene with a Beast in papal tiara and its opponents Luther and Melanchthon was overtaken, cf. Frick: 1989, 65–66.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

219

Bible of 1556–1557 (cf. Belcarzowa: 2006, 66–95). Czech readings have also been found in the so-called glosses to Leopolita (Belcarzowa: 1992, 47, 49). The Leopolita influenced other Polish translations so that Melantrichian readings appear in the Wujek Bible and the Gdan´sk Bible, too. The Brest Bible (1563), the first preserved Slavic Bible proceeding from the original biblical tongues, was prepared anew from the most reliable sources available, among them the original biblical text and prestigious translations into humanistic Latin. The Greek text served as the basis for the New Testament, with translations “of the neighbouring peoples” also being taken into account (Wodecki: 1998, 1224). Mutual matches with the later Czech Kralice Bible are partially result of similar or identical sources, for instance Beza’s Latin New Testament translation. The detection of direct influences still remains a task for future research since parallel renderings may be explained by a common source. An example of this can be found in Acts 7:43 of the Kralice Bible, which reads as follows, in line with Blahoslav’s New Testaments, nosili ste (cf. Melantrich’s Bible 1556–1557, New Testament of 1533 prˇijali ste, Vulgate suscepistis, Greek anelabete)30, paralelling the Brest Bible’s owszemes´cie nosili (Leopolita, Budny and Wujek przyje˛lis´cie). This undoubtedly also corresponds to baiulastis in Stephanus 1556–1557 and further editions of Beza’s text (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1574). The Brest Bible occured in the Hutter Polyglot (Kwilecka: 2001b, 153) alongside the Czech Melantrich Bible. According to M. Kossowska, all three Polish translations in the 1560s show knowledge of the Czech Netolický Bible of 1549 (Urban´czyk: 1988a, 30). A similar situation applies in case of Szymon Budny’s Bible (1572) and his New Testaments (1570 – published with the apocryphal books 1574, 1589), translated from the original texts. In the preface to the New Testaments of 1574 and 1589, Budny, applying generally the word-for-word approach, mentions the Czech Bible in a scornful assessment of the Leopolita (“czemu do Czeskiego przekładu nie weyrzeli, z˙eby w taka˛ han´be˛ nie wpadli?”, fol. C3r–C3v, see Frick: 1989, 93) and shows some knowledge of Czech ignorance of the Old Church Slavic translation (fol. C5r). The Antitrinitarian translator seems to hint he may have used some Czech translation(s) during the translation process (cf. Siatkowski: 1996, 223), yet an in-depth analysis is still a desideratum31, which also holds true for the Arian translation of the New Testament by Marcin Czechowic

30 See Nowy Testament […], Knihopis No. 17099; Biblij Czˇeská […], Knihopis No. 1102; Nowy ˇ eské […], Knihopis No. 1107. Zákon […], Knihopis No. 17110, 17112; Biblj C 31 Moszyn´ski’s (1994) contribution fails to reach persuasive conclusions, not only because he mistakenly considers Jan Vartovský to be a translator of the Kralice Bible, but also due to the methodology disregarding contemporaneous Latin translations and to a large degree also previous Czech tradition.

220

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

(1577, 1594), based on the Brest version (Kwilecka: 2006, 118), and Walenty Smalcius (1606 and later re-editions). On the other hand, the influence of Czech sources can definitely be found in the two most important Polish translations of the period, the official Catholic Wujek Bible (1599) and the Protestant Gdan´sk Bible (1632). Both were used until the beginning of the 20th century or even later, in some ways paralleling the lengthy Czech tradition of the Kralice Bible and St. Wenceslas Bible. The Jesuit Wujek himself admits in the preface to his New Testament (1593): “Miałem tez˙ przed oczyma wszystkie przekłady Nowego Testamentu polskie […] a czasem tez˙ i czeski. Które mi do obierania słów co najwłas´niejszych polskich niemało pomogły” (foreword Krzes´c´ian´skiemu czytelnikowi: 21, see Malicki: 2013a, 17; cf. Siatkowski: 1996, 223). This is the first time that a Polish Catholic admits having used the Czech translation (Frick: 1989, 152). It has been assumed that this was the Kralice Bible but its New Testament was only finished in 1594. If it were indeed the Brethren’s text (rather Blahoslav’s New Testament of 1564 and 1568), it would be no surprise: Wujek also drew interconfessionally on Budny’s translation and the Brest Bible (Wodecki: 1998, 1210). This explains some parallels to the Kralice Bible and somewhat weakens the statements of earlier scholars which considered the Kralice Bible to have been a rich source of Bohemisms in the Wujek Bible (Goła˛b: 1906; cf. Malicki: 2013a, 17). In fact more recent scholarship failed to find a single Bohemism which would not be contained already in previous Polish texts (Bien´kowska: 1992, 109). The impact of Wujek’s translation was interconfessional, it was read in dissenter circles as well (the Brest Bible had also been read by Protestants and to a limited degree by Catholics too), cf. Wodecki: 1998, 1210; Kwilecka: 2006, 119. The Czech Kralice Bible is most closely linked to the Gdan´sk Bible (1632). The Polish branch of the Unity of the Brethren was one of three Protestant denominations, together with the Lutherans and Calvinists, which were at an assembly at Belz˙yce of 1603 charged with preparation of a new biblical translation or rather a revision of previous tradition. The Unity’s collaborators were the renowned intellectuals, Jan Turnowski and Marcin Gracianus, and Pavel Paliurus was charged with helping the main protagonist, Daniel Mikołajewski, with respect to the Czech Bible (cf. Malicki: 2013a, 18). Not much later, in 1604, Turnowski was at an assembly in Baranów also selected for a function of a theological supervisor. His responsibility was to compare the New Testament translation prepared by Marcin Janicki with other translations, among others the Kralice Bible32. A revised New Testament, based on Janicki’s manuscript, was printed in Gdan´sk in 1606 and reflects some Calvinist influences (Wodecki: 1998, 1227). The Gdan´sk Bible was only printed in 1632 after some discord and delays. It included 32 S´lizin´ski: 1959, 68. On Turnowski’s further tasks see Gmiterek: 1987, 127.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

221

the Psalter translation of Maciej Rybin´ski of the Unity33. According to J. Szeruda’s findings, it is the Kralice Bible with which the Gdan´sk version shows most textual matches, with the translators having used both the first and the third editions (S´lizin´ski: 1959, 69; Malicki: 2013a, 18). This may be partially explained by common sources, after all both translations made use of the best editions available, among them the Antwerp Polyglot, Beza’s Greek text and the Latin Protestant Heidelberg Bible of Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Junius. For example the order of the apocryphal books and its summaries are overtaken in the Kralice Bible from the Heidelberg Bible and were basically accepted for use at least in some cases in the Gdan´sk Bible34. This also holds true for shortenings like the Czech J. (or Jiní) and Polish Inni, or H. for a word-for-word rendering of Hebrew (cf. Malicki: 2013a, 18). Even translators’ additions connect the Heidelberg, Kralice and Gdan´sk Bibles. For example in Isaiah 52:6 the addition (Heidelberg Bible inquam, experietur, Kralice Bible poznátˇ pravím) is reflected in the Gdan´sk Bible (pozna, mowie˛) as well35. As T. Lisowski counted, the Kralice Bible explains about a third of the distinctive lexical renderings of the Gdan´sk Bible New Testament, whereas in the Gdan´sk New Testament of 1606 the ratio was only about three per cent (Lisowski: 2010, 385)36. J. Malicki also found matches at lexical, morphological, and word-formation levels and reflections of the Czech source in the marginal notes (Malicki: 2013a, 18–21). Two thousand copies of the second unchanged edition of the Gdan´sk Bible, mediated by Comenius (Becˇková: 1983, 68; Bartosˇ: 1950, 81–82), were printed in Amsterdam in 1660. The number of re-editions of the complete Bible in the Gdan´sk version reached eighty before 1962 (Kwilecka: 2001b, 157; cf. Wodecki: 1998, 1227–1228).

6.

Conclusions

With a certain simplification it is possible to conclude that since the beginning of the 16th century the Czech and Polish experts, translators and publishers of the Bible were confronted by contrasting needs and obstacles. In the Czech lands it involved overcoming the limitations imposed by traditional and therefore aging 33 Rybin´ski was also assigned with a translation into Polish of Czech Brethren catechism and confession at the beginning of the 17th century, he translated a Czech agenda dealing with the ordination of priests (Dworzaczkowa: 1997, 112). 34 Cf. Konopásek: 1931, 128–129; Kwilecka: 2001b, 155; Kwilecka: 2006, 117. The summaries in the Gdan´sk Bible seem to be translated from Latin, not Czech, as shown e. g. by introduction to Judith or Tobias. 35 Cf. Szeruda: 2016 [online]. We quote the second edition of Tremellius–Junius (Testamenti Veteris Biblia sacra, sive, Libri Canonici […], Genève 1590, available online from www: , Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 524w). 36 See also in this volume p. 281–302 [editor’s note].

222

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

biblical texts in terms of orthography, morphology, lexicology and stylistics. In Poland the fundamental task lay in creating a complete and stabilized translation. It soon became apparent that more opinions would arise on the biblical style in the Czech lands, as well as in Poland. The Polish biblical translation from before 1561, due to a series of partial translations, attempts, and unfinished projects including those known only from the period mentions (cf. Belcarzowa: 2006, 9–10), developed to a high degree differently from that in the Czech lands where a rich tradition existed in complete printed Bibles and New Testaments (cf. Kyas: 1997, 131–172). However, the development in Poland must be assessed as very intensive. During the 16th century the gaps were filled, the delays were made up for, and the Standard Polish matured and stabilized. In the last quarter of the century, Czech and Polish translations exploited equal instruments of cultural communication and were both able to offer philologically processed biblical translation accessible to their respective readerships. This balance was achieved on the Polish side partially by in-depth knowledge of Czech Bibles and the high esteem in which the Czech language was held, owing to its functional and stylistic range, whereby it could fulfil the role of a model. There are many tasks for future research on both the Czech and Polish sides, including methodological elaboration of the term dependence itself.

Bibliography ˇ , Josef (2010), Století moderního cˇeského biblického prˇekladu (1909–2009), Listy Barton filologické 133, 53–77. ˇ eský bratr 26, Bartosˇ, Frantisˇek Michálek (1950), Polská bible vydaná Komenským, C 81–82. Basaj, Mieczysław/Siatkowski, Janusz (2006), Bohemizmy w je˛zyku polskim. Słownik, Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Becˇka, Josef (1955), Polské písemnictví ve sveˇtle cˇeských prˇekladu˚, in: Milan Kudeˇlka ˇ esko-polský sborník veˇdeckých prací II, Praha: Státní pedagogické naklada(ed.), C telství, 149–187. Becˇková, Marta (1983), Jan Amos Komenský a Polsko, Praha: Academia, nakladatelství ˇ eskoslovenské akademie veˇd. C Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (1988), Charakteristik des Wortschatzes der Leopolita, in: Reinhold Olesch/Hans Rothe (ed.), Leopolita. Kommentar, Paderborn/München/Wien/ Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 37–73. Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (1989), Niektóre osobliwos´ci leksykalne Biblii tzw. Leopolity, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdan´sk/Łódz´: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich/ Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (1992), O tzw. glosach w Biblii Leopolity, in: Marian Kucała/Jerzy Reichan (ed.), Studia historycznoje˛zykowe i dialektologiczne, Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Je˛zyka Polskiego, 43–53.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

223

Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (2006), Polskie i czeskie z´ródła przekładu Biblii Leopolity, Kraków: Lexis. ´ kowska, Danuta (1992), Styl je˛zykowy przekładu Nowego Testamentu Jakuba Bien Wujka (na materiale czterech Ewangelii), Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Bláha, Ondrˇej (2015), Jazyky strˇední Evropy, Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. ˇ ejka, Mirek/Sˇlosar, Dusˇan/Nechutová, Jana (ed.) (1991), Gramatika BlahGram = C cˇeská Jana Blahoslava, Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Borowiec, Karolina/Kuz´micki, Marcin/Masłej, Dorota (2015), Kontakty polskoczeskie na tle literatury psałterzowo-biblijnej, Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Je˛zykoznawcza 22 (42), No. 1, 35–53. Brodský, Pavel (2004), Iluminované rukopisy cˇeského pu˚vodu v polských sbírkách, ˇ R/Euroslavica. Praha: Archiv Akademie veˇd C ˇ echura, Jaroslav (2009), C ˇ eské zemeˇ 1584–1620. První Habsburkové na cˇeském tru˚neˇ C II, Praha: Libri. Cybulski, Marek (1992), O roli wzoru czeskiego w kształtowaniu sie˛ polskiego słownictwa psałterzowego w XV w., Rozprawy Komisji Je˛zykowej Łódzkiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 37, 17–31. ˇ ková, Mirjam (1951), Bratrské tisky ivancˇické a kralické (1564–1619), Praha: Národní Dan museum. Deptuchowa, Ewa (2008), Odpowiedniki czeskiego aorystu w Biblii królowej Zofii, Kraków: Lexis. Dittmann, Robert/Just, Jirˇí (2016), Biblical Humanism in Bohemia and Moravia in the 16th Century, Turnhout: Brepols. Dorul’a, Ján (1977), Slováci v dejinách jazykových vztˇahov, Bratislava: Veda, vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. Dorul’a, Ján (1993), Tri kapitoly zo zˇivota slov, Bratislava: Veda. Dworzaczkowa, Jolanta (1997), Bracia czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku, Warszawa: Semper. Fialová, Vlasta (1968), Zachariásˇ Solín, tiskarˇ Kralické bible, Brno: Výzkumný ústav polygrafický. ˇ esˇskaja biblija v istorii russkoj kultury Florovskij, Anton Vasiljevicˇ (1940–1946), C i pismennosti, Sborník filologický 12, 153–258. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the CounterReformation. Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Gmiterek, Henryk (1987), Bracia czescy a kalwini w Rzeczypospolitej. Połowa XVI – połowa XVII wieku. Studium porównawcze, Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii CurieSkłodowskiej, Wydział Humanistyczny. Goła˛b, Julian (1906), O tłumaczeniu Nowego Testamentu przez ks. J. Wujka, Warszawa: F. Czerwin´ski. Górnicki, Łukasz (1566), Dworzanin polski, Kraków: Maciej Wirzbie˛ta. Havránek, Bohuslav (1936), Vývoj spisovného jazyka cˇeského, in: Oldrˇich Hujer (ed.), ˇ eskoslovenská vlastiveˇda. R ˇ ada II. Spisovný jazyk cˇeský a slovenský, Praha: Sfinx, C Bohumil Janda, 1–144.

224

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

Havránek, Bohuslav (1998), Expanse spisovné cˇesˇtiny od 14. do 16. stol., in: Co daly nasˇe zemeˇ Evropeˇ a lidstvu. Od slovanských veˇrozveˇstu˚ k národnímu obrození, Praha: Evropský literární klub, 103–116. Hess, Leopold (ed.) (in print), Herezje i błe˛dy w komentarzu Jana Seklucjana do [Ewangelii] Mateusza, przez Jana Maleckiego, ministra kos´cioła ełckiego, zebrane i odparte. Przekład i komentarze Leopold Hess. Transkrypcja fragmentów Ewangelii wg s´w. Mateusza (Królewiec 1551), Bielsko-Biała/Warszawa [we thank Dr Izabela Winiarska-Górska for allowing us to work with the manuscript]. Holeton, David (2006), The Role of Jakoubek of Strˇíbro in the Creation of a Czech Liturgy: Some Further Reflections, in: Ota Halama/Pavel Soukup (ed.), Jakoubek ze Strˇíbra. Texty a jejich pu˚sobení, Praha: Centrum medievistických studií v nakladatelství Filosofia, 49–86. Janów, Jan (1928), Jan Sandecki (Malecki) jako redaktor najstarszego polskiego lekcjonarza, i jako tłumacz Nowego Testamentu z r. 1552, Sprawozdania z Czynnos´ci i Posiedzen´ Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnos´ci 38, No. 2, 4–6. ˇ eský vliv na strˇedoveˇkou literaturu polskou, Jansen, Olaf [= Jakobson, Roman] (1998), C ˇ ˇ ˇ in: Co daly nase zeme Evrope a lidstvu. Od slovanských veˇrozveˇstu˚ k národnímu obrození, Praha: Evropský literární klub, 93–101. Jungmann, Josef (1849), Historie literatury cˇeské, aneb, Soustavný prˇehled spisu˚ cˇeských ˇ ivnácˇe. s krátkou historií národu, osvícení a jazyka, Praha: v komissí kneˇhkupectví F. R Just, Jirˇí (2007), Biblický humanismus Jana Blahoslava, Praha: Evangelická teologická fakulta [unpublished Th.D. dissertation]. Kamusella, Tomasz (2015), Creating Languages in Central Europe during the Last Millenium, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Keipert, Helmut (2015), Tschechische Bibel(n) und Tschechisch-Grammatik (aus slavistischer Sicht), in: Holger Kuße/Hana Kosourová (ed.), Die tschechische Bibel. Ihre Bedeutung in der Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte. Beiträge zum 7. Bohemicum Dresdense 25. Oktober 2013, München/Berlin/Leipzig/Washington: Otto Sagner, 17–31. Klemensiewicz, Zenon (1974), Historia je˛zyka polskiego, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ˇ eské prvotisky a staré tisky (1476–1800) on-line, available Knihopis = Knihopis Digital. C online at WWW: , [accessed on 20. 04. 2016]. Konopásek, Jaroslav (1931), Dveˇ studie o Bibli kralické, Sborník filologický 9, 96–133. Kwilecka, Irena (1967), Uwagi o warsztacie pisarskim Tomasza ze Zbrudzewa, Slavia Occidentalis 26, 95–100. Kwilecka, Irena (1990), S´redniowieczna biblia czeska a staropolskie przekłady biblijne (zarys problematyki badawczej), Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Linguistica 23, 73–82. Kwilecka, Irena (2001a), Die Brester Bibel. Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz unter Mitarbeit von Christian Hannick und Ludger Udolph (ed.), Biblia Slavica. Serie II. Polnische Bibeln. Band 2. Brester Bibel 1563. Teil 2. Ksie˛gi Nowego Testamentu. Kommentare, Paderborn/München/ Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1487–1660. Kwilecka, Irena (2001b), Z dziejów przekładu pierwszej polskiej Biblii protestanckiej, in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyz˙ewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy. 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubice˛ na je˛zyk

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

225

dolnołuz˙ycki, Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Szkoły Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 143–159. Kwilecka, Irena (2006), “Biblia brzeska”, jej dzieje i znaczenie, Nauka 3, 111–121. Kyas, Vladimír (1953), Za cˇeskou prˇedlohou staropolské bible, Slavia 22, 112–124. ˇ eská prˇedloha staropolského zˇaltárˇe, Praha: Nakladatelství Kyas, Vladimír (1962), C ˇ SAV. C ˇ eKyas, Vladimír (1971), První cˇeský prˇeklad bible, Praha: Academia, nakladatelství C skoslovenské akademie veˇd. Kyas, Vladimír (1977), Recepcja najstarszego psałterza czeskiego w Polsce, Roczniki humanistyczne 25, No. 4, 55–61. ˇ eská bible v deˇjinách národního písemnictví, Praha/R ˇ ím: VyKyas, Vladimír (1997), C sˇehrad/Krˇestˇanská akademie. ´ ski, Rafał (2001), Ewangelickie przekłady Nowego Testamentu w szesnastoLeszczyn wiecznej Polsce, in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyz˙ewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy. 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubice˛ na je˛zyk dolnołuz˙ycki, Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Szkoły Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 133–142. Lisowski, Tomasz (2010), Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii gdan´skiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Uje˛cie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne, Poznan´: Rys. Łuczak, Arleta (2001), Najstarszy polski drukowany przekład Nowego Testamentu pióra Stanisława Murzynowskiego (1551–1553), in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyz˙ewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy. 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubice˛ na je˛zyk dolnołuz˙ycki, Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Szkoły Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 171–182. ˚ rek, Josef (1955), Slezsko a jeho úloha ve vývoji cˇesko-polských vztahu˚ na prˇelomu Macu ˇ esko-polský sborník veˇdeckých prací I, Praha: 15. a 16. století, in: Milan Kudeˇlka (ed.), C Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 223–269. ˚ rek, Josef/Kyas, Vladimír (1964), Vzájemná výmeˇna kulturních hodnot v oblasti Macu ˇ esi a Poláci v minulosti 1, Praha: Naklajazyka a literatury, in: Josef Macu˚rek (ed.), C ˇ eskoslovenské akademie veˇd a umeˇní, 265–279. datelství C Malecki, Jan (1547). Defensio verae translationis corporis Catechismi in linguam polonicam, aduersus calumnias Ioannis Secluciani […], Królewiec [manuscript]. Quoted according to Rospond: 1948, 49–78. Malicki, Jarosław (2013a), K polské recepci cˇeské bible v 16. století, Historie – Otázky – Problémy 5, No. 2, 11–22. Malicki, Jarosław (2013b), Recepce cˇesˇtiny v Polsku, in: Robert Dittmann/Oldrˇich ˇ esˇtina a deˇjiny, Olomouc: Univerzita PaUlicˇný (ed.), Studie k moderní mluvnici 3. C lackého, 148–163. Małłek, Janusz (2001), Stanisław Murzynowski: tłumacz Nowego Testamentu, pisarz religijny, osjandrysta, “servulus et clientulus” ksie˛cia Albrechta pruskiego, in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyz˙ewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy. 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubice˛ na je˛zyk dolnołuz˙ycki, Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Szkoły Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 161–169.

226

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

Matla, Marzena (2012), Czeskie wpływy kulturowe w je˛zyku i pis´miennictwie pan´stwa piastowskiego (od X do XIV wieku) w s´wietle historiografii polskiej, Historia Slavorum Occidentis 2(3), 210–233. Meˇsˇtˇan, Antonín (1998), Czesko-polskie kontakty literackie i kulturalne w okresie renesansu, in: Jadwiga Grell (ed.), Czechy i Polska na szlakach ich kulturalnego rozwoju, Kraków: Mie˛dzynarodowe Centrum Kultury, 67–81. Michálek, Emanuel (1994), Jazyk Kralické bible v kontextu vývoje starsˇí doby, in: Helena ˇ eská bible v deˇjinách evropské kultury, Brno: Pavlincová/Dalibor Papousˇek (ed.), C ˇ Ceská spolecˇnost pro studium nábozˇenství/Masarykova univerzita, 41–48. ´ ski, Leszek (1994), O staropolskim i staroczeskim przekładzie pierwszych zdan´ Moszyn Ksie˛gi Rodzaju z oryginału hebrajskiego (Biblia Budnego i Kralicka), Studia historycznoje˛zykowe I, 149–156. Neˇmec, Igor et al. (1980), Slova a deˇjiny, Praha: Academia. Newerkla, Stefan Michael (2011), Sprachkontakte Deutsch – Tschechisch – Slowakisch. Wörterbuch der deutschen Lehnwörter im Tschechischen und Slowakischen: historische Entwicklung, Beleglage, bisherige und neue Deutungen, Frankfurt am Main/ Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien: Peter Lang. Orłos´, Teresa Zofia (1993), Tysia˛c lat czesko-polskich zwia˛zków je˛zykowych. Tisíc let cˇesko-polských jazykových vztahu˚, Kraków: Universitas. ˇ eský obraz Poláku˚ v prˇedbeˇlohorské dobeˇ, in: Wojciech Pánek, Jaroslav (2004), C Iwan´czak/Ryszard Gładkiewicz (ed.), Polaków i Czechów wizerunek wzajemny (X–XVII w.), Wrocław/Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii PAN, 155–167. Pánek, Jaroslav (2014), Czesi i Polacy w tysia˛cletniej historii. Przemiany modelu sa˛siedztwa i współz˙ycia, in: Czechy a Polska na progu czasów nowoz˙ytnych, Torun´: Adam Marszałek, 27–41. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2002), Pismo S´wie˛te w je˛zyku polskim w latach 1518–1638. Sytuacja wyznaniowa w Polsce a rozwój edytorstwa biblijnego, Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]. Rachlík, Frantisˇek (1930), Jirˇí Melantrych Rozˇdˇalovický z Aventýnu. Jeho zˇivot, dílo a pomeˇry knihtisku v XVI. století, Praha: Melantrich. Rospond, Stanisław (1938), Kultura je˛zykowa w Polsce XVI wieku. I. Polemika poprawnos´ciowa J. Maleckiego z J. Seklucjanem, Je˛zyk Polski 23, 45–52. Rospond, Stanisław (ed.) (1948), Druki mazurskie XVI w., Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Mazurskiego. Rott, Dariusz (2002), Bracia czescy w dawnej Polsce. Działalnos´c´ literacka – teksty – recepcja, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Ryba, Bohumil/Kyas, Vladimír (1952), Oznacˇení cˇeských biblických rukopisu˚ a tisku˚, ˇ eské akademie veˇd a umeˇní 56, No. 3, 37–45. Veˇstník C Rzepka, Wojciech Ryszard/Wydra, Wiesław (1986), Ewangeliarz kanoników regularnych w Krakowie z około 1420 r. (uwagi wste˛pne), Poradnik Je˛zykowy [70], No. 2, 91–97. Schenker, Alexander M. (1978), The Role of Czech in the Formation of the Polish Literary Language, in: Henrik Birnbaum (ed.), American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists. Vol 1. Linguistics and Poetics, Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 574–596. Siatkowski, Janusz (1996), Czesko-polskie kontakty je˛zykowe, Warszawa: Energeia.

Mutual Relations between Polish and Czech Bibles in the Early Modern Period

227

´ ski, Jerzy (1959), Z działalnos´ci literackiej braci czeskich w Polsce (XVI–XVII w.), S´lizin Wrocław/Warszawa: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Sˇmahel, Frantisˇek (2014), The Divided Nation, in: James R. Palmitessa (ed.), Between Lipany and White Mountain. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Modern Bohemian History in Modern Czech Scholarship, Leiden: Brill, 63–93. Stankiewicz, Edward (1984), Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages from the Middle Ages up to 1850. An Annotated Bibliography, Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton. Stieber, Zdzisław (1955), Wpływ czeszczyzny na kształtowanie sie˛ polskiego je˛zyka ˇ esko-polský sborník veˇdeckých prací II, Praha: literackiego, in: Milan Kudeˇlka (ed.), C Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 27–37. Szeruda, Jan (2016), Biblia Gdan´ska i inne tłumaczenia [online], available from www: [accessed on 4. 04. 2016]. ´ czyk, Stanisław (1946), Biblia królowej Zofii a staroczeskie przekłady Pisma s´w., Urban Kraków: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. ´ czyk, Stanisław (1988a), Vom Florianer Psalter zur Leopolita, in: Reinhold Urban Olesch/Hans Rothe (ed.), Leopolita. Kommentar, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 25–35. ´ czyk, Stanisław (1988b), Zu dieser Aufgabe, in: Reinhold Olesch/Hans Rothe Urban (ed.), Leopolita. Kommentar, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 21–24. Voit, Petr (2006), “Polsko”, in: Encyklopedie knihy. Starsˇí knihitsk a prˇíbuzné obory mezi polovinou 15. a pocˇátkem 19. století, Praha: Libri ve spolupráci s Královskou kanonií premonstrátu˚ na Strahoveˇ, 700–702. ˇ eské tisˇteˇné Bible 1488–1715 v kontextu domácí knizˇní kultury, C ˇ eská Voit, Petr (2013), C literatura 61, 477–501. ˇ eský knihtisk mezi pozdní gotikou a renesancí. II. Tiskarˇi pro víru i Voit, Petr (2017), C tiskarˇi pro obrození národa 1498–1547, Praha: Academia. ˇ eská lexikografie 15. století, Praha: Academia. Voleková, Katerˇina (2015), C Vorel, Petr (2008), Velké deˇjiny zemí Koruny cˇeské. Svazek VII. 1526–1618, Praha/Litomysˇl: Paseka. Vykypeˇlová, Tatˇána (2008), K vytvorˇení konfesneˇ podmíneˇných variant spisovné cˇesˇtiny v 16. století, Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 54, 171–191. Vykypeˇlová, Tatˇána (2013), Wege zum Neutschechischen. Studien zur Geschichte der tschechischen Schriftsprache, Hamburg: Dr. Kovacˇ. Wanicowa, Zofia (2009), Ignota, dubia, reperta. Czytac´ i rozumiec´ staropolszczyzne˛, Kraków: Lexis. Wodecki, Bernard (1998), Polish Translations of the Bible, in: Jozˇe Krasˇovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana/Sheffield: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti/Sheffield Academic Press, 1201–1233. Woz´niak, Ewa (2002), Słownictwo i frazeologia Psałterza krakowskiego (1532) na tle ówczesnych przekładów biblijnych, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

228

Robert Dittmann and Jarosław Malicki

Wydra, Wiesław/Lewaszkiewicz, Tadeusz (ed.) (2017), “Ewangeliarz” kanoników regularnych lateran´skich w Krakowie z XV wieku, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne.

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The first Lithuanian book1 and the first Lithuanian Bible translation2 saw the light in Lutheran East Prussia, in the mid- and late 16th century respectively. Lithuanian Protestant authors in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were exclusively Calvinists; they as well had their share in the publication of religious literature in Lithuanian. There is no doubt that they knew and even used religious books published by Lutheran Lithuanians in East Prussia: Chylin´ski (1659, 4–5) lists most of them in his overview of Lithuanian religious book-production. In fact, it was only at a later stage that the Lithuanian Calvinists became aware of the need of publishing religious literature in the Lithuanian vernacular in order to attract broader masses to the Calvinist churches. The first Bible translation printed in the Grand Duchy, under the patronage of the Lithuanian Chancellor, Grand Hetman of Lithuania and Voivode of Vilnius, Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black, prince of Ołyka and Nies´wiez˙, was in Polish: it was the so-called Brest or Radziwiłł Bible of 1563. More than fifty years later a new, revised edition of the Brest Bible, which had become a rarity, was envisaged. When the book was ready for the press, it became clear that the new edition, far from being a revised version of the Brest Bible, was actually a completely new translation. Though Reformed Protestants from the Grand Duchy opposed its publication in the form in which it had been submitted, the new Polish translation was printed in 1632 in Gdan´sk. At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, when the confessional balance began to sway in their disfavour, the Reformed Protestants of the Grand Duchy set about compiling and publishing religious books in Lithuanian. It was in this period that Joku¯bas Morku¯nas printed his Lithuanian Postil (Vilnius: 1600), preceded by Mikalojus Dauksˇa’s Catholic Postil (Vilnius: 1599). The year 1653 saw the printing, in Ke˙dainiai, of the most monumental Lithuanian-language Calvinist 1 The Catechism of Martynas Mazˇvydas (Königsberg: 1547). 2 Jonas Bretku¯nas translated the whole Bible between 1579 and 1590, but it was never printed. The manuscript is held by the Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin; shelf mark: XXStUKgb50.

230

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

edition in the Grand Duchy, the Book of Christian Devotion. Though the Evangelical Reformed Synod in the Grand Duchy showed no special concern for a Lithuanian Bible in the first half of the 17th century, a Lithuanian translation of both the Old and the New Testament was made, in a private initiative, by Samuel Boguslaus Chylin´ski, who had left Lithuania for the Netherlands in 1654 and, unable to return to his country then submerged in war and chaos, had found refuge in England. The Lithuanian Evangelical Reformed Synod, which had initially welcomed Chylin´ski’s translation, subsequently sent notice to England that its printing was to be discontinued and the translation of the New Testament by the influential minister Jan Borzymowski the Elder was to be published instead. Endeavours to achieve this went on for four decades after the abandonment of the printing of Chylin´ski’s Bible. Eventually Borzymowski’s Lithuanian New Testament was destroyed in a fire that consumed his manse at Birzˇai, but a new translation of the New Testament was commissioned by the Synod and printed in Königsberg in 1701; it is named after minister Samuel Bythner, who headed the translation team after the death of Nicolaus Minwid. In this article we will briefly outline the circumstances in which the abovementioned Bible translations were made and printed, and discuss the translators’ views of translation techniques as laid forth in their prefaces or as they may be reconstructed on the basis of an analysis of the texts. We will then compare four translations – the Brest and Gdan´sk Bibles as well as Chylin´ski and Bythner – with each other and with the Hebrew and Greek originals. As his translation source Chylin´ski had chosen a text renowned for its fidelity to the originals, the Dutch Statenvertaling (first edition 1637), whence not only Dutch, but also Hebrew constructions made their way into his translation; his renderings will therefore also be compared with those of the Statenvertaling. The translators of the Bythner New Testament used earlier Lithuanian translations, especially Baltramiejus Vilentas’ Gospels and Epistles (Königsberg: 1579) and they may also have had access to Bretku¯nas’ manuscript translation. We have selected places where the Hebrew or Greek text was susceptible of different interpretations, so that the translators had to choose between a philological and an inspired rendering. Through comparison we will try to establish to which translation method each of the versions discussed stands closest.

1.

Protestants’ versions of the Bible and their translation method

By their resolve to return ad fontes and to collect and study original texts of the Holy Scripture, the Humanists broke with the mediaeval tradition of reading little else than the Vulgate and of relying on the Church for its sole correct interpretation. Familiarity with the originals fostered doubts about the Vulgate’s

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

231

unconditional accuracy. In his annotations on his Latin version, Erasmus points out a number of places where St. Jerome was mistaken or his rendering could be improved upon (Erasmus Roterodamus: 1516, 225 ff). True to the Humanist principle, the Protestants published new versions whose trademark was the claim, on the title page or in the preface, that the translation had been made from the originals. Often these translations were indeed based on the Hebrew and the Greek, but in their concern to fill an urgent need some translators had recourse to other strategies such as basing themselves on other vernacular or Latin versions reputed to be particularly faithful to the originals. The translation method was either philological, if the original was closely followed (as Erasmus did in his Latin version), or inspired, in a tradition going back to Luther (for this use of the terms philological and inspired cf. Schwarz: 1955, 61 ff). Translators representing the philological tradition seek to echo every Hebrew of Greek word as emanating from the Holy Ghost; an inspired translator will render his source text as faithfully as he can while being driven by the concern to make his language sound natural and idiomatic. The difference boils down to a choice between the ad verbum and the ad sensum principles. In this article the ad verbum principle is not understood as a mechanical word-for-word-transposition (which could more accurately be characterized as ad litteram translation), but rather as a principled commitment to respect the Divine Word in the shape in which it was originally transmitted. Latin versions can also be classified according to this criterion, e. g. Theodore Beza’s version sticks closely to the originals whereas Castellio’s is couched in an elegant and forceful Classical Latin free from the imprint of Hebrew or Greek grammar (Backus: 2012, 143 ff). The basic choices made by the translators depended on many circumstances and considerations, such as religious persuasion, cultural and political context, the translators’ training and language skills, the libraries they had at their disposal etc., but mainly on the targeted readership and the aim pursued: in the Lutheran-dominated period of the Reformation the Bible, having become accessible to simple, uneducated people ignorant of Latin, was to become a weapon in the struggle against Catholicism. This determined the choice of the translation method: the most important version of this period, Luther’s Bible, was translated from the original languages into an idiomatic German that could be understood by everybody, free of dialectal features, obscure Biblical phraseology and clichés borrowed from the Vulgate. With the rise of a community of scholars versed in Greek and Hebrew, views of Bible translation began to evolve: in Calvinist congregations the literal meaning of Biblical expressions became an object of contemplation, as it seemed to be replete with hidden senses. As the humanist principle of a return ad fontes became a cornerstone of translation practice, Reformed theologians had a tradition of humanist Biblical philology to rely on (Bruin: 1993, 168). Accurate philological translations of the Bible into one na-

232

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

tional language after the other, straight from the originals rather than from Luther, began to appear3. In some countries, e. g., the Netherlands, teams of translators were put in charge of creating accurate translations for which rules were laid down in advance, prominence being given to the requirement of faithfulness to the original. These translations were to serve the needs of an educated readership prepared for earnest study that was to disclose the true meaning of the Divine word.

2.

Calvinist Bible translations into Polish and Lithuanian from the 16th and early 17th century and what we know about their translation techniques

2.1.

The Brest Bible (1563)

The 1563 Brest Bible, a sumptuously produced folio Bible in Polish, remains to the present day a source of pride to both Lithuanian and Polish Reformed Protestants. Work on its translation started in 1557, when Jan Łaski returned to the Grand Duchy and joined a Bible translation project initiated by Grzegorz Orszak, rector of the Pin´czów grammar school. The translators, most of whom were teachers at the grammar school, included several Frenchmen, followers of Calvin who had come from Geneva – Petrus Statorius (who would later write the first Polish grammar), Jean Thénaud and others. Orszak subsequently withdrew from the translation team when part of the translators took sides in the trinitarian controversy among Calvin’s followers – a controversy that also led to Michael Servetus’ execution in Geneva. The translation initiative would have stalled without the encouragement of Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black, who took the lead of the project after Łaski’s death and supported it with a donation of 3000 florins. The Pin´czów Synod of 1560 appointed several new translators including Andrzej Trzycieski (vel Trzecieski), an able Hebrew and Greek scholar delegated to Pin´czów by Calvin himself with a view towards taking over Orszak’s function as head of the translation team. Trzycieski supervised the translating and editing process right up to the printing stage. It took the multinational team three years to complete its task and the manuscript was finally given into print in 1562 (for

3 These include Lefèvre d‘Étaples’ French translation, first printed in Geneva 1523 (NT), 1530 (the whole Bible), Utenhove’s Dutch NT, printed in Emden in 1556, the 1611 Authorized Version (King James Bible) in England, and the 1637 Dutch Statenbijbel, commissioned by the Estates General of the Netherlands. Johannes à Lasco (Jan Łaski) also fostered plans for a new philological Polish Bible translation.

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

233

further details see Kossowska: 1968, 225–253; Frick: 1989, 67ff; Kwilecka: 2001, 1526–1563; Kwilecka: 2003, 335–349). While the title page duly stated, in accordance with Protestant custom, that the text had been diligently and faithfully translated from the Hebrew and the Greek, the preface acknowledged that other vernacular translations had been consulted as well. At the behest of the 1567 Antitrinitarian and Socinian synod of Skrzynno the Brest Bible was compared with the Hebrew and Greek originals by Maciej Kawieczyn´ski, steward of the Radziwiłł estate of Nies´wiez˙, and Szymon Budny, who had already criticized the Brest Bible for its departures from the originals before it was printed. They concluded that the text was based on French and Latin translations (Merczyng: 1913, 48). Kwilecka (2001, 335–349) assumes the Latin Bible with commentaries produced by Robert Estienne’s printing house in 1557 (with Santes Pagnino’s version of the OT and Theodore Beza’s version of the NT) to have been the principal Latin source for the Brest Bible. In a study of Pagnino’s influence on the Brest Bible, Rajmund Pietkiewicz writes that his comparison of the Brest Bible with other sources yields increasing evidence that it is based on Pagnino’s Latin version, whereas some printed Hebrew Bible could at best have served as a subsidiary source (Pietkiewicz: A, 10). Janina Czerniatowicz (1969, 39) has established that the Apocrypha of the Brest Bible are based on Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French translation4. Olivétan’s Bible, looked through by Calvin, had been printed in 1553 by Robert Estienne; it was the first Bible edition with numbered verses. As we find the same numeration in the Brest Bible, this innovation is generally traced back to the Olivétan Bible. The Brest Bible stands out by its forceful language and its wealth of stylistic resources; it had a shaping influence on the emerging Polish literary language. In their preface the translators admit that wherever a dilemma arose, elegance of expression was their paramount concern, often at the expense of fidelity to the originals. This means that the translation technique of the Brest Bible had not been affected by the views of Jan Łaski, who, in accord with his long-time associate in the London Dutch congregation Jan Utenhove, advocated an exact and literal transposition of the Bible text from the original languages (Bruin: 1993, 170).

4 The first edition of the Olivétan Bible with a preface by Calvin was printed in 1535 in Pierre de Vingle’s printing house in Neuchâtel. It underwent a strong influence from the Catholic French translation of Jacques Lefèvre (1530). Revised and corrected editions of the Olivétan Bible appeared in 1540 (printed by Jean Girard), 1546 (revised by Calvin); 1553 (printed by Robert Estienne, also called the Olivier edition); 1562 (the so-called Geneva edition, with the Psalter by Marot and Beza), 1588 (revised by Theodore Beza) and in later years. Cf. http://www. museeprotestant.org/en/notice/humanism-and-translations-of-the-bible-into-the-vernacu lar.

234 2.2.

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

The Gdan´sk Bible (1632)

Even before it was given into print, the Brest Bible was criticized not only among Catholics but also among Protestants. Foremost among Protestant critics was Szymon Budny, who took exception to its many departures from the original languages. He set about revising the translation and in 1570 he published a revised version of the Brest Bible in Nies´wiez˙. This staunch Antitrinitarian’s version could not, however, satisfy the Calvinists and at the 1615 synod of Orsza it was decided a revision of the Brest Bible was needed. Its translation, which took too much liberties, was to be corrected in those places where it diverged from the originals (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 146). In 1626 a convocation of ministers of the Calvinist churches of Lesser Poland and Lithuania at Orla issued guidelines for a new edition: the new version was to depart from the Brest Bible only where it was necessary. Daniel Mikołajewski was put in charge of supervising the new edition, but by whom he was assisted is not quite clear. Jan Szeruda (1932, 4–5) mentions Jan and S. T. Turnowski, while Kossowska (1968, 150–151) points to Paulus Paliurus and Tomasz We˛gierski as likely assistants of Mikołajewski. Only Mikołajewski’s role as chief translator stands above doubt. Though the new Bible had been intended as a revised version of the Brest Bible, it turned out to be a completely new translation authored by Mikołajewski (Kossowska: 1968, 89–95). In 1626 he presented his final Bible text to the synod of Belz˙yce (Szeruda: 1932, 4– 5), and on June 29, 1629 the delegates at the Vilnius Synod approved his translation, which they had not actually seen, in the belief that it was a revised version of the Brest Bible (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 146–147). A year later, under Mikołajewski’s close supervision, the printing could begin and in 1632 the Gdan´sk Bible reached the readers. The preface presents this edition as a direct offshoot of the Brest Bible: just like the Brest Bible, it is preceded by a dedication to Mikołaj Radziwiłł, a letter from Radziwiłł to King Sigismond August, and dedications to Krzysztof Radziwiłł and the newly elected King Władysław IV; in addition to these, the Gdan´sk Bible also contains a dedicatory letter to Krzysztof Radziwiłł from the ministers and superintendents of Greater Poland. The dedicatory letter to King Władysław describes the Gdan´sk Bible as a new printing of the Brest Bible rather than a revised version note5: Considering that this Book of Holy Writ, published sixty nine years ago with an invocation to your Royal Majesty’s Forebear of immortal memory, King Sigismond August, was now to appear for a second time, because of the scarcity of the original Brest copies, during the fortunate election of your Royal Majesty; it seems to be a fitting thing that this time as well, in this new shape, it should be presented to the people under the Royal name (Biblia Gdan´ska 1632, III). 5 Cf in this volume p. 187–201 [editor’s note].

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

235

The text of the translation, and the reactions of the readers, tell a different story. According to David Frick (1989, 238), the first proofs of the book came as a shock to its patrons when it was still under the press. The Lithuanian delegates at the Provincial Synod at Gliniany were indignant to see that the text departed in many places from the Brest Bible and demanded that the remaining parts should be carefully checked6. The Synod of Lesser Poland assembled between April 4 and April 28, 1633 pronounced itself in favour of a folio reprint of the Brest Bible, with the original dedications to Mikołaj Radziwiłł and Sigismond August. Later, on October 9, 1634, the Synod called for a revision of the Gdan´sk Bible and for correction of the places that were difficult to understand because of the frequent use of obscure words (Sipayłłówna: 1934, 149–150). Investigators of the history and language of the Gdan´sk Bible are unanimous that is was not a new edition of the Brest Bible but a new, highly accurate philological translation. Its translator, Daniel Mikołajewski, belonged to a circle of Calvinists and Moravian Brethren well versed in Hebrew and the Classical languages (Pietkiewicz: B, 5), so that it is likely he could have based his translation on Bible editions in the original languages. In an extract from a letter by Mikołajewski to the Gdan´sk printer Andrzej Hünefeld, published by Jan Szeruda, it is stated that he (Mikołajewski) had done nothing to the detriment of the Brest Bible text but, mindful of the primacy of the original Scriptural texts and anxious to understand them correctly, had consulted many important editions and translations in other languages, such as the Luther Bible, the Kralice Bible, the Vulgate and the Latin Bibles of Junius and Pagnino (Szeruda: 1932, 4–5). A comparison of the translations shows that the Gdan´sk Bible sticks closely to the originals and, in accordance with Calvinist translation principles, every insertion necessitated by differences in structure between the original and the target language appears in brackets. In spite of its initially hostile reception the Gdan´sk Bible would, in course of time, rise to the status of a canonical Bible for all Polish Protestants, of obligatory use in all Protestant churches. A second printing appeared as early as 1660 in Amsterdam, and it was subsequently reprinted more than twenty times. Even in our days, the Gdan´sk Bible is still considered the most authoritative Bible translation in all Protestant churches of Poland.

6 Some critics of the Gdan´sk Bible, looking for arguments to fuel their indignation, liked to point out a regrettable typographical error in Matt 4,1, were instead of “od Dyabłá“ the Gdan´sk Bible had “do Dyabłá“: “TEdy IEzus záwiedz´iony jest ná puszcz˙a˛ od Duchá / áby był kuszony do Dyabłá“ [“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted to (instead of of) the devil.“] (Kossowska: 1968, 111; Frick: 1989, 242).

236 2.3.

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

The Chylinski Bible (1660)

The second Lithuanian translation of the whole Bible was made by the Reformed Evangelical Protestant Samuel Boguslaus Chylin´ski slightly more than fifty years after the unsuccessful endeavours to publish in printing the manuscript translation of the Bible made between 1579 and 1590 by Jonas Bretku¯nas (Bretkun, Bretke). Fairly advanced in his Divinity curriculum at the Franeker Academy in the Netherlands, but destitute of means to continue it, Chylin´ski travelled to England in 1657, going to London and to Oxford, where, supported by several professors of the University (including John Wilkinson and John Wallis) as well as by famous scientists (such as Robert Boyle and John Wallis) and intellectuals (such as Samuel Hartlib), he translated the whole of the Old and the New Testament from Dutch into Lithuanian. Though, thanks to the efforts of his patrons, he had been able to secure the support of King Charles II himself, his plans were thwarted by the unexpected arrival in England of an official envoy of the Evangelical Reformed Synod of the Grand Duchy, Jan Krain´ski, who took control of the collection of money toward the publication of the Lithuanian Bible, and gave orders for its printing to be discontinued. The printing would never be renewed. The correctors appointed by the Synod, Jan Borzymowski and Teodor Skrodski, never formulated specific objections to Chylin´ski’s translation, but nevertheless declared it to be replete with mistakes, and their judgement went unchallenged for a long time (07–06–1663 records of the Vilnius Provincial Synod (LERSP), LMAVB RS F40–1136; here and henceforth cited from Kavaliu¯naite˙: 2015). The alleged mistakes, about the nature of which we can only speculate, could have consisted in departure from the Brest or Bretku¯nas Bibles, or from some other source texts. The printing of Chylin´ski’s Old Testament, begun in 1659–1660, was never carried beyond Psalm 40. The most complete extant copy goes from Genesis to the 6th chapter of Job. We do not know if Chylin´ski ever wrote a preface to his Bible translation; the obstacles raised to the printing of his Bible translation were probably not conducive to his concentrating on a preface. In addition to the only extant, incomplete printed copy of Chylin´ski’s Old Testament7, the British Library also holds Chylin´ski’s manuscript translation of the New Testament8. About Chylin´ski’s translation technique and the sources he used we can therefore, as in the case of Bretku¯nas, judge only from the extant source documents for the history of the Chylin´ski Bible (records of the Lithuanian Evangelical Reformed Synod, Krain´ski’s report to the Synod about his mission to England), from the brochures Chylin´ski had printed in Oxford to publicize the need for a 7 Shelf mark: C 51.b.13. 8 Shelf mark: MA 41301.

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

237

Lithuanian Bible translation (An Account […] (Chylin´ski 1659) and Ratio Translationis […] (Chylin´ski ~1660), and from a comparison of Chylin´ski’s translation with the source texts. As his translation source Chylin´ski chose the Dutch Statenbijbel, the Bible commissioned by the Estates General of the Netherlands, to this day the most highly valued Bible translation in the Dutch Reformed Church. This choice is not surprising in view of the fact that, in the formative years of his life, Chylin´ski was a student of Divinity at the Franeker Academy, and that it was probably there that his views on Bible translation took shape. The decision to have a new authoritative Bible translation made by a team of six translators was taken at the Dordrecht Synod of 1618, and the Statenbijbel was first published in 1637. By the time when Chylin´ski studied at Franeker it had already firmly established itself: all previous Dutch translations of the Bible lost their significance in the first years after the first Statenbijbel edition came out, and they were no longer reprinted. About 1650 the Statenbijbel was read in all Reformed congregations of the Netherlands. It was held to be so accurate that Remonstrants9 and Mennonites adopted it as well (Broeyer: 1990, 31–58; Dijkema: 1977, 86–91; Haentjens: 1977, 84–85). The preparation of the Statenbijbel was well organized: the translators held regular conferences, checked each other’s translations, had a rich library at their disposal and adhered implicitly to the strict translation principles laid down by the Synod. As the Biblical text was held to be inspired, a free translation was unthinkable – if a word of explanation had to be inserted due to differences between the source and target languages, this had to be clearly marked by brackets; if a text fragment called for a free translation, a literal rendering had to be given in the commentaries, and vice versa: if the literal translation was hard to understand, a paraphrase had to be given in the commentaries. The margins of the Statenbijbel offered linguistic clarifications, exegetical commentaries and references to parallel places (Bruin: 1993, 233–271). For Chylin´ski this was the most authoritative Bible, and an example to be followed as far as translation technique was concerned. As mentioned above, before starting to print his Old Testament, Chylin´ski published in Oxford a small brochure in English and Latin in which he argues for the necessity of publishing a Lithuanian Bible. Here he expounds his views on Bible translating, gives a survey of Protestant religious literature available in Lithuanian, announces his intention to translate, apart from the Bible, the Greater and Smaller Westminster Catechisms as well as the famous Dutch An9 The Remonstrants are a movement within the Evangelical Reformed Church in the Netherlands which took shape in the 17th century, though its roots go back to the 16th century. The movement grew out of the Netherlandic Erasmian Reformation, and its precursors include Desiderius Erasmus, Anastasius Veluanus, Hubert Duifhuis, Cornelis Cooltuyn and others.

238

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

notations (the commentaries to the Dutch Statenbijbel published in English as a separate volume) (Haak: 1657), and to create a new Lithuanian metrical version of the Psalms. The brochure is intended for possible patrons of the Lithuanian Bible project. Chylin´ski not only introduces his Bible translation project but also presents the testimonials he has received as a translator from a number of Oxford professors and dons as well as from other influential figures in English public life, and a letter of recommendation in which the rector of the Franeker Academy praises Chylin´ski’s scholarly achievements during his stay in the Netherlands. Though the text of the brochure does not directly touch on questions of Bible translation technique, the author’s reverence for the Statenbijbel clearly shines through the whole of his account. The importance which Chylin´ski attached to a faithful rendering of God’s word transpires from his remark, quoted in Krain´ski’s report to the Vilnius Provincial Synod, that the correctors appointed by the Synod to revise his translation are like blind judges of colours, unable to assess the quality of his translation because they are not versed in the Oriental languages (by which presumably Hebrew and Greek are meant; Kavaliu¯naite˙: 2015, 169–191 and 449–453). The mini-glossaries at the end of the manuscript of Chylin´ski’s New Testament include Hebrew phrases, which suggests he knew this language and sometimes consulted the Hebrew text in order to resolves doubts. The Hebrew text he used was probably that of Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta (Walton: 1654–1657), which is mentioned in the list of works entered in the NT manuscript. Chylin´ski worked on his Bible translation in virtual exile, alone in a foreign country, without anybody to consult in language matters and without access to earlier Lithuanian translations or to Lithuanian dictionaries (no influence of Sirvydas’ dictionary can be detected). He had no Lithuanian books at hand but used subsidiary literature in several languages during his translation work. This literature is listed on the final pages of his NT manuscript. It includes Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta and a wealth of commentaries on the Old and New Testament in English and Latin (a list of commentaries used by Chylin´ski, compiled on the basis of his abridged references in the MS by Franciszek Kolbuszewski and Irena Zawadzka, can be found in: Kudzinowski/Otre˛bski: 1958, 412; for corrections to his list see Kolbuszewski: 1987, 25–29). Chylin´ski’s translation text clearly reflects the influence of the Statenbijbel; many of the Hebraisms and Graecisms in which the language of the Statenbijbel abounds can also be found in his text, and sometimes he even copies Dutch constructions (e. g., he sometimes translates Dutch modal auxiliaries where Lithuanian would have used mood forms). The book and chapter summaries appearing in the Statenbijbel are faithfully rendered in Chylin´ski’s printed Old Testament. The language of the Chylin´ski Bible also contains many Polish words and phrases, but a comparison with the Brest and Gdan´sk Bibles shows that they have not been

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

239

carried over from a Polish source text but simply reflect a strong Polish influence on Chylin´ski’s idiolect (Kavaliu¯naite˙: 2008, IX ff).

2.4.

Bythner’s New Testament (1701)

In the first half of the 17th century, the Lithuanian language strengthened its position in the Evangelical Reformed Church and the most important items of religious literature were compiled (a Catechism, a Postil and the Book of Christian Devotion). However, a Lithuanian Bible translation did not stand high on the agenda of the Reformed synod. As wars with the Swedes and the Muscovites broke out in the mid-17th century, and the so-called Deluge swept over the whole country, the climate was hardly propitious to Lithuanian Bible translating and printing. The question was unexpectedly put on the agenda of the Lithuanian Evangelical Reformed synod by a former Szwaba bursary Samuel Boguslaus Chylin´ski who, as it turned out, had translated and printed part of a Lithuanian Old Testament abroad while at home people were struggling for their survival. In August 1661, he had submitted to the Ke˙dainiai Convocation his translation of the whole Old Testament, part of it in print and part in the manuscript, and had been given permission to go on with the printing (LMAVB RS F 40, 35). Soon, however, Samogitian superintendent Jan Borzymowski, who was in close association with the Synod’s delegate to England Jan Krzysztof Krain´ski, pronounced himself against further printing. He claimed the translation was replete with mistakes but did not give any details, concentrating instead, in his letters to Krain´ski, on Chylin´ski’s character shortcomings (LMAVB RS F 40, b. 586, doc. 124, 230r–235v). From later Synod records it appears that that Borzymowski was at that time working himself on a Lithuanian translation of the New Testament, so that his opposition to the printing of Chylin´ski’s Bible could have been motivated by his own ambitions. The Synod decided to have the manuscript of Bretku¯nas’ Bible brought from Königsberg to Ke˙dainiai to serve as an aid in correcting the as yet unprinted parts of the Old Testament (LMAVB RS F 40, b. 460, 36r). It is possible that while kept in Ke˙dainiai it was consulted by Borzymowski, who was then working on his own translation. Finally Borzymowski, who was influential with the Synod, and Krain´ski, the delegate to England, prevailed on the Synod to have the printing of Chylin´ski’s Bible stopped. Soon after that, on June 7, 1663, the Vilnius Provincial Synod decided to send Mikołaj Minwid on a new mission to England. His task would be to achieve that the New Testament translated by a team under the direction of Borzymowski should be printed rather than Chylin´ski’s Bible (LMAVB RS F 40 1136, 213, 214). The English were, however, puzzled by the attacks on Chylin´ski and unwilling to listen to the new delegate’s arguments concerning the quality of Lithuanian Bible

240

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

translations which they were unable to judge – the more so as Chylin´ski rejected the vague reproaches levelled at his translation and defied his adversaries, to no avail, to provide substantial proof of their claims. Eventually Lithuanian Bible matters fell into oblivion. Almost twenty years went by before the Vilnius Provincial Synod took up the matter of the Lithuanian Bible again. On June 30, 1680, the Synod instructed Jan Borzymowski Junior to search his father’s manuscripts for the extant parts of his NT translation and Transvilnensian superintendent Mikołaj Minwid to take care of having the lacking parts translated. This task was divided among the ministers Stanisław Monkiewicz, Samuel Bythner, Samuel Lipski and Jan Borzymowski Junior (LNMB RS F 93/20, 73). Soon after this, on June 15, 1681, the records of the Vilnius Provincial Synod state that all the New Testament manuscripts brought together by Transvilnensian superintendent Borzymowski have been consumed by a fire ravaging the Birzˇai manse (LNMB RS F 93/20, 93). On July 7–9, 1682, the records of the Vilnius Provincial Synod held at Dubingiai states that Minwid has been entrusted with supervising the whole process of translating, correcting and printing the New Testament, and Jan Borzymowski Junior and Samuel Bythner have been appointed translators (LMAVB RS F 40–125, 140). The importance of this task is emphasized again and again in the records of successive Synod meetings over the following years, and Minwid’s mandate to head the translation team is renewed every time. Minwid died about 1690 after many unsuccessful attempts at renewing the collection of money decreed in England initially with the aim of financing the printing of Chylin´ski’s Bible. In June 1690 the Provincial Synod meeting at Zabłudów gives it consent to the printing of the now complete translation of the New Testament: Complying with the wish of God’s worshippers in the Transvilnensian District, the Holy Synod has decided that the Lithuanian Bible translation, begun a long time ago and left uncompleted for many years, as can be seen from the canons of previous synods, should now, as we have the whole New Testament translated and ready for the press, be given into print, and entrusts the supervision of this task to the Reverend Elder of the Transvilnensian District (LNMB RS F 93/20, 244)10.

Canon 26 of the same Synod brings the news of the death of Mikołaj Minwid and contains dispositions for the division of the property left behind – part of it is to be used for financing the translation of the New Testament, and another part is entrusted to Samuel Bythner, who is to organize its printing (LNMB RS F 93/20, 244, 245). During the next seven years no mention is made of the New Testament translation in the Synod records, and it is only in 1697 that the Bielica Provincial 10 After Minwid’s death Samuel Bythner became elder of the Transvilnensian district.

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

241

Synod is informed that Bythner has submitted his team’s translation of the New Testament, and orders the ministers Jan Paterson, Thomas Ramza, Karol Girdwil and Alexander Skomin to subject the translation to a final check and to give it into print (LNMB RS F 93/20, 366). Five more years had to go by before Bythner could present the printed New Testament to the Provincial Synod of Bielica (LNMB RS F 93/20, 471). The so-called Bythner New Testament was printed in 1701 in Reusner’s printing house in Königsberg. It was printed in two versions, with different title pages and prefaces, but the texts of the New Testament are identical and were printed from the same cast. The first version, with a dedication to King Frederick I, was presented to the King on the occasion of his coronation. The title page states that the New Testament was printed for the first time in Lithuanian at the behest of the King of Prussia. The preface is by F. S. Schuster. The title page of the other version fails to mention that it is the first Lithuanian New Testament, but emphasizes instead that it is intended for readers in both Greater and Lesser Lithuania. The dedication to King Frederick I is identical with that in the other version, but it is followed by two prefaces, one in Latin, by Bernhard von Sanden, and one in Lithuanian, by Friedrich Schuster (identical with the preface in the other version). Schuster’s preface is preceded by an inserted leaf with Latin errata, and followed by the text of the New Testament, fragments of the Old Testament and a list of Epistles and Gospels for the Sunday services, identical in both versions. The prefaces to the 1701 New Testament shed no light on the questions that are of most interest to historians of Bible translation and to which they usually hope to find answers on the opening pages of such editions. Nothing is said on how the idea of this Bible edition was born, there are only vague references to the translators (the prefaces say sudavadytas nuog ˇscˇyru˛ lietuviu˛ ‘compiled by true Lithuanians’), the course of the translation process is not described, the translators’ views on the method and language of Bible translation remains to be guessed at, and the familiar boast “now translated for the first time from the original languages”, omnipresent in Calvinist Bibles, is missing. In his preface Schuster writes: In our opinion the New Testament cannot better be rendered in Lithuanian than when it is beautifully arranged according to the German, the Polish and especially the Greek version. So it has come about that in many places this Lithuanian translation does not have such and so many words as other translations, which describe many things in a more detailed way, and often appears to be out-of-the-way, whereas actually in both words and notions, as was our first and foremost concern, it concords with the genuine and unadulterated Greek, and moreover is not difficult to comprehend (Bythner’s New Testament, 1701, XXXV).

242

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

The dedication to King Frederick I in the first version is authored by “the ministers and elders of the Evangelical churches together with the author of the present version Samuel Bythner”. Because of this signature Bythner is traditionally referred to as the author of the translation, but Sanden states in his preface, without citing any names, that ministers from both Greater and Lesser Lithuania have contributed to the translation. The Synodal records mentioned above suggest that at least three teams of ministers were involved in the translation process that began in 1680 and took some twenty years to be completed. The sources, translation method and language of the Bythner New Testament have not yet been studied in detail, though several hypotheses have been put forward concerning earlier Lithuanian versions that could have been used by the translators. Therer is not the slightest doubt that they used Baltramiejus Vilentas’ Gospels and Epistles, and though there is no clear evidence for influence from Bretku¯nas or Chylin´ski, the idea of their having used Chylin´ski’s manuscript translation has much to commend it (Kavaliu¯naite˙ 2015, Salys Conference, Druskininkai).

3.

Comparison of the translations

The different translation strategies will here be illustrated with a few examples showing how specific phrases and expressions of the originals, susceptible of different treatments, are rendered. Reformed Protestants, who favour the philological translation method, seek to preserve the constructions of the Hebrew and Greek originals wherever the structure of the target language allow it; the adherents of inspired translation avoid literal renderings of idioms, do not literally translate words performing a grammatical function, and use the resources of their own languages to express grammatical meanings. The examples have been selected so as to reflect specific features of the source languages, e. g., idiomatic phrases (susceptible of literal translation or paraphrasing), places where a word of the source language may either have a lexical or a grammatical function according to the context, etc. I will be comparing the Brest Bible, the Gdan´sk Bible, Bretku¯nas and Chylin´ski, and their renderings will be confronted with Luther, the Statenbijbel and the original texts. The Septuagint is not taken into account as it served as a translation source only in the Eastern churches, whereas in the West its influence made itself felt mainly through the Greek NT (in quotations from the OT etc.).

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

3.1.

243

The Old Testament: Hebrew grammar

Almost all translations of the Old Testament retain traces of a number of characteristic features of Hebrew grammar. The extent to which they are retained depends, however, on the translators’s approach. In Hebrew, several expressions functioning as local prepositions are based on nouns that can be given a local meaning, such as pa¯nîm “face, countenance”: alpənê “on, above”, lipnê “before”, mippənê “from before, from sb’s presence” (Brown: 1906, 818–819). In those places where pa¯nîm has its lexical meaning “face”, it is, of course, correspondingly translated, e. g., Exod 3:6: wayyaste¯r mo¯ˇsê pa¯na¯w kî ya¯re¯’ me¯habbît ’el-ha¯’e˘lo¯hîm (HEB) “And Moses hid his face; for he was ˙ afraid to look upon God.” Luther has Und Mose verhüllte sein Angesicht; denn er fürchtete sich Gott anzuschauen (LB), similarly the Statenbijbel: Ende Moses verberghde sijn aengesichte, want hy vreesde Godt aen te sien, which Chylin´ski renders as ó Mayz´eszus pasłepe weyda˛ sawo, bijojos nes weyzdet and Diewo. Similarly in the Polish Bibles: Tedy Mojz˙esz zasłonił oblicze swe nie ´smieja˛c poyzrec´ ku Bogu (Brest Bible), i zákrył Mojz˙esz oblicze swe, bo sie˛ bał pátrzác´ na Boga (Gdan´sk Bible). In an ad sensum (inspired) translation the noun “face” should remain untranslated wherever it has lost its lexical meaning, whereas literal translations render it literally, cf. Gen 2:15: wayyibrah mo¯ˇsê mippənê par‘ô wayye¯ˇseb bə’eres ˙ ˙ midya¯n “But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian” (HEB). Luther correctly interprets mippənê as a grammatical word and translates Aber Mose floh vor Pharao und blieb im Lande Midian (LB), though the Hebrew constructions can also be found in the Vulgate: fugiens de conspectu eius moratus est in terra Madian. The Statenbijbel, on the other hand, retains the noun aengesichte “face”: doch Mose vlood voor Pharaos aengesichte, ende woonde in den lande Midian, followed in this by Chylin´ski: Mayz´eszus iszbego nog weyda Faraona, ir giweno z´iamey Midian. The same difference between two approaches is nicely illustrated by the Polish Protestant Bibles: the Brest Bible has a free translation: Ale Moiz´esz uc´iekł przed Fáráonem y mieszkał w z´iemi Mádyán, but the Gdan´sk Bible reintroduces the noun twarz “face”: Lecz uciekł Mojz˙esz od twarzy Fáráonowej, y mieszkał w ziemi Madián´skiej. A similar distribution is found in Job 1:12, where the Hebrew text has me¯‘im pənê “from the presence of”: wayye¯se¯’ hasˇˇsa¯ta¯n me¯‘im pənê YHWH “So Satan ˙ went forth from the presence of the LORD” (HEB). Luther translates Da ging der Satan aus von dem HERRN (LB), but the Statenbijbel has ende de Satan gingh uyt van het aengesichte des HEEREN – followed, once again, by Chylin´ski: ir iszejo Szetonas nog weyda WIESZPATIES. Again, the two Polish Bibles diverge exactly along the same pattern: I odszedł Szátan od Pana (Brest Bible), Y odszedł Sz´atan od oblicza Pan´skiego (Gdan´sk Bible).

244

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

But other examples with ‘al-pənê “on, above” show that even literal translators do not translate every word in a mechanical fashion. In the second verse of Gen 1 ‘al-pənê has been literally translated only in the Vulgate: et tenebrae super faciem abyssi. This example is follwed by the Authorized Version. Otherwise even literal translations omit it: wərûah ’e˘lo¯hîm mərahepet ‘al-pənê hammayim “And the ˙ ˙ Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (HEB). Not only Luther says simply und der Geist Gottes schwebte auf dem Wasser (LB), but the Statenbijbel also has ende de Geest Godts sweefde op de Wateren, which is echoed by Chylin´ski: ó Dwasia Diewo krutejo and wa˛deniu. Both Polish translations similarly have nad wodami. We see, therefore, that the adherents of a philological translation render pa¯nîm literally only when it is combined with an animate noun, so that a literal interpretation is possible: “before the face of the Lord, from before the face of Pharao” etc. In other words, this literalness is not mechanical, but principled. In Hebrew, functional words such as prepositions must be repeated before every noun in coordinating constructions, as a preposition cannot govern a coordinated phrase (Gesenius, Kautsch: 1910, 297–305); the same holds for quantifiers such as kol “all, whole”; e. g. la¯kem … u¯lǝkol-hayyat ha¯’a¯res u¯lǝkol˙ ˙ ‘o¯p hasˇˇsa¯mayim u¯lǝkol ro¯me¯´s ‘al-ha¯’a¯res “to you … and to every beast of the ˙ earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (HEB Gen 1:29–30). In literal translations such repetitions are often rendered accurately even though they are unusual in the target language, as in “between you and between me” instead of “between you and me”. The differences between two types of translations in the treatment of such Hebrew grammatical constructions can clearly be seen in places like Gen 16:5 yisˇpo¯t YHWH be¯nî u¯be¯nêka¯ “the LORD judge between me and thee” (HEB). ˙ Luther translates, idiomatically, Der HERR sei Richter zwischen mir und dir (LB), but the Statenbijbel repeats the preposition: de HEERE richte tusschen my ende tusschen u, and so does Chylin´ski: WIESZPATS tesudyja terp mane˛s, ir terp tawe˛s. Both Polish Protestant Bible are, in this case, on the side of the ad verbum translators: Niechz˙e to pan rozsa˛dzi miedzy mna˛ á miedzy toba˛ (Brest Bible), niech rozsa˛dzi Pan mie˛dzy mna˛ i mie˛dzy toba˛ (Gdan´sk Bible). The reason could be that the reduplicated preposition lends the phrase a solemn ring which seemed fitting as a stylistic device.

3.2.

Hebrew metaphors and idioms

Nowhere is the distinction between ad verbum and ad sensum translations clearer than in the case of Hebrew idioms that have no equivalents in the target languages but whose sense can nevertheless clearly be gathered partly from the context and also partly because paths of metaphorical transfer are to a large

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

245

extent universal, so that the metaphorical sense can easily be deduced from the literal meanings of the component parts. This can be seen, e. g., in Gen 16:5 watto¯mer ´sa¯ray ’el-’abra¯m ha˘ma¯sî ‘a¯le¯ka¯ “and Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong ˙ be upon thee” (HEB). The Authorized Version illustrates the ad verbum approach, as does the Statenbijbel, which has Mijn onghelijck is op u “My wrong is upon thee”, faithfully rendered by Chylin´ski as Kryvda mano yra ant tave˛s. As always, Luther replaces this with an idiomatic German equivalent: Du tust unrecht an mir (LB). One is not surprised to find a free rendering in the Brest Bible: Mam krzywde˛ od c´iebie; in this case, however, the translator of this fragment in the Gdan´sk Bible, otherwise characterized by a preference for literal rendition, has evidently found the Hebrew construction too unusual, so that here as well we find the free rendering Krzywdy mojej tys´ winien. The ad verbum approach achieves, in such cases, a special stylistic effect: while still comprehensible, the phrasing is unusual and suggestive of hidden meanings, and allows the translator to create a Biblical register setting the Bible text apart from everyday language and experience. The situation is different in those cases where the metaphorical meaning is not immediately clear and the literal meaning gives no ready clue. This can be illustrated with Job 19:20: bə‘ôrî ûbibəs´a¯rî da¯bəqâ ‘asmî wa¯’etmalləta¯ bə‘o¯r ˇsinna¯y ˙ ˙ “My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth” (HEB). The adherents of the ad sensum principle had a difficult task here as the literal meaning of the Hebrew construction, and therefore also its metaphoric meaning, was not easy to grasp. As the teeth are not covered with skin, to escape by the skin of one’s teeth is to escape by a very narrow margin indeed. In view of the obscurity of the phrase ad sensum renderings are doomed to failure: Luther renders ich kann meine Zähne mit der Haut nicht bedecken “I cannot cover my teeth with skin” (LB), the Brest Bible has tylkoz˙ mi cáłe zostáły wárgi przed ze˛bámi memi “only my lips have remained whole to cover my teeth”, and the Gdan´sk Bible has skorá tylko zostáłá około ze˛bów mojch “only skin is left about my teeth”. Admittedly, it is the Vulgate derelicta sunt tantummodo labia circa dentes meos that must be held responsible for the misunderstanding. Paradoxically, the ad verbum rendering has better chances of success: under the influence of the Authorized Version, English “escape by the skin of one’s teeth” has become a frequently used idiom whose meaning is clearly understood even though the motivation probably remains unclear to many speakers. Dutch ende ick ben ontkomen met de huyd mijner tanden (Statenbijbel) stood a similar chance, but it did not become part of general usage (Chylin´ski’s rendering of this place is not extant). Though, in this case, the advantage of the ad verbum method is not immediately obvious, it often proves successful in enriching a language with additional layers of metaphorical expression.

246 3.3.

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

The New Testament

How translators of different persuasions deal with the religious vocabulary and phraseology of the New Testament is a subject on its own. It is especially the grammatical aspect of religious language that creates tensions between literalness and comprehensibility. This can be illustrated with Rev 1:10: ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ “fui in spiritu in dominica die, I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”. Luther has no problem with this piece of phraseology and translates Ich war im Geist an des Herrn Tag. Other translators, however, seem to find the expression obscure: the Brest Bible, for instance, has byłem zachwycony od ducha “I was ravished by the spirit” (modern versions of Luther’s Bible also have ich wurde vom Geist ergriffen). The translator of the Gdan´sk Bible must have felt he had to preserve the in of the original, evidently judged to be important as a way of rendering the religious experience, while at the same time retaining the verb ravish added by way of clarification by the Brest Bible; the result is a compromise: byłem w zachwyceniu Ducha “I was in rapture of the Spirit”. Not surprisingly, Chylin´ski has the literal translation buwau dwasioy dienoj Wieszpaties “I was in the Spirit”, which follows the Statenbijbel’s rendering ik was in den geest op den dag des Heeren. Bythner may either have seen Chylin´ski’s version or decided for independent reasons that the Greek ἐν had to be rendered by a locative, but he also opts for a compromise and gives the curious hybrid construction buwau pagáutas dwaseje “I was ravished in the Spirit” (influenced by Polish zachwycony?), retaining dwaseje “in the Spirit” though one would have expected the agent phrase (nuog) dwases “by the Spirit”. Many grammatical features of the Greek text that place translators before a dilemma actually reflect Hebrew or Aramaic constructions – these had already pervaded the language of the Septuagint, and in the New Testament they appear both in quotations from the OTand in original text portions whose idiom reflects spoken Jewish Greek. A well-known Semitism of the Greek New Testament is the use of ἐν “in” to express instrument or means (Blass/Debrunner: 1961, 117 ff), as in Matt 26:52 πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. On the whole, translators are well aware of this peculiarity of New Testament Greek and use the idiomatic expressions their own languages offer: even the Statenbijbel has want all die het sweerdt nemen sullen door het sweerdt vergaen (“through the sword”), which is echoed by Chylin´ski’s Wisi nes kurie ima kaławija, kaławiju prazus, with the instrumental case. In Rev 1:5, however, where Christ’s blood is referred to (λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ “([that…] washed us from our sins in his own blood”) many a translator must have paused over the hidden meanings of the preposition in, the more so as it is not a physical agent that is meant here. Luther

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

247

translates mit seinem Blut according to German idiom, but the King James Bible has “in his own blood” (preceded in this by Wycliffe and Tyndale), and the Statenbijbel also has in sijnen bloede. Chylin´ski, not suprisingly, follows the Statenbijbel and writes apmazgojo mus nog grieku musu kraujose sawo (with the locative plural kraujuose as kraujai is often treated as a plurale tantum in Lithuanian). The Gdan´sk and Brest Bibles do not attempt to replicate the Greek preposition ἐν and use the instrumental krwia˛ in accordance with Polish usage (Brest Bible: i omył nas z grzechów naszych krwia˛ swoja˛). Interestingly, Bythner diverges from Chylin´ski here and also uses the instrumental: numazgójo mus nu˚g griekû musu krauju sawo. Syntactic features peculiar to Greek seem to have caused less divergence between adherents of the ad verbum and the ad sensum approaches, probably because there were limits to what the syntax of the target languages tolerated. Among the participial constructions so typical of Greek, some where easy to transpose into Polish and Lithuanian. Where the Greek has Rev 1:10–11 ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος λεγούσης … “heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying… ”, this is naturally and unproblematically rendered with participial constructions in Polish and Lithuanian, cf. słyszałem za soba˛ głos wielki jako tra˛by, mówia˛cy… (Gdan´sk Bible), i słyszałem zá soba˛ głos wielki jako tra˛by; mówia˛c … (Brest Bible); girdejau uzupakaliy sawe˛s didi balsa kaypo trubos, kalbant… (Chylin´ski). Here it is rather in the Germanic languages that differences manifest themselves: Luther uses the natural German construction und hörte hinter mir eine große Stimme wie einer Posaune, die sprach… (LB), but the Statenbijbel emulates the Greek: ende ick hoorde achter my een groote stemme als eener basuyne, seggende…, which is markedly at variance with spontaneous Dutch usage. Bythner follows Luther here: ir girde˙jau uzˇ save˛s bałsa˛ didi˛ kaip trubos. Kurs kałbejo… In most cases, however, the Greek participial constructions diverge too much from the structure of the target languages to be translated literally, cf. τάδε λέγει ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον τὴν ὀξεῖαν “These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges” (Rev 2:12). The participial construction is everywhere rendered with (headed or free) relative clauses, cf. dit seght hy die het twee-snydende scherp sweert heeft (Statenbijbel); tey kalba kursey turi kaławija asztra and abieju szalu (Chylin´ski); Ty rzeczy mówi ten, który ma miecz oboje˛tny i ostry (Brest Bible); To mówi ten, który ma miecz on z obydwóch stron ostry (Gdan´sk Bible); Tatai kałba tas, kursai tur kaławija˛ isz abieju˛ szalu¯ asztra˛ (Bythner).

248

4.

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

Concluding remarks

The general picture emerging from what has been said above about the Calvinist Bible translations issuing from the Grand Duchy in the second period of the Protestant Reformation is that the question of the principles and technique of Bible translating was hotly debated and was assigned considerable doctrinal importance. Though the lines of division at various levels of translation method are clear, a neat classification into translation schools is not easy. Several motivations intersected: fidelity to the original was highly valued, but so were forcefulness and elegance of expression, and probably also the wish to achieve a certain solemnity that was to set the Biblical language apart from that of everyday life. When comparing the translations, one sees these competing factors at work in highly complex patterns, and reconstructing the translator’s motives in every particular instance is often mere guesswork. Though every translation has to be judged on its own merits, a comparision between them, especially as regards the Old Testament, justifies the general conclusion that the first Protestant Bibles in the Grand Duchy fall into two categories with regard to translation strategy: philological translation (the Gdan´sk Bible and the Chylin´ski Bible) and inspired (ad sensum) translation (the Brest Bible). We may assume that the discussions going on in the Netherlands, England and Geneva concerning the accuracy and fidelity of Bible translations had impressed themselves on the minds of those translators who had studied in Western Europe, viz. Chylin´ski and Mikołajewski. Whereas the translators of the Gdan´sk Bible were concerned with philological accuracy, and Chylin´ski stuck to the translation philosophy of the Statenbijbel, the translators of the Brest Bible hoped to serve their educational purpose by rendering the text in clear and forceful language. In this respect the Brest Bible can be classified with the earlier, Lutheran-dominated wave of Bible translating. It conforms only partly to Protestant ideals as far as the actual (rather than declared) choice of translation sources is concerned. New Calvinist ideas on Bible translation were already spreading but had not yet firmly taken root at the time of the Brest Bible, and they would only come to fruition much later, to be realized in the Gdan´sk Bible. Too little research has been done until now on Samuel Bythner’s translation, and firm conclusions would be premature, but we can discern the influence of many sources: Chylin´ski, Bretku¯nas, Vilentas, the Gdan´sk Bible and even Luther. The translators of the Bythner New Testament seem to have based themselves in a rather eclectic fashion on earlier translations without sticking to a rigid translation method. No doubt, however, additional research in this fascinating domain of translation scholarship will bring more insights.

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

249

Abbreviations b. doc. F f. LMAVB LNMB p. RS

file document collection folio Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Lithuanian National Martynas Mazˇvydas Library pagina Manuscripts Department

Bibliography Sources Bythner New Testament: Novum Testamentum (1701), Novum Testamentum Lithuanicum, magno studio in idioma Lithuanicum versum […], Königsberg: Reusner. Chylin´ski Bible, New Testament (1660): cited from facsimiles of the MS (original held by the British Library, shelf mark: MS 41301), Facsimile edition under preparation, to appear in 2018: Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙ (ed.). Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Naujasis Testamentas=Novum Testamentum Lithuanicâ Lingvâ donatum a Samuelo Boguslao Chylinski, vol. 2. Chylin´ski Bible, Old Testament: Kavaliu¯naite˙, Gina, (ed.) (2008), Vetus Testamentum Lithuanicâ Lingvâ donatum a Samuelo Boguslao Chylinski. Unâ cum texto belgico, Vilnius: Institute for the Lithuanian Language. Brest Bible: Biblia swie˛ta (1563), Biblia swie˛ta, Tho iest, Ksie˛gi Stárego y Nowego Zakonu […]. Brest: Cyprian Bazylik. Erasmus Roterodamus (1516), Novum Instrumentum […], Basel: Johann Froben. Greek New Testament (1993), Novum Testamentum Graece, Barbara & Kurt Aland et al. (ed.) on the basis of the 27th ed. by Eberhard & Erwin Nestle, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Gdan´sk Bible: Biblia Swie˛ta (1632), Biblia Swie˛ta, To jest, Ksie˛gi Starego y Nowego Przymierza […], Gdan´sk: Hunefeld. HEB: Hebrew Bible with interlinear English translation, based on the Masoretic text: http:// www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm. LB: Luther’s Bible text, cited from: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Liuter-Bibel1545 LUTH1545/. Statenbijbel: Biblia (1657), Biblia, Dat Is De gantsche H. Schrifture, vervattende alle de Canonijcke Boecken des Ouden en des Nieuwen Testaments […], Amsterdam: Ravesteijn. Reprinted: Utrecht: De Banier, 1972. Vulgate: Gryson, Roger, (ed.) (1994), Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

250

Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙

Studies Backus, Irena (2012), Moses, Plato and Flavius Josephus. Castellio’s Conceptions of Sacred and Profane in his Latin Versions of the Bible, in: Bruce Gordon/Matthew McLean (ed.), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation. Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 144–166. Blass, Friedrich/Debrunner, Albert (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the Ninth-Tenth German Edition Incorporating Supplementary Notes of A. Debrunner by Robert Funk, Cambridge: University Press/Chicago, Illinois: University Press. Broeyer, Frits Gerrit Murk (1990), Uitgaven van de Statenvertaling na 1637, in: A.W.G. Jakke/ E.W. Tuinstra (ed.) Om een verstaanbare bijbel. Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen na de Statenbijbel, Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap/Brussel: Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap, 31–58. Brown, Francis (1906), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius, Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin. Bruin, C. C., de (1993), De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers. Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen vanaf de Reformatie tot 1637, bewerkt door dr. F. G. M. Broeyer, Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap/Brussel: Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap. Chylinski, Samuel Boguslaus (1659), An Account of the Translation of the Bible into the Lithuanian Tongue […], Oxford: Printed by Hen: Hall, Printer to the University. Chylinski, Samuel Boguslaus (~1660), Ratio Institutae Translationis Bibliorum in Linguam Lithuanicam, in quam nunquam adhuc Scriptura sacra est versa, […] Unà cum Testimonio & Judicio Almae Universitatis Oxoniensis Reverendissimorum Patrum […], [Oxford]. Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady. Monografie z Dziejów Nauki i Techniki, vol. 53, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Dijkema, F. (1977), De doopsgezinden en de Statenvertaling, in: De Statenvertaling 1637–1937, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 86–92. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the CounterReformation. Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632). Modern Philology, vol. 123, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Gesenius, Wilhelm/Kautsch, Emil (1910), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by E. Kautsch, Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, inc. Haak, Theodore (1657), The Dutch Annotations Upon the Whole Bible […], London: Printed by Henry Hills, for John Rotwell, Joshua Kirton, and Richard Tomlins. Haentjens, A.J. (1977), De remonstranten en de Statenvertaling, in: De Statenvertaling 1637–1937, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 84–85. Kavaliu ¯ naite˙, Gina, (ed.) (2008), Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, vol. 1: Lietuvisˇko vertimo ir olandisˇko originalo faksimile˙s = Biblia Lithuanica Samueli Boguslai Chylinski, vol. 1: Vetus Testamentum Lithuanicâ Lingvâ donatum a Samuelo Boguslao Chylinski. Unâ cum texto belgico, Vilnius: Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas.

Calvinist Bibles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

251

Kavaliu ¯ naite˙, Gina, (ed.) (2015), Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija, vol. 3: Chylinskio Biblijos istorijos sˇaltiniai = Biblia Lithuanica Samueli Boguslai Chylinski. Tomus 3: Fontes ad Historiam Samueli Boguslai Chylinski Bibliae Lithuanicae Illustrandam, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Kolbuszewski, Stanisław Franciszek (1987), Miscellanea. Notes sur quelques imprimés vieux-lituaniens, in: Acta Baltico-Slavica 17, 25–29. Kossowska, Maria (1968), Biblia w je˛zyku polskim, vol. 1, Poznan´: Ksie˛garnia S´w. Wojciecha. Kudzinowski, Czesław/Otre˛bski, Jan (1958), Biblia litewska Chylin´skiego. Nowy Testament vol. 2, Tekst, Poznan´: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kwilecka, Irena (2001), Die Brester Bibel. Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, in: Rothe, Hans/Scholz, Friedrich (ed.) Biblia S´wie˛ta to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Zakonu, Brest 1563. Biblia Slavica, vol. 2/2: Polnische Bibeln, 1489–1660, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, Kwilecka, Irena (2003), Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza. Luksˇaite˙, Inge˙ (1971), Lietuvisˇkos S. B. Chilinskio Biblijos spausdinimo aplinkybe˙s, in: Lietuvos TSR Mokslu˛ akademijos darbai, A serija, vol. 1 (35), 87–109. Merczyng, Henryk (1913), Szymon Budny jako krytyk tekstów biblijnych, Kraków: Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (A), The Significance of Pagninus Bible for the Brest Bible Translation, in: https://www.academia.edu/7667868/THE_SIGNIFICANCE_OF_PAG NINIUS_BIBLE_FOR_THE_BREST_BIBLE_TRANSLATION. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (B), Reception of Christian Hebrew Studies in Renaissance Poland, in: https://www.academia.edu/1999630/Reception_of_Christian_Hebrew_Stu dies_in_Renaissance_Poland. Schwarz, Werner (1955), Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation. Some Reformation Controversies and their Background, Cambridge: University Press. Sipayłłówna, Maria (1934), W sprawie genezy Biblii Gdan´skiej, in: Reformacja w Polsce 6, 144–151. Szeruda, Jan (1932), 300–lecie Biblji Polskiej, in: Głos Ewangelicki, vol. 13, 17, 4–5. Walton, Brian (1654–1657), Biblia Sacra Polyglotta […], Londini: Thomas Roycroft.

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Tatars and Translations of the Bible into Polish during the Renaissance

1.

Purpose and subject of research

This paper is concerned with the sub-discipline of kitab studies1, which have been conducted at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun´, Poland, and which were launched by Czesław Łapicz, the author of the monograph Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafia. Je˛zyk) (1986). The paper is a synthesis of studies carried out within several research areas distinguished by Czesław Łapicz and Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska during the work on the Tafsir project2 and discusses the translations rendered by the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (hereinafter abbreviated to GDL). Tatars’ sacred texts constitute an immensely interesting subject of interdisciplinary research3. They originated in the multicultural and multilingual GDL, in the diaspora of Polish-Lithuanian Muslims living in a Christian environment. This influenced the genetic multilayer nature of Tatar works, particularly the geographically and chronologically diverse features found in the Belarusian language and the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish. Tatar tafsirs are unique and invaluable monuments. So far, it has been acknowledged that there are 20 of them (see Iryna Synkova –http://www.tefsir.umk. pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdf), but the latest research by Michas’ Tarélka (2015) enriches the canon with new texts. In traditional Islamic countries, tafsirs contained commentaries explaining the sense of the Quran. Typical of the GDL 1 Kitab Studies are a sub-discipline which brings together Polish, Slavica, Oriental (Arabic and Turkish), cultural and religious studies. Its research area is the material and immaterial cultural heritage of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, particularly their original religious manuscripts. 2015 saw the establishment of the Centre for Kitab Studies (http:// www.fil.umk.pl/pl/static_41,210_313_Centrum_Badan_Kitabistycznych.html). 2 The international research project Tefsir, whose authors are J. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska and Cz. Łapicz, has been implemented under the National Programme for the Development of Humanities, module 1.2 No 12 H 12 0041 81. 3 This phenomenon has been described frequently and extensively in expert literature – cf. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska: (2014).

254

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Muslims’ culture and tradition, these handwritten tafsirs contain, next to the source text in Arabic, copies of the first translation of the Holy Book of Islam into a Slavic language which was rendered probably in the second half of the 16th century. The copies themselves originated at various times and places. After the translation of the Quran into Latin and the ensuing one into Italian4, this is the third translation of the Quran into a European language and the earliest – the first – one into a Slavic tongue. The translation originated during the Reformation, parallel to the translations of the Bible into the vernacular. One of the eldest copies of the translations of the Quran is the Tafsir of Alytus (referred to as TAL) dating back to 1723 and owned by a private person. However, only a part of this monument originated in the early 18th century and the corrections, supplements, and additions come from the 19th century, exactly from 1836 (as recorded in the colophon). The Tafsir of Alytus is the primary source of excerption of the lexical material analysed herein5. The Tafsir of London (described as T1) constitutes an additional source of exemplification6.

2.

Methodology

This paper follows the philological and historical method which is a part of historical and linguistic research with elements of lexical and semantic analysis as well as a part of historical and linguistic research in different timeframes. It is accepted and commonly used in research in the history of language. Other methods those typically employed in kitab studies (within theolinguistic research an attempt was made to establish the possibilities, manners and methods of adequate translation of Muslim sacred texts, the Quran included, into Slavic languages) (Łapicz: 2008) and translation studies (a combined cognitive and linguistic approach to translation was applied). The research and analyses are conducted in order to show the connection between GDL Tatar literature and Renaissance Bible translations as well as the Quranic translation tradition with Turkish tafsirs as its integral part. Moreover, 4 The translation was made on the initiative of Peter the Venerable in the 12th century (1143); however, it was printed as late as in 1543 owing to Martin Luther’s efforts. It is commonly known that Juan de Segovia inspired the trilingual translation of the Quran dating back to 1456. Unfrotunately, it has not been preserved until today. The latest research implies Segovia’s handwritten marginalia have been discovered (cf. Roth/Scotto 2015: 181–218). 5 The transliteration system was agreed upon and adopted by the team implementing the international research project Tefsir. Quoting: number of the chapter (ar. sèra[t] ‘chapter of the Quran’), page, verse (ar. a¯ya[t] ‘verse of the Quran’). 6 The manuscript dates back to 1725 and is held in Francis Skaryna Belarusian Library and Museum in London. The first and the second chapter of the Quran (Suter: 2004).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 255

the study emphasises common features of Tatar literature and Biblical and Psalter literature that originated in the Middle Ages.

3.

Biblical translation tradition

Research, to mention that conducted by Kwilecka (2003), demonstrates that even the earliest European translations of the Bible can be classified as faithful or free. The requirement for Biblical texts to be comprehensible for receivers led to that the translations – from the Septuagint through subsequent Greek translations, rendered by Theodotion and Symmachus, as well as Latin ones, so-called Vetus Latina, that is Itala, Afra and Hispana, to the Vulgate – were, to some extent, adaptations of the holy text to the culture of a given era. “As the Bible became more and more popular, a particular type of adaptation originated in medieval Europe.” (Kwilecka: 2003, 153). A new type of translation, aimed at bringing the Biblical texts closer to the multitude of believers, developed concurrently to the faithful translation. The Holy Scripture – Scriptura sacra, divina – was translated into the lingua vulgaris, lingua vernacula. Faithful and free translations co-existed also in medieval and renaissance Poland. The research conducted by Kwilecka (2003) and Bien´kowska (2009) confirmed the hypothesis that there co-existed two styles of Biblical Polish language and that they were synchronic opposites due to the fact that they referred to two basic types of translation rendered with a specified receiver in mind. Polish Bible studies developed in the second half of the 16th century7. As Kwilecka (2003, 210) says, It is a phenomenon. Since the publication of the first printed version of the New Testament translated into Polish by Murzynowski in the years 1551–1553, seven independent translations of the New Testament, four different translations of the whole Bible […], four Psalters and 18 postils had been issued by the end of that century. Moreover, many theological works, brochures with polemics and discussions on the translation of the Holy Scripture into the vernacular and its dissemination among the faithful were published. (cf. Czerniatowicz: 1969, 24; Suter: 2004, 96).

This phenomenon resulted from the impact two significant Western European currents, i. e. humanist Bible studies and the religious and social Reformation movement, had on the intellectual life of the era. On the one hand, a return to ancient sources was observed (the original Books of the Bible were used as source texts in the translation of the Holy Scripture), while, on the other, the Bible was recognized as the sole and primary authority in confessional issues8. 7 Cf. the list of fragments of translations of the Holy Bible in Belcarzowa (2006, 9). 8 See more in this volume, M. Wojtkowska-Maksymik, p. 39–55 [editor’s note].

256

4.

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Interconfessional translation tradition

The researchers studying old translations of the Bible, such as Belcarzowa (2006), Kwilecka (2003), Bien´kowska (2002), Koziara (2009), Winiarska-Górska (2008– 2009), Lisowski (2010) and Zare˛bski (2006), prove the existence of interconfessional translation tradition. They show examples of the influence of Catholic translations on the translations rendered by other denominations and vice versa. Borrowing was a very popular method with Bible translators of the 16th century. Consequently, all Psalter and New Testament translations (the latter abbreviated to NT) have a certain common framework besides the unique features bestowed upon them by the translators. Difficulties with translation, that is the problem with understanding the frequently unclear Biblical text and foreign reality, as well as the challenge of finding appropriate words that would reflect the sense of the source text in Polish as faithfully as possible led the translators to rely on earlier translations both into Polish, Bohemian and Latin with interpretations of and commentaries to the Greek, and even the Hebrew, text.

5.

Between tradition and innovation

Interconfessional translations encompass the GDL Tatars’ literature. The sacred texts they translated are an amalgam of tradition and innovation as they combine the existing translation tradition with innovative elements (for example, they follow the trend in the then Polish and introduce novelties). They used both free and faithful translation, which depended on such factors as the reception of the Quranic text by the target audience. Thus, at the very level of a sentence or verse, word-for-word (verbal) translation, sometimes indicating Turkish influence (Drozd: 1999, 34), coincides with commentaries, derived from the Muslim exegesis, and interpretations that indicate free translation. The best example in this respect are the Tatar tafsirs in which translation became a way to explain and comment on the accompanying source text in Arabic. It was in conformity with the Protestant Bible translation school which postulated departing from the verbum de verbo fidellisime reddere principle and favoured the ad sensum rule. Such translations referred to the Protestant sola Scriptura tenet. Thus, it can be demonstrated that the sacred texts of GDL Tatars contain many indicators of free translation, described already in Comestor’s Historia scholastica and reflected in the oldest monuments of European religious literature. These indicators include: – introducing variable equivalents whose selection depends on the sense of the text and the abundance of synonyms, e. g. the translator explains the etymology of an Arabic root with several equivalents – see TAL Ar. rabb “ruler, lord, owner,

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 257

God” – pan, karmicel (V, p. 97b, v. 2) and karmicel, pro¯wizor (VI, p. 114a, v. 5), Ar. ˇsarı¯k “companion, partner” – to¯warisˇ, spo¯lecˇnik (VI, p. 127a, v. 3) and spo¯lecˇnik´, o¯braz (V, p. 104b, v. 7), Ar. kita¯b “book” – ksenga (VI, p. 121b, v. 1), pismo¯ (V, ¯ ¯ p. 102a, v. 1) and ksenga kuran (VI, p. 121b, v. 1), ksenga ˇtewrı¯ˇt (VI, p. 126a, v. 4), ¯ ¯ ks`engi dane ˇtewritˇ inǯı¯l z´ebu¯r (V, p. 94a, v. 3), etc. In terms of phraseology, the indicators are set phrases in which the selection of one equivalent depends on the sense of the other (usually, one word in the source text is replaced with a set phrase) – cf. TAL dro¯gi zdro¯wej wjerı¯ and wiprawaʒa ¯ıx z cemnego¯ blendu¯ na ´swjetlo¯ŋ dro¯ge (V, p. 96a, v. 2), pewne mı¯ zeslalis´mi ˇtewrı¯t w nim jest prawʒiwa dro¯ga do¯ bo¯ga i jest ´swajtlos´co¯ŋ blendnim (V, p. 99b, v. 3), tako¯we lu¯ʒe so¯ŋ o¯nı¯ newernikami bo¯gu (V, p. 99b, v. 7), etc. Univerbations and synonymical chains were commonly used already in 14th and 15th century translations of the Biblical and Psalter literature and in Bible translations in the 16th century. This translation style, which originated in the glossing of Latin texts in the 15th century and in the texts in which the core functions were to convey emotionalism, expressivity, and suggestions” (Bien´kowska: 1994, 5–6) was typical of free translations and, in this respect, contrasted with verbal ones; – explaining the meaning of certain proper and foreign names, thus signalling and specifying their designation, e. g. TAL z´ek´etˇ and ʒes´encine (V, p. 101b, v. 4), zalimo¯m kriwdniko¯m (V, p. 103b, v. 8), xelalne cˇiste (V, p. 105a, v. 8), etc. In many ¯ contexts, the translator uses the word prorok (prophet) to explain the name used in the source text (cf. the trend of using nominal attributes to classify proper names), e. g. TAL dalismi mu¯s`ı¯ pro¯ro¯ku (VI, p. 126a, v. 4). Many examples could ¯ be quoted in which the translator enriched the prophet’s name by adding his function or, on the contrary, provided a name to specify a function (cf. using proper names to specify the appellativum in Biblical and Psalter literature), e. g. TAL ‘ejs`a¯ sı¯n merjemin (V, p. 96a, v. 4–5), T1 pro¯ro¯k jich samu¯jel (II, p. 33a, v. 5b), pro¯ro¯k muchemmed (II, p. 15a, v. 8b), etc. Such techniques demonstrate the translator’s concern to make the style of the Quran communicative; – adding various attributes and epithets to the names of characters in the Quran and to the core terms in Islam (and thus introducing emotively and axiologically-marked lexis, so-called modifiers and intensifiers), e. g. TAL prawʒiwe musulmane (V, p. 101b, v. 7–8), s`wentı¯ o¯to¯ ten kurran (VI, p. 111b, v. 8), ¯ kuran bo¯zˇ¯ı (VI, p. 126b, v. 2), a dro¯ge mo¯ja wjerej musulmans´ka pro¯sta prawʒiwa ¯ (VI, p. 126a, v. 3) or bestowing honors, e. g. prophets’ names are usually preceded with the word ´swie˛ty (saint), which can be a translation of Arabic hadra[t] – a ˙ ˙ honorific title used before the names of prophets and characters respected by Islam or counterparts of Christian saints, an expression of a translator’s creativity or a result of the influence of Turkish translations, e. g. T1 nasˇ s˙wentij mo¯jzˇesˇ (Suter: 2004, 243). Depending on the context, translators add negative

258

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

attributes, e. g. in TAL to refer to pagan gods: du¯rnı¯ ´slepı¯ balwan (VI, p. 114b, v. 5), pro¯zˇnix bo¯go¯w (V, p. 115a, v. 6) or infidels: po¯ wsˇitk´ix k´afirs´k´ix mastax i wsax (VI, ¯ p. 122a, v. 6–7), nezicˇliwe zˇido¯we (V, p. 104b, v. 7). They also use ironic epithets, e. g. zˇicˇliwe to¯waristwo (VI, p. 116b, v. 8) – mockingly about satan’s companions. The common feature of Bible translations and Tatar sacred texts is the presence of possesives in pre- or postposition, e. g. TAL bojaz´nikeww swojix (V, p. 97a, v. 8), nasˇi anjo¯lo¯we (VI, p. 115b, v. 8), pismo¯ nasˇe (VI, p. 116a, v. 6), etc.; ¯ – supplementing translations with various additions and details facilitating text comprehension, e. g. through more explicit description of the subject or object than in the source text – cf. T1 po¯mo¯cnici ‘ı¯´sá pro¯ro¯ke (Suter: 2004, 113), dalem […] korãn muchemmedu (II, p. 10a, v. 7b), o¯ddal diwidowi pan bo¯g (II, p. 34a, v. 2b) and TAL pu¯k´i te olbrimi tam (V, p. 97a, v. 3), napisalis´mi izraalcˇiko¯m (V, p. 99b, v. 7), etc. The distinctive feature of Tatar translations is rendering the appellative of the Arabic root with Muslim religious terminology or specifying the meaning of appellatives by introducing this terminology. Thus, in certain context, the gloss, explanation or specification of meaning are not Slavic equivalents but Arabic religious lexis, e. g. TAL dom bozˇ¯ı k´ehbe (V, p. 93a, v. 6), ks`eng ro¯wnix ˇtewrı¯ˇt inǯı¯l (V, p. 100a, v. 7–8), du¯xem ´swentim ǯebra’ilem (V, p. 108b, v. 1), matke wsˇitk´ix mast mek´k´e (VI, p. 118b, v. 8), k´afiro¯w trojcˇan (VI, p. 120b, v. 4), iʒce do¯ z´emi ´swentej jeru¯zalima (V, p. 96b, v. 6), etc. Such additions, usually exegetical ones, considerably broaden the context of the utterance, cf. TAL u¯du¯ˇsone ˇsidlem (V, p. 93b, v. 2), ´se stocˇilo z go¯rı¯ (V, p. 93b, v. 3), ¯ azˇ do¯ dna so¯ndnego¯ i na o¯nim s`wece (V, p. 93b, v. 6), pan bo¯g prijʒe do¯ nas z´ wikto¯rijo¯ŋ zˇe u¯twuri z´eme ¯ıx albo¯ zes´le mo¯c swojo¯ŋ (V, p. 101a, v. 4), etc. When it comes to sentences with an implied subject, they introduce an appropriate noun as the subject, e. g. Arabic qawl “mowa, mówienie” (“speech, speaking”); “słowa” (“words”) from Arabic qa¯la “mówic´, powiedziec´” (“speak, say”) – TAL rekl ‘ı¯s`a (V, p. 109a, v. 1), mu¯w i muxemmed (V, p. 96a, v. 4), etc. Thus, besides the core translation, the monuments of the Polish-Lithuanian Tatar literature contain texts which supplement the target text. In tafsirs, they are strictly connected with the Sunni orthodoxy9 and serve to conduct the exegesis of particular fragments or Quranic nominations (cf. Suter: 2004, 35–55); – introducing numerous periphrases with meta-linguistic phrases to jest, znacˇi ´se (to znaczy) (that is, meaning), e. g. TAL inǯı¯l to¯ jest awanelı¯o¯ŋ (V, p. 108b, v. 3), jest milos´ernı¯ to jest k´edı¯ xelal ¯ım (V, p. 93a, v. 7), T1 z´¯ı-l-kernejni to¯ jest aleksandra (Suter: 2004, 248), etc. Adding many periphrases, usually with metalinguistic expressions to jest, a mianowicie (that is, namely), directly to the translated text is also a feature of Latin commentaries found in by Comestor, ˇ a‘far 9 In T1 described by Suter (2004, 28–29) as ‟Commentaries to the Quran” Qur’an by Abu¯ G ˇ arı¯r at -Tabarı¯. Muhammad Ibn G ˙ ˙ ˙

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 259

Nicholas of Lyra’s Postillae… or medieval translations into French (Kwilecka: 2003, 270). Tatar sacred texts reflect the renaissance approach of the translator towards translation that was a continuation the tradition of Biblical and Psalter literature and humanist Bible translations in which the translators attempted to render the meaning of the Holy Scripture intelligibly by using the most communicative means available. Thus, the effort to make the Muslim sacred texts comprehensible for believers was reflected in references to everyday speech, that is to the colloquial language, e. g. through using diminutive forms which created the image of characters described – cf. T1 sinacˇko¯we (about Jacob’s sons II, p. 18b, v. 8b – the lexeme synaczek (little son), with the frequency level equal 1, can be found in Biblia Brzeska (abbreviated to BB) and to Biblia Wujka (referred to as BW) (Lisowski: 2010, 144–145) or preceding the phrase intended for the addressee with the interjection ej (cf. Turkish particles ay! ey!) and using vocatives – cf. TAL aj jak´ezˇ to¯ zle recˇi co¯ stali cˇino¯ncimi (V, p. 102a, v. 8), aj pro¯ro¯ˇce (V, p. 103a, v. 2). Classic vocative forms in Arabic encompass combinations of particles ya¯ ‘O!, Hey!’ with an indefinite noun, intended for an individual receiver, including God, and ayyuh,˚ “O!” with a definite noun, addressed to a wider audience and typical of the oratorical and Quranic style. The equivalent of both forms in Polish is the vocative euqal with the nominative (Drozd: 1999, 134–136). It can be a Turkish influence or the use of typically Old Polish forms (rare use of the particle i as a vocative in the 16th century). It should be noticed that “Im Tefsirtext fungiert als Vokativpartikel meistens die türkische Interjektion i (o) und etwas weniger häufig die arabische Interjektion ya¯ (o),” (Suter: 2004, 252; 268), e. g. T1 cˇi-ne patrisˇ i muchemmed (Suter: 2004, 252). The rhetorical function of the Polish-Lithuanian Mulims’ texts also explains the use of voluntative expressions (which are often equivalents of optative forms), e. g. TAL nex grajo¯ŋ i zabaweju¯n ´se (VI, p. 118b, v. 8), nex tilko¯ po¯mno¯ŋ o¯ kurane (VI, p. 116b, v. 2), colloquial vocabulary and phraseology, e. g. TAL bero¯ŋ az´an wasˇ na ˇsiderstwo i na zˇartı¯ (V, p. 101b, v. 8), du¯rnı¯ ´slepı¯ balwan (VI, p. 114b, v. 5), z glu¯pstwa po¯gans´k´ego¯ (VI, p. 124a, v. 3–4), wru¯zˇbi preklentı¯ (V, p. 105b, v. 6–7) and specification of words with figurative meaning (so-called modulation), e. g. TAL wiʒe cebe i prijaco¯l twojix (VI, p. 117a, v. 6) – the Arabic word qawm means the people, not friends. The Quranic text becomes comprehensible owing to the following ad sensum translation indicators: achieving personalisation through such means as addressing the receiver directly, e. g. TAL a k´edi po¯ˇcu¯wace na tix dwux (V, p. 108a, v. 2), weʒce jego¯ mo¯c i so¯ndı¯ (V, p. 116a, v. 1); using of the second person singular instead of plural (pej! wiedz!/ Sing! Know!), e. g.TAL weʒ jako¯ to¯ z´le grexi no¯sic cenzˇk´e (VI, p 112b, v 8–113a, v 1); enlivening the narration with modifiers – cf. TAL ju¯zˇ o¯nı¯ ne u¯wero¯ŋ (VI, p. 111a, v. 5), wlas´ne tak jako¯ ktu¯rego (VI, p. 116b, v. 8), jes`lı¯ prijʒe ¯ım ajetˇ xo¯c jeden (VI, p.120b, v. 8), mu¯w s`mele (V, p. 103a, v. 3), ha

260

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

cˇi te to¯ co¯ laske bo¯zˇa (VI, p. 115a, v. 2); intensifying an utterance with the particle z˙ (e) (that) to strongly confirm one’s opinion – e. g. the profession of faith in TAL ni masˇ z insˇix bo¯ga tilko¯ bo¯g jedinı¯ (V, p. 104a, v. 1); emphasising and stressing the message with quantifiers: nigdy, z˙aden, kaz˙dy, tylko, wszytcy (never, noone, everyone, only, all), e.g. TAL pana i karmicela wsˇitk´ix s`wjeto¯w (V, p. 97b, v. 2), matke wsˇitk´ix mast mek´k´e (VI, p. 118b, v. 8), nad wami ku¯zˇdemu stro¯zˇem (VI, p. 120b, v. 2); introducing syntactic and stylistic changes, e. g. employing adverbs of time to keep narration flowing – cf. TAL wsˇak prisˇed wam po¯so¯l (V, p. 95b, v. 7), benʒe cˇinil do¯bre u¯ˇcink´i tedi tako¯wemu jest o¯dpu¯skliwı¯ pan bo¯g milo¯serdnı¯ (VI, p. 115a, v. 4–5), k´edi go¯ preklo¯l pan bo¯g (V, p. 102a, v. 3–4), T1 mo¯wi ãnijo¯l (II, p. 12b, v. 7b), mow malik’u (Suter: 2004, 247) or changing the past tense into the present one, which affects text swiftness – cf. TAL recˇe ‘ı¯s`a cˇistı¯ jest bo¯zˇe o¯d ´sabro¯w i o¯d so¯ko¯lektu¯ro¯w (V, p. 109b, v. 1), etc. Other features shared between the Muslim sacred texts with humanist translations include: – keeping the original form (translocation or Slavicisation) of the terms which are doctrinally essential or typical of the Muslim religion exclusively, particularly proper names, their frequent ‟inflection in conformity with the Slavic paradigm although the Turkic languages are agglutinative and do not follow Slavic-type inflection,” (Łapicz: 1992, 328)10 and their involvement in regular derivation processes; – creating word-pictures (the dependence between the signifiant and the signifié, that is between the name and the designatum, was to be both symbolic and causal) (cf. Hawrysz: 2010, 129) – cf. nominations of pagan gods in T1, e. g.: *prijacele, *spo¯lencˇnik´i, *to¯warisˇ, *zwodzicel, or prophets’ (especially Muhammad’s) attributes – cf. TAL *s`wjedek´ i do¯glo¯ndacˇ, etc. – employing bi- or plurilingual translators, in line with Martin Luther’s postulate that Bible translators should know both Biblical and vernacular languages. Here it resulted in synonyms such as: zbawene-s`pas´ene welik´e, dom bozˇ¯ı-xram, ´sabri-ano¯li-fereje, etc.; – using the critical apparatus in translation, that is glosses, additions and meta- or extra-textual commentaries placed in the margin. The literary monument analysed herein contains many glosses of different chronology and functions11. Tatar translators also strove to maintain the fundamental rules of adequate, faithful translation12 because – to quote Łapicz’s (2008–2009, 276). conclusion: 10 Cf. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska’s conclusions (2004, 140–149). 11 This issue was discussed in detail in the following papers: Kulwicka-Kamin´ska (2015a, 45–52) and Kulwicka-Kamin´ska (2015b, 159–175). 12 Exemplification may include transcription and transliteration of religious terminology,

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 261

On the substantive and content-related part, the translation of the Quran must have been extremely ‘slavish’ (i. e. philological, faithful, literal) – even if the ‘faithfulness’ and ‘literalness’ meant violating the norms and rules of the target language.

Consequently, the same word order was maintained in both the source and the target texts although one Arabic word might be described with several Polish ones. Therefore, the translations were “literal and strictly followed the morphological, syntactic, and even graphic (e. g. the Arabic alphabet), structure of the source text.” (Łapicz: 2008–2009, 278). Moreover, faithful, literal translation depended on the theological nature of the text, which was ancillary to the doctrinal principles and thus the stylistic and compositional layers had to be subjected to the superior theological and doctrinal Islamic content. On the other hand, however, it was demonstrated that GDL Tatars’ translations contain elements of free translation. Therefore, it can be assumed that their sacred texts are distinguished by far-reaching faithfulness towards the original and simultaneous preservation of the features typical of free translation. In terms of translation techniques, Tatar translations are innovative and comply with humanist Renaissance translations.

6.

Biblical style

In the 16th century, the Biblical style resulted from the model Biblical language adopted from Bible translations (including collocations typical of Semitic languages, some of which are symbols, comparisons or metaphors) and from the stylistic and linguistic norms of renaissance Polish. The most important indicators of the Biblical style include its typical lexis, phraseology and syntax, on the basis of which it is possible to show the connections between various Bible translations as well as the influence of these translations on those rendered by GDL Tatars, including the first European translation of the Quran into the northeastern borderland variety of Polish. In terms of syntax, the translation indicators will include: – using subordinating structures with the conjunction z˙e (that) to quote somebody’s statements (oratio recta), which is typical of faithful translation, e. g. TAL mu¯w zˇe se ja pewne bo¯je ´se zˇebi mjel zgresˇic bo¯gu¯ memu¯ menk´¯ı (VI, p. 111a, v. 8 – p. 111b, v. 1), prirecˇene o¯d nix zˇe meli trimac prikezane (V, p. 95b, v. 5);

keeping the post-positional word order of the source text (including the order of possessive pronouns and attributes), foreign syntactic structures (including nominal combinations), subordinate clauses with the conjunction z˙e (that) – cf. examples from the eighth point: Biblical style.

262

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

– calquing the word order of the source text, which allowed to maintain semantic and syntactic parallelism and partially rhyme in the target text. However, when facing problems with translating certain structures, the translator sometimes departed from the source text word order by using amplification or reduction, which resulted in placing the object before the verb (in conformity with the Polish syntax, particularly the Old Polish – medieval and renaissance – religious prose). Tatar texts also contain OV clauses, e. g. TAL wecˇnı¯ s`wejt lepsˇ¯ı jest (V, p. 113a, v. 1), dla ku¯zˇdej wjedo¯mo¯sci cˇas i mejsco¯ jest (VI, p. 116a, v. 7), ¯ which was typical of 16th century Polish prose (cf. Piotr Skarga’s sermons) and Bible translations; – using the passive voice, e. g. TAL jest prikezano¯ ¯ım (VI, p. 127a, v. 3), and phrases with participial gerund clauses abundantly (Biblia nies´wieska: BN and TAL are particularly coincidental in this respect), e. g. TAL ja to¯ bil mu¯woncı¯ (V, p. 109b, v. 2), bilı¯ o¯nı¯ krijo¯ncimi pred tim (VI, p. 112b, v. 3), bil po¯ziwajo¯ncı¯ (V, p. 108a, v. 1), especially with the perfect participle – cf. TAL po¯ru¯ciwsˇi co¯ to¯be prisˇlo¯ o¯d bo¯ga (V, p. 100b, v. 1), ktu¯rim se mo¯dlo¯ŋ zanexawsˇi pana bo¯ga (V, ¯ p. 120b, v. 5). Imbuing the text with participles was typical of the Biblical style and originated in the Vulgate. Since the 16th century, it had become a feature of the Polish literary style. Participles are very frequent in Tatar tafsirs. According to Drozd (1999, 105): Over two-thirds of participles ending with –a˛c, –a˛cy in the target text do not have any connection with the Arabic root in terms of grammatical form. They replace adjectives, nouns, and even verbs, and tend to be amplified.”13

The frequency of their use depended on style as in Polish they were a feature which distinguished the literary language from the colloquial language – cf. TAL lu¯ʒe pisme majo¯nce (V, p. 102a, v. 1), to¯ co¯ jest o¯ni w so¯be tajo¯ncimi (V, p. 102a, v. ¯ 7), etc.; – beginning utterances with conjunctions. In the Bible, the Latin et and the Greek καί refer to the Semitic tradition of using many conjunctions in multicompound sentences. In Polish, their equivalents are the conjunctions a and i (both meaning “and”), which function mainly as references – indicators of continuation (using them to begin sentences influences text rhythmicality and relates to oral literature and colloquial language). It is similar with Arabic texts in which the conjunction wa plays a similar role. Tatar translations also contain paratactic sequences of nominal groups which are polisyndetic combinations with the conjunction wa translated into i (in conformity with the Polish syntax – (Drozd: 1999, 164)14 or with the comma and asyndetic (i. e. “conjunctionless”) 13 Cf. Suter (2004, 362–363). 14 Cf. also Bien´kowska (1992, 146–147).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 263

clauses – in keeping with the Arabic text, e. g. TAL i ne dajce ´se zwoʒic na zlos´c na ¯ ¯ grexi lu¯ʒom k´ehbejnim zˇebi ne zwedli was i ne odwedli od domu¯ bozˇego xramu i ne ¯ opu¯skajce [[]]15 przˇi[[ka]]kezane bozˇego i wspominajce jeden dru¯gego na ofarı¯ ¯ I daru¯jce abı¯ wistarcˇili poslu¯ge bozˇa i ne pomagajce jeden dru¯gemu¯ na grzˇex (V, p. 93a, v. 7–8 and p. 93b, v. 1). The multifunctional Greek lexeme καί is usually translated into Polish as a or i but sometimes it is replaced with other conjunctions, which can be interpreted as a departure from the καί style. Conjunctions other than a and i can be found more frequently in Protestant translations. It is similar in GDL Tatars’ translations in which the conjunction wa is translated, among others, into wsˇak – cf. wsˇak prisˇlo¯ to¯be z´ wjedo¯mo¯´scı¯ pro¯ro¯ko¯w (VI, p. 113a, v. 5). Generally, in the Polish translations of the gospel, equivalents of καί are the conjunctions a and i, but, in parallel verses, other conjunctions, playing a nonreferential role, are used. Besides the core meaning, the very root of Greek καί may introduce contrast, goal, effect or time, thus relating directly to the spoken language. This also pertains to the equivalence of Arabic wa – cf. TAL ale te ktu¯re sklamali pismo¯ nasˇe do¯tknemi ¯ıx (VI, p. 114a, v. 2), abis´ce ne bili zamarli ¯ w newerno¯´sci teraz o¯zˇiwilismi was waro¯ŋ ¯ımanem (VI, p. 122a, v. 4); the equiv¯ alent of Arabic wa can be the conjunction i used in a different function, e. g. TAL ne u¯padne z drewa i jeden list (VI, p. 115b, v. 3); – order of possesives. The Arabic language uses the postpositional order, which is connected with the category of state, described with definite and indefinite name forms. The possesive, i. e. an Arabic suffix, so-called suffigated pronoun, which is used by the GDL Tatars in keeping with the Arabic source text, that is after the noun – cf. TAL ro¯zso¯ndk´i swuje (V, p. 105b, v. 5), co¯ po¯jmace renko¯ma wasˇimi bez s`idla (V, p. 106a, v. 6). This can be observed in a text translated with equivalents. However, whenever the Quranic message was amplified or generalized, the order was pronominal, thus following the Polish pattern. Both solutions were considered appropriate as the Old Polish used both the post- and pronominal order, depending on the semantics and rhetorical style rules (the postposition of the possessive entered medieval Polish no sooner than under the influence of Bible translations and the Latin syntax); – the genre of nominal attribute, including two-word compounds with an adjectival attribute. Old Polish moved the possessive adjectival attribute over the possessive attribute; consequently, possessive adjectives were created from proper names, e. g. syn Dawidowy (David’s son) in the Bible and sı¯n merjemin in TAL (V, p. 96a, v. 3). In the Tatar translations the Arabic status constructus (ida¯fa) ˙ was rendered in Polish in conformity with the (R[Pp) model, that is with the adjectival attribute – cf. TAL azˇ do¯ dna so¯ndnego¯ (V, p. 95b, v. 6), sino¯we bo¯zˇzˇi (V, 15 Deletion.

264

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

p. 96a, v. 7), o¯biwatelmi pek´elnimi (V, p. 105a, v. 6), z wimislu¯ ˇsetansk´ego¯ (V, p. 105b, v. 7), du¯xem ´swentim ǯebra’ilem (V, p. 108b, v. 1), etc. The Greek Bible very often uses genitive nouns describing the adjuncts instead of adjectives of which there are few in Hebrew. This ‟Semitic style of expression” is yet another determinant of the Biblical style. The Tatar translation also uses, albeit less frequently, structures with a genitive attribute in government with the modified noun, that is the RPd (noun with attributive genitive) model, e. g. bo¯je ´se pana bo¯ga pana i karmicela wsˇitk´ix s`wjeto¯w (V, p. 97b, v. 2), raju ro¯sko¯ˇs¯ı (V, p. 102b, v. 8). At the same time, the postpositional order of the pronominal and possessive attribute was maintained, but in the places in which the Tatar translators added the attributes which were absent in the source text, the prenominal order was applied – cf. TAL o¯to¯ tak´e po¯ku¯ti zlamanix pris`eng (V, p. 105b, v. 4), stan ´se so¯ndnı¯ ʒen (VI, p. 117a, v. 3). Despite the fact that the category of state in Arabic makes the Polish and Arabic structures different, both constructions can be recognized as equivalent in terms of translation. In this respect, Tatar translators’ decisions and choices are analogous to those made by the translators of the Bible and Plaster literature who also used adjectives with attributive names (e. g. opting for an adjective in place of a Latin noun in the genitive – cf. flos agri kwiat pola>kwiat polny (flower of the field>field flower), which was correct in the second half of the 16th century; – the manner of negation, e. g. BB, Czechowic and both translations by Wujek contain structures such as Bo áni brácia je(go) wen´ nie wierzyli – cf. TAL ni masˇ zˇe u¯ nix na z´wero¯nt na z´emi ani ptako¯w latajo¯ncix na dwux skridlax ku¯pami (VI, p. 113b, v. 3)16; – different than contemporary verb government, e. g. TAL cˇince dos´ic prirecˇene (V, p. 93a, v. 3), opu¯ˇscˇac ceremonı¯ bozˇej (V, p. 93a, v. 5), ne zajmu¯jce dom ¯ bozˇ¯ı (V, p. 93a, v. 6), etc. and synthetic syntax instead of contemporary prepositional one, e. g. TAL mes`onca zakazanego wo¯jowac (V, p. 93a, v. 5), xeramem ¯ ¯ jest wam (V, p. 93b, v. 1); – introducing indirect object or lack thereof, the example of which are speech verbs – cf. TAL recˇe do¯ nix (V, p. 108a, v. 7); – foreign syntax structures, which are structural calques of the source text, e. g. Arabic nominal clauses, that is those without a linking verb in the predicate but with the predicate expressed exclusively with nominal forms and based on the opposition between the subject and the predicative, are rendered in Tatar translations into Polish with structures copying the Arabic ones – cf. TAL mı¯ jestes´mi ucˇno¯we i po¯mo¯cnici ‘ejs`ı¯ (V, p. 104b, v. 8), matka jego¯ prawʒiwa ˇscˇira newasta (V, p. 104a, v. 4), ja jest ano¯l (VI, p. 114b, v. 4) and are often introduced with the particle pewnie/zapewne (probably/certainly), e. g. TAL pewne pan bo¯g o¯ 16 The example was taken from Ke˛pin´ska (2015, 59).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 265

ko¯zˇdej recˇi wjedo¯m (V, p. 106b, v. 8). The nominal predicate contains a predicative in the form of a noun in the nominative. Thus, a similarity between the original syntax and 16th-century Polish can be observed here. The structure was used in Polish until the 18th century when it was supplanted by the instrumental case. Arabic attributive sentences – syndetic ones (with a formal exponent), introduced with the relative pronoun alla™ı¯ ‘który’ (which, who) – may not use an anaphoric pronoun as antecedent, e. g. ten (this), which is faithfully rendered by Tatar translators – cf. TAL o¯n jest ktu¯rı¯ u¯ˇcinil dla was gwjezdı¯ (V, p. 119b, v. 4), bo¯ o¯n jest ktu¯rı¯ zeslal wam ksenge kuran (VI, p. 121b, v. 1) or they may reduce it– ¯ cf. TAL pewne pan bo¯g jest jego¯ kro¯lewstwa nebesk´e i z´emsk´e (V, p. 98b, v. 6–7). Arabic attributive sentences used as adjectives – asyndetic ones (without the pronoun) are translated with participial structures, e. g. in TAL zaplata do¯bre cˇino¯ncix (V, p. 105a, v. 6). Arabic paratactical linking words, e. g. with fa-, which is a consecutive conjunction, are transposed by Tatars with the closest meaningful equivalent preto (therefore) – cf. TAL preto¯ bo¯jce ´se bo¯ga i majo¯nce ro¯zumı¯ (V, p. 107a, v. 3). As this structure cannot be rendered in Polish, they introduce it with the conjunction i (and), which begins the subordinate clause in conditional complex sentences – cf. TAL i zbawil ¯ıx spasenjem pan bo¯g (V, p. 105a, v. 4) or ¯ without any conjunction – ne bu¯j se lu¯ʒej zˇidowsk´ix (V, p. 99b, v. 5–6); some ¯ excluding clauses (in simple and coordinate clauses), e. g. those with the particle ill, are translated using a prepositional clause with excluding prepositions oprócz, poza, z wyja˛tkiem (besides, apart from, except for) or the modifier (presupposition) with excluding function tylko, jedynie, wyła˛cznie (only, solely, exclusively) preceding a given noun – cf. TAL ‘ejs`a sı¯n merjemin tilko¯ po¯sel pro¯ro¯k (V, p. 104a, v. 3), tilko¯ do¯nes´c prikezane (V, p. 107a, v. 2). Structures with the Arabic accusative in which nouns and adjectives in the accusative of the indefinite state function as adverbs are translated into adverbs or prepositional clauses (they are adverbials in the sentence) – cf. TAL za te co¯ mo¯cno¯ o¯bo¯won zˇe ´se bo¯gu pris`engo¯ŋ (V, p. 105b, v. 2). Original syntactic compounds coexist with typically Polish structures, e. g. some attributive clauses – syndetic ones; even though the anaphoric pronoun is missing, it is explicated in translation just as nominal designata of relative pronouns – cf. TAL stracili naʒeje ci ktu¯re (V, p. 93b, v. 4–5), s tix ktu¯rim dane ks`engi (V, p. 94a, v. 4), prijacelo¯n se s timi ktu¯re newernikami ¯ so¯ŋ (V, p. 104b, v. 3). The nominal nature of the syntax of source texts is often supplemented with predicates, including the auxiliary verb byc´ (to be) – cf. TAL tako¯we lu¯ʒe so¯ŋ o¯nı¯ newernikami bo¯gu (V, p. 99b, v. 7), ), a o¯n jest istı¯ bo¯g (VI, p. 110a, v. 5). The group of additional verbs includes verba dicendi. Verbs mówic´ (speak, the participial form mówia˛c/ speaking) and rzec, prawic´ (say, expatiate) are meant to create a meta-textual framework – e. g. a shift from indirect speech (oratio recta) to direct one (oratio obliqua) can be observed, cf. TAL abis´ tego¯zˇ du¯xa u¯ʒelil do¯ u¯ˇcno¯w swı¯x po¯mo¯cniko¯w zˇebi u¯werili mne i pro¯ro¯ku memu¯ rekli

266

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

u¯werilis´mi (V, p. 108b, v. 8). The structure la¯….illa¯ and general negation, which is a compound of a general negation and a prepositional clause (the conjunction illa¯), is translated in Tatar literary monuments with the phrase nie masz + genitive (you do not have, there is no + genitive), that is a genuine Polish structure used between the 16th and the 18th centuries – cf. TAL ni masˇ z insˇix bo¯ga tilko¯ bo¯g jedinı¯ (V, p. 104a, v. 1). While translating Arabic syntactic structures, Tatar translators strove to be faithful to the canonical Arabic version and to obey the rules of the target language. Thus, they used the Polish structures of the time which, owing to the still unstable language norms, enabled them to reproduce the Arabic forms precisely, without having to resort to calques or innovations. The meaning of particularly strong nouns or adjectives was rendered through compounding a given noun in the singular with the same noun in the plural in status constructus (by analogy to the Old Polish adaptation of the Hebrew figure superlativus absolutus – cf. The Song of Songs), e. g. Arabic ar-rabb is pan nad panami (lord of lords), while Arabic al-malik means król nad królami (king of kings). The intensifying Arabic particle inna, corresponding to the Polish zaprawde˛ (verily, very truly), was translated into pewnie (Old Polish niewa˛tpliwie, na pewno, bez wa˛tpienia – undoubtedly, certainly, without doubt) and was always used at the beginning of the sentence (syntactic Arabism and an analogy to the Polish phraseological pattern – consequently, the Oriental translation pattern overlapped with an Old Polish set phrase) – cf. TAL pewne pan bo¯g sonʒi tak jako sam xce (V, p. 93a, v. 4), etc. According to Drozd (1999, 166–167; 172), the source of the adverbial translation of the particle inna – which, contrary to its Tatar equivalent pewnie (certainly), is not a semantically independent unit – is the Turkish pattern. Original simple sentences were replaced with coordinated ones, e. g. through introducing the sentence pattern in place of a nominal clause – e. g. TAL mej o¯ko¯ patr na nix (‘guardian’ in the source text) (V, p. 100a, v. 8). An immanent feature of Tatar translations is employing analogy to Christian terms and expressions. Thus, the religious manuscripts of GDL Tatars contain Christian terminology adopted to the needs of Islam confessed in Christian cultural and religious environment (cf. Łapicz: 2007, 116)17. The material collected makes it possible to indicate numerous examples of using such translation analogy, e. g. when it comes to the terms describing the one and only God: Arabic alla¯h ‘Allah’ – TAL b˄g (V, p. 98a, v. 7), pan b˄g (V, p. 96b, v. 3), T1 *bo¯g jedin (II, p. 39a, v. 8b), and even jahu¯wa¯, bu¯g˙ jahu¯wa¯ (nomination used only in BN) (Тарелка, Сынкова: 2009, 275–276), in nominations of pagan gods: Arabic ila¯h ‘god, deity, idol’ – TAL *pro¯zˇnije bo¯gı¯ (V, p. 115a, v. 6), T1 *balwan (II, p. 17b, v. 4b), 17 It includes the discussion of the conditions of transferring Christian linguistic elements to GDL Tatars’ translations.

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 267

in naming the holy books: Arabic a¯ya[t] “sign, feature, miracle, Quranic verse” – TAL pis´mo¯ s`wente (VI, p. 112a, v. 1), in naming angels: Arabic ru¯h “spirit, soul, ˙ breath” + Arabic al-quds “holy site, sanctuary” – TAL *du¯x ´swentı¯ (V, p. 108b, v. 1), etc. The Bible lexis is also characterised by the use of legal terminology, including Latinisms as evidence of the use of Western European tradition and a feature of translations done during the Reformation, e. g. in T1 replacing Arabic ba¯b meaning, among others, “a chapter” with a¯rtikul, rendering Arabic al-lawh ˙ “table“ + al-mahfu¯z “protected” as *matrika b˄zˇa, interpreting Arabic hudan ˙ ˙ “right way, true faith“ as *direkcija, dekret bozˇi and Arabic umma[t] “nation, nationality” as *nacija; in TAL translating Arabic a¯ya[t] into *pragraf (section) and into *ro¯zdzel18 and *wirsˇ in T1. The other T1–style Latinisms include *dekleracija, *direkto¯r, fatiga, *ko¯nwersacija, kreminal, whereas TAL-style ones are wikto¯rijo¯ŋ, igrisko¯ i o¯ˇsukanina, *o¯biwatel pek´elnı¯, histo¯rija, *respekt etc. Another distinctive feature of the Biblical style are the phrases and expressions copied since the Middle Ages, e. g. noun compounds with the verbs czynic´, miec´, dac´, oddac´ (do, have, give, return) deriving from Latin and frequently used in Bible translations. Interestingly enough, these words of Biblical origin can be found in Tatar tafsirs – cf. TAL cˇinic sprawedliwosc (V, p. 94b, v. 7), u¯cˇink´i do¯bre ¯ cˇinic (V, p. 95, v. 1), cˇinic serce ¯ıx twarde (V, p. 95b, v. 2). The following phrases also derive from Christian terminology – cf. TAL iman prijeli u¯sti nasˇimi a ne u¯werili sercem (V, p. 99a, v. 1–2), nex pro¯ˇso¯ŋ jego¯ o¯ o¯dpu¯ˇscˇene grexo¯w (V, p. 104a, v. 2), zmazˇe o¯d was grexi wasˇe (V, p. 95a, v. 8), was wskres´i (V, p. 106b, v. 6) and so do these lexical compounds – cf. TAL do¯ dna so¯ndnego¯ (V, p. 95b, v. 6), sino¯we cˇlo¯wecˇe (V, p. 96a, v. 8), xwali bo¯zˇej (V, p. 106a, v. 1), du¯xem ´swentim (V, p. 108b, v. 1), skarbnica bo¯zˇa (VI, p. 114b, 3), bo¯jaz´n bo¯zˇo¯ŋ (V, p. 106a, v. 4), zlix du¯xo¯w (VI, p. 122b, v. 7), etc. The above examples also illustrate how Biblical phrases migrated to Tatar texts. The set phrases found in the 16th-century translations of the Holy Scripture were perceived already then as separate and typical of this type of text and as different from the set phrases deriving primarily from colloquial and conversational styles. It is normal of Semitic languages to express two aspects of one activity. Thus, the distinctive feature of Biblical phrases are tautological structures, found also in Tatar translations of the Quran, e. g. benʒesˇ ¯ıx so¯nʒil so¯nʒ (V, p. 99a, v. 8), ro¯z´ʒeli was pu¯lkam pu¯lkami (VI, p. 116a, v. 5), na jeʒoncego jeʒene (VI, p. 124b, v. 8), s cu¯do¯w od cu¯d (VI, p. 110a, v. 7), etc. By Biblical standards, one expression is used next to the other with the same meaning. It is also common in Semitic languages to repeat words with the same root, e. g. to make a compound of a verb 18 Cf. contexts in Suter (2004, 118–120).

268

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

with a noun deriving from the same root (Suter: 2004, 53–54)19 – cf. dla tej mo¯wi co¯ muwili (VI, p. 115a, v. 1), do¯bre u¯ˇcinik´i ˇcino¯ŋ (V, p. 106a, v. 3), o¯fejro¯walo¯ wsˇitk´e o¯fejrı¯ (V, p. 116b, v. 5), i pris`engali panu bo¯gu mo¯cno¯ pris´engo¯ŋ (V, p. 120b, v. 7). Consequently, it can be assumed that the above features, typical of Tatar translations, are representative of religious discourse whose dynamics can be observed particularly in metaphorical vocabulary. From the lexicological point of view, it is justified to study the aspect of the term which is the subject of the metaphor and, consequently, the group of terms subject to metaphorisation (cf. Bajerowa: 1999, 253–263). The language of religion and cult does not strive to be unambiguos, monosemic or explicit. Therefore, it finds its expression in analogy, e. g. z samic cˇwo¯rono¯gix bidla ani z o¯wec (V, p. 107a, v. 7); comparison, e. g. cˇi majo¯n ´se o¯nı¯ tak bic jako¯ ojco¯we ¯ıx pis´ma ne majo¯nce i ne wjedomı¯ (V, p. 107b, v. 2), w sko¯ru¯pe twardej jako¯ o¯rex (VI, p. 119b, v. 1); metonymy, e. g. kto zabija du¯ˇsa cˇlowecˇa (V, p. 97b, v. 8), krew za krew i du¯ˇsa za du¯ˇse (V, p. 99b, v. 7–8), metaphor, e. g. do¯m mesˇkane zdrowje wecˇnego¯ (VI, p. 122b, v. 6), etc. Research shows that the GDL Tatars relied on their predecessors’ achievements as their literature reflects the trends typical of the language used by Protestant humanists in the 16th century – cf. co-existence of established Christian terminology and lay terms, e. g. legal ones, including many Latinisms; the presence of domestic equivalents derived from colloquial language, etc. (cf. Winiarska: 2004, 101). Besides, they used typical, fixed word combinations and syntactic structures which elevated the style and made the language sound archaic20. It is similar with inflected forms – the translated texts combine the archaic with the modern. On the one hand, this is a result of an individual translator’s choices, including a conscious use of inflectional categories for stylistic purposes. Gradually, the translators removed semantically-unmarked inflectional relics and maintained the old forms in pompous formulas, set phrases and archaisms. While preserving these forms served to make the target language sacred, keeping archaic forms, atypical of the literary Polish style, is an inherent feature of the north-eastern borderland variety of Polish21.

19 It can be a faithful reconstruction of the Arabic structure – the absolute masdar. 20 Cf. Winiarska-Górska’s considerations (2008–2009). 21 For a detailed discussion of the features of the north-eastern borderland variety of the Polish used in TAL cf. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska (2015b).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 269

7.

Manners and methods of translating terminology typical of Islam

In order to specify the manners and methods of translating specialist Muslim terminology into Slavic languages, we referred to the works of such historians of the language as Klich (1927), Pepłowski (1961), Kwilecka (2003), Zare˛bski (2006) and Winiarska (2004)22. The study served to distinguish the following solutions applied in the texts translated by GDL Tatars: 1. translocation and 2. Slavicisation (both of which demonstrate that the Muslim religious terminology is untranslatable into Slavic languages) and 3. translation. Translocated or Slavicised terms are frequently used in Tatar translations, which stems from the fact that the translators were fully aware of the untranslatability of specialist Muslim terminology into Slavic languages. Hence, they would often leave foreign religious terms untranslated. On the one hand, this was partly due to a lack of adequate equivalents in Slavic languages, but on the other, the translators assumed that the target texts should be comprehensible for religious Muslims. A whole range of examples of the translocation or Slavisation of terms of Oriental origin can be provided, to mention: Arabic a¯ya[t] – cf. TAL ajetˇ xo¯c jeden meli u¯weric jemu¯ mu¯w i muxemmed wsˇitk´e ajetˇi u¯ pana bo¯ga (VI, p. 120b, v. 8), Arabic umma[t] – cf. TAL u¯mmetˇo¯w (VI, p. 120b, v. 6), Araibic zaka¯t ‘alms’ – cf. TAL z´ek´ewetˇ (V, p. 95a, v. 6), z´ek´etˇ (V, p. 101b, v. 4), Arabic zalim(un) ˙ ‘unjust’ – cf. TAL zalimino¯we (V, p. 119a, v. 4) (cf. Suter: 2004, 57–58; 61–66). Due ¯ to the fact that most of them sound like the source words, proper names constitute a separate group among the words of Oriental (mainly Arabic) etymology, e. g. the name of God in Arabic alla¯h – T1 alláh (II, p. 34b, v. 3b), titles of holy texts in Arabic Al-Qur’a¯n “Quran” – TAL kurran (VI, p. 111b, v. 5), Arabic Tawra¯[t] – TAL ˇtewrı¯t (V, p. 99b, v. 3), Arabic Zabu¯r – T1 z´ebu¯r (II, p. 17a, v. 1b), Arabic Ingˇ¯ıl – TAL inǯı¯l (V, p. 100a, v. 4), names of prophets: in TAL Arabic Muhammad – ˙ muxemmed (V, p. 96a, v. 4), Arabic Mu¯sà – mu¯`sa (V, p. 96b, v. 4), Arabic ‘I¯sà – ‘ejs`a (V, p. 100a, v. 3), Arabic Ibra¯hı¯m – ibrahı¯m (V, p. 117a, v. 5), Arabic Isha¯q – is´xak ˙ (V, p. 118a, v. 2), Arabic Nu¯h – nu¯x (V, p. 118a, v. 3), etc.23. ˙ Translators’ doubts pertaining to the choice of the original form, present in the source text, and the form embedded in translation and literary traditions can be observed here (particularly when it comes to the proper names mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran) e. g. Arabic Ibra¯hı¯m – *ibra¯him and *ãbrahám in T1, Arabic Isha¯q – *is´chak and *iz´ák in T1, Arabic Da¯wu¯d – dawu¯d in T1 and *diwid ˙ 22 Cf. also Hejwowski (2006, 74–76); Bednarczyk (2005, 69); Kozłowska (2007, 132–158). 23 In the analysed translations, particular forms have several spelling, phonetic, inflectional or derivational variants, which depends on historical and linguistic factors.

270

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

and dawid in TAL, Arabic Mu¯sà – mu¯´sa and *mo¯jzˇesˇ in T1, Arabic ‘I¯sà – *‘ejs´a and *jezu¯s in T1. Most of the above quoted translocated or Slavicised nominations derive from Arabic (hence the Arabic source words given) but appear as Osman or Tatar adaptations (due to the fact that they were adopted directly) (Zaja˛czkowski: 1948, 13; Kulwicka-Kamin´ska: 2004, 126). Thus, the philological source material illustrates the manners and methods of Slavicising both Arabic and Turkish terms (cf. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska: 2004). Scarce knowledge of the facts and issues the translators encountered while working with the source text implies that they had problems with describing the Quranic reality adequately. Besides resorting to transcription and Slavicisation, the translators tried to find analogies to facts and issues in the immediate environment. Thus, so-called realogisms were translated with domestic names, metonymy or circumlocution. Examples include quoting the term rabini from the source text and the attempt at translating it–cf. TAL rabino¯we slu¯ʒi bo¯zˇe (V, p. 102a, v. 8), translating the etnonym Sabianie by resorting to explication te ktu¯re klanajo¯n ´se slo¯ncu meso¯ncu (V, p. 103a, v. 8) or rendering the Arabic term ¯ Ingˇ¯ıl with a Polish word evoking similar connotations, e. g. awanelı¯ (V, p. 100a, v. 5). Names of foreign plants and animals were replaced with those of domestic fauna and flora – cf. TAL ne u¯ˇcinil pan bo¯g xeram z´ werblo¯nʒic ani z samic cˇwo¯rono¯gix bidla ani z o¯wec (V, p. 107a, v. 7), borrowings present in the Polish language of the time – cf. TAL samic i z samco¯w werblo¯ndo¯w (V, p. 107a, v. 8), ze k´wjatu¯ galo¯nzek gro¯na jedno¯ dru¯gemu blisko¯ i o¯gro¯de z ro¯zinko¯w iz o¯liwı¯ i po¯¯ marancˇo¯w po¯ma granato¯w (V, p. 120a, v. 1–2) or periphrases – cf. TAL pan bo¯g ro¯ˇscˇepı¯ raz´no¯ nasene xo¯c w sko¯ru¯pe twardej jako¯ o¯rex (V, p. 119b, v. 1 – the source ¯ text refers to the date). The postulate to use adequate equivalents was often realised with circumlocutions, e. g. Arabic malak ‘angel’ – T1 *slu¯ga bo¯zˇij (II, p. 23b, v. 2b), TAL *anjo¯l smerci (VI, p. 126b, v. 4), Arabic mursal ‘sent’ – T1 ¯ *pro¯ro¯k welk’ij (II, p. 34a, v. 5b), Arabic isla¯m ‘Islam’ – *mus`ulmansk´a wjara (V, p. 93b, v. 6), etc. Many doctrinal, organisational and ritual differences are explained with perpiphrases rather than new terminology and specialist vocabulary typical of the Muslim faith. Terminological compounds could be heterogeneous structures, e. g. TAL jeʒo¯ŋ zakazane recˇi xeram (V, p. 99a, v. 7), k´irama k´atˇibı¯ne pisaro¯w u¯ˇcinko¯w wasˇix (VI, p. 115b, v. 7), go¯rsˇ¯ı zalimin (VI, p. 119a, v. 2), ¯ ǯahilo¯w newjedo¯mix (VI, p. 121a, v. 4), ij bo¯ lixı¯ ferejsk´e (VI, p. 123a, v. 2)24. They were created for pragmatic purposes: incorporated in the structure of a Muslim term, general or Christian words made the message understandable by evoking certain associations.

24 Other examples of such structures are quoted by Suter (2004, 68–69).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 271

The attempts at finding the most adequate lexical equivalents, which would render the meaning of the source text as faithfully as possible, forced the Tatar translators to apply still other solutions in order to meet the demand for Polish nominations in terms of Muslim religious terminology. The solutions included creating semantic derivations and served to express new ideas. The derivations were established by way of specialisation. Sometimes their role was to modify the meaning of already existing terms whose use was thus extended – cf. names of pagan gods: T1 *prijacele, *spo¯lencˇniki, *to¯warisˇ, *zwodzicel, titles of holy books and parts thereof: T1 *direkcija dla lu¯dzej, isto¯tna prawda, *priwodca ku¯ do¯bremu¯,*z´witk’ı¯ prikezana, TAL dekret, names of angels: TAL *pisar u¯ˇcinko¯w wasˇix, T1 *slu¯ga bo¯zˇij, names of prophets: T1 *po¯wodir, the Last Judgement – T1 *den po¯wstanij. Hence, semantic derivations became yet another major factor that contributed to creating new terminology. They include original equivalents, which were rarely used in Old and Middle Polish language, e. g. TAL *jedino¯stwo (V, p. 110a, v. 7) – SPolXVI (IX, 419–420) confirms that it was used in one monument only, i. e. in BN meaning “unity, agreement, community”; Eph 4:3), T1 *direkcija (II, p. 24b, v. 2b) – SPolXVI (VI, 292) confirms that this word was used only four times in SarnStat (S. Sarnicki, Statuta i metryka […], Officina Lazari, Jan Januszowski, Kraków 1594)25 meaning “guiding, introducing law and order”) TAL to¯ co¯ zeslano¯ wam w zwitkax od bo¯ga wasˇego¯ (V, p. 103a, v. 6). The existence of the expression zwitek ksia˛g (Latin volumen libri) is confirmed in SPolXVI (XI, 403), quoting BN and CzechEp (M. Czechowic, Epistomium […], A. Rodecki, Kraków 1583), TAL *pragraf (V, s. 100b, w. 5) – this is a low-frequency word confirmed only in Ma˛czyn´ski – four uses (after SPolXVI XXIII, 251), TAL *bu¯ricel [prikezane] (VI, p. 122a, v. 3) – SPolXVI (II, 518) only nine times in Piotr Skarga’s works, karmicel (V, p. 109a, v. 5) – SPolXVI (X, 143–144) only four times therein, ro¯z´ʒelacˇ [do¯brix o¯d zlix] (VI, p. 115b, v. 1)26 and abstracta, e. g. dwo¯ro¯wane (VI, p. 111a, v. 2) – SPolXVI (VI, 257) one time in Górnicki, glu¯xo¯te (V, p. 103b, v. 4) – SPolXVI (VII, 432) eight times in FalZioł (S. Falimirz, O ziołach i o mocy ich […], F. Ungler, Kraków 1534); BartBydg (Słownik łacin´sko-polski Bartłomieja z Bydgoszczy 1532); Ma˛cz (Jan Ma˛czyn´ski, Lexicon Latino Polonicum ex optimis Latinae linguae Scriptoribus concinnantum […], Typographus Ioannes Daubmannus, Regiomonti Borussiae [Konigsberg] 1564) and many others.

25 The abbreviations and acronyms denoting the monuments quoted can be found in dictionaries of the Polish language history. 26 Pepłowski (1961, 21) considers it as a one-word quote.

272

8.

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Connections between Tatar translations and the Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature and Polish Bible translations. Sources of knowledge and inspiration

The then education system played a crucial role in providing GDL Tatars with some knowledge of Christian religious literature, including Bible translations into the vernacular27. Moreover, the form and content of their texts was influenced by the religious polemics and disputes28. References to the Old Polish Biblical and Psalter literature and the Polish Bible translations were made in two ways: the GDL Tatars either made use of, that is studied, Bible translations to translate Muslim source texts or adopted and adapted fragments of Old Polish religious literature and passages of Polish Bible translations for the needs of their confession, Islam (cf. Łapicz: 2011, 177). In terms of translation strategies, the Tatars strove to maintain balance between adaptation and authenticity. As demonstrated above, they combined faithful and philological translation with free and communicative one. Besides the above discussed translation methods, the parallels with Bible translations include: the presence of concrete lexical and phraseological borrowings29, e. g. TAL *tro¯jcˇane (BN), *pro¯zˇnije bo¯gı¯ (BB), T1 jegova (BN), *jedino¯stwa (BN), *z´witk’ı¯ prikezana (the phrase zwitek ksia˛g can be found only in BN and Czechowic), pricˇinca (BB), *starsˇij (BN, Biblia gdan´ska – BG) – cf. TAL starsˇina (VI, p. 122a, v. 7), *kaplan (BN), *o¯faro¯wnik and *o¯farnik (BN), pamazanec (BB, BN, BG), etc.; the use of medieval names of doers of actions with the –nik suffix and 16th-century names with the –nik, –ciel, –ca suffixes as well as nominations of derived terms with the –os´c´ suffix, that is using certain word formation models, e. g. *nas¸mewca (T1 – BN, BG, NT Wujka), *no¯´sicel (T1 – BN), *cˇinicel (T1 – Biblia Leopolity, BW, BN contains vcz˙ynic´iel), newernik (TAL – BB, BN), *spo¯lecˇnik (TAL – BN), *tro¯jecˇnik (T1 – BN), pricˇinca (TAL – BB), *sˇidar (T1 – szyderz can be found only in BielKron), *zwodzicel (T1 – all Bible translations that were analyzed) and *do¯glo¯ndacˇ (TAL – BN), *gu¯bicel (TAL – Skarga and BN), kriwdnik (TAL – Sandecki-Malecki Mtt 5:44), etc. The philological problem is to establish a concrete Bible translation on which the GDL Tatars relied. According to researchers30, they commonly used the non27 A detailed description of this issue with a list of various faith schools and their curricula in the former GDL can be found in Alisauskas/Jovais/Paknys/Petrauskas/Raila (2006, 713–733). 28 This issue is discussed in detail by Łapicz (2009, 305–306). 29 Only selected words and collocations, making certain translations of the Holy Bible distinctive, were quoted. 30 Cf. e. g. Misˇkiniene˙ (2001), which contains numerous references and analogies to BN translations on the basis of three oldest GDL Tatars’ manuscripts; Konopacki (2010, 155) – the presence of glosses in Polish (in the Latin alphabet), remarks written in the Arabic script and

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 273

Catholic texts – BB, BN and BG – whose translators shared the Polish-Lithuanian Muslims’ opinions on such crucial issues as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ and common priesthood. Moreover, the non-Catholic translations were based on Hebrew and Greek source texts, which was of crucial importance for the Tatars for whom the purity of the message was a top priority (cf. the sola Scriptura principle). Besides the Bible, the researchers demonstrated that Tatar manuscripts contain references to such sources as Historya barzo cudna… by Krzysztof Pussman from 1543 (Adamczyk 1980; Drozd 1996), Psalms translated by bishop Ignacy Krasicki31, Legend of St Job (Drozd 1995), Legend of St Gregory (Dufala 2008–2009) and many other texts belonging to Christian culture32. While discussing Tatar translations, it is worth focusing on their connection with BN. Researchers share the conviction that Szymon Budny, an exquisitie philologist and text critic, made a translation that is so hermetic in reception that he did not find any continuators. According to Koziara (2009), one of the reasons why Budny’s translation contains the fewest influences in the history of Bible translations is the fact that it is extremely individualistic. This opinion is shared by Kwilecka (2003, 224): “as a translator, Szymon Budny himself did not find any continuators.” The above thesis proposed by scholars should be verified against a Tatar tafsir. Budny’s translation, similar as the GDL Tatars’ translations, originated in a multiethnic, multiconfessional and multicultural environment in the Lithuanian borderland, which resulted in a combination of elements of Western, Eastern and Byzantine cultures and traditions. Moreover, Budny’s text is in conformity with humanistic and critical translations and thus sets an excellent example to be followed by Tatar translators. The similarities between Budny’s translation and the Tatar translation of the Quran include: the translation strategy (authenticity), translation type (faithful translation with elaborate philological critical apparatus) and translation solutions adopted. The translation solutions shared with BN comprise: transcription, Slavicisation and inflectional adaptation of foreign terms; extensive commentaries to the translated text implying the untranslatability of certain terms and structures (cf. glosses)33; the fragments from the Quran with relevant references to the Bible in BN; Łapicz (2009, 304); Suter (2004, 539). 31 Radziszewska (2010, 129–130) – the author identified the translation and the translator. A fragment of G. B. Guarini’s tragicomedy Pastor Fido, albo Konterfekt Wierny Miłos´ci translated by Ignacy Krasicki was also found in this chamail (2010, 127–129). 32 Łapicz (2009, 295–299) provides a detailed description of Christian, including Catholic, sources which were creatively used by the GDL Tatars and demonstrates how the parables and exempla contained therein were adopted to the canons and dogmas of Islam. He concludes that the Polish Bible translations, hagiographies as well as Christian tales and legends were read carefully and studied extensively by the Polish-Lithuanian Muslims (2011, 166). 33 The awareness of the lack of equivalence of religious terminology is in line with the latest

274

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

presence of calques from Hebrew in terms of syntax and phraseology, e. g. participial and gerundive expressions; forming of the superlative and coining religious terminology (cf. numerous neologisms created in conformity with the Polish word formation rules. The neologisms include a vast group of doers of actions, e. g. 34 formations with the suffix –ciel, 16 formations with the suffix – acz (cf. Moszyn´ski: 2003, 46–47), and features denoted with nouns ending with – os´´c). A consequence of the Tatar translation activity was expanding the Polish religious terminology with terms pertaining to the culture and religion of Islam. The Muslim translators can be recognised as pioneers in its creation as, at the time, there was no Polish, or even European, Quran translation tradition. The Tatars referred to earlier Bible translations as authority. They resorted to translation analogy with Christian terminology and used the same lexical and phraseological equivalents to denote Arabic religious terms. Taking the above into consideration, it can be concluded that the thesis that the Old Polish Bible and Psalter literature had an impact on the language and style of Tatar translations was confirmed with the material studied. Research showed that the Polish used in Tatar texts was influenced by Polish religious literature of the 16th century and probably even older medieval texts which were still used in the first half of the 16th century and are one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of the Polish formal language written and spoken in the GDL. While shaping the European, including Polish, Bible translation tradition, it is essential to demonstrate the influence of Latin and Bohemian Bible translations on the Polish ones (Lisowski: 2010, 386–387), on the one hand, and the analogical role the Arabic and Turkish sources played in the origin of the literary monuments left by the Polish-Lithuanian Muslims. Therefore, critical editions of Polish historical sacred texts should be collated with parallel Bohemian literature, whereas the Tatar monuments should be collated with parallel Turkish texts34.

Abbreviations BB BN BW

Biblia Brzeska (1563), Clifton/Kraków 2003. Biblia Nies´wieska (1572), Nies´wiez˙: Warsaw University Library (BUW), shelf mark: Sd. 614.300 Biblia w przekładzie ks. Jakuba Wujka (1599), transkrypcja typu B tekstu oryginalnego z XVI w., Warszawa 2000.

trends in translation studies; thus, Budny and GDL Tatars were ahead of their time in this respect. 34 For a comparison of Turkish and Tatar tafsirs cf. Kulwicka-Kamin´ska (2015b).

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 275

Biblia Gdan´ska (1632), Nowy Testament, Kraków 1996; Stary Testament, Kraków 2004. SPolXVI Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku (1966–2012), Maria Renata Mayenowa (ed.), Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Instytut Badan´ Literackich PAN, I–XXXVI. BG

Bibliography Adamczyk, Maria (1980), Biblijno-apokryficzne narracje w literaturze staropolskiej do kon´ca XVI wieku, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Alisauskas, Vytautas/Jovais, Liudas/Paknys, Mindaugas/Petrauskas, Rimvydas/Raila, Eligijus (2006), Kultura Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego. Analizy i obrazy, Kraków: Universitas. Bajerowa, Irena (1999), O słownictwie nowego katechizmu, in: Bogusław Kreja (ed.), Tysia˛c lat polskiego słownictwa religijnego, Gdan´sk, 253–263. Bednarczyk, Anna (2005), Wybory translatorskie. Modyfikacje tekstu literackiego w przekładzie i kontekst asocjacyjny, Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza Leksem. Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (2006), Polskie i czeskie z´ródła przekładu Biblii Leopolity, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Lexis. ´ kowska, Danuta (1992), Jakub Wujek – nowator czy tradycjonalista?, in: Maria Bien Kamin´ska/Elz˙bieta Małek (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrzes´cijan´stwa, vol. I, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 143–151. ´ kowska, Danuta (1994), Szeregi wyrazowe w przekładzie Biblii Leopolity. (Z probBien lemów kształtowania sie˛ synonimii staropolskiej), Rozprawy Komisji Je˛zykowej ŁTN XXXIX, 5–17. ´ kowska, Danuta (2002), Polski styl biblijny, Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Bien Łódzkie. ´ kowska, Danuta (2009), Wzorzec stylistyczny polszczyzny biblijnej w pierwszej Bien połowie XVI wieku, Studia je˛zykoznawcze. Synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badan´ polszczyzny, VIII, 29–38. Breza, Edward (1992), Odmiana nazw własnych w Nowym Testamencie Biblii Wujka i Biblii Tysia˛clecia), in: Maria Kamin´ska (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrzes´cijan´stwa, vol. I, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 152–159. Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Drozd, Andrzej (1995), Tatarska wersja pies´ni-legendy o s´w. Hiobie, Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne II (XXII), Seria Literacka, Poznan´, 163–195. Drozd, Andrzej (1996), Staropolski apokryf w muzułman´skich ksie˛gach. (Tatarska adaptacja Historyji barzo cudnej o stworzeniu nieba i ziemie Krzysztofa Pussmana), Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne III (XXIII), Seria Literacka, Poznan´, 95–134. Drozd, Andrzej (1999), Arabskie teksty liturgiczne w przekładzie na je˛zyk polski XVII wieku. Zagadnienia gramatyczne na materiale chutb s´wia˛tecznych, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog.

276

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Dufala, Kristina (2008–2009), Legenda o s´w. Grzegorzu w kitabie Tatarów – muzułmanów Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego, in: Aleksander Gadomski/Czesław Łapicz (ed.), Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, Symferopol: Universum, 205–220. Hawrysz, Magdalena (2010), Terminologia jako wyznacznik granic wspólnoty religijnej (na przykładzie leksemu ponurzac´ i wyrazów pokrewnych), in: Marcin Kuz´micki/ Marek Osiewicz (ed.), Z˙ywe problemy historii je˛zyka, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo PTPN, 125–135. Hejwowski, Krzysztof (2006), Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Ke˛pin´ska, Alina (2015), Z problematyki opisu składni XVI-wiecznych przekładów Ewangelii na je˛zyk polski, in: Tomasz Mika/Dorota Rojszczak-Robin´ska/Olga Stramczewska (ed.), Staropolskie spotkania je˛zykoznawcze, 1. Jak badac´ teksty staropolskie?, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Rys, 51–62. Klich, Edward (1927), Polska terminologia chrzes´cijan´ska, Poznan´: PTPN. Konopacki, Artur (2010), Z˙ycie religijne Tatarów na ziemiach Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego w XVI–XIX wieku, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Koziara, Stanisław (2009), Frazeologia biblijna w je˛zyku polskim, Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza Leksem. Kozłowska, Zofia (2007), O przekładzie tekstu naukowego. Na materiale tekstów je˛zykoznawczych, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. ´ ska, Joanna (2004), Kształtowanie sie˛ polskiej terminologii muKulwicka-Kamin zułman´skiej, Torun´: TNT. ´ska, Joanna (2013), Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich Kulwicka-Kamin tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK. ´ ska, Joanna (2014), Badania kitabistyczne w Polsce i na ´swiecie, Z˙ycie Kulwicka-Kamin Tatarskie X (XXVIII), 39 (116), 37–49. ´ ska, Joanna (2015a), O czym informuja˛ glosy w tatarskiej literaturze Kulwicka-Kamin przekładowej? (na przykładzie tefsiru z Olity), Rocznik Tatarów Polskich, seria 2, II (XVI), Białystok/Olsztyn/Wrocław: Muzułman´ski Zwia˛zek Religijny w RP, 45–52. ´ ska, Joanna (2015b), Tefsir z Olity – uwagi je˛zykoznawcy, Slavistica Kulwicka-Kamin Vilnensis, Kalbotyra 60, Vilnius, 159–175. ´ska, Joanna (2018), Dialogue of scriptures: The Tefsir in the Context of Kulwicka-Kamin Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretation, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. Kwilecka, Irena (2003), Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: PAN, Instytut Slawistyki. Lisowski, Tomasz (2010), Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii Gdan´skiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Uje˛cie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Rys. Łapicz, Czesław (1992), Warstwy je˛zykowe w pis´miennictwie religijnym Tatarów litewsko-polskich, in: Jerzy Bartmin´ski/Michał Łesiów (ed.), Dzieje Lubelszczyzny, vol. VI, Mie˛dzy Wschodem a Zachodem, głos w dyskusji, cz. IV: Zjawiska je˛zykowe na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, Lublin: Lubelskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 321–332. Łapicz, Czesław (2007), Z zagadnien´ przekładu muzułman´skiej terminologii modlitewnej na je˛zyk polski i białoruski, in: Joanna Kamper-Warejko/Joanna KulwickaKamin´ska/Katarzyna Nowakowska (ed.), Z przeszłos´ci i teraz´niejszos´ci je˛zyka pol-

Relationships between Translated Handwritten Literature and Translations of the Bible 277

skiego. Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa dedykowana Teresie Friedelównie, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 99–117. Łapicz, Czesław (2008), Kitabistyka a historia je˛zyka polskiego i białoruskiego. Wybrane zagadnienia, Rocznik Slawistyczny, LVII, 31–49. Łapicz, Czesław (2008–2009), Z teorii i praktyki przekładów Koranu (wybrane zagadnienia), in: Aleksander Gadomski/Czesław Łapicz (ed.), Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, Symferopol: Universum, 269–288. Łapicz, Czesław (2009), Chrzes´cijan´sko-muzułman´ska interferencja religijna w re˛kopisach Tatarów Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego, Lietuvos Didzˇiosios Kunigaiksˇtystes kalbos, kultèros ir rasˇtijos tradicijos, Bibliotheca Archivi Lithuanici 7, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 293–310. Łapicz, Czesław (2011), Z jakich z´ródeł muzułmanie Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego czerpali wiedze˛ o religii chrzes´cijan´skiej?, in: Magdalena Lewicka/Czesław Łapicz (ed.), Dialog chrzes´cijan´sko-muzułman´ski. Historia i współczesnos´c´, zagroz˙enia i wyzwania, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 165–185. Łuczak, Arleta (1992), Problem rozwia˛zywania hebraizmów i arameizmów w Nowym Testamencie S. Murzynowskiego – na wybranych przykładach, in: Maria Kamin´ska (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrzes´cijan´stwa, vol. I, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 225–231. Misˇkiniene˙, Galina (2001), Sieniausi lietuvos totoriu˛ rankrasˇciai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstu˛ struktu¯ra ir turinys, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. ´ ski, Leszek (2003), Biblia Szymona Budnego. Charakterystyka przekładu, in: Moszyn Irena Kwilecka (ed.), Biblie staropolskie, Poznan´: Os´rodek Wydawnictw Naukowych PAN, 41–50. Pepłowski, Franciszek (1961), Słownictwo i frazeologia polskiej publicystyki okresu os´wiecenia i romantyzmu, Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Radziszewska, Iwona (2010), Chamaiły jako typ pis´miennictwa religijnego muzułmanów Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego (na podstawie słowian´skiej warstwy je˛zykowej), unpublished doctoral thesis (computer printout), Torun´. Roth Ulli/Scotto Davide (2015), Auf der Suche nach der Erbsünde im Koran Die ‘Allegationes de peccatis primi parentis’ des Juan de Segovia, Neulateinisches Jahrbuch, 17, 181–218. Siatkowska, Ewa (1992), Samodzielnos´c´ przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Jakuba Wujka, Jana Blahoslava i Michała Frencla (na przykładzie konstrukcji imiesłowowych), in: Maria Kamin´ska (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy. 2000 lat chrzes´cijan´stwa, vol. I, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 73–80. Suter, Paul (2004), Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir, Köln/Weimar/ Wien: Köln–Böhlau Verlag. ´ ska, Boz˙ena (2005), Ewangelie tylekroc´ tłumaczone… Studia o przekładach Szczepin i przekładaniu, Gdan´sk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdan´skiego. Tarelka Michas’, Synkova Iryna (2009), Адкуль пайшлі ідалы, Мiнск: Тэхналогiя. Tarelka, Michas’ (2015), Рукапісы татараў Беларусі XVIII – пачатку XXI стагоддзя з дзяржаўных і грамадскіх кнігазбораў краіны. Каталог, Мінск: Беларуская навука. Tatarzy Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego w historii, je˛zyku i kulturze (2013), Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska/Czesław Łapicz (ed.), Torun´: TNT.

278

Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska

Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Ksie˛stwa Litewskiego. Teoria i praktyka badawcza (2015), emonograph [http://www.tefsir.umk.pl/o,34,monografia.html], Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska, Czesław Łapicz (ed.). Winiarska, Izabela (2004), Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Winiarska-Górska, Izabela (2008–2009), Je˛zyk, styl i kulturowa rola szesnastowiecznych protestanckich przekładów Nowego Testamentu na je˛zyk polski: mie˛dzy nowatorstwem a tradycja˛, in: Aleksander Gadomski/Czesław Łapicz (ed.), Chrestomatia teolingwistyki, Symferopol: Universum, 289–318. Zaja˛czkowski, Ananiasz (1948), Glosy tureckie w zabytkach staropolskich, vol. I. Katechizacja turecka Jana Herbiniusa, Wrocław: Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Zare˛bski, Rafał (2006), Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie.

IV. Vistas

Tomasz Lisowski

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632) in Comparison to the Brest Bible’s New Testament (1563) and the New Testament of the Jakub Wujek Bible (1599) – in Search of Adequacy of the Translation into Renaissance Polish

The Gdan´sk Bible (1632) is one of the last Polish biblical translations of the late 16th and early 17th century inspired by the Protestant religious doctrine of sola Scriptura (Luter: 1980, 355; Wantuła: 1970; Delumeau: 1986, 32; Oberman: 1996, 131; Cottret: 2000, 48–63; Meller: 2004), itself a product of the philological humanist turn ad fontes. The Gdan´sk Bible is thus a 17th-century translation, shaped by the ideological paradigm of the Renaissance watershed, which manifested itself in the religious sphere through Reformation and post-Trent CounterReformation (Czerniatowicz: 1969, 12; Delumeau: 1986, 32; Frick: 1989, 1–11). Daniel Mikołajewski, a Protestant clergyman, philologian, and the last Renaissance translator of the Bible into Polish1, focused in his work on the search of the most adequate Polish lexical equivalents of the original text, which, for the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible, was the Greek Textus Receptus edited by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), which included the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Mikołajewski also worked with the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, the Royal Bible (the so-called Regina), and the editions by John Crispin. At his disposal was also the Latin Clementina, the 1592 version of the Vulgate revised after the Council of Trent (Czerniatowicz: 1969, 86–101). He drew, too, on the experience of his predecessors – earlier translators of the Scripture into Polish. He referred not just 1 Daniel Mikołajewski (1560–1633), Habdank coat of arms, came from minor nobility of Mikołajewice near Radziejów. He received his early education at a Calvinist school headed by Rafał Leszczyn´ski. A preceptor of the nobles Wojciech and Władysław Przyjemski, he studied at the university in Frankfurt on the Oder, and subsequently at Heidelberg. On his return to Poland in 1583 he became actively involved in the ongoing religious debate. In 1590 he published the theological treatise On the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of the Lord, a polemics with Jakub Wujek. In 1591 he was ordained a Calvinist minister in the Radziejów congregation, and in 1597 became a senior of the Calvinist Church in Kujawy. Due to his active involvement in the cause of the reconciliation between Polish protestants and his support of the Sandomierz agreement, he was accepted as a senior of the Church of Czech Brethren in 1607, and in 1627, after the Calvinist Church and the Czech Brethren merged at the Ostroróg Synod, he was elected the superintendent of the united Church for Wielkopolska. He died in De˛bica in 1633. Daniel Mikołajewski has made its mark on Polish culture as a translator of the Bible (Sipayłło: 1976, 154–156).

282

Tomasz Lisowski

to the Brest Bible2, a decision explained by confessional considerations and the circumstances of his work as translator, for in the early 17th century the print run of the Brest Bible was all but sold out. There was an urgent need to provide the faithful with a translation of the Scripture in a translation approved by the trinitarian Churches which joined the Sandomierz agreement. This could not be a simple reprint of the Brest Bible, for the elders of the Churches believed it was ridden with inconsistencies which stemmed from the accepted method of the translators’ accord with regard to the internal sense and logic of the text. What was expected was a translation which, like the Catholic Bible of Jakub Wujek, would be typified by the highest possible adequacy of the word (Kossowska: 1969, 85–87). The first text which set out to meet this condition was the Gdan´sk New Testament (1606)3, which failed to live up to expectations, however. This was chiefly because this edition departed from the Brest translation, which Polish Protestants had come to know and love for its fine language. There was thus a social expectation for the entire Bible, a corrected version of the Brest translation, to be published quickly (Sipayłło: 1934, 146; Kossowska: 1969, 89–95). In accordance with the decision taken in 1604 by the ecclesiastical general synod, the preparations to print the entire Bible using the translation by Marcin Janicki would be handled by Daniel Mikołajewski and Jan Turnowski, but ultimately Daniel Mikołajewski took on the task himself, removing Jan Turnowski from work on this edition (Szeruda: 1932, 24; Sipayłło: 1934, 146–150). The translation was finally published after the decision of the 1629 Vilnius synod with no revisions of the elders of the Trinitarian Protestant Churches, and was printed in Gdan´sk in the printing press of Andrzej Hünefeld in 1632 (Kossowska: 1969, 89). It was dedicated to King Vladislaus IV (Władysław IV) and the patron of this edition, Krzysztof Radziwiłł. The dedication letters bore the signatures of the superintendents and ministers of Evangelical congregation in Wielkopolska4. 2 The Brest Bible (1563) was the first Protestant translation of the entire Scripture into Polish, the work of a group of translators from the Calvinist milieu. The initiator of this edition was Jan Łaski. The work of the translators was coordinated by Grzegorz Orszak, the rector of the Pin´czów Calvinist school. Two consultants were invited to collaborate on the translators: Peter Statorius and Jean Thénaud of Bourges, the latter a disciple of Calvin; both were Frenchmen arrived from Switzerland and teachers at the Pin´czów school as well as experts in Biblical matters and the most recent achievements of French Biblical studies. The group of translators grew with time (Kwilecka: 2001, 1489; Frick: 2001, 1661, 1679–1680). See also in this volume p. 43 [editor’s note]. 3 The Gdan´sk New Testament, published in 1606 by the printing press owned by the widow of Guilhelm Guilmonthan in Gdan´sk was a revision of a no longer extant translation by Marcin Janicki, which Daniel Mikołajewski and Jan Turnowski were commissioned by Church elders to revise. This was to fill a gap on the publishing market caused by the unavailability of the Brest Bible (Sipayłło: 1934, 146–150). 4 This became a reason for discontent among the congregations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; feeling offended, they refused to accept the new Bible (Nowak: 2002, 67).

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

283

There are no direct reports of Polish translations which Daniel Mikołajewski might have considered in his work of translating the Gdan´sk Bible. We can surmise they were the same translations he used while revising the Gdan´sk New Testament (1606). It needs to be emphasised that, despite doctrinal differences, these include Jakub Wujek’s Catholic translation. This was the first work referenced in Przemowa do łaskawego czytelnika [Address to the kind reader] as an auxiliary text: “Do czegosmy tez˙ inszych tłumaczow przekładu, jako Wujka, Budnego i Czechowica, gdzie sie˛ jaka roz˙nos´c´ w teks´cie dawnym polskim pokazała, uz˙yc´ nie zaniechali; z ta˛ jednak ochrona˛, z˙ebysmy wsze˛dy za sznur a prawidło grecki autentyk mieli”5 (Nowy: 1606, N, 2r). The Czech Kralice Bible (1579–1593) was also an aid used by Daniel Mikołajewski in his work on the Gdan´sk Bible (Szeruda: 1932, 28–29; Wojak: 1985, 25; Kwilecka: 2003, 347)6. Out of the list of Polish biblical translations which were published starting from 1553, the Gdan´sk Bible remains in particularly strong intertextual relations, evident among others – as shown below – in the lexis, with three texts: the Brest Bible (1563), Jakub Wujek Bible (1599), and the Gdan´sk New Testament (1606). The Gdan´sk Bible, along with the three earlier texts with which it enters into filial relations, documents a vital stage of the evolution of the Polish literary language, and at the same time a key stage of the shaping of the Polish biblical style (Bien´kowska: 1993), which co–creates the Polish religious language, one of the functional varieties of the general language (Bajerowa: 1994). With these considerations in mind, Tomasz Lisowski conducted a quantitative-distributional analysis of the lexis of the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible (1632) 7 in comparison to the lexis of the New Testament of the Brest Bible (1563)8, the Gdan´sk New Testament (1606)9, and the New Testament of Jakub Wujek’s Bible (1599)10 as translations with which G could have had the relation of filial dependence (Lisowski: 2010). To a limited degree, Jakub Wujek New Testament (1593)11 and the Czech New Testament of the Kralice Bible (1579–1593)12 have also been considered as reference points for this analysis. 5 “For, where a divergence shows in the old Polish text, we did not neglect to use other translators, such as Wujek, Budny and Czechowic; with the reservation that we took the Greek authentic text as the benchmark and yardstick.” 6 See in this volume Dittmann/Malicki, p. 205–227 [editor’s note]. 7 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation G to refer to the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible (1632). 8 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation B to refer to the New Testament of the Brest Bible (1563). 9 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation N to refer to the Gdan´sk New Testament (1606). 10 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation W to refer to Jakub Wujek’s Bible (1599). 11 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation W93 to refer to Jakub Wujek’s New Testament (1593). 12 Hereafter, I will use the abbreviation Kr to refer to the New Testament of the Kralice Bible (1579–1593).

284

Tomasz Lisowski

The differences and similarities between G and the other translations revealed in the course of analysis, whether in terms of the number of items and their textual extension (their frequency) or in the degree of the lexical filial relations, were considered the markers of Daniel Mikołajewski’s preferences in the selection of Polish equivalents of the lexical units of the source text, which, for the three of the translations analysed – G, N, and B – was the Textus Receptus, in accordance with the doctrinal principle of sola Scriptura. G, N, and B were thus translations of a text with a finite number of lexical units, existing in specific contextual meanings, actualised by the lexical units with which they entered into syntactic-semantic relations. Each of these translations is the result of a conscious substitution of this finite number of Greek lexical units with their Polish equivalents, which might vary from each other in the three translations. It should be assumed that the translators of the Biblical text introduced to their translation the Polish equivalents which they believed rendered the meaning of the original in the most adequate way in philological and theological terms. The choices of lexical substitutions are thus the individual decisions of the translator and are inextricably connected with the translator’s interpretation of the message of the source text (Kwilecka: 2003, 122–124, 256). They are determined among others by the linguistic source of the translation (Bien´kowska: 1992, 144), as well as by the translation method adopted by the translator, who can resort to amplifications, simplifications, univerbalisations, multi-word equivalence (Belcarzowa: 1988, 38; Bien´kowska: 1994, 16–17; Bien´kowska: 1999, 12–31; Kwilecka: 2003, 148); by his individual stylistic predilection, expressed in the attitude towards archaisms, neologisms, dialecticisms, Semitisms (Łuczak: 1992; Matuszczyk: 1999, Piela: 2003), Grecisms (Bien´kowska: 1999, 42–112); as well as by confessional or denominational considerations (Górski: 1962, 233–270; Ban´kowski: 1992; Lisowski: 1993; Lisowski: 2008). A distributional analysis has been performed only on the autosemantic lexemes which serve as substitutes for nomina appelativa of the source text, since these lexical units are likely, for reasons indicated above, to have had substantially diverse equivalents in the Polish text. In contrast, nomina propria cannot influence the lexical scope of the Polish translation since, although their formal realisations in Polish were for the most part not established (Breza: 1987; Breza: 1992; Sowa: 1992; Woz´niak: 1994; Bien´kowska: 2002, 86–94; Ke˛pka: 2003; Zare˛bski: 2006), their number is typically identical with the number of their occurrences in the source text13.

13 There are 570 proper names in the New Testament (these are among others names of persons, place names, ethnographic names, the names of social groups, titles, and names of holidays), which occur 4856 times (Poniatowski: 1971, 42).

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

1.

285

Quantitative similarities between the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament and the Brest Bible’s New Testament

As far quantitative characterisation is concerned, the number of autosemantic items (Has) and their textual usage (Uas) in G is close to B (while N is similar to W) – respectively, in G: Has=4797, Uas=63658; in B: Has=4801, Uas=63851 (Lisowski: 2010, 73). These two examples are characterised by a similar size of their lexicon (H) and a corresponding size of the text itself (U) – respectively, in G: H=5218, U=136467; in B: H=5237, U=137192 (Lisowski: 2010, 47). This is the decisive factor confirming that both translations are typified by the corresponding values of such parameters as the word frequency index (K)14 – both in G and in B – K=14,1 (Lisowski: 2010, 49); the average frequency of items (F)15 – both in G and in B – F=26 (Lisowski: 2010, 51). The value of these indices constitutes the mathematical derivative of the number of items (H) and the numbers of lexems (U). Similarities between G and the historically earlier B occur also with regard to the number of items-lexemes that are characterised by the following frequency f=1 (L)16 – in G: L=1706, in B: L=1736 (Lisowski: 2010, 58); extension in the lexicon and in the text of the nominal entries – in G: Hs=1702, Us=25400, in B: Hs=1705, Us=25542 (Lisowski: 2010, 62); and verbal entries – in G: Hv=2424, Uv=31857, in B: Hv=2444, Uv=31720 (Lisowski: 2010, 69). The differences between these two texts manifest themselves, first of all, in the case of the extension on the lexicon and in the text of the adjectival entries – in G: Hai=540, Uai=5442, in B: Hai=506, Uai=5360 and adverbial entries – in G: Hav=127, Uav=961, in B: Hav=146, Uav=1229 (Lisowski: 2010, 72); in this regard, G is similar to N and to W; second of all, with regard to the parameter of the originality of lexicon (I)17, which, as far as all the four translations are concerned, remains identical, having reached the value of I=0,3 (Lisowski: 2010, 58).

14 The index of lexical range (K) is the quotient of the number of items (H) and the square root of the word count (U) in the analysed text (K=H/√U). The higher its value, the greater the lexical scope of the text (the more diverse the lexis). (Kuraszkiewicz: 1966, XIV–XVI). 15 The average frequency of items (F) is the quotient of the word count (U) and the number of items (H) in the analysed text (F=U/H). This parameter characterises the stylistic dimension of the text, pointing to the frequency of usage of the specific items comprising the lexical scope of a text. The lower its value, the more diverse the lexis of a text. (Sambor: 1969, 68–69). 16 The rare lexis of an analysed text, with a textual frequency equal to 1 (L), and so occurring once in the text, is its differentia specifica in terms of lexis. The higher the proportion of these words, the more diverse and specialised the lexis of the text. (Sambor: 1972, 221; Kuraszkiewicz: 1986, 633–634). 17 The value of the parameter of the originality of lexis is a function of text length. (U). The parameter of the originality of lexis (I) is obtained by dividing the count of items-words with a frequency of 1 attested in the entire text (L) by the overall count of items in the text (Sambor: 1972, 69, 222).

286

2.

Tomasz Lisowski

The distributional scope of lexical allusions to the Brest Bible’s New Testament and the Gdan´sk New Testament and to Jakub Wujek Bible to be found in the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament

These considerable similarities between G and B, as attested to by the values of quantitative parameters, are only to a certain extent corroborated by the comparative analysis of the autosemantic lexis of G and of the three translations under consideration. The similarities are valid with regard to the lexicon shared by all the four renderings, regardless of their individual frequency in each of the texts. These lexemes constitute the overall majority of the lexicon of G (not unlike in the case of all the remaining translations analysed in the course of the present paper). There 3154 autosemantic lexems shared by all the four translations, which amounts to the 60 % of the lexicon of G, and their textual usage in G is 59780. These lexemes appear in B 59840 times, which, being very close to G, makes the two renderings even closer. In comparison, as far as N and W are concerned, their mutually similar number is lower than that of G and of B and amounts to, respectively, 57785 and 57632 occurrences (Lisowski: 2010, 115–116). The shared lexems include one, which – with regard to the translations under consideration – appear with the same frequency and distribution (localisation in the Bible); there are 442 such items. Lexems of that kind do not contribute to the lexical originality characterising G, e. g., gołe˛bica (Matt 3:16, 10:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:24, John 1:32), manna (John 6:3.49.58, Heb 9:4, Rev 2:17), ciskac´ (John 8:59, Acts 22:23), czerwienic´ sie˛ (Matt 16:2–3), rydzy (Rev 6:4, 12:3), słoneczny (Acts 26:13, 22:5), poboz˙nie (2 Tim 3:12, Titus 2:12), ska˛pie (2 Cor 9:6ab) (Lisowski: 2010, 125, 130, 133, 134). Typified by the same frequency in all the texts under analysis, a few lexemes (34 items) are characterised by non-parallel distribution, i. e., they appear in the translations in different verses of the Bible and are, most frequently, Polish equivalents of different Greek lexemes, e. g., zawod (1 Cor 9:24 στάδιον ‘a stadium (a Greek measure of length), by impl. a racecourse’; N, B, W zawod; Heb 12:1 ἀγών ‘a gathering, contest, struggle’; N, B zawod, W boj18; 2 Tim 4:7 δρόμος ‘a course, race’; G, N, B bieg, W zawod). Thus, these lexemes influence the diversity of the lexical layer of particular renderings, pointing to the lexical choices made by Daniel Mikołajewski. The autonomy of Daniel Mikołajewski with regard to his editorial work on G is further evidenced by the lexemes co-appearing in all the other translations, whose textual occurrence in particular renderings is not the same, e. g., ciemnica19 (G and W f=1, N f=28, B f=17), jawnie (G and W f=25: N f=27, B f=40), 18 The English meanings of the Greek lexemes are given according to Strong (online). 19 This lexeme, that is of the meaning of ‘carcer’, appears in W93, as well as in Leopolite’s Bible (Bien´kowska: 1992, 23). It is acknowledged to belong to the group of lexems that became

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

287

but also among others: baranek, czart, wszeteczen´stwo, bluz´nic´, obaczyc´, pokutowac´, ciemny, niemocny, ostateczny, rychło. (Lisowski: 2010, 143, 154–155). These lexemes, in particular these that are typified by a wide span between their frequency of occurrence in individual texts, show Daniel Mikołajewski, the translator of G, as a critic of the text, who in his work abides by the doctrine of sola Scriptura and applies philological inquisitiveness and deligence that directly stem from it; by doing so, he is in search of such Polish equivalents that would, to his mind, most faithfully give justice to the Greek originals. They include also lexemes whose frequency in particular texts might have been dependent on the then religious disputes and whose importance might have been informed by doctrinal concerns (Górski: 1962; Altbauer: 1966, 94–95; Moszyn´ski: 1994, 360– 363; Winiarska: 2004, Lisowski: 2008, 297): kapłan´ski (G and W f=3, N f=75, B f=59), pokutowac´ (G f=45, N f=1, B f=4, W f=14), przykazanie (G f=65, N f=58, B f=24, W f=47), uznanie (G f=1, N f=15, B f=28, W f=4), zbor (G f=96, N f=9, B f=13, W f=1) (Lisowski: 2010, 140, 145–146, 153). However, it seems that the doctrine was important to Daniel Mikołajewski as it instructed him to pay philological attention to detail and reflect upon the senses hidden behind the foreign Greek words, which expressed the divine truth. This is corroborated by the frequency of the lexeme zbor in G and the semantically linked kos´cioł, whose meanings are precisely, in accordance with philological acrybia, correlated with the meanings of their Greek sources (Lisowski: 2008, 297–298); this in turn is the decisive factor why in the course of G the most frequent equivalent of the Greek lexeme ἐκκλησία ‘an assembly, a (religious) congregation’ is the lexeme zbor (Frick: 1989, 243), which constitutes an update of the original meaning. Other examples of the update of the older meanings of the originals include zmartwychwstac´, zmartwychwstanie, which in the rendition of Daniel Mikołajewski become suffused with the gravitas typical of religious terminology, moving from the sphere of the profane to the sacred (Lisowski: 2009, 63). The lexicon of G also includes items pointing to the frequent lexical allusions of G to W rather than to the Protestant B. W, the Catholic rendition of the Latin Vulgate, which due to the regulations formulated during the Council of Trent by the hierarchs of the Roman Church, i. e., verbum de verbo fidelissime reddere, approximates to the verbatim translation (Kwilecka: 2003, 253), while B is the creative realisation of Saint Hieronimus’ translation method, i. e., reddere non verbum verbo, sed sensum sensui (Czuj: 1954, 84). For that reason, B, a translation edited so that it features free-flowing Polish, free of lexical, semantic, phraseological and structural interferences of the source language (Kwilecka: 2003, 214– 215). What can be also discerned is a set of frequent lexical references in G to N, antiquated in the sixteenth century; as such, it is linked to the tradition of mediaeval rendering of the Bible (Bien´kowska: 2008, 64).

288

Tomasz Lisowski

which – if one remembers that both G and N are texts which were edited with the participation of Daniel Mikołajewski – does not come as surprise. On the basis of the lexical interrelations of G with both Protestant translations from Greek and Catholic ones from Latin one can justifiably state that the translator of G, Daniel Mikołajewski, held the most possibly faithful semantic equivalence of the lexemes of the original in the highest regard. Whether a particular equivalent introduced to G had been previosuly used in any translation of the Bible was of lesser importance (Winiarska: 2004, 326). Comparative analysis of the lexis of G and of the three remaining translations yielded characteristic items, i. e., a set of lexemes whose previous occurrences (applications) in G, as well as in one or two of the earlier NT renditions that are discussed in the present paper, are noted in parallel locations (Lisowski: 2010, 159–160). The lexicon of G includes 192 items characteristic of G and W, e. g., prokurator (Acts 24:1 ῥήτωρ ‘a public speaker’; N rzecznik; B wymowca), spla˛drowac´ (Mark 3:27 διαρπάζω ‘to plunder’; N rozszarpac´; B wybrac´), gładki (Luke 3:5 λεῖος ‘smooth’; N bity; B rowny), nieswarliwy (1 Tim 3:3 ἄμαχος ‘abstaining from fighting’; N niewaleczny; B niezwadliwy) (Lisowski: 2010, 183–184, 186–187, 189), as well as items characteristic of G, N and W simultaneously, e. g., głog (Luke 6:44 βάτος ‘a bramble bush’; B kierz), bijac´ (Acts 22:19 δέρω ‘to skin, to thrash’; B mordowac´), garnaczarski (G, N, W garncarski; Rev 2:27 κεραμικός ‘earthen; of clay, made by a potter’; B gliniany), ostro (Tit 1:13 ἀποτόμως ‘abruptly, curtly’; B srodze) (Lisowski: 2010, 192–193, 205–207, 217, 222). Items characteristic of G and W and of G, N and W were used in 231 parallel spaces in G and W20. The majority of such items appear also in W93, an earlier New Testament rendition authored by Jakub Wujek (Lisowski: 2010, 191–192, 223). The lexicon of G features approximately 50 % fewer items that point to the potential context-based lexical borrowing from B on the part of Daniel Mikołajewski. This potentiality is manifested by 91 lexemes characteristic of G and B, e. g., błazen21 (Matt 5:22 μωρός ‘dull, stupid, foolish’; W głupiec), koszula (John 21:7 ἐπενδύτης ‘an outer tunic’; N szata, W suknia), wyrzec sie˛ (Luke 14:33 ἀποτάσσομαι ‘to set apart, take leave of ’; N poz˙egnac´ sie˛, W odste˛powac´), płowy (Rev 6:8 χλωρός ‘pale green, pale’; N, W blady), głupie (2 Cor 11:23 παραφρονέω ‘to be beside oneself, to be deranged’; N zgłupiawszy; W jako mniej ma˛dry) (Lisowski: 2010, 160, 162–164), lexemes simultaneously characteristic of G, B and N, e. g., blask (Luke 11:36 ἀστραπή ‘lightning, brightness’; W jasnos´c´), kryc´ sie˛ 20 The lexicon of G includes also 197 items whose occurrences (applications) are partially paralel to G and W or to G, N and W – out of the overall 718 of textual occurrences in G, they appear 351 times in parallel locations. This phenomenon may point to the context-based lexical borrowings from W on the part of Daniel Mikołajewski (Lisowski: 2010, 191, 223). 21 Absent from mediaeval renditions, this noun may be construed as a lexeme updating the biblical translation (Bien´kowska: 2008, 68).

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

289

(Luke 1:24 περικρύπτω ‘to conceal entirely’; W taic´ sie˛), pochmurny (Matt 16:3 στυγνάζω ‘to have a gloomy appearance’; W smutny) (Lisowski: 2010, 168, 173, 177, 180), as well as lexemes simultaneously characteristic of G, B and W, e. g., badacz (1 Cor 1:20 συζητητής ‘a disputer’; N gadacz), przysporzyc´ (2 Cor 9:10 αὐξάνω ‘to make to grow, to grow’; N pomnoz˙yc´), jedyny (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 μονογενής ‘only begotten’; N jednorodzony) (Lisowski: 2010, 233–234). All the above items were used altogether in G and B 105 times in parallel locations22. As many as 33 out of 67 items characteristic of G, N and B shows lexical affiliation with W93. These are: 11 nouns – blecharz, cies´la, garbarz, kolej, mila, oddech, okazałos´c´, ´smiertelnos´c´, tre˛bacz, wroblik, złotnik; 14 verbs – bujac´, niedos´cigniony, niewybadany, opatrowac´, powiona˛c´, tra˛cic´, urzezac´ sie˛, urzezany, wkopac´, wroz˙yc´, wymalowany, wywłoczac´, zagina˛´c, zanurzac´ sie˛; 7 adjectives – cetnarowy, kupiecki, owrzedziały, pochmurny, pomorski, umieje˛tny, wieszczy; 1 adverb – potrzebnie. The above-mentioned items may indicate a filial lexical relation between the Catholic translation, i. e., W93, and the Protestant one, i. e., B. The fact that these lexemes subsequently appeared in parallel locations in both N and G proves the existence of the translatological continuity, which first – as far as the renditions discussed in the present paper are concerned – manifestation is B and the last is G; this tradition is typified by freedom from doctrinal interference. Items shared by B, W93, N, G, but absent from W, constitute examples of lexical differences between W93 and W: these differences are the by-product of the editorial changes introduced either by Jakub Wujek or by the committee of censors that worked on the final manuscript of W in preparation of its print run. The lexicon of G also includes 63 characteristic items that indicate G’s lexical dependence on N. They were used in 72 parallel locations of these two renditions, e. g., herst (Rev 24:5 πρωτοστάτης ‘one who stands first (of soldiers), hence a leader’; G, N herszt; B powod, W wodz), dychac´ (Acts 9:1 ἐμπνέω ‘to breathe (on), to inhale’; B byc´ zapalonym; W parskac´), powabny (1 Cor 2:4 πειθός ‘persuasive; enticing, skilful’; B, W przyłudzaja˛cy); ´swiez˙o (Acts 18:2 πρόσφατος ‘freshly slain, generally new’; B, W niedawno) (Lisowski: 2010, 182, 186, 189). In addition, there are 33 attested lexemes only in G and N, which were used in G altogether 103 times, appearing 50 times in the parallel locations of these two renditions. These data characterise the filial relations of G, pointing to Was the translation which, despite doctrinal differences (as a Catholic post-Trent, and so CounterReformation, translation) as well as philological ones (a translation via the Latin Vulgate), might have provided Daniel Mikołajewski with lexical models of translation to a greater extent than B, a Protestant translation, which he was 22 The lexicon of G includes also 97 lexemes whose usage is partly parallel in G and B: out of their total count in the text of G, which is 256, 148 occurrences appear in parallel locations (Lisowski: 2010, 165, 181, 235).

290

Tomasz Lisowski

merely to revise as an editor (Kwilecka: 2003, 338). Lexemes characteristic of G and N in turn indicate that Daniel Mikołajewski resorted to lexical choices not known in B or W. The vast majority of lexemes characteristic of G and Wand for G and B occur in the same Biblical locations in N – this concerns 131 (164 instances in parallel locations) out of 192 lexemes characteristic of G and W and 67 (78 instances in parallel locations) out of 91 lexemes characteristic of G and B (Lisowski: 2010, 236–238). This attests to an affirmation of many specific contextual lexical substitutions in N, which may have appeared in N in the first place due to Mikołajewski’s work as editor. Daniel Mikołajewski’s independence in his work on G is also confirmed by those items in the G lexicon that do indicate lexical affinity with one or both of the earlier translations analysed, but which occur in G in Biblical locations independent of their attested occurrences in the other texts. The distribution of the lexemes occurring in G and in the other analysed texts in non-parallel location is as follows: 90 items attested in G and W simultaneously (such as okowy G Luke 8:29; tryumfowac´ G Col 2:15; zdradliwie G 2 Cor 11:13) (Lisowski: 2010, 232) or in G, W, and N simultaneously (such as budownik G 1 Cor 3:10; potwarzac´ G Luke 3:14; odległy G 1 Cor 5:3) (Lisowski: 2010, 224), with 234 occurrences in G, 120 items attested in G and B simultaneously (such as kwartnik G Mark 12:42, szeptac´ G Luke 12:3; przychylny G Rom 10:1) (Lisowski: 2010, 165–167) or in G, B, and N simultaneously (such as dozorca G Gal 4:2; pomnoz˙yc´ G 1 Thess 3:12; widomy G Rom 8:24) (Lisowski: 2010, 182) or in G, B, and W simultaneously (such as dobytek G John 4:12; Rev 9:5; umys´lnie G 2 Pet 3:5) (Lisowski: 2010, 235), with 262 occurrences in G, 14 items attested only in G and N simultaneously (such as bezprawie G Acts 7:24, 18:14; wybiec G Acts 19:16; warowny G Rom 4:16; Heb 6:18) (Lisowski: 2010, 191), with 39 occurrences in G. It is difficult to view these as contextual borrowings. They must rather be considered lexemes introduced into G independently of earlier translations. The items of the G lexicon showing the affinity of this translation with one or both of the other analysed New Testament translations, especially characteristic lexemes, indicate the philological preferences of Daniel Mikołajewski, who, on analysis, considered the lexical substitutions of W to be more appropriate in terms of formal-semantic adequacy. As a result of these choices, G, the canonical translation for Polish Protestants for almost 350 years, only slightly diverged from the Polish Biblical style, which emerged in this period under the influence of W.

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

3.

291

Lexemes unique to the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible, the Gdan´sk New Testament, the New Testament of the Brest Bible and Jakub Wujek Bible as evidence to the philological acribia of translators in their independent quest for adequate equivalents

The most persuasive evidence to the philological approach of Daniel Mikołajewski to the translation of G which he produced, apparent among others in his search for the most adequate lexical substitutions which would render the original meaning as faithfully as possible, is provided by unique lexemes, or those items in the lexis of G which do not occur in the earlier translations of the New Testament used here as a comparison. These 338 lexemes, which occur 552 times and represent all the autosemantic parts of speech described in this study, are admittedly marginal to the lexicon (6.6 %) and in particular to the text (0.4 %) of G (Lisowski: 2010, 241). They include fortel (Eph 4:14 κυβεία ‘dice playing; trickery, sleight’; N oszukanie; B chytros´c´; W złos´c´), lepianka (Rom 9:20 πλάσμα ‘that which is moulded’; N, W rzecz lepiona; B rzecz ulepiona), grzmot (Rev 9:9 φωνή ‘a voice, sound; noise, language, dialect’; N, W głos; B te˛ten; Rev 9:9 φωνή ‘a voice, sound; noise, language, dialect’; N, B, W głos), garna˛c´ sie˛ (Luke 8:4 ἐπιπορεύομαι ‘to travel’; N zbiez˙ec´ sie˛; B is´c´; W kwapic´ sie˛), oche˛daz˙ac´ (Luke 11:39 καθαρίζω ‘to cleanse; to make clean, literally, ceremonially, or spiritually, according to context’; N, Woczyszczac´; B umywac´), rozpłyna˛´c sie˛ (2 Pet 3:11 λύω ‘to loose, to release, to dissolve; to destroy’; N, W zepsowac´ sie˛; B rozsta˛pic´ sie˛), krasny (Acts 7:20 ἀστεῖος ‘of the town, by impl. courteous, elegant, pretty, fair, fine, beautiful’; N, W przyjemny; B wzie˛ty), te˛gi (Jac 3:4 σκληρός ‘hard, rough; violent, harsh, stern’; N, W srogi; B gwałtowny), zwie˛dły (Jude 1:12 φθινοπωρινός ‘autumnal’; G zwie˛dły nieuz˙yteczny; N w jesieni kwitna˛cy nieuz˙yteczny; B niepłodny; W jesienny nieuz˙yteczny), bezwinnie (1 Pet 2:19 ἀδίκως ‘unjustly’; N, W niesprawiedliwie; B niesłusznie), szybko (Heb 13:23 ταχέως ‘quickly, hastily’; N, B, W rychło), ws´ciekle (Acts 26:11 ἐμμαίνομαι ‘to rage against’; G poste˛powac´ ws´ciekle; N poste˛powac´ szalenie; B sroz˙yc´ sie˛ szalenie; W szalec´) (Lisowski: 2010, 242–266). Nonetheless, they contribute to the originality of the translation, and at the same time are a testimony to the linguistic reflection of Daniel Mikołajewski over the way of conveying the meaning of the original with Polish linguistic, or more precisely lexical, means. B and W have a slightly higher number (449 and 423 items respectively) of unique lexemes (Lisowski: 2010, 241–242). These values may to a degree be the product of two factors – in the case of B, the technique of free translation, which boosts lexical diversity, as reflected in the size of the B lexicon, comprising a proportionately large number of items with proportionately low frequencies; in the case of W, the fact that the translation (by Jakub

292

Tomasz Lisowski

Wujek, but also with the input of the committee of censors) was based on the Latin Vulgate and had a clear doctrinal basis (Kowalska: 2000), which results in its lexical uniqueness. N shows the clearly lowest number (197 items) of unique lexemes (Lisowski: 2010, 241). It is likely to have been higher initially, but while he edited the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible, Daniel Mikołajewski would likely have introduced into the newly-revised text some of the lexemes which distinguished N against B and W. Thus, all the lexemes characteristic of G and N before the creation of G had the status of lexemes unique to N. This is yet another factor indicating the influence of N on the lexis of G, or alternatively Daniel Mikołajewski’s approval of lexical substitutions in N. It should be noted that the lexemes displaying affinity of G with one or two earlier translations, including characteristic lexemes as well as unique lexemes, are items which comprise about a quarter (23.7 %) of G’s lexicon (there are 1235 of them en gros). However, because a vast majority of these have a frequency of f=1, they have a relatively low share in the text of this translation, comprising about 1.9 % of the text (they are used 2572 times overall). They undoubtedly contribute to the diversity of the G lexis, but their textual extension/reach is very limited. A similar distribution of the lexis showing affinity with G and lexis unique to the other three translations can be observed in B, N, and W (Lisowski: 2010, 438).

4.

Sola Scriptura as the principle behind making the biblical message accessible to the then recipient

Items unique to G also provide evidence for the desire to update the language of the translation, evident in breaking with translational tradition where Daniel Mikołajewski deemed it necessary for reasons of clarity and in order to render the message of the source text into Polish in an unambiguous way. The occurrence in G of those equivalents of original lexemes which are not used in earlier translations, or those which indicate either the Protestant tradition (typical of G and B) or the Catholic one (characteristic of G and W) proves the existence of a developed contextual synonymy and testifies to an increased functional efficiency of the Polish language at the time as well as to its intellectualisation (Cybulski: 1996, 77); this, beside normalisation, is considered the most important factor in the shaping of the literary language. Intellectualisation usually occurs through contact between the language forming its literary variety and a high-prestige language (Lewaszkiewicz: 1994, 215–217). In the case of G, this relation is complex. This is because it involves at least three languages – firstly, Greek as the basis of the translation; secondly,

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

293

Latin as the language of the Vulgate and other Renaissance philological translations of the New Testament, as well as of reference works used in the work of translators; thirdly, Czech as the language of the Kralice Bible, to which Daniel Mikołajewski referred in his work as editor of G. This last source of influence is evidenced by the lexical convergences between G and Kr, such as drabant23 (Acts 23:23 G “A zawoławszy dwoch niektorych z setnikow, rzekł: Nagotujcie dwies´cie z˙ołnierzy, aby szli az˙ do Cezaryi; do tego siedmdziesia˛t jezdnych i dwies´cie drabantow na trzecia˛ godzine˛ w nocy”; Kr “A zavolav dvou setníku˚, rˇekl jim: Prˇipravte zˇoldnérˇu˚ dveˇ steˇ, aby sˇli azˇ do Cesaree, a jezdcu˚ sedmdesáte, a drabantu˚ dveˇ steˇ k trˇetí hodineˇ na noc”; N strzelec; B drab; W oszczepnik), dołamac´ (Matt 12:20 G “Trzciny nałamanej nie dołamie, a lnu kurza˛cego sie˛ nie zagasi, az˙ wystawi sa˛d ku zwycie˛stwu”; Kr “Trˇtiny nalomené nedolomí, a lnu kourˇícího se neuhasí, azˇ i vypoví soud k víteˇzství”; N, B, W złamac´), hojny24 (Jac 4:6 G “Owszem, hojniejsza˛ daje łaske˛; bo mowi: Bog sie˛ pysznym sprzeciwia, ale pokornym łaske˛ daje”; Kr “Nýbrzˇ hojneˇjsˇí dává milost. Nebo dí: Bu˚h se pysˇným protiví, ale pokorným dává milost”; N, B, W duz˙y), zrozumitelnie25 (1 Cor 14:19 G “A wszakz˙e we zborze wole˛ pie˛c´ słow zrozumitelnie przemowic´, abym i drugich nauczył, niz˙eli dziesie˛c´ tysie˛cy słow je˛zykiem obcym”; Kr “Ale v sboru radeˇji bych chteˇl peˇt slov srozumitelneˇ promluviti, abych také jiných poucˇil, nezˇli deset tisícu˚ slov jazykem neznámým”; N, B według wyrozumienia; W rozumienim) (Lisowski: 2006, 355–374). In this way, the translator of G upholds the mediaeval tradition of using Czech Biblical translations as reference texts in producing a translate. One practical consequence of Protestants adopting the theological doctrine of sola Scriptura, acknowledging the Bible as the sole source and norm of the Christian faith, was the recommendation/precept that all members of Protestant congregations should read the Scripture individually every day. The translation of the Bible was intended for all faithful, educated as well as ordinary people (Meller: 2004, 165–166). This was made possible by the invention of print, which, starting from mid-fifteenth century, altered the communicative space of the then society (McLuhan: 1962, 327; Bajerowa: 1980, 10, 13; Ksia˛z˙ek-Bryłowa: 1986, 141; Lisowski: 2003; Lisowski: 2004, 142–145). The printed Bible, the foundation of Protestantism, a religion of the written word (Burkhardt: 2009, 73–75), was now

23 The noun drabant can be considered a lexical Bohemism. In Czech, it is related to the noun dráb. In turn, the relation of these two Old Czech lexemes to the German drab, drabant, remains unclear, as they may be considered borrowings from German or, on the contrary, one may see the impact of Husitic military terminology on German (Basaj, Siatkowski: 2006, 51). 24 This word (in evidence since the 16th century) is a lexical borrowing of the Czech hojný (Basaj, Siatkowski: 2006, 71). 25 This is a lexical Bohemism (Basaj, Siatkowski: 2006, 485–486).

294

Tomasz Lisowski

within reach of all who wished to know it26. The editors of translations into vernacular languages had to be mindful of the fact that some congregation members might find the reading of the Scripture an intellectual challenge. Therefore, Biblical translations were appended with commentaries and theological, as well as factual, glosses, as was the case for the Brest Bible, or with suggestions on how to improve the skill of reading, as in the case of the New Testament is Stanisław Murzynowski’s translation (1551–1553) (Klemensiewicz: 1985, 364; Walczak: 2000, 161–167; Winiarska-Górska: 2014, 100–107). This in turn meant that the skill of reading, acquired for religious reasons, became common among Protestants irrespective of their social status as early as in the 16th century, while its reach in Catholic countries such as the post-Reformation Commonwealth of Poland, would long be socially limited. Translations were also subject to normalisation in editing, which removed the variable linguistic forms typical of the emerging supra-regional literary Polish (Lisowski: 2005, 262–263). The Gdan´sk Bible is devoid of all comments and glosses, except for the brief information concerning the contents of the chapters of the Biblical books placed at their beginnings. The translation method adopted by Daniel Mikołajewski also precluded any explanatory additions, which typify earlier Polish pre-Reformation free translations, such as Walenty Wróbel’s Z˙ołtarz (Kwilecka: 2003, 148). The translator uses added lexis very sparingly, introducing it only where the systemic differences between Polish and the languages of the original make it necessary; in this respect, his translation resembles Jakub Wujek Bible (Szeruda: 1932, 27; Sipayłło: 1934, 154). The comprehensibility of a Biblical translation intended for general readers, which G can be described as, depended primarily on the appropriate lexical choices. Daniel Mikołajewski, as well as every Protestant translator of the day, faced the task of rendering the Biblical message in a faithful way using linguistic means consistent at least with the average linguistic competence of the recipient. An analysis using the values of DR (distinctiveness ratio) (Ellegård: 1962; Sambor: 1972, 85–90) has allowed a description of the lexis of the individual New Testament with regard to how common/widespread it was in the Polish language of the 16th century27. This in turn enabled an attempt to reconstruct the average 26 The circulation of the Gdan´sk Bible of 1632 is difficult to establish. It is assumed to have been 1500 copies (Nowak: 2002, 67). 27 A representative sample, or an average text of 16th-century Polish, is stipulated to be the lexis comprising the network of entries of SPXVI, both the volumes already published and those from the unpublished files of the lexicon. This is possible only because all entries of SPXVI are annotated with data indicating the number of their occurrences in the excerpted texts (I was able to access the data allowing an estimate of the number of occurrences of a given entry in the unpublished volumes of SPXVI at the Workshop of the Sixteenth-Century Polish Language Dictionary in Torun´’s Institute for Literary Studies thanks to the kindness of its head,

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

295

language competence of the then user of (written) Polish in terms of lexis. The results of this analysis show that the vast majority of items comprising the lexicon of G are neutral lexemes, and so, according to the assumption made, ones which fit within the lexical average of the day or comprising the average language competence at the time28. Neutral lexemes of G make up the majority of shared lexis, just as they do among the lexis showing G’s affinity with one or two of the remaining translations, as well as among unique lexis. Ultimately, 60.3 % (3149) of the G lexicon are autosemantic neutral lexemes, covering 40.1 % (54683) of the text. They include biczowanie (DR=1,0), piekielny (DR=1,0), z˙a˛dac´ (DR=1,0), oko (DR=1,0), uczynic´ (DR=1,0), Bog (DR=1,2) (Lisowski: 2010, 400). Negatively marked lexemes, or those whose frequency in G is proportionately lower than in an average written text of the day, comprise 15.6 % (813) of its lexicon and cover 2.3 % (3132) of the text. Negative lexis diverges from the lexical average, but it can be assumed to fit in the average competence of the then user of Polish, since the vast majority of these lexemes are very frequent in the texts of the day, and their negative profile results from their lower than average textual frequency. They include krzywy (DR=0,02), jas´nie (DR=0,04), nisko (DR=0,04), wiek (DR=0,1), wiernie (DR=0,1), wyrozumiec´ (DR=0,1), pływac´ (DR=0,2), krol (DR=0,3), majestat (DR=0,3), me˛czennik (DR=0,3), z˙aba (DR=0,3), ´swie˛ty (DR=0,4) (Lisowski: 2010, 403–411). Positively marked lexis, occurring in G at a frequency proportionately higher than in the average written text of the day, comprises 16.0 % (835) of the G lexicon and 4.3 % of its text. If the number of positive and negative lexemes is similar in G, the occurence in the text of positive lexemes is almost twice as high as that of negative ones, which strongly correlates with their positive profile. Their presence among the lexis showing the affinity between G and one or two remaining translations is higher than their average presence in G. This is particularly the case for unique lexis, where they comprise 37 % of such lexemes. Positive lexemes, diverging from the lexical average, most likely do not fit in the average language competence of the day – they are for the most part lexemes which are very rare in the texts of the day and thus exceptional; their positive profile is strengthened by their proportionately frequent occurence in the text of G. They Dr. Patrycja Potoniec). The frequency data characterising the texts of the individual translations, necessary to obtain the DR value, have been presented earlier in this analysis. 28 On the basis of his research, A. Ellegård, accepts a DR value higher than 5 as indicating that the given lexeme occurs in the analysed text at a frequency higher than average in comparison to the baseline sample. Lexemes whose DR value is higher than 5 should be considered representative and qualitatively positively characteristic of the lexis of the analysed text. In turn, DR values lower than 0.5 indicate that lexemes adopting them occur in the analysed text at a frequency lower than average and thus should be considered its negative lexis. Lexemes with DR values between 0.5 and 5 belong to the neutral lexis of a text (Sambor: 1972, 87).

296

Tomasz Lisowski

include uwierzyc´ (DR=6,1), uczen´ (DR=7,6), dokon´czyciel (DR=16,2), zawidziec´ (DR=16,2), nagana (DR=30,5), pozyskiwac´ (DR=48,5), wynałoz˙yc´ (DR=161,7), zacienic´ (DR=242,5), pokrewny (DR=290,9), duz˙e (adv.) (DR=450,5) (Lisowski: 2010, 403–411). In terms of the distribution of lexis into neutral, negative, and positive lexemes, G does not substantially diverge from other analysed translations, with one reservation – in B, negative lexemes slightly but noticeably outnumber positive ones (Lisowski: 2010, 427–428). Assuming that both positive and neutral lexis comprises the average language competence, one can state that 75.9 % of the lexicon (3962 items) and 42.4 % of the text (57815 occurrences) of G are autosemantic lexemes which do not attract the attention of the then recipient of this Biblical translation. In other words, some three quarters of items in the Biblical message of G could have been fully apprehended by the average language user. The remaining (positive) autosemantic lexemes, which make up 16 % of the G lexicon, may have attracted attention by virtue of being unusual, and some of these, especially the names of elements of the Biblical reality, could have required further explanations, for instance given by the minister. When G was published in print, Polish Evangelicals may well have had a higher than average language competence, especially as regards the perception of the Biblical text – this could have been the third generation of Christians rejecting the teaching of the Roman Church and used to an independent reading of the Bible. Nonetheless, both the synod and the elders of the Church voiced in 1634 the need to remove “unusual words” from the Gdan´sk Bible (Sipayłło: 1934, 150).

5.

Daniel Mikołajewski – a balanced translator – a judicious philologian

In light of the results of the analysis carried out in this study, the basis of which is a quantitative and distributional approach to the lexis of G and the three translations with which it is connected, whether for genetic and doctrinal reasons, as is the case for B and N, or for philological reasons, as with W, it can be stated that G is an independent translation by Daniel Mikołajewski, showing a similarity in terms of quantitative characteristics to B, in terms of lexical affinity closer to the post-Trent Catholic W, the translation by Jakub Wujek and the Jesuit committee of censors than to the Protestant B, intended by the elders of the Protestant Churches who commissioned its revisions to be only corrected by Daniel Mikołajewski. Further, the lexical affinity of G with W is reinforced by the lexemes present in the lexicon of G and N at the same time as W. This indicates

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

297

Daniel Mikołajewski’s approval of many lexical substitutions occurring in N and implies that Daniel Mikołajewski most likely edited N, translated most likely by Marcin Janicki, for print. Despite these lexical convergences between G and N, these two translations must be considered separate, since they vary also in terms of their quantitative characteristics, where N is close to Wand its lexical resource. When compared to other translations, G evinces a certain lexical distinctness (as is the case with the remaining translations). The results of this analysis may provide an argument in support of the existing claim that the Gdan´sk Bible is an independent translation rather than merely a revision of the Brest Bible (Kossowska: 1969, 91; Frick: 1989, 243; Ke˛pka: 2004, 123). Daniel Mikołajewski appears a translator-philologian judiciously searching for the most adequate Polish equivalents of the lexis of the source text. Led by the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, a quintessence of the belief that it is God who speaks to humanity with every word of the Scripture, he follows in the footsteps of his predecessors by referring to the Czech translation, this time the Protestant Kr, and does not hesitate to reach for doctrinally alien translations if they can provide the most apt lexical substitutions in a given context. The recommendation that Protestants read the Scripture independently, a practical realisation of the sola Scriptura principle, may have had a degree of influence over the choice of lexis during the work on G. But in its accessibility for the average recipient of the day, G does not substantially depart from the other translations used here in comparison. Since G came to include much lexis shared with the Catholic W (as well as W93), this translation, which for almost 350 years constituted the canonical one for the Evangelical communicative community, did not become an exclusively Protestant translation at least in the lexical sense. Translated by Małgorzata Paprota and Bartosz Wójcik

Abbreviations B DR G Kr N SPXVI W W93

the New Testament of the Brest Bible (Biblia Brzeska, 1563) distinctiveness ratio the New Testament of the Gdan´sk Bible (Biblia gdan´ska, 1632) the New Testament of the Kralice Bible (Bible kralická, 1579–1593) Gdan´sk New Testament (Nowy Testament gdan´ski, 1606) Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku the New Testament of Jakub Wujek’s Bible (Biblia Jakuba Wujka, 1599) Jakub Wujek New Testament (Nowy Testament Jakuba Wujka, 1593)

298

Tomasz Lisowski

Bibliography Sources Biblia brzeska (1563): Rothe, Hans/Scholz, Friedrich (ed.) (2001), Brester Bibel 1563, vol. 1–2, Padeborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh. Biblia kralicka (1579–1593): CD e-Bible (2006), Bible Kralická 1579–1593, Podkowa Les´na: nadzieja.pl. Nowy Testament Jakuba Wujka (1593): Wujek, Jakub (trad.) (1553), Nowy Testament Pana Naszego Jezusa Chrystusa, znowu z łacin´skiego i greckiego na polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełoz˙ony, Kraków: Piotrowczyk. Biblia Jakuba Wujka (1599): Wujek, Jakub (trad.) (1599), Biblia, to jest Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Testamentu, według łacin´skiego przekładu starego, w Kos´ciele powszechnym przyje˛tego, na polski je˛zyk znowu z pilnos´cia˛ przełoz˙one, z dokładaniem tekstu z˙ydowskiego i greckiego i z wykładaniem katolickim trudniejszych miejsc do obrony wiary s´wie˛tej powszechnej przeciw kacerztwom tych czasow nalez˙a˛cych, Kraków: Officina Lazari. ´ ski (1606): Mikołajewski, Daniel/Turnowski, Jan (ed.) Nowy Testament gdan (1606), Nowy Testament Pana naszego Jezusa Chrystusa z greckiego na polski je˛zyk z pilnos´cia˛ przełoz˙ony, a teraz znowu przejz´rzany i z dozwoleniem Starszych wydany, Gdan´sk: Guilhelm Guilmonthan’s Widow Publishing House. ´ ska (1632): Mikołajewski, Daniel (trad.) (1632), Biblia S´wie˛ta, to jest Biblia gdan Ksie˛gi Starego i Nowego Przymierza z z˙ydowskiego i greckiego je˛zyka na polski pilnie i wiernie przetłumaczone, Gdan´sk: Andreas Hünefeld. Textus Receptus: Stephanus, Robert (online), The Greek New Testament, Textus Receptus 1550, (cit. 03–10–2015). Strong, James (online), Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, [accessed on 15. 03. 2016].

Studies Altbauer, Mosze (1966), O technice przekładowej Szymona Budnego, in: Stanisław Ba˛k (ed.), Studia je˛zykoznawcze pos´wie˛cone Profesorowi Doktorowi Stanisławowi Rospondowi, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 85–96. Bajerowa Irena (1980), Wpływ techniki na ewolucje˛ je˛zyka polskiego, Wrocław/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Bajerowa, Irena (1994), Swoistos´c´ je˛zyka religijnego i niektóre problemy jego skutecznos´ci, Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne 3, 11–17. ´ kowski, Andrzej (1992), Nowotestamentowe εκκλησια i jego losy w je˛zykach Europy, Ban in: Maria Kamin´ska/lz˙bieta Małek (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy, vol. 1, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 57–63. Basaj, Mieczysław/Siatkowski Janusz (2006), Bohemizmy w je˛zyku polskim. Słownik, Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki. Uniwersytet Warszawski.

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

299

Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta (1988), Charakteristik des Wortschatzes der Leopolita, in: Reinhold Olesch/Hans Rothe (ed.), Leopolita. Faksimile der Ausgabe Krakau 1561, vol. 2, Kommentar, Padeborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 25–73. ´ kowska, Danuta (1992), Jakub Wujek – nowator czy tradycjonalista?, in: Maria Bien Kamin´ska/lz˙bieta Małek (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 143–151. ´ kowska, Danuta (1993), O przeobraz˙eniach polskiego stylu biblijnego, Stylistyka 2, Bien 101–110. ´ kowska, Danuta (1994), Szeregi wyrazowe w przekładzie Biblii Leopolity. (Z probBien lemów kształtowania sie˛ synonimii staropolskiej), Rozprawy Komisji Je˛zykowej Łódzkiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 39, 5–17. ´ kowska, Danuta (1999), Słownictwo i frazeologia w Psałterzu przełoz˙onym przez ks. Bien Jakuba Wujka (1594), vol. 1–2, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego 1999. ´ kowska, Danuta (2002), Polski styl biblijny, Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Bien Łódzkie. ´ kowska, Danuta (2008), Ecclesiastes w przekładzie Hieronima z Wielunia (1522) – Bien mie˛dzy tradycja˛ a nowatorstwem, in: Ewa Woz´niak (ed.), Tradycja a nowoczesnos´c´. Materiały konferencji 14–16 maja 2007 r., Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie, 55–72. Breza, Edward (1992), Odmiana nazw własnych w Nowym Testamencie Biblii Wujka i Biblii Tysia˛clecia, in: Maria Kamin´ska/lz˙bieta Małek, Biblia a kultura Europy, vol. 1, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 152–159. Breza, Edward (1987), Ska˛d pochodza˛ formy Efezjanie, Koryntianie, Kolosanie i o tytulaturze niektórych ksia˛g Nowego Testamentu, Je˛zyk Polski 67,31–35. Burkhardt, Johannes (2009), Stulecie reformacji w Niemczech (1517–1617). Mie˛dzy rewolucja˛ medialna˛ a przełomem instytucjonalnym, Justyna Górny (trad.), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wiedza Powszechna [original edition: Das Reformationsjahrhundert. Deutsche Geschichte zwischen Medienrevolution und Institutionenbildung 1517–1617, Stuttgart 2002: Kohlhammer Verlag]. Cottret, Bernard (2000), Kalwin, Monika Milewska (trad.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII wieku, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Cybulski, Marek (1996), Staropolskie przekłady Psałterza. Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Czuj, Jan (1954), S´w. Hieronim. Z˙ywot. Dzieła. Charakterystyka, Warszawa: Pax. Delumeau, Jean (1986), Narodziny i rozwój Reformy protestanckiej, Jan Maria Kłoczowski (trad.), Warszawa: Pax [original edition: Delumeau, Jean Naissance et affirmation de la Réforme, Paris 1965: Presses Universitaires de France]. Ellegård, Alvar (1962), A Statistical Method for Determining Authorship. The Junius Letters (1769–1772), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Gothenburg Studies in English. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

300

Tomasz Lisowski

Frick, David A. (2001), The Brest Bible of 1563: Translators, Sponsors, Readers. Die Brester Bibel. Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, in: Hans Rothe/ Friedrich Scholz (ed.), Brester Bibel 1563. T. 2: Ksie˛gi Nowego Testamentu, Kommentare, Padeborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1661–1703. Górski, Konrad (1962), Z zagadnien´ słownictwa reformacji polskiej, in: Maria Renata Mayenowa/Zenon Klemensiewicz (ed.), Odrodzenie w Polsce, vol. 3, Historia je˛zyka, Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 233–279. Ke˛pka, Izabela (2003), Adaptacja imion w Ewangelii wg s´w. Mateusza w Biblii Gdan´skiej na tle porównawczym, in: Róz˙a Wosiak-S´liwa (ed.), Nazwy i dialekty Pomorza dawniej i dzis´, vol. 5, Gdan´sk: GTN, 89–99. Ke˛pka, Izabela (2004), Biblia gdan´ska – rewizja Biblii brzeskiej czy nowy przekład?, Rocznik Gdan´ski 14, 113–123. Klemensiewicz, Zenon (1985), Historia je˛zyka polskiego, vol. 1–3, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kossowska, Maria (1969), Biblia w je˛zyku polskim, vol. 2, Poznan´: Ksie˛garnia s´w. Wojciecha. Kowalska, Danuta (2000), Innowiercy w oczach ks. Jakuba Wujka. Na podstawie Nauk i przestróg do Nowego Testamentu z 1593, in: Georgi Minczew (ed.), Człowiek w sferze oddziaływania obcej kultury, Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie, 17–24. Ksia˛z˙ek-Bryłowa, Władysława (1986), Uwarunkowania społeczne normy je˛zykowej w XVI wieku, Rozprawy Komisji Je˛zykowej Łódzkiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 32, 139–146. Kuraszkiewicz, Władysław (1966), Uwagi o statystyce w Słowniku, in: Stanisław Ba˛k/ Stefan Hrabec/Władysław Kuraszkiewicz/Maria R. Mayenowa/Stanisław Rospond/ Stanisław Saski/Witold Taszycki/Jerzy Woronczak (ed.), Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku, vol. 1, a-bany, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków, XIV–XXV. Kuraszkiewicz, Władysław (1986), Polski je˛zyk literacki. Studia nad historia˛ i struktura˛, Warszawa/Poznan´: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kwilecka, Irena (2001), Die Brester Bibel. Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz (ed.), Brester Bibel 1563. T. 2: Ksie˛gi Nowego Testamentu. Kommentare, Padeborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1485–1660. Kwilecka, Irena (2003), Studia nad staropolskimi przekładami Biblii, Poznan´: Wydział Teologiczny UAM. Redakcja Wydawnictw. Lewaszkiewicz, Tadeusz (1994), O potrzebie nowego spojrzenia na geneze˛ polskiego je˛zyka literackiego (z uwzgle˛dnieniem tła ogólnoeuropejskiego), in: Marian Kucała/ Zdzisława Kra˛z˙yn´ska (ed.), Studia historycznoje˛zykowe, vol. 1, Kraków: Instytut Je˛zyka Polskiego PAN, 213–220. Lisowski, Tomasz (1993), Cerkiew i kos´ciół jako „ecclesia” i „templum Christianorum” w polszczyz´nie szesnastowiecznej, in: Irena Bajerowa/Maria Karpluk/Zenon Leszczyn´ski (ed.), Je˛zyk a chrzes´cijan´stwo, Lublin: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 131–144. Lisowski, Tomasz (2003), Polish printed book and the developing of Polish spelling system, East European Studies. East European and Balkan Institute. Center for International Area Studies Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 12 (1), 111–135.

The Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible’s New Testament (1632)

301

Lisowski, Tomasz (2004), The Beginning of the Typographical Era in Poland, Journal of Central & East European Studies. The Korean Association of the Central and East European Studies 6, 2, 139–165. Lisowski, Tomasz (2008), Mie˛dzy doktryna˛ a wiernos´cia˛ przekładu. Grecki leksem εκκλησία i jego polskie ekwiwalenty w protestanckich tłumaczeniach Nowego Testamentu z XVI i XVII w., in: Grzegorz Cyran/Elz˙bieta Skorupska-Raczyn´ska (ed.), Je˛zyk dos´wiadczenia religijnego, vol. 1, Szczecin: Wydział Teologiczny Uniwersytetu Szczecin´skiego, 285–298. Lisowski, Tomasz (2009), Surrexit Dominus vere! Jak leksykalnie prawde˛ o zmartwychwstaniu wyraz˙a Biblia brzeska (1563), Biblia Jakuba Wujka (1599) i Biblia gdan´ska (1632)?, in: Grzegorz Cyran/Elz˙bieta Skorupska-Raczyn´ska (ed.), Je˛zyk. Religia. Toz˙samos´c´, vol. 3, Gorzów Wielkopolski: Wydawnictwo Pan´stwowej Wyz˙szej Szkoły Zawodowej, 51–63. Lisowski, Tomasz (2010), Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii gdan´skiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Uje˛cie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Rys. Luter, Marcin (1980), Artykuły Szmalkaldzkie (1537), in: Wybrane Ksie˛gi Symboliczne Kos´cioła ewangelicko-augsburskiego, Andrzej Wantuła/Wiktor Niemczyk (trad.), Warszawa: Zwiastun, 352–381 (Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel (1537), in: Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Göttingen 1930: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 405–468. Łuczak, Arleta (1992), Problem rozwia˛zywania hebraizmów i arameizmów w Nowym Testamencie S. Murzynowskiego – na wybranych przykładach, in: Maria Kamin´ska/ lz˙bieta Małek (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy, vol. 1, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 225–231. Mayenowa, Maria R. et al. (ed.) (1956–2012), Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku, vol. 1–36, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Matuszczyk, Boz˙ena (1999), “Niech mi Jahwe to uczyni i tamto dorzuci” (idiomy semickie w Biblii Tysia˛clecia), in: Zbigniew Adamek/Stanisław Koziara (ed.), Od Biblii Wujka do współczesnego je˛zyka religijnego. Z okazji 400–lecia wydania Biblii ks. Jakuba Wujka, Tarnów: Biblos, 65–73. McLuhan, Marshal (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: the Making of the Typographic Man, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Meller, Katarzyna (2004), “Noc przeszła, a dzien´ sie˛ przybliz˙ył”. Studia o polskim pis´miennictwie reformacyjnym XVI wieku, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. ´ ski, Leszek (1994), Zur Sprache der Bibelübersetzung Szymon Budnys von 1572, Moszyn in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz (ed), Szymon Budny, Biblia 1572. Kommentar, Padeborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 351–414. Nowak, Zbigniew (2002), Biblia Gdan´ska jako przedsie˛wzie˛cie typograficzne, Mys´l Protestancka 23–24, 60–68. Oberman, Heiko A. (1996), Marcin Luter. Człowiek mie˛dzy Bogiem a diabłem, Elz˙bieta Adamiak (trad.), Gdan´sk: Wydawnictwo Marabut. Piela, Marek (2003), Grzech dosłownos´ci we współczesnych polskich przekładach Starego Testamentu, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Poniatowski, Zygmunt (1971), Nowy Testament w s´wietle statystyki je˛zykowej, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich.

302

Tomasz Lisowski

Popowski, Remigiusz (1995): Wielki słownik grecko-polski Nowego Testamentu. Wydanie z pełna˛ lokalizacja˛ greckich haseł, kluczem polsko-greckim oraz indeksem form czasownikowych, Warszawa: Vocatio. Popowski, Remigiusz/Wojciechowski, Michał (trad.) (1995), Grecko-polski Nowy Testament. Wydanie interlinearne z kodami gramatycznymi, Warszawa: Vocatio. Sambor, Jadwiga (1969), Badania statystyczne nad słownictwem (na materiale “Pana Tadeusza”), Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Sambor, Jadwiga (1972), Słowa i liczby. Zagadnienia je˛zykoznawstwa statystycznego, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Sipayłło, Maria (1934), W sprawie genezy Biblii gdan´skiej, Reformacja w Polsce 6, 144– 151. Sipayłło, Maria (1976), Daniel Mikołajewski, in: Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. 21, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 154–156. Sowa, Franciszek (1992), Osobowe nazwy własne w polskich przekładach Biblii, in: Maria Kamin´ska/lz˙bieta Małek, Biblia a kultura Europy, vol. 1, Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 81–85. Szeruda, Jan (1932), Geneza i charakter Biblii gdan´skiej, Warszawa: Drukarnia Głosu Ewangelickiego. ´ czyk, Stanisław et. al. (ed.) (1953–2002), Słownik staropolski, vol. 1–11, Wrocław: Urban Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Walczak, Bogdan (2000), Rola Biblii w rozwoju je˛zyków i je˛zykoznawstwa. Zarys problematyki, in: Ewa Woz´niak (ed.), Inspiracje chrzes´cijan´skie w kulturze Europy. Materiały konferencji 11–14 maja 1999 r., Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie, 155–167. Wantuła, Andrzej (ed., transl.) (1970), Konfesja augsburska z 1530 r. Nowy przekład, Warszawa: Zwiastun. Winiarska, Izabela (2004), Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Winiarska-Górska, Izabela (2014), Krótka a prosta nauka czytania i pisania je˛zyka polskiego Jana Seklucjana, Poradnik Je˛zykowy 6, 100–107. Wojak, Tadeusz (1985) Studium o Biblii Gdan′skiej, Z problemów reformacji, vol. 5, Warszawa: Zwiastum, 17–47. Woz´niak, Ewa (1994), Fleksja nazw własnych w Psałterzu krakowskim (na tle innych staropolskich przekładów Ksie˛gi psalmów), Rozprawy Komisji Je˛zykowej Łódzkiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 39, 109–146. Zare˛bski, Rafał (2006), Nazwy osobowe w polskich przekładach Nowego Testamentu, Łódz´: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie.

Łukasz Cybulski

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

The below deliberations concern the interpretation of the Bible as well as interpretation of texts in general so they can be applied in a broader sense, especially when it comes to the so-called utilitarian writing. They pertain to a certain aspect of a printed book, which in Polish research is called a publishing frame, and its meaning in the programming of the work’s reception and its use as a tool for creating new works. They show, on a small example, how the book’s architecture mirrors and influences interpretation habits and patterns of texts, particularly the text of the Holy Bible. The collection of sermons for Sundays and holidays titled Lesser Postilla written by Jakub Wujek will serve me as an example of the use of the publishing frame in the works on the interpretation of the Bible1. Marginalia and indexes – which will be, among others, discussed here – are richly represented in postils, although they are in general characteristic of a great majority of old prints, and they are usually treated as an obvious element of a printed book’s design but a closer research shows that this obviousness is spurious. It is especially visible on the example of Jakub Wujek’s writings who shaped the character and reception of his works not only by modifying their contents but also through their publishing frame. Regardless of the time of its creation “a book always sets some order”, above all the order of its reading and understanding (cf. Chartier: 1994, VIII; Gruchała: 2002, 44). Even if the spread of a printed book during the Renaissance (Janssen: 2005, 9–10, 27–28). has not resulted in a reading revolution noted by many modern researchers, it certainty changed the habits and expectations of both addressers and recipients (Gruchała: 2002, 45–51). One can realize how the printers shaped the outlines they were familiar with from the manuscript tradition in order to obtain the right form of expression of print. Those referring to 1 J. Wujek, Postilla catholica to jest kazania na ewangelije niedzielne i ods´wie˛tne przez cały rok […], Kraków 1584, p. 567c. The indications of pages in this postil containing letters “a”, “b” and “c” refer to the first, second and third part of the work, respectively. This article refers directly to my research published in two dissertations: Cybulski: 2014a; 2014b.

304

Łukasz Cybulski

the interpretation of the Bible serve the work on word, present highly utilitarian form, shaped mainly by the design of the typographic space. At one end of this spectrum there are commentaries, medieval in spirit and form, similar to those found in Biblia Sacra cvm glossa ordinaria2, not only surrounding the text of the Bible but also slipping between the verses in the form of interlinear glosses. This work printed still in the 17th century is even more typographically complex because besides the massive main commentary it provides on the same page also the comments by other authors. At the other end of the spectrum we have, for example, Erasmus of Rotterdam’s “paraphrases” where new font cuts and freeing the margins of extensive commentaries and leaving them empty allowed for the smaller size of the publication and made it more clear and accessible. The typographic space thus created brought about far-reaching consequences, most of all by becoming the space open to – and for – the reader (Pietrzak-Thébault: 2011, 225). Even a very cursory review of the mentioned works allows to conclude that they were designed for a completely different type of reading, and a different model of work on the text. Preaching publications, not always published in folio, can be positioned in between those two ends of spectrum as prints containing sometimes extensive commentary with concise margins leaving some empty space between the two (Blair: 2004, 85; Pawlak: 2009, 49–50). The above examples allow to conclude that in the 16th century, and even later, the reading of a printed text was not always a completely voluntary act – as different forms of publications could activate different forms of reading, which can be confirmed by the guidelines and instructions included in the forewords to those works as well as in separate treaties (cf. Blair: 2003, 13–15, 17–19).3 Taking this into account we can ascertain that the act of reading used to mean something more than merely “joining letters into words” or “becoming familiar with the text” (Sobol: 2002, 114). Such understanding was only one element of the then reading practices and competences, which were characterized more by the propensity for the use of books, which should be understood as an active approach towards them4. To appropriately explain this question we should ask about “the place and the significance of reading in the perspective of all forms of human activity”, and especially about the ways “of the contact with the book” (Kostecki: 2011, 18; Blair: 2 Biblia Sacra cvm glossa ordinaria, primvm qvidem a Strabo Fvldensi monacho […] collecta […] et Postilla Nicolai Lirani […] necnon additationibus Pavli Bvrgensis episcopi et Matthiae Thoringi replicis; opera et stvdio theologorvm dvacensivm: tomvs qvintvs […] omnia […] auxit […] Leander de s. Martino […], Antverpiae 1634. 3 See also: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/bookusebooktheory [accessed on 5. 04. 2016] 4 “books invited a wide range of uses, asking readers to move within them in particular ways, to write in them, manipulate them, apply them in worlds beyond the book”, B. Cormack, C. Mazzio, http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/bookusebooktheory [accessed on 5. 04. 2016]; Sherman: 2008, 4 and passim.

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

305

2003, 13). In other words, how, for what purpose people read and what were the practical consequences of that action (Kostecki: 2008, 90). The large portion of the answer seems to lie in the combination of knowledge acquisition techniques and the ability to implement it later in the literary practice thanks to the appropriate usage of the material mastered during reading5, which was achieved through concise note-taking performed in special notebooks containing individually gathered material grouped by certain order6 and the memorization of those notes. Traces of such practices can be found in the guidelines by Erasmus of Rotterdam, confessions of the vicar from Broz˙ek’s dialogue titled Gratis and, above all, in the margins of books which belonged to Jakub Wujek and more recently in Charles Darwin’s notebooks or Samuel Beckett’s books. We know the shape of the mentioned notebooks from numerous printed collections of common excerpts, florilegia. Education in reading involved shaping the ways of gathering information and organizing knowledge through not only extensive but also selective reading. It is worth to add that this method was implemented not only at the school stage but once learned it used to be a habit or rigor accompanying learners throughout their lives7. As one searched for 5 “It serves not only proper assessment but also its implementation in practice. Because by mastering this knowledge you will notice during the reading some interesting expression, some old or new word, sound and sophisticated argumentation, beautiful expression, you will not omit a proverb, example or sentence which is worth remembering.” [“Słuz˙y to nie tylko do włas´ciwego oceniania, lecz równiez˙ i do stosowania w praktyce. Zdobywszy bowiem te˛ wiedze˛, łatwo zauwaz˙ysz w czasie lektury autorów jakies´ stosowne wyraz˙enie, jakies´ dawne lub nowe słowo, zwrócisz uwage˛ na dowodzenie trafne i kunsztowne, na zwrot uderzaja˛cy pie˛knos´cia˛, nie pominiesz przysłowia, przykładu czy zdania, które warto zapamie˛tac´.”] “It is necessary to take notes from many different areas, but so expressed that they indicate the main points […] Note down also short or accurate expressions, such as proverbs, parables, phrases at the beginning or the end of books.” [“Nalez˙y tez˙ prowadzic´ zapiski nie tylko z bardzo róz˙nych dziedzin, lecz równiez˙ tak sformułowane, z˙eby od razu pouczyły o zasadniczej rzeczy […] Równiez˙ pewne krótkie lub trafne wyraz˙enia, jak przysłowia, przypowies´ci, zwroty, notuj na pocza˛tku czy tez˙ na kon´cu ksia˛z˙ek.”] Erazm z Rotterdamu:1992, 282. If not stated otherwise, all translations by Małgorzata Socha. 6 In-depth explanation of Erasmus instructions elucidated in De duplici copia verborum ac rerum are presented by Moss: 2005, 35–37. See also Blair: 2004, 91–92; Bien´kowska: 1976, 78–79. 7 For example, the Vicar from Broz˙ek’s dialogue confesses to the Jesuit: “And even when reading any of your most minor authors I mark what agrees and what disagrees, or cum ecclesiae usu, or cum sacrae scripturae sensu, or even cum ratione” [“A ja kaz˙dego namniejszego autora waszego czytaja˛c, zaraz znacze˛, coby sie˛ zgadzało abo nie zgadzało, abo cum ecclesiae usu, abo cum sacrae scripturae sensu, abo nawet cum ratione”]. Broz˙ek 1956, 370. A particular type of a cartulary is represented by a copy of Postylla albo wykłady Ewangelij niedzielnych i na ´swie˛ta […] by Grzegorz of Z˙arnowiec (Czartoryski Library ref. no. 1242/III), which contains handwritten notes and strikethroughs by Jakub Wujek made during the reading and documents the preliminary study of subjects for The Apology included in the second edition of Postilla catholica. See Kuran: 2007, 263–279 and illustrations 7–22. The author classifies the notes and indicates their equivalents in The Apology, omitting the theoretical context of paratexts.

306

Łukasz Cybulski

interesting expressions, descriptions of particular elements of a commentary, ideas for composition, etc., small, short pieces of communication hidden in often huge text gained importance. A reader, deciding on the act of reading, to a similar extent chooses the work and its typographic shape (Socha: 2011, 36) and therefore in order to make the excerpting easier, printers and authors started meeting the expectations of readers by changing the layout of crucial information and its volume. They achieved it through placing on the margins the ready material in the form of concise annotations which, on one hand, made the final product – a book – easier to use and on the other hand it gave the publishers new possibilities of guiding the process of reading as – in a way upon readers’ request – they prepared the guidelines for its course. Prepared excerpts or only references to sources recommended the material enriching the argument and defined its delimitation, thus influencing the body of knowledge and the way it was organized. Of course the voices from the margins together with different types of conventional symbols are a part of tradition stemming from the ancient times, although, as it seems, in that tradition the objectives of the glossators, as well as the reach of their works was different (Reynolds/Wilson: 2008, 27–28). The use of printed marginalia corresponded to some extent to the possible ways of the course of reading, which could include a detailed study of the whole work or its superficial, more or less selective review (Blair: 2003, 13–14, 17). The indication of the use of other authors’ works is usually announced by the publishers and researchers informing that the writers “know […] the old treaties, previously published, and constantly use them” (Nadolski: 1961, XX), which can be exemplified by the works of Jan of Ludzisko or Piotr Gaszowic, who complemented or enriched their message by common Italian sources (Nadolski: 1961, XXX–XXXI, XXXIV). Piotr Skarga (cf. Sapin´ski: 1924) based his sermons on the works of, among others, Stapleton while Jakub Wujek at the beginning of his Postilla catholica simply included the list of preachers and theologians who, so to speak, patronized his arguments. Therefore, it would be easier to enumerate those who wrote completely independently, mainly because they would comprise a list that would be very short but not easy to establish. Among those who would not have been listed the preachers are a separate group, as they especially emphasized that their words “concerning interpretation of the Bible […] are not of a single man […] but of the whole church […] united” (Wujek: 1584, ++2verso)8 and this was achieved by relying on authorities. The description of the causes and results of the old process of compiling, or broadly speaking – old knowledge gathering and processing is not an easy task, which can be supported by the 8 The indications of pages in this postil containing letters “a”, “b” and “c” refer to the first, second and third part of the work, respectively.

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

307

studies of Wiesław Pawlak9 published in recent years and is still a work in progress concerning the 16th and earlier centuries. The necessary supplement to such a study would be indicating the reading habits and, closely connected with them, printing practices, which in turn would allow a broader perspective on the technical aspect of the creative process. Taking into account the bibliological context, in particular a book’s graphic design, one would be able to address the question of whether we can isolate particular elements which help excerpting, make it easier or especially encourage it with the assumption that printed “literary works strengthen and verbalize explicite different types of reading acts […] [and – Ł.C.] quite often (actually always) contain in their very structure coded information on the subject of reading habits of their authors and behaviors expected from potential recipients” (Pawlak: 2012, 249). It would also be necessary to establish how those elements (performing such function) were used, what is the evidence of their application, etc. Marginalia are one of the elements which are both the evidence of reading habits and factors influencing them. Their classification (Slights: 1989) is a difficult task due to the number and inseparability of possible categories but it is undoubtedly a necessary effort, although Polish studies concerning the bibliological matters do not render this task easier10. The collection of sermons gathered under one title were primarily supposed to serve as preaching aids. It means that their user could deliver them as a whole from the pulpit or use them as a source of a rhetorical inspiration, which means that they served as an inventory of subjects, arguments or elements of compositional structure. In order to satisfy those reading needs the marginalia applied in the discussed print are mainly of informational function – in their perfect form not transgressing beyond concise delivery of the content – referring to the matters discussed in the particular part of the text (cf. Mazurkowa: 2011, 192– 194). In Lesser Postilla they comprise the most numerous group and are created according to three templates: through the repetition of the part of the main text Marginalia Two actions of the Holy Spirit.11

Main text Here we have two actions of the Holy Spirit (Wujek: 1596, 237).12

9 The author of an exceptional monograph on this subject: De eruditione comparanda in humanioribus. Studia z dziejów erudycji humanistycznej w XVII wieku (Pawlak: 2012). 10 Among important studies by Polish researchers one should enumerate, apart from the above quoted works and already classic studies: Ocieczek: 1998; Mejor: 2000; Komorowska: 2012; Wójcik: 2012; Szybowska: 2012; Meller: 2012; Winiarska-Górska, http://www.ewangelie.uw. edu.pl/files/struktury.pdf [accessed on 15. 05. 2016]. 11 “Dwie sprawie Ducha s´[wie˛tego].”

308

Łukasz Cybulski

through its summary or rephrasing How we should avoid depravation13

Thirdly, not to be understood that only those who deprave others shall be punished and not those who are depraved by them and therefore Our Lord Jesus warns and admonishes us not to let anyone in the world deprave us and teaches us how we should behave once such depravation befalls us (Wujek: 1596, 531)14.

or through indicating the order using numbers: The glory of the adored bodies15 1. 2. 3.

And this is where we can see how our adored bodies shall shine after the resurrection […] And Lord Christ did show a couple of times in this world the signs and attributes of the adored bodies. First of all, delicateness when he left the closed virgin body. Moreover, swiftness or celerity when he walked the sea water. Finally, impatience when he shared his body, without any offence as food and drink during the last supper (Wujek: 1596, 117)16.

We also find persuasive annotations, indicating particularly important content and encouraging its learning. Their proper function would be thus emphasis, highlighting. The most straightforward indication of this type is a symbol depicting of a hand/manicula appearing in Jakub Wujek’s work only by the translations of separate “sermons of old Doctors” (see, e. g. Wujek: 1596, 45, 64). The Jesuit also employs a direct form of addressing the reader: “Remember” (Wujek: 1596, 336), “Look, look” (ibid., 441), and also “Read the Roman Catechism” (ibid., 70). In the last example we encounter a double function as the Catechism itself is not mentioned in the main text but there is only a reference to the Council of Trident. Thus the annotation introduces an additional context, in this case through the suggestion of reading of the source material. It is another, third function of the marginalia. The expansion of the mental horizon happens

12 “Tu mamy dwie sprawie Ducha s´[wie˛tego].” 13 “Jako sie˛ mamy wystrzegac´ zgorszenia.” 14 “Trzecie, aby kto nie rozumiał, z˙eby tylko ci mieli byc´ karani, którzy kogo gorsza˛, a nie owi, którzy sie˛ od nich gorsza˛, przeto dalej przestrzega nas i upomina Pan nasz Jezus Chrystus, abys´my sie˛ nikomu na s´wiecie gorszyc´ nie dali, i uczy nas, jako sie˛ zachowac´ mamy, kiedy na nas jakie zgorszenie przypadnie”. 15 “Chwała ciał uwielbionych”. 16 “A sta˛d juz˙ obaczyc´ moz˙emy, jaka tez˙ be˛dzie jasnos´c´ ciał naszych uwielbionych po ciała zmartwychwstaniu […] I przetoc´ Pan Chrystus na tym s´wiecie kilkakroc´ pokazał niejakie znaki i własnos´ci ciał uwielbionych. Naprzód subtelnos´ci kiedy wyszedł z zamknionego z˙ywota panien´skiego. Wie˛c chyz˙os´ci abo chybkos´ci, kiedy po morskiej wodzie chodził. Niecierpliwos´ci lepak, kiedy ciało swe na ostatniej wieczerzy, bez z˙adnego rozdzielenia i obraz˙enia, ku jedzeniu dawał.”

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

309

through references to the content which does not directly correspond to the particular piece of the main text. The fourth category comprises of annotations informing about the structure of the work, such as: “The summary of the Gospel or the main lesson from it” (Wujek: 1596, 323), “The division of this sermon” (ibid., 290), “Conclusion” (ibid.,), “The argument and summary of the Gospel with comparison” (ibid., 21), “Prayer with conclusion” (ibid., 349). The mentioned marginalia, located at the beginning or by the end of the work certainly fulfil an informational function but they pertain more to the structure of the work than to a particular subject matter. Apart from the marginalia, one of the tools for working with the printed text were also numerous listings: registries, indexes collecting various material according to a particular key, usually in an alphabetic order, and located at the end of the book. The characteristic feature of those indexes was their distinct functionality. Often times the word “registry” (regestr) was accompanied by an appropriate, even if general, complement specifying what it contains and possibly indicating the purpose of the collection. It is never, or almost never, a complete collection and the selection key indicates the particular, many times exemplar, criterion. For example, The House Postil contains “the Registry of the greatest basics of the Christian teachings, in this part the house postils, which are delivered during winter season, presented and delivered” (Malecki: 1574, O recto), while in Skarga’s works we will find “the Registry of teachings for strengthening of the Christian faith against heretics” (Skarga: 1595, Oooo recto) and in Wujek’s works – “the Registry of the Bible references in this postil either presented against heretic views, for explanation or misrepresented by heretics” (Wujek: 1584, rrr recto). It is worth highlighting that all those indexes come from the collections of sermons, i. e. the works, as then understood, of a utilitarian character so each of them lists some “main” or “basic” teachings. However, the purpose of providing them is not always clear as in Skarga’s case and the way of their usage is usually not specified. The matter becomes more clear if we proceed from the end of the work where the indexes where usually located to its beginning and we take a look at the initial paratexts. Special circumstances in which preaching profession found itself in the post-Trident era have contributed to the frequent calls for special attention to be paid to the increase of the level of knowledge and competences of the preachers, which in turn contributed to the recording of evidence of recommended reading practices. In his preface to Lesser Postilla Jakub Wujek clearly indicates that the reason of the postil’s creation was “for simple preachers to be able to easily use it and if they would be of poor memory, to even read from it during the sermon” (Wujek: 1579). The use of it could mean also modifying the content using the external sources, e. g. the author’s Postilla catholica, and the tools contained therein – indexes which were compiled “in order for also diligent priests to, according to different times and listeners, gather handsome sermons

310

Łukasz Cybulski

from different postil fragments and other more common preachers to have it handy as reference if they would like to read about some matter” (Wujek: 1579, iiijv) as a given fragment can be “developed and augmented […] either from the references in the margins of the Bible, or from Postilla catholica or from other sources” (ibid., iiijr). Thoughts similar to Wujek’s are expressed by Hieronim Powodowski in his catechism or Stanisław Karnkowski who compares his Mesyjasz to sumptuous table and his reader to a participant or even a consumer of a religious feast: “Dear Reader, help yourself as if you were at the sumptuous table, take what you like and what you find delicious and use it for the glory of our Savior, for your and others education in faith, its strengthening, and salvation with the grace of God” (Karnkowski: 1597)17. To what exactly those addresses encouraged, how it was “taken”, “developed and augmented”? Some explanation can be provided by the process of creation of Lesser Postilla by Jakub Wujek, which itself, it can be assumed, was created following the procedures for the reader included in its preface. The purpose of the creative process analysis presented below is its hypothetical reconstruction. Hypothetical in that sense that its results do not always provide unambiguous conclusions. Moreover, the examples of reading practices provided below are based on a small sample and they constitute but a mere sketch towards a more detailed analysis, thus they simply introduce the problem but do not develop it extensively. The mentioned procedures can be illustrated by one of the sermons. The proposed method consists in checking if and to what extent the effect of old reading and writing practices can be verified nowadays, and, what is probably most important, it allows to preliminary assess if it makes sense to further search for the confirmation of declarative testimonies which so far had to be taken for granted. The exercise involves parallel sermons from both Jakub Wujek’s postils, more precisely those from Lesser Postilla which differ from the text of the parallel sermon in Postilla catholica (Cybulski: 2013), according to the assumption that the tracking of modifications will follow “the registry of basic matters” contained therein. According to this idea, the creator – in this case the author – following the guidelines from the preface to Lesser Postilla when performing the modification of the source text referred primarily to the index, then used the material found with its help weaving it into the new argument. The objective of such practice is a separate matter in this case. This particularly important question has to go by the wayside for now as without the knowledge on the method and technique it is difficult to fully identify this phenomenon and assess its range or significance. 17 That this is not only an isolated example is proved by E. Eisenstein’s reference to Abraham Ortelius who “likened his Theatrum to a «well-furnished shoppe» which was so arranged that readers could easily find whatever instruments they might want to obtain”. See Eisenstein: 2005, 88.

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

311

Preparing the sermon for the first Sunday after the Easter Sunday on the basis of the story of the meeting between Jesus and the incredulous Thomas (John 20:19–31) the preacher partially works on the parallel sermon “For Low Sunday” from his Postilla Catholica which discusses “how important function the Lord assigned to his apostles and how he made them his deputies” (Wujek: 1584, 348a). It consists of two parts and in each of them the positive interpretation of the Word is intertwined with the apologetic fragments. Writing a new sermon in Lesser Postilla, the author sources its content from Postilla catholica only to a limited extent: he mainly confines himself to the positive interpretation of the Christ’s words which contain the meaning of priestly mission as well as indicates a sacramental aspect of this mission as crucial (point from Postilla catholica: “What power did Christ give to the Apostles and their deputies” [Wujek: 1584, 349a] and corresponding point from Lesser Postilla: “The Lord gave the full powers to the Apostles and their deputies” [ibid., 204]) and adopts the comment to St. John Chrysostom’s thoughts on priesthood located in the second part of the source sermon: “The Jewish priests could clean bodily leprosy or actually not clean but only declare it cleaned – and you know with how much difficulty, what diligence and effort it took to attain the priestly dignity. While our priests received not the power of declaring purification but the power of total purification itself – not of the bodily leprosy but of spiritual filth” (Wujek: 1584, 204)18. It seems that the rest of his sermon is composed anew. The author decided to compose also the second part of the lecture in a different way than in the previous model but he abandoned the idea to continue the positive teaching on the priesthood by introducing a negative motif, as a result of which the second part becomes the antithesis to the first one because it discusses not those who were called to the church service but those who were not called and by whom the appropriate sovereignty does not stand. In order to deliver such composition idea one cannot depend on the source sermon so it was necessary to use additional tools in order to “develop and augment” the idea from the other sources. Most probably we can talk about one source (although there are other instances of common content, but quite scattered) which gives the origin of the main points of the new lecture: “That Luther was not sent by God”, “Luther himself pronounced that he was not sent”, “Luther sent by the papal bishop”, “Luther declared himself a false prophet”. The source of the new composition is easily identifiable thanks to the index of Postilla catholica, where under the entry “Luther and the Lutherans” there are 18 “Cielesny tra˛d oczys´ciac´, abo iz˙ włas´niej rzeke˛, nie oczys´ciac´, ale oczys´cionych dos´wiadczac´, samym z˙ydowskim kapłanom sie˛ godziło, a wiemy z jakim ubieganim, z jaka˛ pilnos´cia˛ I staranim, godnos´ci kapłan´skiej na ten czas dostawali. Lecz naszym kapłanom nie tra˛d cielesny, ale duszne plugastwa, nie mówie˛ dos´wiadczac´ oczys´cionych, ale prawie oczys´ciac´ dozwolono.” For the related fragment, longer than in Lesser Postilla, see Postilla catholica, p. 355a. Cf. Chryzostom: 1992, 75.

312

Łukasz Cybulski

references to the chapter “On heretics” located in Evangelical thruths collected from the heretic postil added to the second edition of Postilla catholica and comprising a part of The Apology. This chapter indicates (particularly in the first five paragraphs) the above mentioned main points, on which the composition of the second part of the sermon in Lesser Postilla is based, starting from the story of “Luther’s own decree, which […] he wrote to the inhabitants of Mulhouse against Müntzer (marginal note: “Luther sent by God [his stomach]” (Wujek: 1584, 607c), through the evidence of the false mission by the lack of miracles in the Protestant church (e. g. a note: “The Lutherans cannot prove their mission from God” [ibid., 608c]) and the subsequent conclusion of his false prophecy. Listing the passages here would not make much sense due to the fact that The Apology, in which particular subjects are captured concisely is only the starting point for the composition created from the development of those points and in a broader perspective is not a source of more extensive references. The author used Postilla catholica as the source of a ready phrase only twice: in the introductory part of the second part of the sermon and here he indeed quoted a small fragment from Low Sunday sermon Lesser Postilla we shall see now that Luther with his company are false prophets as they are not truly sent, neither from God nor from those who have the power to send. They were not sent by God the Father who sent his son, Jesus Christ; they were not sent by the son of God who sent his apostles; they were not sent by the apostles who sent bishops and priests; they were not sent by bishops who source their sovereignty and succession from the apostles. And therefore they could not be sent by anybody else but Satan (Wujek: 1596, 205)19.

Postilla catholica Let them show who sent them? They were not sent by God the Father who sent his only Son, they were not sent by Christ who sent his apostles; they were not sent by the apostles who sent bishops and priests; they were not sent by bishops who source their sovereignty from the apostles. Who else can it be than Satan as their father who sent them (Wujek: 1584, 608c)20.

and in the ending of the same part, where the quote of St. Cyprian comes from The sermon on heretics (Wujek: 1596, 206; Wujek, 1584, 559c), which cannot be, unfortunately, found through the index. 19 “obaczmy tu teraz, iz˙ Luter i ze wszytka˛ horda˛ swoja˛ sa˛ fałszywi prorocy, poniewaz˙ nie sa˛ porza˛dnie posłani, ani od Boga, ani od tych, którzy maja˛ moc posyłania. Nie posłał ich Bóg Ociec, który posłał Syna swego Jezusa Chrystusa; nie posłał ich Syn Boz˙y, który posłał apostoły swoje; nie posłali ich apostołowie, którzy posłali biskupy i kapłany; nie posłali ich biskupi, którzy od apostołów swoje˛ zwierzchnos´c´ i sukcesyja˛ maja˛. A tak ni od kogo inszego jedno od Szatana musza˛ byc´ posłani”. 20 “Niechz˙e mi ukaz˙a˛, kto ich posłał? Nie posłał ich Bóg Ojciec, który jedynego Syna swego posłał; nie posłał ich Pan Chrystus, który posłał apostoły swoje; nie posłali ich apostołowie, którzy posłali biskupy i kapłany; nie posłali ich biskupi, którzy od apostołów swoje˛ zwierzchnos´c´ maja˛. A cóz˙ inszego zostawa, jedno iz˙ od Szatana ojca swego sa˛ posłani”.

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

313

Similar analogies can be indicated also in the sermon for St. Stanislaw day where the text of Lesser Postilla has been composed from the fragments of Postilla catholica which are possible to locate thanks to the marginalia and the index. Also here Lesser Postilla contains merely a small fragment of the text of Postilla catholica. The author used here a quite interesting procedure as the second paragraph of the first part of the sermon from Lesser Postilla presents the lecture on six indications of the Roman Church beginning with a paragraph from the text of Postilla catholica (quoted together with the marginalia), which originally constituted the ending of the sermon and thus Wujek used this material to create a different “figure” (cf. Fulin´ska: 2000, 229). The adopted fragment is essentially a quote from Saint Augustine and covers the part from the paragraph opening with words: “Look, he says, heretic” to the statement: “Here end the words of Saint Augustine” (Wujek: 1596, 458–459; Wujek, 1584, 229–230b). The part originally closing the lecture on the life of St. Stanislaw and the model of a good bishop placed in the initial position determines the composition of the text on a completely different subject: “on the cognition of the real Church of Christ”. The marginalia which accompanied the quote determine the main points around which the lecture is constructed and its development was achieved through the search of Postilla catholica index suggesting content consistent with each marginal note. Quoting examples requires comparison of numerous fragments, therefore while omitting such cumbersome presentation I shall only mention that the above described method of the reconstruction of writing activities was not always effective as not every item from Lesser Postilla can be satisfactorily identified on the basis of the index and marginalia, which can be caused by numerous factors: imperfect index, inattention of the researcher or simply the lack of analogy that we have expected to find. Nevertheless, it seems that undertaking this type of research beyond the narrow field of Jakub Wujek’s works is justifiable not only from the perspective of ad hoc research resulting in the information on who used what and how intensely in the given place. Such knowledge would also allow to look differently at postils, which – analyzed from the perspective of a typographical form – are something more than a mere collection of sermons and they start to resemble tools for constructing the argument. If one can believe their authors, such use of homiletic collections was a universal phenomenon throughout many centuries. What is more, it still seems valid nowadays. Translated by Małgorzata Socha

314

Łukasz Cybulski

Bibliography Sources Broz˙ek, jan (1956), Gratis, in: idem, Wybór pism, Henryk Barycz (ed.), Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 239–392. Chryzostom, Jan (1992), Dialog „O kapłan´stwie”, Henri de Lubac/Marek Starowieyski (ed.), Wojciech Kania (transl.) Kraków: Wydawnictwo M. Erazm z Rotterdamu [Erasmus Desiderius Rotterodamus] (1992), Polecany spis lektur, in: idem, Wybór pism, Maria Cytowska (ed.), Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 276–302. Karnkowski, Stanisław (1597), Mesyjasz albo kazania o upadku i naprawie rodzaju ludzkiego […], Poznan´: Jan Wolrab. Malecki, Hieronim (1574), Postylla domowa […], Królewiec: [Jan Daubmann Heirs]. Skarga, Piotr (1595), Kazania na niedziele i s´wie˛ta całego roku […], Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk. Wujek, Jakub (1579), Postylle mniejszej cze˛s´c´ pirwsza ozimia […], Poznan´: Jakub Wolrab. Wujek, Jakub (1584), Postilla catholica to jest kazania na ewangelije niedzielne i ods´wie˛tne przez cały rok […], Kraków: Jakub Siebeneicher. Wujek, Jakub (1596), Postylla katolicka mniejsza […], Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk.

Studies ´ kowska Barbara (1976), Staropolski s´wiat ksia˛z˙ek, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Bien Ossolin´skich. Blair, Ann (2003), Reading Strategies for Coping With Information Overload ca. 1550– 1700, Journal of the History of Ideas, 64, 1, 11–28. Blair, Ann (2004), Note Taking as an Act of Transmission, Critical Inquiry, 31, 1, 85–107. Chartier, Roger (1994), The Order of Books. Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cybulski, Łukasz (2013), Dwie postylle Jakuba Wujka czy jedna? Problem korespondencji tekstów, in: Zofia Głombiowska (ed.), Inter textus. Mie˛dzy tekstami, Gdan´sk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdan´skiego, 140–152. Cybulski, Łukasz (2014a), ”Samemu pismu wierzyc´ jest nic nie wierzyc´” – marginalia w dawnej ksia˛z˙ce oraz ich znaczenie z perspektywy badan´ filologicznych (na przykładzie ”Postylli” Jakuba Wujka), in: Anna Cisło/Agnieszka Łuszpak (ed.), Kulturowa toz˙samos´c´ ksia˛z˙ki, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 247–257. Cybulski, Łukasz (2014b), Kilka uwag o technice tworzenia kazan´ na marginesie postylli Jakuba Wujka, in: Łukasz Cybulski/Krzysztof Koehler (ed.), Retoryka Towarzystwa Jezusowego i jej konteksty, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyn´skiego, 99–119. Eisenstein, Elisabeth (2005), The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1.

Interpretation in the 16th Century Polish Bible Exegesis

315

Fulin´ska, Agnieszka (2000), Nas´ladowanie i twórczos´c´ : renesansowe teorie imitacji, emulacji i przekładu, Wrocław: Leopoldinum. Gruchała, Janusz (2002), Iucunda familia librorum. Humanis´ci renesansowi w s´wiecie ksia˛z˙ki, Kraków: Universitas. Janssen, Frans A. (2005), The Rise of the Typographical Paragraph, in: Karl Alfred Engelbert Enenkel/Wolfgang Neuber (ed.), Cognition and the Book. Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period, Leiden: Brill. Komorowska, Magdalena (2012), Prolegomena do edycji dzieł Piotra Skargi, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Kostecki, Janusz (2008), Czytelnik w ´swiecie wartos´ci, in: Marta Skalska-Zlat/Anna Z˙bikowska-Migon´ (ed.), Dokument, ksia˛z˙ka i biblioteka w badaniach naukowych i nauczaniu uniwersyteckim, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 85–114. Kostecki, Janusz (2011), Czytelnictwo jako przedmiot refleksji naukowej, in: Anna Z˙bikowska-Migon´ (ed.), Czytanie, czytelnictwo, czytelnik, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 11–23. Kuran, Magadalena (2007), Retoryka jako narze˛dzie perswazji w postyllografii polskiej XVI wieku (na przykładzie ”Postylli katolicznej” Jakuba Wujka), Łódz´, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Mazurkowa, Barbara (2011), Weksle prawdy i nieprawdy. Studia literackie o ksia˛z˙ce os´wieceniowej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IBL PAN. Mejor, Mieczysław (2000), Antyczne tradycje ´sredniowiecznej praktyki pisarskiej: subskrypcje póz´noantycznych kodeksów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IBL PAN. Meller, Katarzyna (2012), Słowa jak ziarna. Reformacyjne idee, ksia˛z˙ki, spory, Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Moss, Ann (2005), Locating Knowledge, in: Karl Alfred Engelbert Enenkel/Wolfgang Neuber (ed.), Cognition and the Book. Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period, Leiden: Brill. Nadolski, Bronisław (ed.) (1961), Wybór mów staropolskich, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Pawlak, Wiesław (2009), ”O pewnym sposobie naszych literatów, z˙e przy niewielkim czytaniu moga˛ sie˛ łatwo wielkiemi erudytami pokazac´”. Kompendia jako z´ródło erudycji humanistycznej, in: Iwona M. Dacka-Górzyn´ska/Joanna Partyka, (ed.), Staropolskie kompendia wiedzy, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Dig, 45–72. Pawlak, Wiesław (2012), De eruditione comparanda in humanioribus. Studia z dziejów erudycji humanistycznej w XVII wieku, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Pietrzak-Thébault, Joanna (2011), Petrarkizm, petrarkis´ci, petrarkistki – narodziny nowego czytelnika, in: Anna Z˙bikowska-Migon´ (ed.), Czytanie, czytelnictwo, czytelnik, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 223–232. Reynolds, Leighton Durham/Wilson, Nigel Guy (2008), Skrybowie i uczeni. O tym, w jaki sposób antyczne teksty literackie przetrwały do naszych czasów, Paweł Majewski (transl.), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. [original edition Reynolds, Leighton Durham/Wilson, Nigel Guy (1968), Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek & Latin Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

316

Łukasz Cybulski

´ ski, Stanisław (1924), Badania z´ródłowe nad kazaniami niedzielnemi i s´wia˛Sapin tecznemi Skargi, Kraków: Ksie˛garnia Gebethnera i Wolffa. Shermann W.H. (2008), Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sitkowa Anna (1998), ”Na połów dusz ludzkich”. O literackiej ramie wydawniczej w edycjach kazan´ Piotra Skargi (XVI–XVIII w.), Warszawa: Energeia. Slights, William W.E. (1989), The Edifying Margins of Renaissance English Books, Renaissance Quarterly, 42, 4, 682–716. Sobol, Elz˙bieta (ed.) (2004), Nowy słownik je˛zyka polskiego PWN, Article: ”Czytac´”, Warszawa: PWN, 114–115. Socha Irena (2011), Czytelnik w polskiej mys´li bibliologicznej, in: Anna Z˙bikowskaMigon´ (ed.), Czytanie, czytelnictwo, czytelnik, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 25–43. Szybowska, Urszula (2012), Zapiski poz˙eracza ksia˛g. O rodzajach i funkcjach marginaliów na podstawie notatek Jana Bernarda Bonifacia, Pruszcz Gdan´ski: Wydawnictwo Jasne. Winiarska-Górska, Izabela, Szesnastowieczne druki ”Ewangelii” jako złoz˙one struktury tekstowe, http://www.ewangelie.uw.edu.pl/files/struktury.pdf/. Wójcik, Rafał (2012), Autobiographical marginal notes in early printed calendars, almanacs and ephemerides as the form of the pre-memoirs in Poland in the 15th and the 16th centuries, in: Andrea V. Neyra/Gerardo Rodríguez (ed.), ¿Qué implica ser medievalista? Prácticas y reflexiones en torno al oficio del historiador, Mar del Plata: Universidad de Mar del Plata, Sociedad Argentina de Estudios Medievales, vol. 3, 163–197.

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙, Kristina Rutkovska

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

1.

Introduction1

A Jesuit priest Konstantinas Sirvydas (1580–1631) taught the subject of positive theology at the Vilnius Academy and preached sermons in Lithuanian and Polish at the church of St. Johns for 10 years. Around about the year 1620, his first (old) dictionary Dictionarium trium linguarum was published, and the year 1629 marked the publication of his first book of sermons Gospel Points (GP I). The second dictionary appeared in 1631, and the second book of Gospel Points (GP II) was published in 1644. Konstantinas Sirvydas’ (Polish: Konstanty Szyrwid) book of sermons Gospel Points (Lithuanian: Punktai Sakymu˛; Polish: Punkty Kazan´) is considered to be one of the most outstanding and matured heritage specimens of Lithuanian Baroque culture of the first half of the 17th century. This article reveals some yet uninvestigated aspects of Sirvydas’ contribution into the Lithuanian culture. He is introduced not only as the author of the first original book of Lithuanian sermons, promoter of the written language, lexicographer, but also as a translator of the Holy Scripture, creator of biblical terminology and style, and a theologian thinker.

2.

GP structure and text layers

2.1.

The structure of Sirvydas’ books of sermons

Sirvydas’ Gospel Points from Advent to Lent that were published in 1629 consist of the following parts: the title page in Polish, the Latin stemma, the inscription in Latin, the approbation, the foreword in Polish, the Latin index of sermons and 1 Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙’s research for this paper was funded by a grant (No. MIP-037/2015) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

318

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

their parts, the Latin index of the most essential topics and summaries of fourteen sermons in Lithuanian and Polish covering the period from Advent to Lent. The title page presents the title of the book in Polish only.

Illustration 1: The title page of Sirvydas’ book Gospel Points (1629).

The headline preceding the summary of the first sermon should be considered a more generalized and exact Lithuanian and Polish title of this book: PVNKTAY SAKIMV DIEWO Zodz´io iz˙ Euangelios, ir iz˙ kitu Raßto ßwynto wietu; Polish: PVNKTA KAZAN z EVANGELIEY y z innych Piſmá ´swie˛tego mieysc.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

319

Illustration 2: The headline in Lithuanian and Polish preceding the first sermon of Gospel Points (GP I 3).

The book is dedicated to the bishop of Vilnius diocese Eustachijus Valavicˇius (Polish: Eustachy Wołłowicz) who is the named patron of this book. In the preface, which was written in Polish, Sirvydas described the purpose of this book and gave instructions on how to use the sermon summaries written by him. He wrote that it was not necessary to cover all the parts of a sermon in one preaching. He recommended to consider the level of complexity and the level of education of the listeners while making choices:

320

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

Ktemu ſa˛ tu niektore rzeczy, ktore s´ie˛ dla proſtych słucháczow nie zgodza˛, ále dla vczen´ßych, przeto według poie˛c´ia słucháczow brák ma byc´ czyniony w podawániu ich, áby proſtßym łácn´ieyße, á poie˛tnieyßym gruntownieyße były podawáne[.] Ɉ dla tegoc´ s´ie˛ tez˙ wie˛cey punktow kłádz´ie, miedzy ktorymi nie wßytkie ſa˛ trudne GP I [24]. Also, there are some topics that are not suitable for average listeners, but only for more educated people; therefore it is necessary to be tuned in to the listeners and make a choice: for uneducated listeners provide simpler points, for more educated listeners include the more complex points. Consequently I put more points, some of which are not difficult.

The foreword also gives an explanation about the necessity of using the three languages (Lithuanian, Polish and Latin) in the book. Sirvydas regrets that, due to the expense, his book could not be published with inclusion of the accents specific to the Lithuanian language: Potrzebác´by ná Litewski ie˛zyk kreſek nieiákich, ktore s´ie˛ zovia˛ po Łác´inie Accentus, áby, z przyrodzenia po Litewsku nieumieia˛cy, potráfił z nich dobrze mowic´, y czytác´, áleby tez˙ potrzebá do nich nowego y oſobliwego druku, y koßtu, ktoregom ia teraz nie mogł miec´ GP I [23]. Non native Lithuanian speakers need special diacritical marks (called ‘accentus’ in Latin) to be able to speak and write good Lithuanian. However, at present I cannot afford to cover expenses for making new costly typfaces having accents.

Sirvydas’ Gospel Points for Lent that were published in 1644 consist of the following parts: the title page in Polish, the approbation, the Latin inscription, two indices in Latin and eleven sermons intended for the period of Lent and Easter.

2.2.

The framework of Sirvydas’ sermons

Each of the sermons written by Sirvydas is divided into parts that are called points. The longest and the most developed sermon is made of ten points; the shortest sermons contain four points. The points are marked with Roman numerals. Each of the points has a title that reflects its entire contents. The same titles are presented in both the Polish part of the text and in the Latin margins. In this case the Latin headline, most likely, should be treated as primary, whereas the Lithuanian and the Polish headlines should be viewed as translations: Grudas garſtic´ios z´inkłu ira Ewangelios aba z˙odz˙io Diewo. Ziárno gorczyczne znákiem ieſt Ewangeliey ábo słowá Boz˙ego. Granum ſinapis eſt ſymbolum Verbi Dei GP I 303.

The strict order is observed inside the points as well. The text of the points here is usually divided into smaller points (subpoints) marked with Arabic numerals. The

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

321

Illustration 3: The column headings of Gospel points in Latin, Lithuanian and Polish (GP I 303).

first sentence of the subpoint is a thesis that is further commented on and argumented by employing various resources, quoting and retelling them. The main thesis of the subpoint is most frequently repeated in a concise manner in the Latin margin. The margin segment, which accompanies the main text, gives biblical quotations and/or references to them, or, sometimes, other sources that Sirvydas himself relied on and recommended them to sermon writers and preachers. The margins are equally related to both the Lithuanian and the Polish text.

322 2.3.

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

The ratio of author’s text to in-texts

Avoiding generalizations about the size of the author’s text and the in-texts we introduce two points (GP I 98–104 and GP II 116–120) from Sirvydas’ books (see also Vasiliauskiene˙ 2013b). 2.3.1. The sixth point of GP I third sermon There are eleven quotations (2 Pet 1:4; Ps 82:6; John 10:10; 1 John 3:14; 1 John 4:9; Isa 53:5; Phil 4:13; Jer 1:18; Cant 4:7; 1 John 3:2; Rom 8:17) and three paraphrases (Gen 1:26; Mark 5:25–34 or Luke 8:43–48; Cant 5) from the Holy Scripture, one quotation from each, Augustine (1) and Thomas Aquinas (2), in the sixth point of GP I third sermon: (1) Miliſta tieg Diewo / ne tiktay z˙wayzdes wiſas / ir wiſus dungus / bet ir wiſus Aniełus praeyt GP I 99 (In: Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum ad Bonifacium Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopum, Liber II, 6.12). Laſká práwi Boz˙a / nie tylko gwia˙zdy wßytkie / y wßytkie niebioſa / a˙le y wßytkie Anioły przewyzßá. The Latin margin: Gratia DEI non ſolùm omnia ſidera, & omnes cœlos, verùm etiam omnes Angelos ſupergreditur. Aug: lib. 2. ad Bonifacium cap: 6. (2) Gierumas miliſtos wienos dideſnis ira / neg gierumas prigimimo wiſo ſwieto GP 99 (In: Summa Theologiae, 1.2 q. 113, a. 9, ad 2). Dobro łaſki iedney wie˛kße ieſt / niz˙li dobro natury wßytkiego s´wiáta. The Latin margin: S. Thom: Bonum gratiæ vnius eſt maius, quàm bonum naturæ totius vniuerſi. 1. 2. q. 113. ar. 9. ad 2.

Moreover, the Latin margin contains a reference to the work by Robert Bellarmine “Tredecima Controversia Generalis de Gratia Generi Humano in Primo Parente Collata. Unica Libro Explicata. Controversiarum de Gratia Primi Hominis. Liber Unicus, Caput II”: “Diſcrimen inter imaginem & ſimilitudinem DEI in homine. Bellar: lib: de gratia primi hominis c 2. ” The quotations make 23 percent of the text of this point (128 words out of 554). In this point of the sermon, Sirvydas speaks about the greatness of a righteous man. In his words, “God’s grace rewards a human with a special kind of state/being, revives the soul and unfolds its exclusive beauty. The righteous man is the son of God and his successor.”

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

323

2.3.2. The second point of GP II fifth sermon The second point of GP II fifth sermon contains twelve quotations from the Holy Scripture. Job’s book is quoted from the Old Testament; John and 1 John are quoted from the New Testament. In addition, the text of this point also suggests allusions to Dan 6 and Jdt 8: Zinkłas / iey wiſatime (?) ába draugiey / ne wienas neſirunda / kuris ſkuſtuſi vnt giwenimo / budo / ir darbuu io. Tokſay buwo Danielis ßwentas. Toki Iuditha. Znák / ieſli z˙aden z ſpołem mießkáia˛cych nie náyduie ſie˛ / ktoryby nárzekał ná poz˙yc´ie / obyczáie / álbo ſpráwy iego. Táki był Dániel s´. Táká Iudith. Sign (of not having a deadly sin): if no one appears in the society or the community who would complain about his way of living, customs and deeds. Saint Daniel was like that, and also Judith.

The quotations make 30 percent of the text of this point (143 words out of 333). This part of the sermon explains which features indicate that a human has not committed a major sin.

3.

GP pericopes

3.1.

The pericopes in the Lithuanian language

Each sermon of GP is preceded by pericope (sections of the Gospels required for the Masses of the liturgical year) in Lithuanian and Polish. The language of the pericopes and the language of sermons that follow them differ significantly. The linguists Jonas Kabelka (1938: 73–87), Zigmas Zinkevicˇius (1988: 268) and others, while searching for the reasons to these differences found that the texts of GP pericopes in Lithuanian coincide with the texts of the book published in 1647 under the title Ewangelie polskie y litewskie (JE). The translator of the latter is considered to be another Jesuit priest Jonas Jaknavicˇius (Polish: Jan Jachnowicz), that is why it is assumed that Sirvydas used in his book the texts of pericopes taken from Jonas Jaknavicˇius’ book. The question arises – why did not Sirvydas (being an excellent translator from Latin himself) manage to translate the pericopes when he quoted, almost entirely in his sermons, from the Holy Scripture? The freedom of translation of the pericopes was limited by the fact that those Gospel extracts were liturgical texts which could not be quickly and easily altered; however, they could be adjusted. The extracts from the Gospels read before the sermons functioned as part of the liturgical rite and, without doubt, must have been translated into Lithuanian much earlier than they were published in Postilla Ca-

324

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

Illustration 4: The pericope in Lithuanian preceding a sermon (GP I 296).

tholicka (DP 1599) by Mikalojus Dauksˇa, where the first catholic version of their translation is included. The comparison of the same texts of the Gospels written by Dauksˇa, Sirvydas and Jaknavicˇius reveals that they had not been translated anew, but they were revised and edited. The syntactic structure of the three texts under comparison does not differ fundamentally; however, in the versions of translation by Sirvydas and Jaknavicˇius, the phonetics and lexis of Dauksˇa’s dialect were altered, the lexical and morphological archaisms were declined. Probably the most important difference between extracts from Sirvydas’ GP and Gospels translated by Jaknavicˇius is that the latter, in some cases, returns to the terms that Dauksˇa used, or includes his version of translation as a bracketed, or printed in cursive, duplicate. Therefore, it is quite possible to assume that Sirvydas edited the pericopes taken from Dauksˇa so

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

325

Illustration 5: The pericope in Polish preceding a sermon (GP I 297).

that they respond to the needs of the Catholics of the Vilnius diocese, or he used the text that was earlier adapted to the Catholics of this diocese. In a number of instances the duplicates inserted into Jaknavicˇius text are different versions of translation of Dauksˇa and Sirvydas biblical terms and phrases, cf: ſwiec´iimo (ludimo) GP I 234 – s´wiec´iimo (ludimo) JE 25 – lûdimo DP 73; cf: in testimonium BSV2 (Matt 8:4)

2 All biblical quotations in Latin were taken from the fifth edition of Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, adiuvantibus B. Fisher, I. Gribomont, H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele, recensuit et brevi

326

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

maz˙atikiey GP I 262 – maz˙atikiey maz˙o tikieimo JE 27 – maz˙a tikeiimo DP 78; cf: modicae fidei BSV (Matt 8:26) prapuołame GP I 262 – prapuołame (z˙uwame) JE 27 – z˙uwame DP 78; cf: perimus BSV (Matt 8:25) pauks´c´iey oro GP I 296 – pauksc´iey dungaus (horo) JE 30 – pâukßcz˙ei hôro DP 86; cf: volucres caeli BSV (Matt 13:32) pasłepe (az˙uraugie) GP I 296 – pasłepe (az˙urawgie) JE 30 – páſłepie DP 86; cf: abscondit BSV (Matt 13:33)

If Sirvydas had obtained the Gospel texts from Jaknavicˇius, why did Jaknavicˇius, when publishing Ewangelie polskie y litewskie in 1647, make their text older by bringing back Dauksˇa’s archaisms and adding word variants from Sirvydas’ dictionary? Considering Jaknavicˇius as the editor and publisher of Ewangelie polskie y litewskie, it is obvious why, contrary to Sirvydas, his surname cannot be found in the title page of the book. Neither Sirvydas nor Jaknavicˇius (even though he might have prepared the Gospel texts that Sirvydas used) should be treated as translators of these Gospels. Similar conclusions were made by Jurgis Lebedys in his work Senoji lietuviu˛ literatu¯ra [The Old Lithuanian Literature] (1977). He did not think that the Gospel texts might have been retranslated by someone into East Highlander dialect. In his opinion, the texts had been taken from Dauksˇa’s Postilla and adapted to East Highlanders much earlier than 1647, when Ewangelie polskie y litewskie, assigned to Jaknavicˇius, were published. The textological analysis of the same Gospel passages from Dauksˇa, Sirvydas and Jaknavicˇius confirm the presumption made by Lebedys (1977, 83–86), cf. e. g. Matt 11:2–7, Sirvydas: Jz˙girdis Ionas kaliney darbus Chriſtuſo, nuſiuntis du iz˙ mokitiniu ſawo, tare iam. Tugu eſſi, kuris turi atayt, ergu kito łaukiame? A atſakidamas Iezus tare iemus: Nueii atſakikite Ionuy ku girdeiote ir regieiote. Akli regi, rays´i wayksc´ioia, raupuoti apc´iſtiti eſti, kurtiniey girdi, numereliei kielaſi iz˙ numiruſiu, vbagay Evangeliu priimdineia GP I 32 Dauksˇa: Izˇgirdes Ionas Saytu˚ſia dárbus Chriſtaus / núſiunte˛s du izˇg˙ mókitiniu˛ ſawúiu˛ / táre iam: Ir tugu êſsi kurſái turei[ei] atéyt˙ / argu kito łauk me? O atſakîdamas Iéſus˙ táre iiemus: Nuêie˛ / apſakîkite Iónui ka˛ girdéiote/ ir regéiote / akliéy régi ráyßieii wâykßczioia / raupſu˚tieii éſt apcziſtiti / kurtinéi gîrdi / numirelei kełaſi iz˙ numiruſiu˛ / élgetos Ewangélia priimdinéia DP 17. Ewangelie polskie y litewskie: Iz˙girdis Ionas turmoie (kaliney) darbus Chryſtuſo / nuſiuntis du iz˙g mokitiniu ſawo / tare iam Tugu eſsi, kurſai turi atait / ergu kito laukiame? O atſakidamas w. IEzus tare iemus: Nuei apſakikite Ionuy ku girdeiote ir re-

apparatu critico instruxit Robert Weber, editionem quintam emendatam retractatam praeparavit Roger Gryson, Stuttgart, 2007.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

327

gieiote. Aklieii regi / rays´ieii wayks´c´ioia / raupuoti apc´iſtiti eſt / kurtiney girdi / numirelei kielaſi iz˙ numiruſiu / vbagai Ewangeliu priimdineia JE 3–4.

3.2.

Pericopes in Polish language

It was thought that Sirvydas might have rewritten the Polish text from the Gospels and Epistles (WEE) that were published in 1593 in Cracow [Ewangelie i epistoły], or from the translation (W1593) of Wujek’s New Testament (NT) that was published in 1593 as well. The contents of WEE show that the Gospels were intended for individual contemplations. The short extracts from the New Testament were followed by a prayer of appeal (closely related to the contents of the extracts) which was dedicated to the patron mentioned in the liturgical calendar on that day. The arrangement of the cycle of the liturgical calendar, beginning with the Advent, was also maintained. It is supposed that WEE became extremely popular – in Krakow, they were published in the pocket format. There is only one copy of them published in 1620 (shelf mark – III 14426) at the Rare Book Department of the Vilnius University Library. The comparison of the pericopes found in this copy of WEE with the pericopes of Sirvydas’ GP reveals their complete resemblance. However, the comparison of the same texts with the pericopes inserted into the text of Postilla Catholiczna Mnieysza (PCMn) discloses their differences and allows the assumption that those were two different translations. The juxtaposition of Sirvydas’ passages with the NT texts published in 1593 and 1599 showed that there are more similarities with the 1593 NTedition, and only sometimes do fragments that are analogous to the 1599 edition occur. This situation might suggest that, probably, some changes might have also been introduced in the WEE text in the second edition of Wujek’s NT. There is no doubt that the author of the Polish pericopes is Wujek and that they have been taken from WEE. Unfortunately, at this time, it is rather complicated to decide which edition they come from. For that purpose, a thorough investigation of all WEE editions (which were numerous, as it was mentioned above, but not all of them survived) would be necessary.

4.

GP in-texts and means of their identifying

4.1.

Sources of in-texts quotations

In the Lithuanian text of GP there are 999 identified biblical quotations: 426 are from the Old Testament and 573 are from the New Testament (the Gospels are quoted 303 times). The majority of the books of the Holy Scripture are quoted or

328

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

otherwise relied on in GP. Only two Historical books were not used from the Old Testament (Ruth and Ezra); also, the two books of Prophets were not used (Amos and Obad). From the New Testament, three letters were not referred to (Phlm and 1–2 John). Ps(s) and Isa are the most quoted books from the Old Testament. Quotations from Prov, Cant and Wis are placed into the text of sermons quite often as well. In large part, the New Testament books quoted are Matt, John, Rom and 1 Cor. The analysis of individual sermons written by Sirvydas shows that GP could be viewed as the anthology of biblical quotations to preachers – quotations make here up to a quarter of the text of sermons. In GP, Fathers of the Church, French theologian thinkers, Roman authors, initiators and founders of Protestantism (25 authors) are also quoted or paraphrased (see also Vasiliauskiene˙ 2013a). Sirvydas’ sermons reflect a dispute between the Catholic and Protestant faiths on the question of religious doctrines. In the second point of GP I tenth sermon, Sirvydas enters into polemics with Ulrich Zwingli (1525) about the conception of the Holy Sacrament: Zwinglius ſakos ißmokis nuog dwaſo kokio / bałtogu er iuodo tieg nez˙inau / bet ne tureio abeiot / iog iuodas buwo pats tikras apſwiłys ir apdegis welinas iz˙ pac´ios pekłos / ſakos tariu ißmokis / kayp turi iz˙guldit anuos z˙odz˙ius a˙pe Sakramentu. Tay ira kunas mano: Tay ira Tay z˙inklina kunu mano / duona ta ira duonu notſimayno ing kunu / bet tiktay ira z˙inkłu kuno. Taſay iz˙guldimas ira nuog welino / todrin negal but tieſus ir tikras GP I 287–288. Zwinglius powiáda z˙e s´ie˛ náuczył od ducha˙ iákiegos´ / białegoli czy czarnego práwi niewiem / ále nie miał wa˛tpic´ z˙e czarny był ſam prawdz˙iwy opalony y ogorzały czart z ſamego piekła / powiádá mowie˛ z˙e s´ie˛ nauczył ia˙ko ma wyłoz˙yc one ſłowa˙ o Sakramenc´ie. To ieſt c´iało moie: to ieſt: To znaczy c´iáło moie / chleb ten ieſt chlebem nie odmienia s´ie˛ w c´ia˙ło / ále tylko ieſt znakiem c´iała. Ten wykład ieſt od czarta / dla tego nie moz˙e byc´ prawdz´iwy y w łaſny GP I 287–288. Zwingli says that he had learned about that from some kind of spirit (He says: I do not know if it was white or black), but he must not have had any doubt that the spirit was a true black scorched and burned devil from hell. Zwingli says that he learned from the devil how he should explain words about the Holy Sacrament “This is my body”: i. e. this signifies my body; that bread remains bread; it does not change into a living body, but it is a sign of a body. Such an explanation must have come from a devil, so it can’t be true and right.

In the second point of the tenth sermon he criticizes Luther (1) for the rejection of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Luther 1522) and speaks against Calvin’s (2) conception of sin and its nature (Calvinus 1559): (1) Nes Lutheras raßo ape ſawi / iog nuog welino perkałbetas mis´ios ßwentos afieru iz˙mete.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

329

Bo o ſobie Lut[er] piße˛ iz˙ od czarta przekonany ofiare˛ mßy s´wie˛tey / wyrzuc´ił GP I 287. Because Luther himself writes that he discarded the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after having been convinced by a devil. (2) heretikay ſako ſeiunt Diewu kukalus nuſideimu. Nes Kalwinas didziauſias narßtinikas Baz˙nic´ios ßwentos daro Diewu daritoiu nuſideimu. a˙ heretycy powiadaia˛ z˙e ´sieie Bog ka˛kol grzechow. Bo Kalwin nawie˛kßy buntownyk kos´c´iola s´wie˛tego / czyni Boga˙ czynic´ielem abo przyczyna˛ grʒechow GP I 288. The heretics say, that God sowed tares of sins. Therefore Calvin, the biggest opponent of the Holy Church, makes God the creator or the cause of sins.

The most frequently relied on are Augustine (13 times), Thomas Aquinas (7 times), Gregory the Great (3 times), and Jerome (3 times) (see also Vasiliauskiene˙ 2013d). Their quotations are identified mostly relying on Patrologia Latina (PL) and Patrologia Graeca (PG). Besides, biblical allusions can also be quite often found in GP: Trumpas pagiwenimas / kuriu trumpiby rodz˙ia mumus raßtas / kad metus muſu wadina worotinklieys (Ps 90:9) / z˙oły (Isa 40:6–8) / z˙iedu (Job 14:2; Isa 40:6–8) / dumays aba garu (Jas 4:14) / s´ies´ielu (Job 14:2; Wis 5:9) / praeygu graytu eldiios vnt wundenio / praſkridimu pauks´cio vnt oro (Wis 5:10–11) / putu aba kunkału vnt wundenio (Hos 10:7) / ir kitays wardays GP I 107. Krotki z˙ywot / ktorego krotkos´c´ poka˙zuie nam piſmo / gdy la˙tá na˙ße naz˙ywa pa˙ie˛cʒyna˛ (Ps 90:9) / trawa˛ (Isa 40:6–8) / kwia˙tem (Job 14:2; Isa 40:6–8) / dymem / a˙bo para˛ (Jas 4:14) / c´ieniem (Job 14:2; Wis 5:6) / przes´c´iem okre˛tu ná wodz´ie / pta˙ßym lotem pre˛tkim na˙ powietrzu (Wis 5:10–11) / piàna˛ (Hos 10:7) y innemy názwiſki GP I 107. Life is brief; its brevity is described in the Scripture where our years are called spiders (Ps 90:9), grass (Isa 40:6–8), a flower (Job 14:2; Isa 40:6–8), a vapor or a fume (Jas 4:14), a shadow (Job 14:2; Wis 5:9), passing of the ship through water, bird’s flying through air (Wis 5:10–11), froth or bubbles on water (Hos 10:7) and other names.

Sirvydas employs hagiographic narratives which are meant to strengthen the faith: S. Stephono kieti ákmenes regeios iam z˙imc´iugay brungus S. Laurino z˙arios / roz˙ies mieley kwepunc´ios. Kriz˙ius S. Andrieiaus patołas [!] graz˙iey apreditas / ir minkßtay pakłotas. S. Stephánowi twárde ka˙mienie / zdáły ſie˛ mu drogie perły. S. Wáwrzynca we˛gle z˙árzyſte / były mu roz˙e pie˛knie páchna˛ce. Krzyz˙ S. Andrzeiowi łoz˙e pie˛knie y mie˛kko vſłáne GP II 107. Hard stones appeared to Saint Stephen as precious pearls; hot coals looked to Saint Lawrence like nice smelling roses; the cross looked to Saint Andrew like a beautifully decorated and soft bed.

330 4.2.

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

Means of identifying quotations, allusions and paraphrases in GP

GP are considered to be the first original Lithuanian book in which the text of the points should be perceived as more or less condensed, i. e. as summaries of sermons, and as a solid text. The assumptions of the presence of text layers and in-texts have never before been addressed or discussed. In the initial stage of analysis, it was decided to connect the biblical names and the context surrounding them to corresponding sections in the Holy Scripture. Then it turned out that the majority of the names had been used in biblical quotations which were literally translated from the Sistine and St Clemens Vulgate. Part of quotations and references to the Vulgate used in the Lithuanian and Polish text are presented in the Latin margins. The references here often required specification. After grasping the peculiar structure of GP, the authors of this study came across a number of quotations that were in no way mentioned in the book. There were cases when a quotation was indicated by some kind of a single word, part of a word or the initials of the author in the text of sermons, or in a margin. Consequently, the concordances with the Holy Scripture were invoked to search for biblical quotations and paraphrases. Concordances were also used in determining the biblical allusions. In the text of the sermons, an indication to who the words spoken belong to could be made before or after the quotation, and the quotation from the author’s text might be marked with the corresponding punctuation. However, the most common indicator of GP quotations is the word tieg ‘it is said’ inserted into them, which is used 308 times. An explanation might also be inserted into a quotation (commented inside the quotation) which starts with connecting words tieg ‘it is said’ and tay ira ‘that is’: (1) Biioios tieg kur ne buwo baymes. Tám drz˙eli od boiáz´ni / gdz´ie nie było ſtráchu GP II 52 (Ps 14:5). trepidaverunt timore ubi non erat timor BSV (Ps 13:6). (2) Swietas ſu iuo / tay ira ſu Diewu / prieß durnus tay ira prieß nuſideieius / kariaus. Swiát znim / to ieſt z Bogiem / przec´iw ßalonym walczyc´ be˛dz´ie GP I 110 (Wis 5:20). pugnabit cum illo orbis terrarum contra insensatos BSV (Wis 5:21).

GP also contain biblical paraphrases, but Sirvydas gives priority in his sermons to literal quoting from the Holy Scripture.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

5.

331

The proportion of the Lithuanian and Polish text volume in the structure of GP

Under the author’s provision, the text written in Lithuanian is considered to be the main text of GP. This assumption is based on the author’s proposition, and the insights into the analysis of the particular cultural heritage carried out by the researchers of this study: the text in Polish is a word-for-word translation of the Lithuanian text. The two texts – the Lithuanian and the Polish – are arranged in two columns and basically bear no difference. The disproportions in the two parts of the GP are insignificant and include the following cases: longer fragments written in Polish only; the more abundant use of abbreviations and biblical links in the Polish part of the GP; the disproportions in the layer of quotations; the disproportions in the Sirvydas’ author text.

5.1.

The original text in Polish

The title page and catchwords as well as two longer fragments were written in Polish only. One of them is placed in GP I, the other is placed in GP II. In GP I, the Foreword to the Reader is written in Polish. Writing forewords in foreign languages, including Polish, has long-term traditions in the history of Lithuanian writing. Regina Kozˇeniauskiene˙ (1990) points out that the majority of the first Lithuanian book translations took over the European tradition of the preparation system of a literary work for printing. In the old Lithuanian prints, the dedications and forewords were usually written in three languages: in the territory of Lithuania Minor – Latin, German and Lithuanian were used, whereas in the Great Duchy of Lithuania – Latin, Lithuanian and Polish predominated. For example, in the GP of Joku¯bas Morku¯nas, the foreword was written in Lithuanian, but the rhymed dedication was written in Polish. Jonas Bretku¯nas wrote his foreword in Latin. Dauksˇa used the Polish language to write his foreword that later became a true manifest of exaltation of the Lithuanian language. There are frequent cases when, in larger works written in ethnic languages, longer declarations appear to defend the national languages. In this respect, the Polish foreword by Sirvydas is no exception. In GP II the text on pages 192–196 is written only in Polish. Those are the points where the subject about the presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament is addressed. Sirvydas presented in them the five testimonies to the thesis. That was done in defence of the most important fundamental truths of faith of that time – the truths which, due to different perception, became the main object of controversy between Catholics and Protestants. De-

332

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

spite that discussions regarding the questions of faith were no longer so fierce in the middle of the 17th century, this sermon might have had a great influence on them. Because of this circumstance, on consent of the editors and publishers, the sermon was announced in GP II without participation of Sirvydas in person in the final process of the discussions. Karol Estreicher (1934: 360) assumes that this text might have appeared later in the GP. It is quite possible that it had been taken from Sirvydas’ sermons written in Polish and preached in absolutely different surroundings.

5.2.

Disproportions in the layer of the quoted text

The inconsistencies in the presentation of analogous quotations are found in both, the Polish and the Lithuanian texts (see also Rutkovska 2012, 2013, 2016). In the quoted layer of the GP text, sometimes the words of the author appear – masterfully wrapped into a robe of laconic and nicely fitting expressions that complement the text structure: the Polish mówi and prawi, or the Lithuanian tieg and tay ira. Their use in both texts does not necessarily coincide. Sometimes similar phrases are more expanded and, thus, present additional information: they explain certain realia and metatextual descriptions. Such examples indicate some diversions from the literal translation, e. g., (1) Az´umuß z˙uwi didz´iu / tay ira welinu / kuri marioſe ira. Zabiie wielorybá / ktory ieſt w morzu GP II 69 (Isa 27:1). And shall slay the whale (i. e. a devil) that is in the sea (Isa 27:1). (2) Iey ga˙li Murinas iuodas kayp vnglis a˙tmaynit odu ſáwo / ir luſis margibes ſáwo / ir ius galeſite gieray darit / paprati ir iz˙ſimoki pikto. Ieſli moz˙e odmienic´ Murzyn ſkure˛ ſwoie˛ / álbo Pard pſtroc´iny ſwoie / y wybe˛dz´iec´ie moc dobrze czynic´ náuczywßy ſie˛ złego GP II 158 (Jer 13:23). If the Ethiopian (who is black like a coal) can change his skin, or the leopard his spots: you also may do well, when you (are accustomed to and) have learned evil (Jer 13:23).

Longer quotations of the Polish part of the text, especially those that absolutely match with the text of Wujek’s New Testament, indicate that the author might have rewritten them from the existing translation, he did not translate them anew. It is possible as well that, for the sake of clarity, the author used to insert an entire verse of the Holy Scripture, not just its fragment: (1) Man´ reikia dirbt kołay diena˙ ira. Mnie potrzeba ſpra˙wowác´ ſpra˙wy onego który mie˛ poſłał / poki dz´ienˇ ieſt GP I 332 (John 9:4).

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

333

Mnie potrzebá spráwowác´ spráwy onégo który mie˛ posłał, poka˛d dzién´ jest W1599. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day (John 9:4). (2) Kiekwienas kuris kłauſo tu z´odz´iu mano / bus priligintas wiruy ißmintingam / kuris paſtate namus ſawo vnt uołas / [et]c. a ne pagriuwo. Nes buwo vnt vołas ſubudawoti. Wßelki ktory ſłucha tych ſłow moich be˛dz´ie przypodobány me˛z´owi ma˛dremu ktory zbudował dom ſwoy na opoce y ſpa˙dł deſcz y przyßły rzeki / y wiáły wiátry y vderzyły na˙ on dom á nie vpadł / bo był na˙ opoce vgruntowany GP I 50 (Matt 7,24–25). Wszelki tedy który słucha tych słów moich, i czyni je: be˛dzie przypodobány me˛z˙owi ma˛drému, który zbudował dóm swój ná opoce. i spadł déscz, i przyszły rzéki, i wiały wiátry, i uderzyły ná on dóm, á nie upadł. bo był ná opoce ugruntowány W1599. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock (and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house), and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock (Matt 7:24–25).

5.3.

Disproportions that emerged due to translation

Disproportions arose on the basis of typical formal differences between the languages due to both, the peculiarities of grammar systems, and the dissimilar level of formation of the written Lithuanian and Polish languages in the period under investigation. Here, the cases taken into account were those where certain concepts in Polish were explained in a more concise manner by employing the already existing terminology of this field. The Lithuanian religious lexis was still in the process of formation at that time, therefore, the concepts that had no equivalents in the language were likely to be rendered in a descriptive way, e. g., (1) kuris ſauguoiaſi wiſokiu z˙odz´iu nepridiarunc´iu – ktory ſie˛ ſtrzez˙e wßelkiey nieprzyſtoynos´c´i GP II 55. who avoids (using) any improper words – who avoids any impropriety. (2) muſtit ſaw Wießpati ſáwo IEzu Chryſtu vnt kriz˙iaus ißpełotu / ir iz˙tieſtu – mys´lic´ ſobie o Pánie IEZVSIE ná krzyz˙u rozpie˛tym GP II 58. to think about our Lord Jesus Christ who was stretched out and extended – to think about our Lord Jesus Christ who was stretched out. (3) o anas tawiſp ne dris priſiartint – on do c´iebie nie be˛dz´ie mogł przybliz˙ác´ ſie˛ GP II 71. he will not be courageous enough to approach you – he will not be able to approach you

Infrequently, the reason for disproportions of the kind used to become the special concern expressed by the author about the Lithuanian word and thus the greater attention was paid to the Lithuanian text. As a rule, this would result in a

334

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

larger number of synonymic doublets that were used to convey the meanings of concepts. One kind of doublets could reflect the peculiarities of the GP style; the other kind would reflect the search for the appropriate definitions, e. g., numirt gieyde ir troßko – vmrzec´ pragna˛ł GP I 37 (he) wished and wanted to die – (he) wanted to die mokſłu nauiu ir neſeney pramanitu – nauki nowey GP I 43 (from wind of) new and recently invented doctrines – (from wind of) a new doctrine prieg twirtibey ir drutibey tikieimo – przy ſtatecznos´ci wiary GP I 44 (for) strength and steadfastness of faith – (for) strength of faith del ſunkibes aba ſwaro – dla wielkiego c´ie˛z˙aru GP I 49 (because of) heaviness and weight – (because of) a heavy burden kayp akmenio druto ir nepawiſkinamo – iáko opoke˛ ſtatecznego GP I 50 as a heavy and not movable stone – as an immovable rock swaras aba naßta ſunki ira nuſideimu – c´iez˙ar ieſt grzechow GP I 50 weight or burden of sins is heavy – a burden of sins is Ne aprinkt iz˙ puykos aba s´irdies aukßtibes – Nie obra˙c´ z pychy GP I 74 not to choose him because of arrogance or pride of heart – not to chose him because of arrogance

6.

The quotations from the Bible: similarities with and differences from Wujek’s translation of the Holy Scripture

Speaking about the analysis of the biblical quotations in the GP text, it is essential to acquaint oneself more closely with the strategy of quoting the Holy Scripture, and the types of quotations inserted into the GP text. As stated earlier, the use of references to the Holy Scripture was one of the most important requirements applied to the texts of homiletic nature. Consequently, the preachers of that time adapted the biblical texts to their homilies in diverse ways. Sirvydas regarded every mention of the Holy Scripture with a lot of responsibility, therefore, he quoted it with particular exactness and carefulness, often indicating references to individual books on the margins. The hints about the Holy Scripture made within the text have been shaped into allusions, paraphrases and literal quotations. The word-for-word quotations are most plentiful in the GP text. This fact might be associated with the didactic intentions of the author to prepare a GP of the kind, the separate points of which could serve an example to the Lithuanian priests of how to prepare sermons.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

6.1.

335

The primary statistical data

There are altogether 1012 quotations in the Polish language incorporated into the GP text. From the NT text, mostly quoted are extracts from the Gospels – they make one third of all the biblical quotations inserted into the text. In order to carry out a thorough analysis, quotations were chosen from the four Gospels: Matt 124 (GP I 69; GP II 55); Luke 57 (GP I 31; GP II 26); Mark 11 (GP I 3; GP II 8); John 118 (GP I 55; GP II 63). There were 310 quotations investigated altogether. In the initial stage of analysis, with the aim to establish the extent of overlap between the layer of the text quoted by Sirvydas and the text of Wujek’s NT, all the quotations were divided into three main groups based on formal attributes: a) quotations that completely coincide with the text of Wujek’s NT (full matches); b) quotations that partially coincide with the text of Wujek’s NT (partial matches); c) quotations that do not coincide with the text of Wujek’s NT (distant matches). The carried out research revealed the uneven involvement of Wujek’s NT texts in the GP I and GP II texts. The quotations that completely match Wujek’s NT text, in GP I make 25 percent, and in GP II they reach 51 percent. Thus, an assumption might be made that, contrary to Sirvydas’ translations, the translations made by other authors into the Polish language did not manifest their independence in the process of translation. Similar insights emerge from the calculations of both parts of GP quotations of second type, i. e. quotations that are partial matches and only slightly differ by one attribute. This circumstance suggests an assumption that the GP texts were edited on the basis of Wujek’s translation, which allows the search for reasons that determined this edition.

6.2.

The biblical texts of GP in the background of other translations of NT into the Polish language

The analysis of biblical quotations woven into the text of GP made it possible to look not only into their similarities, but their differences from other translations of the Holy Scripture into the Polish language as well. As the results of the research show, the major similarities are found in the biblical quotations used by Sirvydas and in the text translated by Wujek, whose translations were widely known and most often used by the Catholic church. On the one hand, the analysed quotations from the four Gospels revealed complete concurrence with the corresponding verses in Wujek’s NT; on the other hand, they highlighted the considerable independence of Sirvydas’ biblical texts. The greatest differences occur on the levels of syntax and lexis. Usually this indicates the formation of the

336

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

unique writing manner of the author, and covers the signs of formation of the individual style. The inconsistencies related with the sentence structure of Sirvydas’ GP quotations were analysed on the basis of seven essential signs. In all cases Sirvydas’ text is noted for greater easiness and naturalness, and thus it obeys the norms of the spoken language more than other texts. The analysis of the lexical differences found in the quoted text revealed two similar, yet different, phenomena. They indicate Sirvydas’ attempts to withstand the influence of Wujek’s translations and to interpret the text of the Holy Scripture independently. First of all, certain Polish verses from Sirvydas’ GP conform to the Vulgate more than Wujek’s texts, i. e. his translation is more literal. In the Lithuanian translation of the same quotations there is an obvious attempt of the author to convey the text of the Vulgate as precisely as possible. The links between the Lithuanian and Polish GP texts, as we mentioned earlier, are very close. On the other hand, not one from the investigated cases allowed the researchers to see that, after all, Sirvydas gave priority to the forms and expressions of spoken language. He did not avoid the expressivity characteristic of the folk nature and consciously used stylistically enriched descriptions, thus intending to make the translated biblical text more picturesque. All that is connected with the author’s aspiration to convey the meaning of the biblical text as precisely as possible. The text of the Holy Scripture viewed from the diachronic, etymological and purely linguistic perspective was written in the folk spoken language that corresponded the Latin Vulgate and the Greek koine (Bien´kowska 1992: 223). On the lexical level, the peculiarities of the Lithuanian text are transmitted to the Polish text. A great part of recognized quotations that misalign with Wujek’s text (in GP I they come to as close as 25 percent) provide valuable information about the translation method used by Sirvydas. He used a rather liberal technique for conveying the original text. The author used to not only change the word order in the sentence, but also he would often weave into the text somewhat different syntactical structures, adjustments and additions that were not characteristic of the Latin text, or would use the original lexis. Nevertheless, there were traces of word-for-word translation left in his quoted text. Those were literal loan-translations of Latin structures that made their way to the Polish text through the Lithuanian language. There are loan-translations from Polish in the Lithuanian text as well. This might indicate the inconsistencies of application of the translation principles and linguistic difficulties, which the author had to cope with while creating the Lithuanian text. The comparison of biblical in-texts incorporated in Sirvydas’ text with all the Polish translations of the 16th century allows the investigators to give a very favorable assessment to the author of the Lithuanian GP. The relationship of his

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

337

text with other translated Polish texts, especially Wujek’s text, is evident; however, the comparison manifests the independence of the author’s initiative as well. His effort while translating the biblical quotations into the Lithuanian language and later, on the basis of the Lithuanian text, translating (or editing) them into Polish, was not merely of formal character, but, on the contrary, more motivated by semantic reasons. The analogies of distinctive and unique translation decisions by Sirvydas are also found in other translated texts into Polish, both Catholic and Protestant. They were written in extremely high style and, in the contemporary context, are named and assigned to the most outstanding religious texts of the 16th century written in the Polish language. The choice of the biblical in-texts layer in the initial stage of the multifaceted research of Sirvydas’ GP proved to be rational in several ways. Although these fragments of the biblical text cannot be interpreted as an independent translation of the Holy Scripture into a national language, they undoubtedly mark a certain stage in the formation of the biblical style which was significant for the development of the written language itself. Due to these reasons, while researching the biblical texts in the Polish part of GP in parallels with the Lithuanian and Latin texts, it was aimed to juxtapose the existing translations. By analogy, the three translations of one verse, or its fragment (sentence, several sentences, or, sometimes, phrases) were compared the same way as in the case of the lexis of Sirvydas’ dictionary. The conclusions resulting from this comparison are of extreme importance to the tradition of the written Lithuanian language that was just beginning to display signs of future potential. Some of the first translations into the Lithuanian language were done on the basis of the classical texts. The influence of the Polish language on the Lithuanian text is especially observable in the field of lexis and terminology. Due to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the Polish text is a peculiar repetition of the Lithuanian text, the interference of the latter in the Polish text was hard to avoid. While trying to find the answers to the questions as to where the source of influence of the Lithuanian text to the Polish text lies, it was discovered that a full investigation of certain linguistic phenomena in the entire GP was necessary in both, the Lithuanian and the Polish parts. The detailed analysis revealed that the roots of the interference lay in the spoken Lithuanian language. Those features of the living language penetrated into the Lithuanian text of the GP and, in the course of translation, were transmitted to the Polish language that was noted for a somewhat higher style in the 17th century. No slightest doubts remain that Sirvydas used Wujek’s translations of the Holy Scripture while writing his text in Polish. The matches with Wujek’s text are obvious; however, Sirvydas’ reflections and his author interpretations that he contributed to the Polish text as a Lithuanian preacher are nonetheless important and significant.

338

7.

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

The Lithuanian religious and biblical terminology in GP

Gathering the material for his two dictionaries (1620 and 1631), Sirvydas had thoroughly studied the religious and biblical terminology that functioned in the previous works. GP reflect its continuity, as well as abstraction and terminologisation, creation of neologisms, use of regionalisms, and the process of introduction of all of them into the language of church writings. The exact literal translation into Lithuanian of fragments of the biblical texts written by Sirvydas opens up a unique possibility in connecting the concepts used in the text with the corresponding concepts of the Latin and Polish text. Sirvydas did not work on the empty grounds – he used the fruits of the previous work, i. e. the postilles written in Lithuanian and various biblical texts that were translated into Lithuanian. In them, he had assembled the material for his dictionary and later used it in the texts of his sermons. There is no dictionary of the old Lithuanian language published in Lithuania, thus the terms used by Sirvydas may not always be connected with the older religious texts. If during the period of Sirvydas’ life the Holy Scripture had been translated into Lithuanian and published, the biblical terminology might have been, more or less, systematized and its synonymy and variability might have been markedly limited. In the case of GP, one encounters with the incomplete and nascent stage of that terminology. While investigating the text of GP, it was observed that both, in the quotations and in the author’s text, the doublet structures with the distributive conjunction aba were frequently used to describe various concepts: (1) Wadinaſi z˙waki aba z˙iburiu Zowie s´ie˛ ´swieca˛ ábo pochodnia˛ GP I 355. It is called a candle or a torch. (2) auglaus aba ſtamienio aukßto ſunu Izaio w zroſtu wiſokiego ſyna Iza˙i GP I 76. (Samuel looked) on Jesse son’s tallness or on the height of his stature.

By taking into account only this small part of Sirvydas’ terminology an attempt was made to establish its essential peculiarities and to connect it with other religious scriptures.

7.1.

Matching doublets in Sirvydas’, Dauksˇa’s, Bretku¯nas’ and Mazˇvydas’ church writings

The tradition of using doublets was formed in the first Lithuanian heritage writings of the church. They are encountered in the works prepared or translated by Martynas Mazˇvydas, Jonas Bretku¯nas, Mikalojus Dauksˇa, et al. Some terms in the form of

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

339

doublets moved from one kind of church texts to the others. The greatest number of matching doublets used in GP was found in Dauksˇa’s writings (DP: 1599): Nakti ir ſu z˙iburieys aba ſu lampomis ſwodbu daridawo W nocy y z pochodnia˙mi a˙bo z la˙mpa˙mi gody czyniwali GP I 227. At night they used to celebrate a wedding also with torches or lamps. ſu dz˙eugſmú ßia˛ díena˛ z˙iburius arba lámpas pataikikime˛ DP 430. let us joyfully choose torches or lamps for this day.

Some of the GP doublets were also used by Mazˇvydas (Mzˇ: 1922) and Bretku¯nas (BB: 1590): senyste˙je (senatve˙je) BB (Gen 21:2) – ſenatwe ába ſenibe; ſtárosc´ GP II 122. in (her) old age – old age apde˛gima˛ alba rubus Mzˇ 37 – rubus ába du¯gałus; odz´ienie GP II 86. raiment or clothes – clothes or raiments; clothes

7.2.

GP doublets and Sirvydas’ first (old) dictionary (1620)

The lexis of the first dictionary of Sirvydas (SD: 1620) and the lexis of GP are very close. Many of the words used in GP doublets, especially adjacent words, are also found in his dictionary: (1) puykos aba s´irdies aukßtibes; cf: Polish: pychy GP I 74. (because of) arrogance or pride of heart; (because of) arrogance Pycha – ſuperbia, arrogantia, faſtus, ſupercilium – puyka, aukßtibe s´irdies, paſikiełimas SD 1620. (2) ßłakieley aba łas´ieliey; cf: Polish: kropelki GP I 79. sprinkles or drops; drops kroplá & kropelká – guttulla – ßłakielis, łas´ielis SD 1620.

The fact that some of the words used in the GP doublets are missing in his dictionary (1620) supports the conclusion made by the previous researchers about the sequence of Sirvydas’ work. His first dictionary had to precede his book of sermons. In his dictionary, Sirvydas often explains the meanings of Polish and Latin words in a descriptive way: Háſło – ſymbolum, teſſera militaris – z˙inkłas karieywiu terp ſawis; is´c´iec – creditor – patikius vnt ſkolas duodamas SD 1620.

Sirvydas defined and termed the meanings of words that were already used in the Lithuanian language, primarily connecting them to the corresponding meanings in Latin. The exactly defined concepts were necessary for him to translate and interpret the biblical texts (see also Vasiliauskiene˙ 2016).

340 7.3.

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

Doublets in biblical quotations

In biblical quotations of GP I there are 50 constructions used with the doublet structure, whereas in GP II there are 18 of them. The major part of doublets in Lithuanian biblical quotations are translated into Polish using one word, or one compound instead of two: putu aba kunkału vnt wundenio – piàna˛ GP I 107 (Hos 10:7); spumam BSV (Hos 10:7). froth or bubbles on water – froth weydu aba pawayzdu regimu – przykład widomy GP I 224 (2 Cor 5:7); speciem BSV (2 Cor 5:7). by sight or physical appearance – by physical appearance ſuodies aba patepio – zmazy GP I 229 (Cant 4:7); macula BSV (Cant 4:7). soot or spot – spot

Doublets are used in nine quotations only in the corresponding biblical quotations of the Polish text. The doublets of the author’s text, contrary to the quotations, are translated into Polish by using two different words or two phrases. The terms chosen for the translation of biblical quotations are more precise and definite than those used in the GP author’s text. Sirvydas often defines or explains a concept said in one word by using two words or a phrase, inserting aba ‘or’ between them: bia˙urias dumas / aba nec´iſtus muſtimus s´irdies – nieczyſte mys´li ſerdcʒne GP I 252. impure thoughts or unclean thinking in your heart – unclean thoughts in your heart tay ira / Sákramento gayłes ába paſakimo nuodemiu ſáwo – to ieſt / pokuty ´s. GP II 130. i. e. (of) the Sacrament of Penance or telling your sins – i. e. (of) the Sacrament of Penance

7.4.

Ruthenisms and polonisms in doublets of GP

One word in the doublets is usually a ruthenism (1) or either ruthenism or polonisms (2): (1) Lithuanian: wilic´ias aba ßaudikłes – Polish: ſtrzał GP I 13. arrows – arrows Lithuanian: ez˙ias / aba rubez˙ius – Polish: miedzé a˙bo gra˙nicé GP I 136; cf: Latin: terminos BSV (Job 14:5). boundaries or borders – boundaries or borders Lithuanian: rubus ába du¯gałus – Polish: odz´ienie GP II 86. clothes or raiments – clothes (2) Lithuanian: Ne be ludiimo aba ſwiec´iimo – Polish: bez s´wia˙dectwa GP I 97; cf: Latin: non sine testimonio BSV (Acts 14:16). without testimony – without testimony

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

341

Lithuanian: ſtono aba ſtowio – Polish: ſtanu GP I 221. estate or social class – estate Lithuanian: bia˙urias dumas / aba nec´iſtus muſtimus s´irdies – Polish: nieczyſte mys´li ſerdczne GP I 252. impure thoughts or unclean thinking in your heart – unclean thinking in your heart

Both groups had an old tradition of usage and were recorded in the writings of Mazˇvydas and Bretku¯nas as well as in Dauksˇa’s Postille (1599) and Catechism (1595). The church terminology used by Sirvydas abounds with ruthenisms (Smoczyn´ski 2007; see also Urbutis 1991; 1993; LKZˇ 1956–2002) which supports the fact brought to daylight by the researchers of Lithuanian onomastics that the top layer of the church terminology should be attributable to the Eastern, not the Western trend of Christianity (Zinkevicˇius 2005: 76–77; 85–86). This terminology might have been transferred to the territory of East Prussia and Protestant Church scriptures by culture activists who moved from Vilnius to Königsberg due to the counter-reformation in Lithuania.

8.

Conclusions

1. Konstantinas Sirvydas’ book of sermons Gospel Points corresponds the European tradition that existed and was followed in preparing books of this nature for printing. Three languages are used in the GP text: Lithuanian, Polish and Latin, and each of them performs its purpose. The GP text consists of three layers: a) pericopes that are presented by the author as an introductory word to the sermon; b) biblical and other quotations inserted into the sermon text; c) sermon texts in Lithuanian and Polish. 2. Sirvydas’ Gospel Points from Advent to Lent (GP I) consist of 14 sermons and his Gospel Points for Lent (GP II) covers 11 sermons. Each sermon of GP is preceded by pericope in Lithuanian and Polish. 3. The Lithuanian pericope text from the Postille (1599) written by a canon Dauksˇa of Samogitian diocese was compared with pericope texts of Sirvydas’ GP and Ewangelie polskie y litewskie (1647). The textological analysis revealed that pericope texts in Sirvydas’ GP and Ewangelie polskie y litewskie had not been translated anew but had been edited and adapted to the regional dialect used in the Vilnius diocese. 4. In the Lithuanian text of GP there are 999 (cf: in Polish 1012) identified biblical quotations: 426 are from the Old Testament and 573 are from the New Testament. Quotations were literally translated from the Sistine and St Clemens Vulgate. The

342

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

exact literal translation into Lithuanian of fragments of the biblical texts opens up a unique possibility in connecting the concepts used in the text with the corresponding concepts of the Latin and Polish text. 5. Fathers of the Church, French theologian thinkers, Roman authors, initiators and founders of Protestantism are also quoted or paraphrased (25 authors). The most frequently relied on are Augustine (13 times), Thomas Aquinas (7 times), Gregory the Great (3 times), and Jerome (3 times). Besides, biblical allusions can also be quite often found in GP. Sirvydas employs hagiographic narratives which are meant to strengthen the faith. 6. In the text of the sermons, an indication to the ownership of the words spoken could be made before or after the quotation, and the quotation from the author’s text might be marked with the corresponding punctuation. The most common indicator of GP quotations is the word tieg ‘it is said’ inserted into them, which is used 308 times. An explanation might also be inserted into a quotation which starts with connecting words tay ira ‘that is’. 7. Each of the sermons is divided into parts that are called points. Each of the points has a title that reflects its entire contents. The same titles are presented in both the Polish part of the text and in the Latin margins. In this case the Latin headline, most likely, should be treated as primary, whereas the Lithuanian and the Polish headlines should be viewed as translations. The text of the points is usually divided into smaller points (subpoints). 8. Sirvydas’ sermons reflect a dispute between the Catholic and Protestant faiths on the question of religious doctrines. Sirvydas enters into polemics with Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther and John Calvin. 9. The Lithuanian and the Polish texts of GP basically do not differ in their volume. The performed juxtaposition of both texts shows that the differences are insignificant. Sirvydas translated the Holy Scripture closely following the tradition of literal translation. 10. The disagreements between the Lithuanian and the Polish texts could be explained by the lack of editing and the major attention focused on the Lithuanian text, where complicated concepts were more often explained using the descriptive method. In some cases, the Lithuanian text showed that attempts were simply made to achieve expressiveness and figurativeness of the language.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

343

11. The analysis of the biblical text layer revealed a dual phenomenon: on the one hand, the influence of Wujek’s Bible translation on the text of Polish quotations; on the other hand, a considerable independence of the translation of the biblical text by Sirvydas, which indicates to the signs of formation of his own individual style. 12. The interferences of the Lithuanian and the Polish texts are obvious; they are mostly detected on the levels of syntax and lexis. The strong influence of the Latin language cannot be denied either. 13. Gathering the material for his dictionaries (1620 and 1631), Sirvydas had thoroughly studied the religious and biblical terminology that functioned in the previous works. He used the postilles written in Lithuanian and various biblical texts that were translated into Lithuanian. 14. The doublet structures with the distributive conjunction aba were frequently used to describe various concepts. Some of the GP doublets were also used by Mazˇvydas and Bretku¯nas. The lexis of the first dictionary of Sirvydas (1620) and the lexis of GP are very close. 15. In biblical quotations of GP I there are 50 constructions used with the doublet structure. The major part of the doublets in Lithuanian biblical quotations are translated into Polish using one word. One word in the doublets is usually a Ruthenian word, or either Ruthenian word or polonism.

Abbreviations BB

Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Jana˛ Bretkuna˛ Lietuwos Plebona˛ Karaliaucziuie, 1590. BSV 2007 Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, adiuvantibus B. Fisher, I. Gribomont, H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele, recensuit et brevi apparatu critico instruxit Robert Weber, editionem quintam emendatam retractatam praeparavit Roger Gryson, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. DK Mikalojus Dauksˇa, Katekizmas, 1595, internetinis leidinys (http://www.lki.lt/ seniejirastai/). DP Mikalojus Dauksˇa, Postile˙, 1599, internetinis leidinys, 2006 (http://www.lki.lt/ seniejirastai/). JE EWANGELIE POLSKIE Y LITEWSKIE tak niedz˙ielne iáko y wſzytkich Swia˛t, ktore w Kos´c´iele Katholickim, wedlug Rzymskiego porza˛dku przez caly rok czytáia˛. Wydáne za dozwoleniem ſtárßych, w WILNIE. W Drukániey Akademiey SOC. IESV Roku 1647.

344

Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ and Kristina Rutkovska

GP I

PVNKTY KAZAN od Adwentu áǯ do Postu / Litewskim ie˛zykiem, z wytłumáczeniem ná Polskie PRZEZ Ks´ie˛dzá KONSTANTEGO SZYRWIDA / Theologá Societatis IESV / Z DOZWOLENIEM STARSZYCH wydáne. W WILNIE W Drukárni Akádemiey Societatis IESV / ROKU M. DC. XXIX [1629]. ´ NA POST WIELKI Ie˛ʒykiem Litewſkiem Przez W. X. CONPUNKTY KAZAN STANTEGO SZYRWIDA Theologá Societatis IESV nápiſáne. á Teraʒ ná Polſki Ie˛ʒyk prʒetłumacʒone / y oboiem do Druku podáne. Zá pozwoleniem Stárßych. W Wilnie / W Drukàrni Aka˙demii Societatis ɈESV. Roku Pán´skiego, 1644. Lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodynas 1–20, Vilnius: Valstybine˙ politine˙s ir moksline˙s literatu¯ros leidykla, Mintis, Mokslas, Mokslo ir enciklopediju˛ leidykla, Mokslo ir enciklopediju˛ leidybos institutas, Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas, 1956–2002. Mazˇvydas, Seniausieji lietuviu˛ kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams, spaudai paru¯pino dr. Jurgis Gerulis, Kaunas: Sˇvietimo m-jos leidinys, 1922. Postilla Catholiczna Mnieysza To jest Krotkie Kazánia, ábo Wykłády s´wie˛tych Ewángeliy […] Ná dwie Cze˛s´c´i rozdz´ieloná […] Przez O. Jákubá Wuyká […] W Poznániu, Roku Pán´skiego. MDLXXXII. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca 1–167, accurante Jacques–Paul Migne, Paris, 1857–1866. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina 1–217, accurante Jacques–Paul Migne, Paris, 1841–1855. Konstantinas Sirvydas, [Dictionarium trium linguarum], internetinis leidinys, 2008 (http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai). Ewangelie y Epistoły, ták niedz´ielne iáko y Swia˛t wszytkich, które w Kos´c´iele Kátholickim według Rzymskiego porza˛dku przez cáły rok czytáia˛. Przez D. Jakuba Wuyka Societatis Jesu przełoz˙one. Przydáne sa˛ y Modlitwy kos´c´elne ná kaz˙da˛ Niedz´iele˛ y ná kaz˙de S´wie˛to. W Krakowie, Anno M.DC.XX. Nowy Testament Pana Naszego Jesusa Chrystusa. Znowu z łacin´skiego y z greckiego na polskie wiernie i szczyrze przełoz˙ony […] Przez D. Jakuba Wuyka […] Kraków, A. Piotrkowczyk, 1593.

GP II

LKZˇ

Mzˇ PCMn

PG PL SD 1620 WEE

W1593

Bibliography Sources Bellarmine, Robert (1612), Roberti Bellarmini Politiani Societatis Iesu Theologi Cardinalis Liber unus De Gratia Primi Hominis, Frankfurt a.M. Calvinus, Iohannes (1559), Institutio Christianae Religionis, Genevae. Luther, Martin (1522), De Abroganda Missa Privata, Basel. ´ ski, Wojciech (2007), Słownik etymologiczny je˛zyka litewskiego, Vilnus: VU Smoczyn leidykla. Thomas Aquinas – Corpus Thomisticum. S. Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia (http:// www.corpusthomisticum.org/iopera.html). Zwingli, Huldrych (1525), Subsidium Sive Coronis De Eucharistia, Tiguri: in aedibus Christophori Froschouer.

Konstantinas Sirvydas: a Preacher and a Translator of the Bible

345

Studies ´ kowska, Danuta (1992), Styl je˛zykowy przekładu Nowego Testamentu Jakuba Bien Wujka (na materiale czterech Ewangelii), Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Estreicher, Karol (1934), Bibliografia polska, vol. XXX, Kraków, Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnos´ci. Kabelka, Jonas (1938), 1647 metu˛ evangelijos, Archivum Philologicum 7, 73–87. Kozˇeniauskiene˙, Regina (1990), XVI–XVII amzˇiaus prakalbos ir dedikacijos, Vilnius: Mokslas. Lebedys, Jurgis (1977), Senoji lietuviu˛ literatu¯ra, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rutkovska, Kristina (2012), Konstantino Sirvydo “Punktai sakymu˛” (1629, 1644): isˇsamiu˛ tyrine˙jimu˛ pradzˇia, Lituanistica: istorija, archeologija, kalba, literatu¯ra, tautosaka, etnografija 58, vol. 4, 309–319. Rutkovska, Kristina (2013), O teks´cie polskim Punktów Kazan´ Konstantego Szyrwida, Leksikografija ir leksikologija 3, Vilnius: Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas, 206–228. Rutkovska, Kristina (2016), Konstantino Sirvydo “Punktai sakymu˛”– XVII amzˇiaus pirmosios puse˙s lietuviu˛ ir lenku˛ kultu¯ros paminklas = “Punkty kazan´” Konstantego Szyrwida – zabytek pis´miennictwa litewskiego i polskiego z pierwszej połowy XVII wieku, Vilnius: Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas. Urbutis, Vincas (1991), Senosios lietuviu˛ kalbos slavizmai, Baltistica 27(1), 4–14. Urbutis, Vincas (1993), Senu˛ju˛ slavizmu˛ kilme˙s ˛ivairove˙, Baltistica 28(1), 91–101. Vasiliauskiene˙, Virginija (2013a), Citatos ir ju˛ identifikavimo bu¯dai Konstantino Sirvydo Punktuose sakymu˛, Art History & Criticism 9, 15–29. Vasiliauskiene˙, Virginija (2013b), De˙l Konstantino Sirvydo Punktu˛ sakymu˛ teksto struktu¯ros, turinio ir sˇaltiniu˛, Leksikografija ir leksikologija 3, Vilnius: Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas, 190–205. Vasiliauskiene˙, Virginija (2013d), O teks´cie i z´rόdłach Punktόw Kazan´ Konstantego Szyrwida, Acta Baltico–Slavica 37, 141–150. Vasiliauskiene˙, Virginija (2016), Konstantino Sirvydo “Punktu˛ sakymu˛” struktu¯ra, turinys ir sˇaltiniai, Vilnius: Lietuviu˛ kalbos institutas, 2016. Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas (1988), Lietuviu˛ kalbos istorija III, Senu˛ju˛ rasˇtu˛ kalba, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas (2005), Kriksˇcˇionybe˙s isˇtakos Lietuvoje. Rytu˛ kriksˇcˇionybe˙ vardyno duomenimis, Vilnius: Kataliku˛ akademijos leidykla.

V. In Verse and in Music

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska, Fernando Reyes Ferrón

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka to the Jan Kochanowski’s Psalter translation A Polish and European work1

1.

Melodie na Psałterz polski by Mikołaj Gomółka

Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka2 is the collection of 150 fourvoice compositions intended as a musical setting for Jan Kochanowski’s poetic translation of the Book of Psalms3. The whole Psalter ranks among the most significant works of Polish culture and its creation was possible thanks to the patronage of the remarkable Polish humanist, Piotr Myszkowski, the bishop of Cracow. It was published in Cracow in 1580 and was probably meant for Polonis omnibus – Polish Catholics as well as Protestants. The epigram to the Melodies was written by eminent Andrzej Trzecieski. It has been stated that Gomółka couldn’t fulfill the rules concerning the music and the text alignment, because of a supposed non consistency with these rules to the 16th century Polish language (Perz: 1980, 5, Perz: 1981, 194) and because of the composer’s lack of broader international horizons, as well as of his “atypical” biography after he left the King’s court (Perz: 1981, 199). The musical style of 1 This article is a fruit of Fernando Reyes and Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska’s intensive practical work on the musical interpretation of the Melodie na Psałterz Polski and also of the six months scholarship of Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska founded by Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage that enabled her to consult Dr Izabela Winiarska-Górska from the Warsaw University on questions regarding history of Polish language in the 16th century. 2 Mikołaj Gomółka (Cf. Czepiel: 1996, 353, 37) at the age of only ten was first a little singer and then instrumentalist-soloist at the court of Sigismund Augustus, where he lived for eighteen years (1545–1563) Within 1566–1578 he stayed in his natal town of Sandomierz, where probably since 1574 he started to work on the “Psalter”, under the patronage of Myszkowski, to whom he served later as an instrumentalist. Since about 1590 Gomółka was a musician at the court of the outstanding humanist and one of the richest men in Poland– Jan Zamoyski. After 1591 we have no more informations about the composer. (Perz 1981, 50–127) 3 You can find here some exemples of the interpretation of these Psalms by Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska: https://soundcloud.com/cdaccord/sets/acd214 http://www.cdaccord.com.pl/ tracks.en.html?acd=214. Producer’s webside: https://www.naxos.com/ [editor’s note].

350

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernando Reyes Ferrón

Melodies was described as a strange mixture of conservative and modern elements, conditioned by its author’s “vernacular instrumentalist’s mannerisms” (Perz: 1981, 299, 303f), his supposed lack of up-to-date musical knowledge, and also his maecenas’ requirement of adapting the Melodies to be performed by amateurs (Perz: 1981, 198–199). However, seemingly simple in style, Gomółka’s Melodies in reality borrow from the Neapolitan circle’s music style, highly fashionable at the time. Coming directly from the secular music, they bring a new artistic reality: blending their new harmonic language with the art of counterpoint. If we assume that Mikołaj Gomółka attempted to reach the ideal of Renaissance composer (cf. Harrán: 1986, 200, 215), a detailed knowledge of grammar, rhetoric and poetics and the profound understanding of the poetry he was composing for would be a sine qua non condition of his work on Kochanowski’s Psalter. His dedication to the edition of Melodies, where he is able to use such modern phenomena of the Polish poetry of that time as enjambement and stichic verse, seem to corroborate it (Perz: 1981, 206).

2.

The accent in the 16th century Polish language4

Knowledge about the accent in the 16th century Polish language becomes essential to understand and evaluate the Gomółka’s work. It is assumed that the regular paroxytonic stress may have had developed as early as during the 16th century (Dłuska: 1978, Turska: 1950, 434–468, Topolin´ska: 1961). Zbigniew Nowak (Nowak: 1985, 11) draws our attention to an atypical accent before the middle caesura that appears in some Kochanowski’s poems. These poems are written in a regular thirteen-syllable verse, with the regular paroxytonic accent before the middle caesura. However, sometimes before the middle caesura appears an accentuation that according to the contemporary Polish pronunciation would be different from paroxytonic. This situation always coincides with an appearance of one-syllable words of different classes just before the middle caesura: 1. the particle “sie˛”: Nie podobaja˛ mu sie˛ + nasze obyczaje (Satyr) 2. a pronoun: A Konrad przeciwko nim + krzyz˙aki prowadził (Proporzec) 3. one-syllable nouns: Nie moge˛ miec´ na ten czas + darów tobie godnych (Satyr) 4. one-syllable verbs: Niechaj drudzy jako chca˛ + prawo rozumieja˛ (Satyr).

4 I express here my special thanks for the kind help of Dr. Izabela Winiarska Górska from the Warsaw University, who guided me in writing this part of my article.

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter

351

We can also find places where a one-syllable noun is placed right after the middle caesura: Bywa tez˙ czas, z˙e dobra˛ + mys´l w człowieku sprawi (Epitalamium Krzysztofa Radziwiłła). In the 16th century must have had existed, beside the accentuation “jego bieg”, the variant “jego bieg”. A similar pronunciation still exists in Polish dialects and sometimes even in colloquial language5. The paroxytonic accent in word combinations is attested by the ancient grammarians, although it was already considered incorrect in the 18th century. In the 16th century, however, a phenomenon of word combination was so strong, that it could probably be able to displace the main accent to the penultimate syllable (Winiarska-Górska: 2014). What we have just mentioned about Kochanowski’s poetry, is also especially valuable when reading the musical counterpart of his Psalter. Jerzy Ziomek’s repeated remarks about Kochanowski’s treatment of middle caesura are of the special importance. In his comments Ziomek notices many times that the preservation of the paroxytonic middle caesura in that or another psalm would require a “transaccentuation”6. These researches allow us also to value Mikołaj Gomółka as a composer who excellently harness to music the prosody of Kochanowski’s verses. In Melodies there are many psalms where the two-word units with the accent falling on the penultimate syllable are very clearly marked by the composer, in a way that gives no doubt about their pronunciation. This phenomenon was noticed by Perz and called, this time, a “melic transaccentuation”, serving to attribute to the composer an excessive fascination by dance melodies and sometimes limitations in understanding of the poet’s work (cf. Perz: 1988a, Psalm 51, 82–84). On the basis of the researches cited above and the Melodies analysis, we can easily demonstrate that the supposed “transaccentuations” in Gomółka’s work result in reality from the strict imitation of the accentual phenomenon of the 16th century Polish language. A good example here is the Psalm 51. The dramatic text of its first strophe is treated by Gomółka with the particular attention, with beautiful examples of musical painting (a falling dotted figure on the word “upadam” – “I fall”), with the rhetoric figure reflecting a dramatic calling for help on the word “God!” (a two-semibreves figure followed by a rest in all voices), and so on. In the first half of the third and of the fourth line Gomółka underlines very clearly all the paroxytonic accents of the two-word units, that dominate this part of the psalm, coming and going regularly like a sea-wave: Smiłuj sie˛/ nade mna˛,/ zetrzy moje złos´ci, 5 The typescript of Jerzy Ziomek’s and Zbigniew Nowak’s commentaries to Sejm edition of Jan Kochanowski’s complete works, IBL PAN, in print, made available thanks to Jacek Wójcicki and Izabela Winiarska-Górska. 6 See for example the annotations to Psalm 51, typescript of Jerzy Ziomek’s commentary, in print, as above.

352

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernando Reyes Ferrón

Omyj mie˛/, oczys´c´ mie˛/ z moich wszetecznos´ci.

Illustration 1: Psalm 51 Boz˙e, w miłosierdziu twoim nieprzebrany (Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnum…) 7.

It is worth here to notice that the two-word unit with the paroxytonic accent “nade mna˛” is still pronounced like that in contemporary Polish language. The phenomenon of paroxytonic accent in word combinations was probably facultative, and the deciding criterion of its appearance was the sense and the understanding of the text to perform. A good example of this is the beginning of the Psalm 133 from Melodies, where Gomółka first puts the stress on the first syllable of the word “jako”, and then, when it is repeated, on its second syllable, considering “jako” this time as a part of the two-word unit with the coming after the word “rzecz”: Jako/ rzecz pie˛kna, /jako rzecz/ przyjemna8

7 All the transcriptions are of Perz: 1988b. The text alignment in cited fragment of Psalm 51 (bars 12–13 in bass and tenor) was corrected by Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska. 8 The / marks the borders of the word units.

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter

353

Illustration 2: Psalm 133 Jako rzecz pie˛kna (Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum).

It is als very important to remark that Gomółka takes into consideration the words accents of all the stanzas of each psalm, not only the accents of the first one. Obviously, the rhetoric figures or the figures he uses to highlight, by musical painting, the meaning of a particular word in the first stanza, work in the same way only once. But he strives to create no accentual conflict through all the text, and writes his music in a way that the text can take over the control and we can hear what Gioseffo Zarlino called the “rhythmical music” of the poems – “the harmony that is felt in verse or in prose through the quantity of syllables and the sound of words when they are skillfully and suitably combined” (cf. Harrán: 1986, 211). The rare exceptions to this rule are justified as rhetoric accents, which we will try to show below. As so, we not only can, but we also should extrapolate the rules of text alignment from “foreign” Renaissance music treatises into Polish language (Perz: 1981, 194). In the light of these arguments. Gomółka’s Melodies could be for us the chance to look into the 16th century Polish language and a help for us to dispel some prosodic doubts of Kochanowski’s poetry. For good performing and understanding of Gomółka’s Psalms, it is important to remember that the punctuation used by Kochanowski int the Psałterz Dawidów (edition 1579) is not a modern grammatical one, but the rhetorical intonation, intended for performers. It marks not only the logical divisions of phrases, but also the way the text should be performed: the inflexions of the voice, the breathing, short or long rests. The same punctuation was very carefully reproduced in Gomółka’s Melodie (edition 1580). As the accent in 16th century Polish language is paroxytonic, the combination accented-not accented syllable will appear invariably in the medium caesura and in the end caesura of every verse. In any syllabic verse, if there is no enjambement, the end of each line (the end caesura) marks a breath, a rest or at least a change of intonation, as it coincides with the end of a sentence or its part. In the case of middle caesura, it can, but not has to happen.

354

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernando Reyes Ferrón

In Melodies, Gomółka pays a special attention to the syntax of the text. It is caused by two special circumstances: 1. In the Psalter there are many enjambements (Kochanowski introduces them as the first of Polish poets), so not always the syntax and the structure of the verse coincide. 2. The additional difficulty is that Melodies are written like short strophic songs where the same melody should serve to sing many different stanzas. That means that the syntactic divisions of the first stanza of a psalm could not coincide with the syntactic divisions of the next strophes. In this quite difficult situation Gomółka invents an ingenious, simple and elegant system that allows him to respect every time the structure of Kochanowski’s text: At the ends of middle caesura Gomółka always places two minims ( ). and a minim (

) or a semibreve

By doing this, he achieves to reflect the paroxytone of the middle caesura (or allows the singer to accentuate it without problems), and at the same time he gives to the performer a possibility to pass fluently to the second part of the line, in (the most common) case if the middle caesura doesn’t coincide with a semantic caesura. In resume, in case of semibreve and minim the composer “helps” the singer in proper accentuation, and in case of two minims, it is up to the singer to make the paroxytonic end. In the rare case the middle caesura would coincide with a semantic caesura, the second note (a minim) should be shortened by the singer to take a quick breath. In the end caesuras Gomółka uses three solutions: two minims ( ), two semibreves ( ), or a minim plus a semibreve (or longa in the end of a piece) ( or ).

The first case has already been commented above: it allows the performer to make the accent according to the text, and to take a short breath after the second note, if it is necessary. The second case is the same as the first. In the third case we should remember that a long note in the very end of a phrase is in reality a sign of the end of the piece or its smaller part and has nothing to do with accent. In Gomółka’s Melodies a long note in the end of the line doesn’t mean an oxytonic accent, as it doesn’t mean so in other Renaissance compositions of other composers in Latin, French, Italian, English… – languages where the paroxytonic accent is also very common9. If there is any enjambement in the text of a psalm, even placed in a very distant strophe, the composer shortens the last note of the line in question, and ends it with a figure characteristic for the middle caesura: (semibreve plus minim or 9 It was erroneously identified as a supposed concession to the indifferent to the text rhythmical schemes of “dance songs”, and as a Gomółka’s weakness for popular dance music, Perz: 1981, 214–217.

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter

355

minim plus minim). Like that he allows the performer to continue the phrase fluently, without making a rest where it does not belong. This system is used by Gomółka in the whole Psalter and its main characteristic is the respect for the syntactic division of all strophes of each psalm and a strict observance of the paroxytonism of the middle and the end caesuras of the Kochanowski’s text. In this place we can remind the theorist Giovanni del Lago’s postulates: in setting music to the vernacular poetry, the composer should pay heed to the natural stresses of the verses, i. e. the stresses of the middle and of the end caesuras (Harrán: 1986, 159). According to Perz, the composer follows closely the recommendations made by Gioseffo Zarlino in his treatise Le institutioni harmoniche, using the modes, rhythms, minor and major triads, minor and major intervals as well as accidentals, (Perz: 1981, 231–246) “to produce a music in accord with the poetic intention” (cf. Harrán: 1986, 190). He does it in order to, as stated Zarlino, to “awaken different passions in man” (cf. Harran: 1986, 195). To illustrate the general mood of the text, to symbolize its main sense, as well as to illustrate separate words, Gomółka uses also: 1. polyphonic technical means like imitation, voice as crossing, voice exchange and so on 2. harmonical conflicts 3. Phrygian cadences 4. chromatic false relation (Perz: 1981, 238–241).

There can be also named the rhetorical use of rests (sospiri), exclamations and the musical painting of single words (Perz: 1981, 243–245). All that madrigalesca, “convince us how much the composer adopted the idea of imitazione in its version created on the ground of the vernacular music.” (Perz: 1981, 245). Some of these madrigalesca are the ones that can sometimes change the natural accentuation of a word with a clear rhetorical intention, as in Psalm 130, on the word “Wołam” (“I am calling”), where tenor and cantus have a minim-semibreve figure, with the semibreve falling on the beginning of tactus. We could identify it as a “rhetoric accent” mentioned by Gioseffo Zarlino (Harrán: 1986, 200).

356

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernando Reyes Ferrón

Illustration 3: Psalm 130 W troskach głe˛bokich ponurzony (De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine).

The madrigalesca never make impossible the correct accentuation of the next stanzas’ words. In some psalms the musical painting figures used in the first strophe still function with the next stanzas, but get a new sense. For example, in Psalm 49 Audite, Gentes!, the first calling “Słuchaj!” (“Listen!”), illustrated by two semibreves followed by a rest, turns into a very significant warning in the next strophes:

Illustration 4: Psalm 49 Słuchaj, co z˙ywo! Wszytki ziemski kraje… (Audite haec, omnes gentes)10.

10 The cited strophes as quoted below: [this philological translation is by Krzysztof Puławski] Foolish, foolish are people who keep hope in their power Hard, hard is human soul for the redemption

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter

357

The repeated judgement about the impossibility of singing more than the first stanza (or a few of them) of each psalm to Gomółka’s music (Perz: 1998a), about the supposed unbefitting of the music to the next stanzas, can’t be accepted. Even more, it distances us from seeing and hearing the marvelous varietas of Melodies – these short master-pieces.

3.

The Performance Practice

From the beginning of the 16th century, in Latin and in vernacular languages the authors of polyphonic works and also many authors of lute music (in the Iberian Peninsula–vihuela music) publish collections or single pieces to different Psalms of David. So, Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka, published in Cracow in 1580, can be situated in context of such anthologies as: Hans Neusidler (1536): Ein Newgeordent künstlich Lautenbuch… and Der ander Theil des Lautenbuchs: darin sind begriffen vil ausserlesner kunstreycher Stuck von Fantaseyen, Preambeln, Psalmen, und Muteten … auff die Lauten dargeben, Nürnberg; Bianchini, Francesco Veneziano (1547): Tabulature de lutz, en diverses formes de fantaisie, bassedances, chansons, pavanes, psaulmes, gaillardes, three psalms for lute solo: “In Domino confide” and “Domini est Terra” by A. de Mornable and Benedic est anima mea by P. Certon, Lyon; Adrien Le Roy (1552): Tiers Livre de Tablature de Luth, contenant vingt & un Psaumes. (for voice and lute), Paris; Miguel de Fuenllana (1554): Orphenica Lyra. – Super flumina by Gombert (for vihuela solo), Sevilla; Pierre Goudimel (1580): Cent cinquante Pseaumes de David, nouvellement mis en musique à quatre parties, Paris; Orlando di Lasso (1588): Teutsche Psalmen: Geistliche Psalmen, mit dreyen stimmen, welche nit allain lieblich zu singen, sonder auch auff aller hand art Jnstrumenten zugebrauchen, München; William Byrd (1588): Psalmes, Sonets & Songs of sadnes and pietie…, London.

In the same manner that the psalms of Lasso or Gombert (and other authors), mentioned above, were firstly composed for four voices, the form of interpretation of the Psalms by Gomółka and Kochanowski was characterized by a big variety already in the time of their creation: from the first and most direct form – joining And the wise, and the wise will die, and the fools will die too They build, they build palaces with great expense Perishible, perishible is human honor and scant is [his] glory.

358

Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska and Fernando Reyes Ferrón

instruments and voices, to the most simple – for solo lute. All of these different forms of interpretation could occupy the different spaces that the Polish society of the time accepted. The prayer, in one of its most elevated expressions, the Psalms of David, could be interpreted in a collective prayer in the greatest Polish temples with participation of the musical chapels of the King or the nobles. The voices of the best singers of the Commonwealth and the most virtuosic instrumentalists of the time would transmit the spirituality of these texts, brilliantly translated into the vernacular language by the most important Polish poet of all times. But also was possible, without any doubt, that the persons that knew in profound the art of music could sing these same psalms in small chapels, in a little ensemble, accompanied by instruments like a lute or a portative organ. The most intimate situation would be perhaps the one that would express the most profound religiousness, the one of the person who sings accompanying himself with a lute in the solitude of a chamber. The characteristics of the publication, as it was usual with the psalms in the 16th century, make us deduce that the major part of circumstances, in which the Psalms were performed, would be in small religious communities, in limited reunions of faithful, and first of all in family situations, where the prayer through singing the Psalms of David would be at the same time a prayer and a pastime. The infinity of possibilities of interpretation of Gomółka’s and Kochanski’s Psalms in their time contrasts with the overwhelming majority of the interpretations made in 20th and 21st century to show this treasury of the Polish culture. The most popular version is for a four-voice choir, and even though it is apparently following the original edition, it is the less probable of all the possible versions. It is also important to add here that the Psalms were not composed originally to be performed by choral masses, but chiefly by several singers or only one singer per voice. The use of instruments for accompaniment or to play one or more voices was a habitual practice, the most spread in the times of Renaissance. The music initially “vocal” was glossed by instrumentalists to make their improvisations and accompaniments. Like that we still can recreate many possible versions of Melodies, being at the same time completely faithful to the performance practice of the time, knowing that today these same versions can transmit faithfully the sonority and first of all, the boundless spirituality of Gomółka’s and Kochanowski’s Psalms. There is only left to be added that the use of the percussion instruments in Gomółka’s and Kochanowski’s Psalms’ performance is based in the fact that a big part of the basic musical material of these compositions are dances or melodies of popular origins or character. It is also easy to imagine that they were accompanied by precious sounds and rhythms of many percussion instruments present in every Polish house or palace of that time.

“Audite haec, omnes Gentes!” Melodies for the Polish Psalter

359

Bibliography Czepiel, Tomasz M. (1996), Music at the Royal Court and Chapel in Poland, ca. 1543–1600, New York & London: Garland Publishing. Dłuska, Maria (1978), Studia z historii i teorii wersyfikacji polskiej, Warszawa,: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo naukowe. Harrán, Don (1986), Word-Tone Relations in Musical Thought: From Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century. Musicological Studies & Documents 40. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler-Verlag for the American Institute of Musicology. Perz, Mirosław (1980), Czterysta lat gomółkowych “Melodii” , czyli o pocza˛tkach polskiej deklamacji muzycznej”, Muzyka, 1980, 3, 3–22. Perz, Mirosław (1981), Mikołaj Gomółka. Monografia, Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwa Muzyczne. Perz, Mirosław (1988a), Melodie na Psałterz polski Mikołaja Gomółki. Interpretacje i komentarze, Kraków: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwa Muzyczne. Perz, Mirosław (1988b), Melodie na Psałterz polski Mikołaja Gomółki. Transkrypcje, Kraków: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwa Muzyczne. ´ ska, Zuzanna (1961), Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dzis´, Zakład Topolin narodowy im. Ossolin´skich: Wrocław. Turska, Halina (1950), Zagadnienie miejsca akcentu w je˛zyku polskim, Pamie˛tnik Literacki, XLI, 434–468. Winiarska-Górska, Izabela (2014), On Polish Pronunciation in the Times of Jan Kochanowski, commentaries in: Audite, Gentes! Psalms by Mikołaj Gomółka to words by Jan Kochanowski. Psalms of the Golden Age, CD, Warszawa: Fundacja Je˛zyka Polskiego, CD Accord, 6–8.

Notes about Authors

Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault, habilitated doctor – an assistant professor at the Faculty of Humanities, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyn´ski University in Warsaw. Her scientific interests include Italian and European Renaissance culture, especially the history of reading, edition and perception, and also translation and religious literature. A member of the Renaissance Society of America. Recently she published a book on Italian 16th century books and reading [S]Łowa kotka. Obrazy, funkcje przemiany włoskiej ksia˛z˙ki XVI wieku [A Cat Cathwords. Images, functions, evolutions of Italian book in the 16th century], Cracow 2018. Wojciech Kriegseisen, Professor – a Polish historian specialising in the history of early modern Poland against the backdrop of Europe – especially on political history in the18th century and interdenominational relations in the early modern era. Professor and now head of the Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History, Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw. Editor of the periodical “Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce”. Author of, among other books, Between state and church. Confessional relations from the Reformation to the Enlightenment: Poland – Lithuania – Germany – Netherlands, Peter Lang Edition 2016. Marta Wojtkowska-Maksymik, habilitated doctor – an assistant professor at the Institute of Polish Literature at Warsaw University. She is currently a member of the editorial board of the periodical “Odrodzenie iReformacja w Polsce” [“Renaissance and Reformation in Poland”]. Her field of research deals with Polish-Italian cultural associations during the Renaissance, neo-Platonic influences of 16th century Polish literature, the issue of female dignity in Polish 16th century writing, and translations of Ariosto, Tasso, and Castiglione in the Polish language in the 16th and 17th centuries. She is the author of monographs ‘Gentiluomo cortigiano’ i ‘dworzanin polski’. Dyskusja o doskonałos´ci człowieka w “Il Libro del Cortigiano” Baldassara Castiglionego i w “Dworzaninie polskim” Łukasza Górnickiego [‘Gentiluomo cortigiano’ and ‘dworzanin polski’. Discussion of Human Perfection in “Il Libro del Cortigiano” by Baldassarre Casti-

362

Notes about Authors

glione and “Dworzanin Polski” by Łukasz Górnicki], Warsaw 2007; Z´ródła i sposób uje˛cia kobiecej godnos´ci w “O ´slachetnos´ci a zacnos´ci płci niewies´ciej” Macieja Wirzbie˛ty [The Sources and Method of Presenting the Issue of Women’s Dignity in “O s´lachetnos´ci a zacnos´ci płci niewies´ciej” by Maciej Wirzbie˛ta], Warsaw 2017. Since 2016 she has been co-editor of the book series “Dawna Literatura Włoska. Studia i Z´ródła” [Ancient Italian Literature. Studies and Sources]. Rajmund Pietkiewicz, PhD in humanities (bibliology) and in theology, licence in biblical sciences (Pontifical Biblical Institute “Biblicum” in Rome), habilitated doctor in biblical theology (Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Wrocław, 2012) – director of the Chair of Old Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Wrocław, and lecturer of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew language. Since September 2014 he has been the Deputy Vice–Chancellor at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Wrocław. He specialises in the study on biblical translations, especially Polish ones dating back to the period of the Reformation and Renaissance. His main publications: W poszukiwaniu ‘szczyrego słowa Boz˙ego: recepcja zachodnioeuropejskiej hebraistyki w studiach chrzes´ciajn´skich w Rzeczypospolitej doby renesansu [In Search of ‘Genuine God’s Word’. Reception of Western Hebrew Studies in Christian Research in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the Renaissance period], Wrocław 2011; Biblia Polonorum. Historia Biblii w je˛zyku polskim. t. 1: Od pocza˛tku do 1638 roku; t. 5: Biblia Tysia˛clecia (1965–2015) [The History of the Bible in the Polish Language, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to 1638; vol. 5: The Millennium Bible (1965–2015)], Wrocław 2017, 2015. The latest publication received the “Book of 2015” award of the Committee of Theology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Aurelia Zdun´czyk – is preparing a doctoral thesis, “The role of the reredoses from the workshops of Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger in forming the Evangelical-Augsburg confession” at the University of Wrocław, Institute of Art History, Department of Renaissance and Reformation Art. Her supervisor is Prof. Jan Harasimowicz. She has published papers: Pan–confessional character of the doctrine of justification and its visualization using the example of the title page of the Bible of Brzes´´c, in: “Reformation & Renaissance Review”, vol. 17/1 (2015): Piotr Wilczek (ed.), The Polish Bible (Brest Bible), 97– 109; Die Bilderpredigt der reformatorischen und frühprotestantischen Altarretabel, and Reformationsaltar in: Jan Harasimowicz/Bettina Seyderhelm (ed.), Cranachs Kirche. Begleitbuch zur Landesausstellung Sachsen-Anhalt Cranach der Jüngere 2015, Beucha/Markkleeberg: Sax Verlag 2015, 27–48 and 75–99; Der Wittenberger Altar – Versuch einer Neuinterpretation ”der gemalten Urkunde der Reformationszeit”, in: Bettina Seyderhelm, Cranach-Werke am Ort ihrer Bes-

Notes about Authors

363

timmung. Tafelbilder der Malerfamilie Cranach und ihres Umkreises in den Kirchen der Evangelischen Kirche in Mitteldeutschland, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet 2015, 256–273; Die Bedeutung der Bildnisse der sog. Wittenberger Gruppe für Legitimierung und Institutionalisierung des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses, in: Arts, Portraits and Representation in the Reformation Era. Proceedings of the Fourth Reformation Research Consortium Conference, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [in print]. Izabela Winiarska-Górska, habilitated doctor – an assistant professor at the Institute of Polish Literature and Linguistics at Warsaw University. Her scientific interests comprise: history of the Polish language, especially the Polish humanities in the Middle Polish period (mainly 16th-17th centuries) religious discourses of the Polish Reformation and so called Counter Reformation normative issues of the Old Polish language editing of the old Polish legacy. She is the author of the books Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku [Religious vocabulary of Polish Calvinism from 16th to 18th c. in view of Catholic terminology], Warsaw 2004; Szesnastowieczne przekłady Pisma S´wie˛tego na je˛zyk polski (1551–1599) jako gatunek nowoz˙ytnej ksia˛z˙ki formacyjnej [Sixteenth Century Polish Translations of the Holy Bible (1551–1599) as a Genre of Early Modern Formative Book], Warsaw 2017. From 2010 until 2013 she conducted a research project, “16th century translations of the Gospels into Polish and the development of Renaissance Polish language, Internet database (www.ewangelie.uw.edu.pl)”. Her papers also concern the problem of 16th century Polish Bible translations. Katarzyna Krzak-Weiss, habilitated doctor – art historian and literature specialist. She is assistant professor at the Institute of Polish Philology at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´. She is fascinated by the history of the book and book graphics, especially in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, but also of the 19th and 20th centuries. She is the author of articles about typography and book illustrations Inne spojrzenie na wariantywnos´c´ pierwszego wydania Biblii Leopolity [Another Perspective on Variants of the first Edition of the Leopolite Bible], in: Jak wydawac´ teksty dawne, Poznan´ 2017, as well as monographic studies of Polish printers’ marks from the 15th to the mid-17th centuries, [Polish Printers’ Marks from the 15th until the first half of the 17th century] Poznan´ 2006, and the graphics of Polish editions of the prayer book Hortulus animae: W ogrodzie duszy. Studia nad wyposaz˙eniem graficznym polskich edycji modlitewnika ‘Hortulus animae’ [In the Garden of the Soul: Studies on the Graphics of Polish Editions of the Prayer Book ‘Hortulus Animae’], Poznan´ 2014. She is also editor of a series presenting manuscript illuminated prayer books created in the circle of Stanisław Samostrzelnik (1490–1541).

364

Notes about Authors

Mariola Jarczykowa, Professor – Professor at the University of Silesia in Katowice. She is head of the Department of History of Baroque Literature and EarlyModern Books at the Ireneusz Opacki Institute of Polish Literature. Her research interests focus on the problems of old Polish literary culture, with particular emphasis of the Birz˙e Radziwiłł family and its circle. She is the author of four books and over 100 articles on the history of old Polish patronage, the culture of the book, and 17th century literature: Ksia˛z˙ka i literatura w kre˛gu Radziwiłłów birz˙an´skich w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku [Books and Literature in the Circle of the Birz˙e Radziwiłł family in the first half of the 17th century], Katowice 1995; „Papirowe materie” Piotra Kochlewskiego. O działalnos´ci pisarskiej sekretarza Radziwiłłów birz˙an´skich w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku [The ‘Paper Matters’ of Piotr Kochlewski. About the Activity as a Writer of Piotr Kochlewski, a Secretary of the Birz˙e Radziwiłł Family in the First Half of the 17th Century] Katowice 2006; Dedykacje Radziwiłłów dla rodziny królewskiej w staropolskich wydaniach Biblii [Dedications of the Radziwiłł to the Royal Family in Old Polish Bible Editions]. in: Patronka filologii. Rola Biblii w rozwoju edytorstwa, badan´ je˛zykoznawczych i translatorskich.[Patron of Philology. The Role of the Bible in the Development of Editorship, Linguistics and Translatory Research], ed. D. Muszytowska. Warsaw 2015, p. 87–104. Robert Dittmann, Ph.D. – a lecturer at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, and a researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. He has published monographs on place names in Czech Old Testament translations, on Slavic glosses in medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and on biblical humanism in the Czech Lands. He recently co-authored a monograph on Slavic glosses in medieval Hebrew manuscripts (Kenaanské glosy ve strˇedoveˇých hebrejských rukopisech s vazbou na cˇeské zemeˇ, Praha 2015) and on biblical humanism in the Czech Lands (Biblical Humanism in Bohemia and Moravia in the 16th Century, Brepols 2016). Jarosław Malicki, Ph.D. – a Polonist and Bohemicist. He works at the Institute for Slavic Philology at Wrocław University. In his diachronic linguistic research he focuses on the influences of Czech in Silesia and Poland, and Czech-based social communication in the history of Silesia. He has also published diachronic toponomastic studies on Silesian-Czech and Silesian-Moravian borderline regions (Nazwy miejscowe S´la˛ska w je˛zyku czeskim), Wrocław 2002. Gina Kavaliu¯naite˙ – a senior research worker at the Department of Baltic Studies, Institute for the Languages and Cultures of the Baltic, Vilnius University. Her domain of research includes the Old Lithuanian language and the history of Lithuanian Bible translation. She is the editor of the Chylinski Bible series, de-

Notes about Authors

365

voted to the first partly printed Lithuanian Bible and its history (vol. I Old Testament, 2008; vol. 3, Sources for the History of the Chylinski Bible, 2015, vol. 2, New Testament, to appear in 2018). Joanna Kulwicka-Kamin´ska, habilitated doctor of the Humanities in Linguistics – head of the Unit of the History of the Polish Language, the Centre for Kitab Studies and the Post-Graduate Centre for Speech Therapy at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun´. Member of the Renaissance Society of America. She conducts research into diachronic and contrastive linguistics (theolinguistics, kitab studies, history of the Polish language, including Old and MiddlePolish inflection systems, as well as relations between Slavic and Oriental languages, such as Arabic, Turkish and Persian borrowings in Polish) and translation studies (translation of Christian and Muslim terminology into Polish). Author of three books and over 100 academic papers. Her main publications: Kształtowanie sie˛ polskiej terminologii muzułman´skiej [Creation of Polish Muslim Terminology], Torun´ 2004; Przekład terminologii religijnej islamu w polskich tłumaczeniach Koranu na tle biblijnej tradycji translatorycznej [Translation of Religious Islamic Terminology in Polish Translations of the Qu’ran on the Background of the Biblical Translation Tradition], 2 vol., Torun´ 2013; Dialogue of Scriptures: The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations, volume 19 of the series “European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, Peter Lang Verlag 2018. Tomasz Lisowski, habilitated doctor – professor of linguistics at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´, Department of Anthropological Linguistics, Faculty of Polish and Classical Philology. His empirical research concerns the lexis of Renaissance translations of the Bible into Polish in quantitative, pragmatic, semantic and cultural aspects. Tomasz Lisowski is the author of, among others, Sola Scriptura. Leksyka Nowego Testamentu Biblii gdan´skiej (1632) na tle porównawczym. Uje˛cie kwantytatywno-dystrybucyjne [Sola Scriptura. A Comparative Study of the New Testament Lexis of the Gdan´sk Bible (1632). The Quantative-Distributional Approach], Poznan´ 2010; (co-author: Przemysław Wiatrowski) Desakralisierung der biblischen Botschaft? Die Hiphop – Fibel ‘Dobra Czytanka wg ´sw. ziom’a Janka’, oder ‘Das Evangelium nach Johannes’, in: Wortsemantik zwischen Säkularisierung und (Re)Sakralisierung öffentlicher Diskurse. A. Nagórko (ed.). Hildesheim – Zürich – New York 2012, p. 57–71; The lexis of the New Testament in the Brest Bible (1563) as compared to selected subsequent Renaissance translations of the Bible into Polish. The possible filiational relation with respect to lexis. “East European & Balkan Studies” 38, 3, 2014, p. 75–118.

366

Notes about Authors

Łukasz Cybulski, PhD – since 2009 assistant at the Faculty of Humanities, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyn´ski University in Warsaw, and also member of the editorial section of the Digital Humanities Center in the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences. His main interests concern Polish early modern sermons, print and book history, and editorial theory. In his latest book, Krytyka tekstu na rozdroz˙ach [Textual criticism at the crossroads], Warsaw 2018, he studies the development of the Anglo-American theory of scholarly editing in the second half of the 20th century. He is also a member of the project Completion of the Pariment Edition of Collected Works by Jan Kochanowski. Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙ – worked as an associate professor at Vilnius University and Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas for many years. Her area of specialization is historical syntax and textual criticism. In 2015–2016, together with Kristina Rutkovska, she prepared a critical edition of the bilingual Catholic postil by Konstantinas Sirvydas Gospel Points published by the Research Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Besides two dozen articles in local and foreign scientific journals, her main opuses are two monographs: Word Order in Lithuanian: 16th – 19th Centuries (2008), and Structure, Contents, and Sources of “Gospel Points” by Konstantinas Sirvydas (2017). She also published a textbook about Modern Lithuanian orthography and punctuation, titled Problematic aspects of Lithuanian orthography and punctuation. Her sabbatical research took place at Princeton, Pennsylvania State University, Parma University and Umeå University. Kristina Rutkovska – professor at the Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Baltic Region of the University of Vilnius. Her research interests concern ethnolinguistics, dialectology and language history. She has been researching the Polish language in Lithuania for over twenty years and is the author of over 80 articles and several co-authored books devoted to various issues: problems of borderland identity, multiculturalism in language, Lithuanian and East Slavic interferences in Polish, and lexical Lithuanisms. In 2015–2016, together with Virginija Vasiliauskiene˙, she prepared a critical edition of the bilingual Catholic postil by Konstantinas Sirvydas Gospel Points published by the Research Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Her latest monograph, Gospel Points by Konstantinas Sirvydas, a monument to Lithuanian and Polish writing of the first half of the 17th century, Vilnius: LKI, 2016, is focused on researching multilingualism in the diachronic aspect, discovering mutual language influences at various levels of the text. Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska – a Mezzosoprano specializing in early music, a graduate in Medieval Music Performance from the Sorbonne University in Paris and in

Notes about Authors

367

Musicology from the University of Warsaw. Currently she is working on her PhD thesis about medieval music in Santiago de Compostela at the Santiago de Compostela University (Spain). She was a stipendist of the Ramón Piñeiro Centre for Research in Humanities (Santiago de Compostela, Spain), to carry out her own programme of transcription and interpretation of the Sharrer Parchment songs (Galician- Portuguese troubadour lyric, ca. 1300). She has published two CDs devoted to Galician-Portuguese troubadour music from the 13th century. Since 2008 she has directed her own ancient music ensemble, Meendinho. She is also invited to sing with other early music groups. In 2015 she published, with Fernando Reyes Ferrón, the CD ‘Audite, Gentes!’ Psalms of the Golden Age devoted to Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka. Paulina Ceremuz˙yn´ska has also offered numerous courses devoted to medieval music. Fernando Reyes Ferrón – began his musical training as a child singer in the choristers’ school of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. He specialised in ancient plucked string instruments at the Conservatory of Toulouse (France) and at the Staatliche Hochschule für Musik in Trossingen (Germany) with Rolf Lislevand. He also studied Education at the Santiago de Compostela University (Spain). Since 1990 he has contucted the Resonet, the early music ensemble of Santiago. The group has performed in many European countries with a repertoire that extended from Galician medieval music, Renaissance polyphony, music for voice and lute, Spanish and Italian baroque, etc., paying great attention to the music related to the Pilgrim Way to Santiago, to which they have dedicated numerous CDs. He has also composed and conducted music for a series of theatrical performances, and has published several articles on ancient music, music guides and CD books. He has offered numerous seminars, courses and conferences in different universities and teaching centres throughout Europe. He was a teacher at the Early Music Course in Vivoin (France) and in the ESMAE (Superior Music School) in Porto (Portugal).

Name Index

Aaron 131, 175 Abraham (ibrahı¯m, ãbrahám) 117, 245, 269, 310 Adalbert, Saint 205 Adamek, Zbigniew 205 Adam, first man 111, 124, 131 Adamczyk, Maria 273, 275 Adamiak, Elz˙bieta 301 Aland, Barbara 249 Aland, Kurt 249 Albrecht, prince [Hohenzollern] 174, 225 Alexis, Saint 55 Ali Ufki Bej = Bobowski, Wojciech 9 Alisauskas, Vytautas 272, 275 Altbauer, Mosze 287, 298 Amman, Jost 124, 179, 182 Amon, Karl 94, 109 f., 139 Andersson, Christiane D. 94, 139 Andrew, Saint 329 Andrysowicz, Łazarz 86, 127, 138 Andrzej of Jaszowice 208 Anna Jagiellon [queen of Poland] 50 Apollonius, friend of Vespasian 197 Ariosto, Ludovico 361 Aquinas, Thomas, Saint 322, 329, 342, 344 Augezdecki, Aleksander = Aujezdeckis (Oujezdecký), Aleksander 10, 53, 77 f., 91, 214 Augustine, Saint 55, 313, 322, 329, 342 Augustyniak, Urszula 33 Augustynowicz, Christoph 34 Backus, Irena 231, 250 Badstübner, Ernst 94, 139

Bajerowa, Irena 268, 275, 283, 293, 298, 300 Ba˛k, Stanisław 298, 300 Bandtkie, Jerzy Samuel 185 Ban´kowski, Andrzej 284, 298 Bardach, Juliusz 24, 33 Barłowska, Maria 32 f. Bartel, Oskar 20, 33 Barth, Karl 111, 139 Bartłomiej of Bydgoszcz 271 Bartmin´ski, Jerzy 149, 164, 276 Bartolomeˇj Paprocký of Hloholy 209, 213 Bartonˇ, Josef 206, 222 Bartosˇ, Frantisˇek Michálek 221, 222 Bartsch, Fryderyk 29 Barycz, Henryk 20 f., 33 f., 36, 314 Basaj, Mieczysław 205, 222, 293, 298 Báthory, Stephen [king of Poland] 26 f., 104, 162 Bazylik, Cyprian 76, 82, 89, 200, 249 Becˇka, Josef 213, 222 Beckett, Samuel 305 Becˇková, Marta 221 f. Bednarczyk, Anna 269, 275 Belcarzowa, Elz˙bieta 146, 164, 217–219, 222 f., 255 f., 275, 284, 299 Bellarmine, Robert 322, 344 Bembus, Mateusz 31, 34 Ben Sira = Jesus son of Sirach 87 Optát, Benesˇ 207, 217 Benesˇovský, Matousˇ 213 Bessarion, Basilios 50 Beza, Theodore 7, 63, 114, 216, 219, 221, 231, 233, 281 Bianchini, Francesco Veneziano 357

370 Bielski, Marcin 211 Bien´kowska, Danuta 40, 54, 128, 139, 220, 223, 255–257, 262, 275, 283 f., 286–288, 299, 305, 336, 345 Bien´kowska, Barbara 314 Binder, Dieter A. 139 Birnbaum, Henrik 226 Bláha, Ondrˇej 205, 223 Blahoslav, Jan 207, 210–215, 219 f., 223 f., 277 Blair, Ann 304–306, 314 Blass, Friedrich 246, 250 Bobowski, Wojciech = Ali Ufki Bej 9 Bocksperger, Johann 179 Bodenhausus, Wendelin 200 Bogucka, Maria 23, 34 Bolemowski, Feliks 79 Bömelburg, Hans-Juergen 30, 34 Boner, family 20 Bonifacio, Giovanni Bernardo 316 Borowiec, Karolina 208, 223 Bortkiewicz, Paweł 14 Borzymowski, Jan Junior 230, 239 f. Borzymowski the Elder, Jan 230, 236, 239 f. Boumann, C.A. 36 Boyle, Robert 236 Bravi, Giulio Orazio 71, 91 Brekka, Pamela Merill 175, 185 Bretku¯nas, Jonas 229 f., 236, 239, 242, 248, 331, 338 f., 341, 343 Breza, Edward 275, 284, 299 Brodský, Pavel 209, 223 Broeyer, Frits Gerrit Murk 237, 250 Brown, Francis 243, 250 Broz˙ek, Jan 305, 314 Brückner, Aleksander 49, 54 Bruges de, Luc 43 Bruin, C.C. 231, 233, 237, 250 Bruyn Bartholomäus, the Elder 127 Bryner, Erich 54 Buchanan, George 51 Budka, Włodzimierz 25, 34 Budny, Szymon 12–15, 41–46, 53, 54, 59, 63 f., 68, 70, 74, 76, 79, 112, 114, 116–119, 124, 134, 137 f., 140, 142, 145, 148, 151,

Name Index

154, 160, 162, 164, 177, 188, 209, 211, 218–220, 233 f., 251, 273 f., 283, 301 Bues, Almut 23, 34 Bukowski, Julian 21, 34 Bullinger, Johann Heinrich 48 f. Bünker, Michael 110, 139 Burkhardt, Johannes 293, 299 Burton, Simon J.G. 110 Büsch, Otto 139 Buzzetti, Carlo 71, 91 Byrd, William 357 Bythner, Samuel 230, 239–242, 246–249 Calvin, John 20, 28, 31, 33, 35, 38, 49, 54, 110–112, 114, 138, 141, 161, 175, 232 f., 282, 299, 328 f., 342, 344 Campen van den, Jan 11, 51 Castalion (Castellio), Sébastien 114, 231, 250 Castiglione, Baldassarre 50, 55, 361 f. Catherine, Saint 55 Ceremuz˙yn´ska, Paulina 9, 12, 349, 352, 366 f. Certon, Pierre 357 Charles II, Stuart [king of England and Scotland] 236 Charles IV [Holy Roman Emperor] 206 Chartier, Roger 303, 314 Chech of Brzozów, Walenty 91 Chmiel, Jerzy 140 Chojecka, Ewa 96, 99, 133 f., 139 f., 170, 172, 179, 185 Chome˛towski, Władysław 23, 35 Chowaniec, Czesław 30, 34 Chrostowski, Waldemar 55, 119, 125, 128, 140 Chrzanowski, Tadeusz 128, 140 Chylinski (Chylin´ski), Samuel Boguslaus 229 f., 236–240, 242–51, 364 Ciechanowiecki, Andrzej 186 Cisło, Anna 314 Clement of Rome, Saint 330, 341 Clement VIII [Pope] 43 f. Colines de, Simon 12, 44 Comenius, John Amos = Komenský, Jan Amos 209, 221 f.

371

Name Index

Comestor, Petrus 256, 258 Cooltuyn, Cornelis 237 Cottret, Bernard 281, 299 Cranach, Lucas the Elder 111 f., 114, 118, 125, 139–143, 362 Cranach, Lucas the Younger 99, 112, 114, 118, 125, 139–142, 170, 362 Crespin, Jean = Crispin, John 12, 44, 281 Cricius, Andreas 14 Cybulski, Łukasz 10, 303, 310, 314, 366 Cybulski, Marek 208, 223, 292, 299 Cynarski, Stanisław 20, 34 Cyprian, Saint 312 Cyran, Grzegorz 301 Cytowska, Maria 314 ˇ echura, Jaroslav 209, 223 C ˇ ejka, Mirek 223 C ˇ ervenka, Mateˇj 215 C Czaplejewicz, Eugeniusz 165 Czechowic, Marcin 13, 40, 44, 46 f., 53, 55, 64, 68, 79, 145, 151, 156, 160, 219, 264, 271 f., 283 Czepiel, Tomasz M. 349, 359 Czerniatowicz, Janina 164, 233, 250, 255, 275, 281, 299 Czuj, Jan 54, 287, 299 Dacka-Górzyn´ska, Iwona M. 315 Daniel [biblical] 323 Daniel Adam of Veleslavín 213 Daniel of Łe˛czyca = Daniel Łe˛czycki 53, 76, 78 f., 135, 177 f., 184 Danˇková, Mirjam 209, 216, 223 Darwin, Charles 305 Daubmann, Jan 271, 314 Dauksˇa, Mikalojus 229, 324–326, 331, 338 f., 341, 343 David (dawu¯d, diwid) [biblical] 11, 14, 49, 51–55, 69 f., 80–87, 91 117, 125, 127, 131, 136, 192, 198, 235, 263, 269 f., 270, 357 f. de la Tour d’Auvergne, Frédéric Maurice 188 Debrunner, Albert 246, 250 Delumeau, Jean 281, 299 Deptuchowa, Ewa 208, 223

Dietrich, Veit (Noribercz˙yk, Wit Teodor) 89 Dietrichstein von, Franz 213 Dijkema, F. 237, 250 Dittmann, Robert 8, 205, 210, 223, 225, 283, 364 Dłuska, Maria 350, 359 Dmitriev, Michail Vladimirovitsch 28, 34 Dobrovský, Josef 216 Domaniewski, Józef 87 Dorulˇa, Ján 207–209, 223 Drozd, Andrzej 256, 259, 262, 266, 273, 275 Dufala, Kristina 273, 276 Duifhuis, Hubert 237 Duysend, Cornelius Claessen 129 Dwornicka, Irena 27, 35 Dworzaczek, Włodzimierz 25, 34 Dworzaczkowa, Jolanta 221, 223 Dybas´, Bogusław 141 Dygo, Marian 34 Dziarnowicz, Aleh 9 Dzie˛gielewski, Jan 26 f., 32, 34 Eber, Paul 140 Ehresmann, Donald L. 94, 140 Eisenstein, Elisabeth 310, 314 Ekumenius = Oecumenius 44 Elijah, prophet 117 Ellegård, Alvar 294 f., 299 Elzervir, family 129 Emser, Hieronymus 213 Enenkel, Karl Alfred Engelbert 315 Erasmus of Rotterdam 7, 44, 71, 90, 114, 162, 231, 237, 249, 304 f., 314 Estienne, Robert = Stephanus, Robert 7, 43 f., 63, 70, 149, 175, 179, 216, 219, 233, 281, 298 Estreicher, Karol 168, 174, 185, 332, 345 Eve, first woman 131 Fabris, Rinaldo 91 Falconius, Tomasz 89 Falimirz, Stefan 271 Ferber, Augustyn 84, 91 Ferdinand I [Holy Roman Emperor] Feyerabend, Sigmund 179

20

372 Fialová, Vlasta 214, 223 Firlej, family 20 Firlej, Jan 48 Fisher, B. 325, 343 Flavius, Josephus 250 Fleck, Miriam Verena 94, 140 Florovskij, Anton Vasiljevicˇ 218, 223 Foerster, Richard 94, 140 Fogelweder, Stanisław 12, 50 f., 53 Franciscus Polonus 213 f. Franco de, Franco 31, 38 Frankowski, Janusz 146, 164 Frantisˇek of Rozdrazˇov 213 Frederick I of Prussia 241 f. Frencel, Michał 277 Frey, Christofer 111, 140 Frick, David A. 39, 44, 54, 146, 148, 164, 210 f., 217–220, 223, 233, 235, 250, 281 f., 287, 297, 299 f. Friedelówna, Teresa 276 Friedrich, Martin 110, 139 Froben, Johann 249 Fruba, Hanna 140 Frycz Modrzewski, Andrzej 20, 211 Fuenllana de, Miguel 357 Fulin´ska, Agnieszka 50, 54, 313, 315 Funk, Robert 250 Gabriel (ǯebra’il) [angel] 258, 262 Gadomski, Aleksander 276–278 Gajda, Krzysztof 184 Gallewicz, Anna 50, 54 Gastgeber, Christian 141 Gaszowic, Piotr 306 Gaudentius, Saint 205 Gawlas, Sławomir 34 Genette, Gérard 150–152, 164 Gerulis, Jurgis 344 Gesenius, Wilhelm 244, 250 Girard, Jean 233 Girdwil, Karol 241 Glaber Andrzej of Kobylin 49 Glemma, Tadeusz 31, 35 Gładkiewicz, Ryszard 226 Głombiowska, Zofia 314 Gmiterek, Henryk 220, 223

Name Index

Goła˛b, Julian 220, 223 Gombert, Nicolas 357 Gomółka, Mikołaj 9, 51, 83, 349–355, 357– 359, 367 Gorajski, Piotr 29 Gordon, Bruce 250 Górka, family 20 Górnicki, Łukasz 50, 54 f., 208, 215, 223, 271, 361 Górny, Justyna 299 Górska, Magdalena 126 f., 140 Górski, Konrad 20, 35, 284, 287, 300 Goudimel, Pierre 357 Gracianus, Marcin 220 Grala, Hieronim 34 Gregory the Great, Saint 127, 273, 276, 329, 342 Grell, Jadwiga 226 Grell, Ole Peter 36 Gribomont, Jean 325, 343 Grodziski, Stanisław 27, 35 Gruchała, Janusz 303, 315 Gruszecki, Stefan 25 f., 35 Gryson, Roger 249, 326, 343 Grzegorz of Z˙arnowiec 305 Grzegorz Paweł of Brzeziny 35 Grzeszczuk, Stanisława 139 Guarini, Giovanni Battista 273 Guilmonthan, Guilheilm Widow of 80, 282, 298 Gustaw, Romuald 39–41, 43, 54 Guzowski, Piotr 194, 200 Gzel, Petr 209, 217 Haak, Theodore 238, 250 Habsburg, house of 31, 223 Haentjens, A. H. 237, 250 Hajdukiewicz, Leszek 40, 54 Halama, Ota 224 Halecki, Oskar 22, 24, 35 Haller, Jan 88 Hannick, Christian 224 Hanusiewicz-Lavallé, Mirosława 7, 11, 13 f. Harasimowicz, Jan 125, 140, 362 Harrán, Don 350, 353, 355, 359

373

Name Index

Hartlib, Samuel 236 Havránek, Bohuslav 207–210, 223 f. Hawrysz, Magdalena 260, 276 Hazlett, Ian 110 Hejwowski, Krzysztof 269, 276 Helic, Lukásˇ 216 Henry III de Valois [king of Poland] 26 f., 99 Herbinius, Jan 278 Herburt, Jan 172 Hess, Johann 140 Hess, Leopold 217, 224 Hessus, Eobanus 51 Hesychius of Alexandria 46 Hieronim (Spiczyn´ski) of Wielun´ 87, 217, 299 Hieronymus (Jerome), Saint 13, 41–44, 48, 54 f., 169, 231, 287, 299, 329, 342 Hills, Henry 250 Höfer, Rudolf 139 Holbein, Hans 141 Holeton, David 207, 224 Horace 11 Hornícˇková, Katerˇina 186 Hosea, prophet 89 Hosius, Stanislaus 128 Hrabec, Stefan 300 Hujer, Oldrˇich 223 Hünefeld (Hunefeld), Andreas 77, 80, 84, 91, 122, 129, 130, 135 f., 142, 193 f., 199, 235, 249, 282, 298 Hutter, Elias 59, 90, 219 Isaiah (i′sxak, i′schak, iz′ák), prophet 96, 110, 131 f., 221, 269, 338 Iwan´czak, Wojciech 226 Izrael, Jirˇí 214

94,

Jacob, patriarch 259 Jadwiga d’Anjou [queen of Poland] 208 Jakke, A.W.G. 250 Jaknavicˇius Jonas = Jachnowicz, Jan 323– 326 Jakobson, Roman = Jansen, Olaf 207 f., 224 Jakoubek of Strˇíbro 224

Jakubica, Mikołaj 224 f. Jan Kracan of Wieliczka 137 f. Jan of Ludzisko 306 Jan of Sanok 87 Jan of Sa˛cz 88 Jan the Elder of Zˇerotín 215 Janicki, Marcin 64, 220, 282, 297 Janów, Jan 217, 224 Jansen, Olaf = Jakobson, Roman 207 f., 224 Janssen, Frans A. 303, 315 Januszowski, Jan 15, 50, 54, 140, 182, 271 Jarczykowa, Mariola 8, 129, 187, 364 Jasnowski, Józef 24, 35 Jaworski, Tomasz 224 f. Jesus Christ (‘ejs‘a, ‘ı¯s′á, jezu¯s) 11, 14, 53, 55, 66 f., 73, 78–80, 84, 89, 96, 99, 112 f., 116, 118 f., 124, 126, 131, 137, 153 f., 159, 194, 235, 269 f., 273, 298, 308, 311 f., 326, 331, 333, 344 Jesse, prophet 104, 338 Jovais, Liudas 272, 275 Jobert, Ambroise 24, 35 John, Saint [Evangelist] 67, 72, 77, 88, 90, 94, 104 f., 117, 125, 127, 148, 153, 170, 172, 215, 281, 286, 288, 290, 311, 317, 322 f., 328, 332 f., 335 John Chrysostom, Saint 311, 314 John Paul II [Pope] 105, 140 John the Baptist, Saint 96, 104, 106, 110, 113, 118 Jonah, prophet 125, 127 Joseph, patriarch 85 Juan de Segovia 254, 277 Juda, Maria 93, 134, 140 Judas 94 Judith [biblical] 323 Jungmann, Josef 214, 224 Junius, Franciscus = du Jon François 216, 221, 235, 299 Just, Jirˇí 210, 215, 223 f. Kabelka, Jonas 323, 345 Kaczorowski, Włodzimierz 189, 200 Kamieniecki, Jan 11 f., 14, 40, 54, 116, 140 Kamin´ska, Maria 275, 277, 298 f., 301 f.

374 Kamper-Warejko, Joanna 276 Kamusella, Tomasz 209, 224 Kania, Ireneusz 142 Kania, Wojciech, 314 Kappeler, Andreas 34 Karcan, Jan 78 Karnkowski, Stanisław 25, 125–127, 138, 310, 314 Karpin´ski, Adam 12, 14 Karpluk, Maria 205, 300 Kasperski, Edward 165 Kautsch, Emil 244, 250 Kavaliu¯naite˙, Gina 8, 229, 236, 238 f., 242, 249–251, 364 Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia 48 f., 54, 90, 92, 124, 139 f., 167, 169, 174, 185 Kawe˛czyn´ski, Maciej = Kawieczyn´ski Maciej 76, 135, 177, 233 Kawieczyn´ski, Albrecht 188 Kawieczyn´ski, Hektor 188 Keipert, Helmut 212, 224 Kempa, Tomasz 28 f., 35 Kemperdick, Stephan 141 Kempini, Szymon 85 Ke˛pin´ska, Alina 264, 276 Ke˛pka, Izabela 284, 297, 300 Khmelnytsky, Zynoviy Bohdan 33 Kilian´czyk-Zie˛ba, Justyna 50, 54 Kirton, Joshua 250 Klemensiewicz, Zenon 217, 224, 294, 300 Klich, Edward 205, 269, 276 Kłoczowski, Jan Maria 299 Kmita, Piotr Blast (Blastus) 87 Knapin´ski, Ryszard 167, 185 f. Kochanowski, Jan 9, 11 f., 14, 50–53, 60, 62, 70, 82 f., 87, 349–351, 353–355, 357– 359, 366 Kochlewski, Piotr 193, 200, 364 Koehler, Krzysztof 314 Koepplin, Dieter 94, 141 Koerner, Joseph Leo 94, 111, 141 Kolbuszewski, Franciszek 238, 251 Komender, Teresa 168, 185 Komenský, Jan Amos = Comenius, John Amos 209, 221 f. Komorowska, Magdalena 307, 315

Name Index

Komza, Małgorzata 93, 132, 141 Konopacki, Artur 272, 276 Konopásek, Jaroslav 221, 224 Konrad I of Masovia 350 Korolko, Mirosław 25, 28, 35, 37 Korotajowa, Krystyna 174, 185 Korzo, Margarita A. 31, 35, 49, 54 Kosourová, Hana 224 Kossowska, Maria 39 f., 43 f., 47, 49–51, 54, 69, 92–94, 99, 105, 119, 141, 219, 233– 235, 251, 282, 297, 300 Kostecki, Janusz 304 f., 315 Kot, Stanisław 13 f., 40, 54 Kowalska, Danuta 11, 14, 292, 300 Kowalska, Halina 20, 22, 35 Kowalski, Waldemar 36 Kozˇeniauskiene˙, Regina 331, 345 Koziara, Stanisław 256, 273, 276, 301 Kozłowska, Zofia 269, 276 Krain´ski, Jan 236, 238 f. Krain´ski, Jan Krzysztof 239 Krain´ski, Krzysztof 32, 38 Krajewski, Wojciech 174, 185 Kramiszewska, Agata 186 Krasicki, Ignacy 273 Krasin´ski, Władysław 23, 35 Krasˇovec, Jozˇe 141, 227 Kraus, Jutta 143 Kra˛z˙yn´ska, Zdzisława 300 Kreja, Bogusław 275 Kriegseisen, Wojciech 7, 19, 28, 32 f., 35 f., 128, 361 Krolikowski, Peter 53, 146, 164 Kronthaler, Michaela 139 Krupka Przecławski, Konrad 21 Krzak-Weiss, Katarzyna 8, 99, 105, 119, 167, 172, 186, 363 Krzycki, Andrzej 7, 14 Krzyz˙anowski, Julian 53 Ksia˛z˙ek-Bryłowa, Władysława 293, 300 Kucała, Marian 222, 300 Kudeˇlka, Milan 222, 225, 227 Kudzinowski, Czesław 238, 251 Kulwicka-Kamin´ska, Joanna 9, 253, 260, 268, 270, 274, 276–278, 365 Kuran, Magdalena 305, 315

Name Index

Kuraszkiewicz, Władysław 285, 300 Kuße, Holger 224 Kuz´micki, Marcin 208, 223, 276 Kuz´mina, Dariusz 40, 54, 143, 186 Kwilecka, Irena 14, 94, 99, 105 f., 112, 114, 128 f., 134, 141 f., 174 f., 186, 188, 200, 207, 209, 211, 216, 219–221, 224 f., 233, 251, 255 f., 259, 269, 273, 276 f., 282–284, 287, 290, 294, 300 Kyas, Vladimír 206–208, 210 f., 213–217, 222, 225 f. Ladislav the Elder Popel of Lobkovice 211 Lagaude, Jenny 94, 141 Lago del, Giovanni 355 Langkammer, Hugolin 119, 128, 141 Laski, John = Łaski, Jan 22, 35 f., 41, 232 f., 282 Lasso di, Orlando 357 Lawrence, Saint 329 Le Roy, Adrien 357 Leander of St. Martin = Leander de S. Martino 304 Lebedys, Jurgis 326, 345 Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques 7, 43, 94, 232 f. Leopolita, Jan 39–43, 53 f., 59, 63, 67, 69, 76, 78, 94–105, 140–142, 145 f., 153, 155– 157, 160, 164, 168 f., 172, 179, 184, 186, 209–211, 218 f., 222 f., 227, 272, 275, 286, 299, 363 Leszczyn´ski, family 20 Leszczyn´ski, Rafał 22, 32, 36, 112, 211, 216, 225, 281 Leszczyn´ski, Rafał Marcin 112, 141 Leszczyn´ski, Zenon 300 Lewaszkiewicz, Tadeusz 208, 228, 292, 300 Lewicka, Magdalena 277 Lewin, Jane E. 164 Liebmann, Maximilian 139 Liedke, Marzena 24, 36, 194, 200 Lindan, Wilhelm 44 Lipski, Samuel 240 Lisowski, Tomasz 9, 221, 225, 256, 259, 274, 276, 281, 283–296, 300 f., 365 Lislevand, Rolf 367 Litak, Stanisław 26, 36, 38

375 Lot‘s wife 132 Lubac de, Henri 314 Lubelczyk, Jakub 41, 51–53, 55, 82, 85 Lubieniecki, Stanisław 21, 36 Lufft, Hans 113 f., 136, 170 Lukásˇ, bishop of Prague 210 f. Luke, Saint [Evangelist] 94, 125, 148, 156, 286, 288–291, 322, 335 Luksˇaite˙, Inge˙ 251 Lulewicz, Henryk 24, 26, 36 Luther, Martin 7, 40, 105 f., 109–111, 113 f., 119, 125, 134, 136, 138, 142 f., 161–163, 170, 179, 186, 211, 213, 218, 231 f., 235, 242–249, 254, 260, 281, 301, 311 f., 328 f., 342, 344 Lutomirski, Jan 20 Łapicz, Czesław 253 f., 260 f., 266, 272 f., 276–278 Łaski, Jan = Laski, John 22, 35, 36, 41, 232 f., 282 Ła˛tka, Jerzy S. 9, 14 Łesiów, Michał 276 Łopacin´ski, Hieronim 75 Łos´, Zofia 10, 14 Łuczak, Arleta 206, 218, 225, 277, 284, 301 Łuszpak, Agnieszka 314 Maag, Karin 36 Maciejewska, Maria 137 f. Maciuszko, Janusz Tadeusz 25, 36, 51, 54, 188, 200 Macu˚rek, Josef 206 f., 210 f., 213–216, 225 Majewski, Paweł 315 Makiłła, Dariusz 27, 36 Malecki, Hieronim 210, 309, 314 Malecki, Jan = Maletius, Joannes 90, 207 f., 210, 212, 224–226 Maleczyn´ska, Kazimiera 140 Małek, Elz˙bieta 275, 298 f., 301 f., Malicki, Marian 139 Malicki Jarosław 8, 205 f., 208, 211, 216, 220 f., 225, 283, 364 Malik [angel] 260 Małłek, Janusz 23, 36, 40, 54, 212, 225 Man´kowska, Anna 167, 169, 185 Marcella, friend of St Jerome 48

376 Mark, Saint [Evangelist] 156, 286, 288, 290, 322, 335 Markiewicz, Henryk 164 Markowicz, Jan 79 Marot, Clément 233 Mary, Saint Virgin 96, 106, 114, 118, 127, 131, 172 Masłej, Dorota 208, 223 Matla, Marzena 205, 226 Matthew, Saint [Evangelist] 10 f., 46, 53, 77, 94, 104, 145, 147 f., 153, 163, 217 f., 224, 250 Matthias [Holy Roman Emperor] 31 Matuszczyk, Boz˙ena 284, 301 Matecki, Józef 185 Mayenowa, Maria Renata 275, 300 f. Mazurkowa, Barbara 307, 315 Mazˇvydas, Martynas 229, 249, 338 f., 341, 343 f. Ma˛czyn´ski, Jan 271 McLean, Matthew 250 McLuhan, Marshall 293, 301 Mejor, Mieczysław 307, 315 Melanchton, Philip 10, 111, 114, 138, 162 f., 170, 218 Melantrich, Jirˇí 136, 170, 209 f., 214, 218 f., 226 Melion, Walter S. 185 Meller, Katarzyna 12, 14, 51, 55, 146, 164, 281, 293, 301, 307, 315 Merczyng, Henryk 118, 142, 233, 251 Meˇsˇˇtan, Antonin 212 f., 218, 226 Michálek, Emanuel 216, 222 Mieczkowska, Halina 168, 185 Migne, Jean-Paul 344 Migon´, Krzysztof 142 Mika, Tomasz 276 Mikołajczak, Stanisław 14 Mikołajewski, Daniel 64, 77, 220, 234 f., 248, 281–284, 286–294, 296–298, 302 Mikulásˇ Konácˇ of Hodisˇkov 212 Milecki, Aleksander 164 Milejewski, Paweł 83 Milewska, Monika 299 Minczew, Georgi 300 Minwid, Mikołaj (Nicolaus) 230, 239 f.

Name Index

Misˇkiniene˙, Galina 272, 277 Mogila, Peter = Mohyła, Piotr 35 Monkiewicz, Stanisław 240 Morku¯nas, Jaku¯bas 229, 331 Mornable de, Antoine 357 Moses (mu¯sà, mo¯jzˇesˇ) 67, 94, 99, 104, 106, 110–112, 117 f., 124 f., 131 f., 175, 177, 243, 250, 269 f., 370 Moss, Ann 305, 315 Moszyn´ki, Leszek 114, 116, 118 f., 142, 219, 226, 274, 277, 287, 301 Muczkowski, Józef 96, 99, 104 f., 142, 168– 170, 172, 179, 186 Muhammad (muchemmed, muxemmed) 257 f., 260, 269 Müller, Christian 141 Müller, Michael G. 23, 36 Münster, Sebastian 12 Müntzer, Thomas 312 Murmelius, Stanisław 76, 200 Murzynowski, Stanisław 10 f., 14 f., 40, 46, 54, 63, 68, 77, 145, 147, 156 f., 163 f., 211 f., 214, 217 f., 225, 255, 277, 294, 301 Muszyn´ska, Jadwiga 36 Muszytowska, Dorota 364 Myszkowski, Piotr 22, 51, 349 Nadolski, Bronisław 306, 315 Nagórko, Alicja 365 Nastulczyk, Tomasz 187, 200 Nechutová, Jana 223 Neˇmec, Igor 206 f., 226 Nering, Melchior 79, 91 Nestle, Eberhard 249 Nestle, Erwin 249 Netolický, Bartolomêj 170, 218 f. Neuber, Wolfgang 315 Neusidler, Hans 357 Newerkla, Stefan Michael 205, 226 Neyra, Andrea V. 316 Nicholas of Lyra 175, 259, 304 Nicolaus Albertus of Kamének, Master 216 Niebrzegowska-Bartmin´ska, Stanisława 149, 164 Niemczyk, Wiktor 301

Name Index

Noble, Bonnie 94, 142 Noe (nu¯x) 269 Nowak, Zbigniew 128 f., 132, 142, 193, 200, 282, 294, 301, 350 f. Nowakowska, Katarzyna 276 Oberman, Heiko A. 281, 301 Obirek, Stanisław 27, 30 f., 36 Ocieczek, Renarda 150, 164, 307 Oecumenius = Ecumenius 44 Ogonowski, Zbigniew 13 f., 25, 34, 36, 116, 142 Ohly, Friedrich 94, 142 Olesch, Reinhold 140, 186, 222, 227, 299 Oles´nicki, family 20 f. Oles´nicki, Mikołaj 20 f. Olevianus, Caspar 111, 138 Olivétan, Pierre Robert 233 Opalin´ski, Edward 32, 37 Orłos´, Teresa Zofia 205–210, 212, 217, 226 Orszak, Grzegorz 15, 41, 232, 282 Ortelius, Abraham 310 Orzechowski, Stanisław 126 f., 138 Osiewicz, Marek 276 Ossolin´ski, Jerzy 32 f. Ostrogski, Konstanty Wasyl 28, 35 Ostroróg, family 20 O’Sullivan, Orlaith 142 Otre˛bski, Jan 238, 251 Otwinowska, Barbara 37 Oz˙óg, Monika 54 Pagnino, Santes 63, 233, 235, 251 Paknys, Mindaugas 272, 275 Paliurus, Paulus 220, 234 Palmitessa, James R. 227 Pammachius 48, 54 Pánek, Jaroslav 206, 211, 226 Papousˇek, Dalibor 226 Paprota, Małgorzata 33, 297 Partyka, Joanna 315 Patalon, Mirosław 193, 200 Paterson, Jan 241 Paul, Saint 124, 126, 131, 154, 170 Paul of Burgos = Paulus Burgensis 304 Paul of Thebes, Saint 85

377 Pavlincová, Helena 226 Pavlovský, Stanislav 214 Pawlak, Marian 23, 37 Pawlak, Wiesław 304, 307, 315 Pelc, Janusz 37, 51, 55 Pepłowski, Franciszek 269, 271, 277 Perz, Mirosław 349–355, 357, 359 Peter, Saint 125, 154 Peter the Venerable 254 Petrauskas, Rimvydas 272, 275 Pettegree, Andrew 94, 142 Pe˛kalski (Pecalides), Szymon 200 Philip I the Magnanimous 49 Piela, Marek 284, 301 Piesiewicz, Jerzy 36 Pietkiewicz, Rajmund 8, 39, 49, 52, 55, 59, 63, 92–94, 96, 99, 105 f., 112, 114, 116, 118 f., 123–125, 127, 132, 134, 142, 145, 164, 170, 186, 217, 226, 233, 235, 251, 362 Pietras, Henryk 54 Pietrzak-Thébault, Joanna 7, 13 f., 304, 315, 361 Piotr of Poznan´ 87 Piotr of Proboszczowice 134, 138 Piotrkowczyk, Andrzej 53, 79 f., 83, 87 f., 90, 314, 344 Piroz˙yn´ski, Jan 24, 37 Piszczek, Zdzisław 34 Pius IV [Pope] 126 Plantin, Christophe 129, 182 Plato 250 Płóciennik, Tomasz 36 Płomin´ska-Krawiec, Ewa 37 Polak, Wojciech 22, 37 Pollak, Roman 34, 54 Pollux, Julius 46 Pone˛towski, Jan 99 Poniatowski, Zygmunt 284, 301 Popowski, Remigiusz 302 Poscharsky, Peter 94, 112, 142 Potoniec, Patrycja 295 Powodowski, Hieronim 310 Prˇibík Pulkava of Radenín 206 Privatsky, Bruce G. 9, 14 Przybos´, Adam 200 Przyjemski, Władysław 281

378 Przyjemski, Wojciech 281 Przypkowski, Aleksander 33 Ptaszycki, Stanisław 27, 37, 53 Puławski, Krzysztof 356 Pussman, Krzysztof 85, 273, 275 Pyz˙ewicz, Wiesław 224 f. Rachlík, Frantisˇek 218, 226 Radziszewska, Iwona 273, 277 Radziwiłł, family 20, 23, 76, 105, 129, 177, 185, 187 f., 192, 198 f., 233, 364 Radziwiłł, Albrycht Stanisław 192, 200 Radziwiłł, Janusz 33, 187, 200 Radziwiłł, Krzysztof 32, 38, 129, 187–189, 191–195, 197, 200, 234, 282, 351 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Krzysztof (”Sierotka”) 187 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Rudy (”the Red”) 24, 188 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Czarny (”the Black”) 23, 35, 87, 174–177, 184, 187–190, 193, 196, 200, 215, 229, 232, 234 f. Raila, Eligijus 272, 275 Rajsˇp, Vincenc 141 Ramza, Thomas 241 Rebenich, Stefan 48, 55 Reichan, Jerzy 222 Reinitzer, Heimo 94, 106, 110 f., 142 Rej, Mikołaj 11, 14, 51, 53 f., 59, 69, 81, 86 f., 89 Reusner, J. F. 241, 249 Reyes Ferrón, Fernando 9, 12, 349, 367 Reynolds, Leighton Durham 306, 315 Ripa, Cesare 131, 142 Robinson, Douglas 39, 48, 55 Rodecki, Aleksander 53, 79, 83, 92, 271 Rodriguez, Gerardo 316 Rojszczak-Robin´ska, Dorota 276 Rollka, Bodo 139 Rospond, Stanisław 10 f., 15, 207, 210, 217, 225 f., 298, 300 Roth, Ulli 254, 277 Rothe, Hans 140, 186, 222, 224, 227, 251, 298–301 Rothstein, Bret 185 Rott, Dariusz 216, 226

Name Index

Rotwell, John 250 Rudolf II [Holy Roman Emperor] 31 Rutkovska, Kristina 10, 317, 332, 345, 366 Ryba, Bohumil 206, 226 Rybin´ski, Maciej 84, 131, 136, 214, 216, 221 Rysin´ski, Salomon 87 Rybka, Małgorzata 14 Ryczek, Wojciech 162, 164 Rzepka, Wojciech 208, 226 Sadoleto, Jacopo, bishop of Carpentras 89 Salmonowicz, Stanisław 25, 37 Sambor, Jadwiga 285, 294 f., 302 Samostrzelnik, Stanisław 363 Samuel (samu¯jel), prophet 192, 257, 338 Sandecki-Malecki, Jan 11, 15, 59, 88, 90, 157, 207, 210–212, 217, 224, 272 Sapin´ski, Stanisław 306, 316 Sarai, wife of Abraham 245 Sarnicki, Stanisław 271 Sartorius, Petrus 212 Saski, Stanisław 300 Schaffners, Martin 170 Scharffenberger (Szarfenberger), family 40, 53, 74, 78, 94, 96, 99, 105, 135, 142, 172, 186 Scharffenberger, Kryspin 96, 134, 140, 172, 185 Scharffenberger (Szarfenberg), Marek 39, 76, 78, 134, 138, 145, 153, 158, 167–173, 184 f. Scharffenberger (Szarfenberg), Mikołaj 76, 81, 90, 96, 104 f., 136, 139, 172, 179– 182, 184 f. Scharffenberger, Wendel 140, 179, 185 Schmidt, Christoph 23, 37 Schmidt, Philip 170, 179, 186 Schilling, Heinz 34 Scholz, Friedrich 224, 251, 298, 300 f. Schön, Erhard 170 Schramm, Albert 170, 186 Schramm, Gottfried 19 f., 23 f., 31, 37 Schreiber, Moritz 170 Schuchardt, Günter 44 Schulze, Ingrid 94, 114, 142 Schuster, Friedrich S. 241

Name Index

Schwarz, Karl W. 141 Schwarz, Werner 231, 251 Schwarzbach, Bertram Eugène 14 Schwarzenberg, Melchior 170 Scotto, Davide 254, 277 Scribner, Bob 36 Seklucjan, Jan 15, 40, 46, 53, 55, 77 f., 145, 210, 212, 214, 217, 224–226, 302 Se˛kowska, Elz˙bieta 35 Servetus, Michael 232 Severin, Pavel of Kapí Hora 170, 211 Seyderhelm, Bettina 140, 142, 362 Sforza, family 104 Shermann, W.H. 316 Siatkowska, Ewa 277 Siatkowski, Janusz 205, 207 f., 210, 219 f., 222, 226, 293, 298 Siebeneicher, Jakub 88, 314 Siebeneicher, Mateusz 86 f. Sigismund II Augustus [king of Poland] 19–22, 24–26, 38, 69, 96, 105, 168 f., 172, 187, 189 f., 195 f., 234 f., 349 Sigismund I [king of Poland] 19, 189 Sigismund III Vasa [king of Poland] 19, 26, 28–32, 34, 37 f., 119, 126, 188–193, 195–197, 200 Sikorski, Dariusz 205 Sipayłło (Sipayłłówna), Maria 21, 37, 129, 142, 188, 190 f., 193, 200 f., 234 f., 251, 281 f., 294, 296, 302 Sirvydas, Konstantinas = Szyrwid, Konstanty 238, 317–332, 334–344, 366 Sitkowa, Anna 316 Skalska-Zlat, Marta 315 Skarga, Piotr 27, 29–31, 36 f., 262, 271 f., 306, 309, 314–316 Skaryna (Skoryna), Francis 9, 254 Skomin, Alexander 241 Skorupska-Raczyn´ska, Elz˙bieta 301 Skowron, Sebastian 164 Skrodski, Teodor 236 Sławin´ski, Wojciech 28, 37 Slights, William W.E. 307, 316 Słowin´ski, Roman 55, 119, 139, 142 Smalcius (Szmalc), Walenty 13, 64, 90, 220 Smoczyn´ski, Wojciech 341, 344

379 Sobczykowa, Joanna 10–12, 15, 40, 55, 146, 149, 159, 164 Sobieski, Wacław 27, 29, 37 Sobol, Elz˙bieta 304, 316 Socha, Irena 306, 316 Socha, Klaudia 93 f., 105, 114, 119, 129, 132–135, 143, 168, 186 Socha, Małgorzata 135, 305, 313 Sokołowski, Stanisław 162, 164 Solín, Zachariásˇ 223 Soukup, Pavel 224 Sowa, Franciszek 284, 302 Sparks, H.F.D. 325, 343 Spitz, Lewis W. 139 Stanislaw, Saint 313 Stankar, Franciszek 41 Stankiewicz, Edward 212, 227 Staphylus, Fryderyk 10 Stapleton, Thomas 306 Starchius, Fryderyk 194, 200 Starowieyski, Marek 314 Statorius, Pierre 43, 232, 282 Stec, Wiesław 30, 37 Steinborn, Boz˙ena 110 f., 143 Stephanus, Robert = Estienne, Robert 7, 43 f., 63, 70, 149, 175, 179, 216, 219, 233, 281, 298 Stephen, Saint 329 Ste˛pien´, Paweł 52, 55 Sternacki, Sebastian 80, 84, 90–92 Stieber, Zdzisław 207, 227 Stirm, Margarete 134, 143 Strabo Fuldensis = Walafridus seu Walahfridus Strabo 304 Stramczewska, Olga 276 Strejc, Jirˇí 216 Strong, James 286, 298 Sucheni-Grabowska, Anna 21, 34, 38 Surdacki, Marian 38 Suter, Paul 254 f., 257–260, 262, 267–270, 273, 277 Symmachus 255 Synkova, Iryna 253, 266, 277 Sˇlosar, Dusˇan 223 Sˇmahel, Frantisˇek 214, 227 Sˇrone˘k, Michal 186

380 Szarfenberg, Hieronim 85 Szarfenberg, Maciej 81, 85, 90 Szarfenberg, Marek = Scharffenberger, Mark 39, 76, 78, 134, 138, 145, 153, 158, 167–173, 184 f. Szarfenberg (Szarfenberger), Mikołaj = Scharffenberger, Mikołaj 76, 81, 90, 96, 104 f., 136, 139, 172, 179–182, 184 f. Szarfenberg (Szarfenberger), Stanisław 39, 78, 87, 167 Szczepin´ska, Boz˙ena 277 Szczucki, Lech 13–15, 40, 55, 137 f. Szeruda, Jan 129, 143, 187, 201, 221, 227, 234 f., 251, 282 f., 294, 302 Szoman, Grzegorz 41 Szwejkowska, Helena 105, 143 Szybowska, Urszula 307, 316 Szymik, Stefan 167, 186 S´lizin´ski, Jerzy 216, 220 f., 227 Tacitus Zegers, Nicolas 44 Tarélka, Michas’ 253, 266, 277 Tasso, Torquato 361 Taszycki, Witold 300 Tazbir, Janusz 13, 15, 20, 25, 30–33, 35, 38 Thénaud, Jean 43, 232, 282 Theodotion 255 Thiele, W. 325, 343 Thomas, apostle 311 Thoring, Matthias = Döring, Matthias 304 Thulin, Oskar 94, 143 Tomasz Łysy of Zbrudzewo 211, 224 Tomlins, Richard 250 Topolin´ska, Zuzanna 350, 359 Tremellius, Immanuel 216, 221 Tronina, Aleksander 55 Trzecieski (Trzycieski), Andrzej 41, 86, 104, 232, 349 Tschepius, Samuel Ernst 99, 139 Tüchle, Hermann 36 Tuinstra, E.W. 250 Turnovský, Sˇimon Bohumil 214 Turnowski, Jan 64, 84, 220, 234, 282, 298 Turnowski, S. T. 234 Turska, Halina 350, 359 Tworek, Stanisław 32, 38, 187 f., 194, 201

Name Index

Tyndale, William 247 Tyszkowic, Iwan 31 Uchan´ski, Jakub 25 Udolph, Ludger 224 Ulatowski, Wojciech 85 Ulewicz, Tadeusz 39, 55 Ulicˇný, Oldrˇich 225 Ungler, Florian 87–89, 271 Unglerowa, Helena 70 Urban, Wacław 23, 25, 32, 38 Urban´czyk, Stanisław 7, 10, 15, 186, 208, 218 f., 227, 302 Urbutis, Vincas 341, 345 Ursinus, Zacharias 111, 138 Uruszczak, Wacław 27, 35 Utenhove, Jan 232 f. Václav Hájek of Libocˇany 206 Valavicˇius, Eustachijus = Wołłowicz, Eustachy 319 Vartovský, Jan 319 Vasiliauskiene˙, Virginija 10, 317, 322, 328 f., 339, 345, 366 Veluanus, Anastasius 237 Venuti, Lawrence 48, 55 Veselka, Martin 205 Vespasian [Roman Emperor] 190 Vilentas, Baltramiejus 230, 242, 248 Vingle de, Pierre 233 Voit, Petr 170, 186, 214 f., 218, 227 Voleková, Katerˇina 206 f., 227 Vorel, Petr 213, 227 Vykypeˇlová, Tatˇána 210, 213 f., 216, 227 Wajszczuk, Jadwiga 157, 164 Walczak, Bogdan 294, 302 Walczak, Ryszard 31, 38 Wallis, John 236 Walton, Brian 238, 251 Waltos´, Stanisław 186 Wandel, Lee Palmer 126, 143 Wanicowa, Zofia 208, 227 Wantuła, Andrzej 281, 301 f. Weber, Robert 326 Weemans, Michael 185

Name Index

Wegmann, Susanne 127, 143 Weimer, Christoph 94, 143 Weniger, Matthias 109, 143 We˛gierski, brothers 32, 38 We˛gierski, Tomasz 32 We˛z˙yk, Jan 194 Wiatrowski, Przemysław 365 Wielogórski, Jan 104 Wietor, Hieronim 70, 80 f., 85–87, 90 Wilczek, Piotr 362 Wilkinson, John 236 William IV the Wise 49 Wilson, Nigel Guy 306, 315 Wincenty, Adam 35 Winiarska-Górska (Winiarska), Izabela 8, 145, 205, 217, 224, 256, 268 f., 278, 287 f., 294, 302, 307, 316, 349–351, 359, 363 Wins, Christoph 110 Wirzbie˛ta, Maciej 48 f., 53 f., 82, 85, 89, 91, 159, 223, 362 Wirzbie˛ta, Paweł 54 Wisłocki, Marcin 135 Wisner, Henryk 28, 30–33, 38, 193, 201 Witosz, Boz˙ena 157, 165 Witrelin, Aleksander 49 Władysław IV Vasa [king of Poland] 19, 32–34, 129, 188, 190 f., 193 f., 201, 234, 282 Władysław Jagiełło [king of Poland] 208 Wodecki, Bernard 217, 219–221, 227 Wojak, Tadeusz 163, 165, 193 f., 201, 283, 302 Wójcicki, Jacek 12, 351 Wojciechowski, Michał 302 Wojewódka, Bernard 86 f., 174, 187 Wojna, Abraham 193 Wojtak, Maria 150, 165 Wojtkowska-Maksymik, Marta 8, 39, 50, 55, 255, 361 Wolrab, Jakub 314 Wolrab, Jan 314 Woronczak, Jerzy 12, 14, 300

381 Wosiak-S´liwa, Róz˙a 300 Wotschke, Theodor 20, 38 Wójcik, Bartosz 33, 297 Wójcik, Rafał 307, 316 Woz´niak, Ewa 217, 227, 284, 299, 302 Wróbel, Walenty 11, 49, 70, 81, 294 Wujek, Jakub 9, 15, 40, 42–44, 46 f., 53–55, 63, 66, 68–70, 73, 77, 79, 83, 87, 105, 115, 119, 120 f., 124 f., 127 f., 134, 145 f., 147 f., 151, 154, 156 f., 160, 164, 182, 193, 209, 214, 219 f., 264, 275, 281–283, 286, 288 f., 291 f., 294, 296–299, 303, 305–314, 327, 332, 334–337, 343–345 Wycliffe, John 247 Wydra, Wiesław 208, 226, 228 Zaborowski, Stanisław 10, 15 Zacius, Szymon 41 Zaja˛czkowski, Ananiasz 270, 278 Zakrzewski, Wincenty 22, 38 Zamoyski, Jan 349 Zare˛bski, Rafał 256, 269, 278, 284, 302 Zarlino, Gioseffo 353, 355 Zawadzka, Irena 238 Zawadzki, Zdzisław 137 f. Zborowski, family 20 Zborowski, Marcin 22 Zdun´czyk, Aurelia 8, 93, 110, 143, 168, 362 Zebrzydowski, Andrzej 21 Zebrzydowski, Mikołaj 29 f., 37 Zedlitz von, Georg 110–112 Zeeden, Ernst Walter 20, 38 Zimmermann, Hildegard 186 Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas 323, 341, 345 Zinnhobler, Rudolf 139 Zinserling, Urszula 13 Ziomek, Jerzy 351 Zwingli, Huldrych 20, 33, 328, 342, 344 Zwinogrodzka, Ewa 139 Z˙aryn, Małgorzata 34 Z˙bikowska-Migon´, Anna 315 f. Z˙elewski, Roman 27, 38, 200