Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertimas ir jo šaltiniai: įrašai bei teksto taisymai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIV (2001), 105-128 Chylinski's New Testament Translation ir jo sources: records and text corrections GINA Institute of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas The article deals with the corrections and glosses in Chylinskis’ manuscript translation of the New Testament. The different types of corrections and their possible causes are discussed, and attempt made reconstruct, an its main lines, the process is translating to and editing, in and establish the principles guiding the translator and the role of played the source texts. to by The analysis confirms that the principal source the translation was the of Dutch State Bible. The Polish versions were lesser of importance sources for as the translation, but served aids the process editing. as in of The translator’s glosses prove that the Statenbijbel was his principal authority. Rather than betraying any direct influence the of Latin and Polish versions, they merely reflect the role of Latin and Polish as metalanguages used clarifying in the meaning of Dutch or Lithuanian words. IVADAS Boguslavas Samuelio Chylinskis’s translation of the Bible has received considerable attention in the ir historiography of language history. Scientific interest was stimulated by the extraordinary fate of the manuscript, on the other hand, in 1958 Jan Otrebski and Czesław Kudzinowski published in Poznań the transliterated text of the manuscript (Otrebski, Kudzinowski, 1958). 1958), o 1964 m. NT (Kudzinowski 1964) ir 1984 m. — facsimile edition (Kudzinowski 1984), this significant The monument of the Lithuanian language of the 17th century has become easily accessible'. Many Lithuanian and Baltic scholars use Chylinski's examples in their work. However, the genesis of this text and the relationship of the language with the source language of the translation have not yet been consistently studied. For the genesis of the text and the philological and linguistic study of the NT, not only the last edition is important, but all text versions. Chylinskis corrected the translation considerably, mainly the first chapters of the Gospels, especially the first half of the Gospel according to Matthew (up to chapter 13) and the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. Manuscript proofreading can be divided into the following groups: Main text corrections: corrections of spelling, morphology, syntax; exchanges of individual units for others; į 1) a) ir b) t Chylinskis' NT manuscript is kept in London, in the Library of the British Museum MS 41301). J (signature: consists of 225 pages: NT translation begins on the fifth (secondary) page and ends on page 217v. Page 106 | 107 (c) synonyms provided; (d) changes in word order; (e) deletions (some deleted words are often repeated elsewhere in the main text or inserted, so deletions in such cases are interpreted as word changes); (f) underlines; 2) entries in the margins: (a) certificate NB; (b) synonyms of underlined language units; (c) changes to deleted language units; 3) entries at the end of the manuscript. The manuscript was not completely edited and prepared for printing—- in many places what was corrected was not deleted, and in some places two or more versions were left. Judging by the colour of the ink, the text was not corrected at the same time: some (although not many) corrections were made immediately, but most of the corrections are later revisions, written with brighter, and at the end of the NT — on the contrary, pale, as if diluted, ink. Some corrections or changes are written at the top, others at the bottom of the line, and others in the margins. The article does not take into account the place of the corrections, it only looks at what has been corrected, what is strange, for which language units synonyms have been provided. In many cases, the corrections reflect the history of translation and various aspects of Chylinski- ’s translation technique. According to them, it is possible to judge the relationship of the sources used by the translator: which source was the most important, which was used as an additional source in the translation of the text, which sources were taken into account in the editing. It is precisely the fact that corrections are a reflection of the genesis of translation that makes their separate study significant. The aim of this article is to identify the types of revisions and their possible motivation, to reconstruct the editing process in general and to assess what revisions tell us about the genesis of translation, translation principles and sources. CHYLINSKI'S NT TRANSLATION SOURCES HOLLAND SOURCE. It has already been established (see Zawadzka, Kolbuszewski 1959: 158-159; Kavaliūnaitė 1997: 74-84; Schlerath 2000: 279-290), that the main or one of the main sources of Chylinski- ’s NT translation was undoubtedly the Dutch Statenbijbel (hereinafter — STB). This is evidenced not only by the morphological, syntactic and lexical semantic features of translation, but also by the external characteristics of the text: 1. Words that had to be added from Greek into Dutch because of the differences in language structures were written in parentheses by the STB translators, in accordance with the universal Reformed tradition. Chylinski's translation accurately reproduces the following Statenbijbel words in brackets: App 7,9 CHNT pardaweJozefa (idand butu nugeventac) Egyptan STB verkochten Jofeph, [om] na Egypten [gebracht te worden:] 2. Obvious influence of the StB on the text structure: at the end of each StB book there are backgrounds, which Chylinskis translated very accurately, e.g. : CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 107 CHNT End. E.S. by (apiraByma) JONA. STB The end of the Holy Gospel, after [the be/[writing] John. In other possible sources of Chylinski- 's translation there are no such ending sentences. 3. The Dutch entries in the very translation and at the end of the manuscript are also oriented to the STB. Polish sources. The analysis of the ChNT shows that the Polish text was used as an additional source in many places. This is confirmed by the inscription at the end of the NT manuscript: „N.T. Ex Verlione et editione Brelteni (in 4° A? 1593). Vilnae." 422/224*. Although this entry refers to the Brasta Bible (hereinafter —BRAB), in historiography, mainly due to internal translation characteristics, it is unanimously held that the Polish source is the Gdansk Bible (hereinafter —GDB) (Kavaliūnaitė 1997: 74-84 with literature). This is illustrated by the following translation locations: LK 1,56 CHNT And Mary left him STB Ende Maria bleef bij haer GDB Y joltdtd 3 nia Marya Lk 1,52° BraB A tak 3 nia miefkdtd Marya Er 48 CHNT kad u33egie <and aukftybec —aukptyben > STB Als hy opgevaren is in de hooghte GDB Witapiwfy na wylokosc BRAB When he went upstairs However, these differences do not mean that Chylinskis did not use BRAB in his translation, since in such places CHNT usually coincides not only with GDB, but also with STB. The possibility cannot be ruled out that there are places where the CHNT approaches the BRAB and distances itself from the GDB: HBR 9,6 CHNT O tie dayktey teyp budami pagatawiti GDB A to gdy tak pr3ygotowano BRAB Gdy tedy ty r3ec3y tak postanowiono Because of the above circumstances, the CHNT is compared with both Bible translations. The Latin Source. No convincing arguments have been found to support the use of the Vulgate (hereinafter referred to as V). On the contrary, when comparing the text, there are discrepancies with V: MT 6,13 In the Vulgate the prayer “Our Father” does not have Doxology, but in Chylinski- ’s translation it does; Mark 1:43 CuNT Jr <liepe jam toyoc eyt —atprowijo ghi toyo > nog sawęgo, V statim eiecit illum; the numbering of verses in the CHNT and V Bible does not coincide. Bernfried Schlerathas (2000: 279-289) has drawn attention to two notes at the end of the manuscript. 411/218 The first number indicates the page in the transliterated edition of the manuscript (Kudzinowski, Otrebski 1958), the second —in the Chylinski NT manuscript. CHNT LK 1.56 corresponds to BRAB LK 1.52. 108 | GINA KAVALIUNAITE The page contains a reference to the Bible verse JOHN 5:13. Here the corresponding STB passage is translated into Lithuanian, and next to it is presented the Latin version: „Joh. 5.13. give them a cold cup of coffee. Ergo gdo elt tot u. ad voc. julump." In the Vulgate this place is Haec scripsi vobis. This means that the entry ad just was made without regard to the Vulgate. On page 411/ 218, next to the Hebrew entry, there is a translation into Lithuanian and Latin. Obviously, the Vulgate was not considered in this case—Chylinski wrote the participle sedens, and in the Vulgate there is the construction qui sedet in that place. However, there is no doubt that Chylinski, as a learned man of his time, was well acquainted with the text of the Vulgate, and the possibility must be taken into account that many of its fragments were probably known by heart by the translator, and thus could have influenced the translation. For this reason, all the passages quoted in this article will also be compared with the Vulgate. The Greek Source. The use or non-use of the Greek NT (hereinafter —G) is very difficult to prove: the main source of Chylinski- ’s Bible translation — Statenbijbel — is so close to the original languages that some STB NT scholars even call its language structure more Greek than Dutch (Bruin 1993: 273-274). It is very difficult to find such places, which would diverge from STB and other possible sources of translation of CHNT and coincide only with G. In those rare cases when STB moves away from G, Chylinski follows STB rather than G, plg. : MK 9,7 CHNT ballac teypag atajo i dangauoc —debeliec GDB a priyPedt glos 3 STB ende eene [temme quam uyt de wolcke obloku BRAB a pochodjit gtos 3 obloku MK 9.6° W and voice of cloud coming G xali EYEVETO QWVY] Ėx THC VEQEATS G leksinj unit of the STB usually corresponds to schieden, while in CHNT it is usually translated as station and often corrected to surrender. MK 9,7 STB zšytvero translated guamen, Chylinski in this case follows STB, not G. Furthermore, the CHNT manuscript has nothing written in Greek, although there are many Dutch, Polish and Latin entries. An argument in favour of using the Greek source could be Chylinskis- ’s own claim that he had studied “Eastern languages” (that is, also Greek) and that this was a guarantee of the quality of the translation (Lukšaitė 1971: 93). However, it is not clear how much trust can be placed in the interpreter's statement in this case. However, for the same reasons as the Latin, the Greek examples of the cited places will be given below. The first and last pages of the manuscript contain entries in Lithuanian, Latin, Polish, Dutch and Hebrew. They are not written at the same time, not very orderly. Part of them —Bibli4 CHNT Mk 9,7 verse in the Vulgate corresponds to Mk 9,6. CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATED IR SOURCES her | 109 quotes, but among is a Latin unaddressed ju letter ir written by an unknown person urging support Chylinski's efforts to translate Bible in į Lithuanian (3/2v), expenses Bible print list written in Polish contains (413/219), entries reflecting The events of Chylinski- 's personal life, e.g. : ‘Blogostaw Mr. w Malzen[kim stanie“ (424/225)*, ‘Pan God is my hope“ (424 /225). Some of the iš mentioned inraorientSu uje į The old, o ne į New The text of the will: "Ecl. 5. v 13. moejelich belticheyt bingi rupeltis" (416/220v). At the beginning of the manuscript, the translator’s handwriting indicates when the translatiw on was started: „tran[lacię zac3ątem imieniem Panfkim d. 22 8bris 1657. w Oxforcie [tylo veteri’ (3/2v). One more record helps to find out why Chylinskis correctNT ed the translation, iš jų possible šį tą judge the genesis of translation: ‘NB. loco [tojos ubigue ponendum nufidawe hoc enim elt Lithuanicum’ 423/224v (NB. stojos everywhere to correct į submitted, because this is Lithuanian“); ‘bag. Matone. N.B. ponendum ubigue’ 423/224v (‘taska. Matone. N.B. put everywhere“); ‘ta [osta non tas Softas NB 424/225“ ("that throne, ne that throne"); ‘Cephac per K an by C“ 423/224v (‘Cephas su K ar su C’); "He's punishment. gaylos už greek. NB. ubigue emendandum (...) Packing“424/225 („shocks gaylos uz Greeks. NB. everywhere need to fix {...} Pakutawokite’); ‘ubi elt [ulimilet. Mr. Paligaytet. hoc n'elt Lithuanian: 424/225 („where there is fulimilet, put paligaylet: this is not Lithuanian“); "miepByrdingas. Mr. [ufimitstus. NB". 424 /225 („mielapyrdingas. Thanks, fufimists. NB"). As we see, these entries at least in part are iš instructions on how to correct the text (plg. emendandum taisytina’). Su The entries relating to the use of ir postpositional pronouns in the corrections are significant for the study of the influence of original prepositional constructions on the use of postpositional pronouns in ir the main text of the corrections: "jump. ad eos jop. ad eum’ 411/218; “John 5:13. had u written a letter to him. Ergo qdo eft tot u. ad you. jufump’ 411/218 (‘so when there is a fot u, ad vos, [to be translated] mekemp*); "~mulpi w us. mulimp u nas’ 424/225. Separately considered issue, ką iš records can be judged on the patterns of repairs That is, the translation Chylinski edited his ir po marriage. Chylinski married an expatriate iš Lietuvos Jono Andrius Jurskio (Johannes Andreae "Daughter". The wedding took place In Karaliaučius, Chylinskis po returning from a visit In Lithuania, where he 1661 participated in the 20-24 Lithuanian Reformed Congress in August Kėdainiai. It was at this convention that it was entrusted Teodorui Skrodski ir Jonui Bozymowski to check Chylinski's translation ir began public Chylinski's disagreemesu nts with some Lithuanian Reformed Church (Lukšaitė 1971: 92-99). 110 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ and the importance of individual sources in editing a manuscript. Efforts to consistently link the relevant places to the Dutch source are evidenced by the following notes®: "Segge [akau Sprekie kalbu" 417/221; "hier aer". - That's it. hier in tame“ 415/220 ([0l.] hier aen [translate] to, [0l.] hier in [translate] tame); * “worked. Act. 2. 41. netabac" 411/218; * "Luc. 9. v. 45 ver[ton. ifzmanit. understood [uprast. Potic inver[o ordine ut ex loco patet Luc. 10. v. 21." 411/218 (‘on the contrary, as shown in Luke 10:21’); *“Gal. 6.v. 8. wertragen tingiet. vellappen nultot NB“ 411/218; „barhertigh. Rom. 9.16. fulimit/tąc’ 423/224v; "with inner compassion moves you. Luc. 10.33. pafigaytejęc" 423/224v. There is no doubt that the words written in Dutch correspond to the words of the Dutch source, with which Chylinskis tried to connect the constant Lithuanian equivalents. They confirm the authority of the StB and the fact that Chylinskis took it from it. The status of Latin words is quite different. Latin is used as a metalanguage: "kirst piewę. ružytis pandiculari ružaus. pandiculor’ 423/224v; ‘derme. concordia“ 423/224v. This is all the more confirmed by the fact that in the entries, alongside the lexical units intended to be used in specific places, Latin equivalents are presented that differ from the corresponding passages of the Vulgate. Therefore, the Latin remarks of Chylinski were not related to the Vulgate: *,„Joh.5.- 13. have been written down. Ergo gdo eft tot u. ad voc. julump” 411/218 (‘so when there is for u, ad vos, [it is necessary to translate] mekemp’- ); * ‘[edens. participium prov. 20 v. 8“ 411/218. Polish entries associated with Lithuanian equivalents cannot be interpreted unequivocally: Polish can also be considered as a metalanguage. Where Lithuanian words are presented with Polish equivalents, there are no references to specific places in the NT. Therefore, it is most likely that Chylinskis, when translating from Dutch, first came up with the Polish version, and then transformed it into Lithuanian: wstyrbarkey. Delki made on kphthalit ladders." 420/222v (‘styrbarkey. boards assembled into ladders’); ‘gr3mot gaudimay. zaybawimai tyfkania [ieę’ 423/224v. The entries marked with a star have been written by Bernfried Schlerathas (2000: 279-290). In the manuscript, this place is written hier aen. The publishers made a mistake encoding the Dutch word. CHYLINSKI- ’S NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 111 Even where there is a reference to the NT text next to the Polish entry with its Lithuanian equivalent, the Polish source is not quoted, but Chylinski’s own Lithuanian translation: „krylfte. zblo NB emendens [sic!] ut elt Luc. 6 41.“ 423/224v („kryfte. zblo NB rectifying as is Lk 6,41“). PREPARATORY WORK A preparatory work was carried out prior to the start of this investigation. First of all, computer versions of Chylinskis NT and the main translation sources were created. The Lithuanian version is based on the transliterated text of the manuscript published by Otrębski and Kudzinowski. It has been scanned* and the changes in the text compared to the photocopy of the manuscript are described in a special markup system so that the computer program “Ouest Edition” can be used. The Gdansk Bible and Statenbijbel NT texts were compiled by computer- ." Using the computer program “Ouest Edition”, the edited text was selected, grouped and compared with NT texts in other languages. In total, the NT manuscript contains 5708 corrections, of which 1493 are word order changes. There are two main types of revisions: (1) revisions where the influence of the sources cannot be proven or such influence seems unlikely, and (2) revisions where the translation sources may have been influenced. In both groups there are morphological, lexical and syntactic changes. Often, between some forms, especially between those whose dual genders were used in the language of the time, there are changes to "both sides". For example, the plural noun is often shortened, but there are also cases where the short noun is prolonged. The same can be said for most other types of fixes. The corrections independent of the original text are spelling (sometimes <a>, <ę> is changed to <an>, <en>; the softness mark is deleted, etc.), morphology (sometimes the vowel forms of nouns are changed; The scanning program,,- Recognita Select 2.0“ was adapted to Chylinskis NT by Audronė Stanislovaitiené. The text was scanned by Edita Bagaslauskaitė, Neda Marcinkienė and Danguolė Pukienė, employees of the Publishing Group of the Lithuanian Language Institute, and proofread by Jolanta Pakalniškytė. The text was funded by the State Lithuanian Language Commission to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania under the “Programme for the Use and Education of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania 1996-2005”. 3 Kudzinowski (1984). Unfortunately, the photocopy is of very poor quality and can not always be relied on. 1 The computer program “Ouest Edition” for studying the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament was adapted to the Chylinski manuscript by Dr. Wolf Dieter Syring, a research associate at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Greifswald, following the author’s suggestions. "The text of the GDB NT was compiled by Živilė Matijošienė, proofread by Birutė Mikalonienė, and funded by the State Lithuanian Language Commission of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania under the "Program of the Republic of Lithuania for the Use and Education of the State Language 1996-2005". STB NT computer version was prepared by the author of this article, proofreading was assisted by Marija Senkuvienė. 112 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ change noun ending -mus; long forms of pronouns with -jen are replaced by ordinary ones; changing the gender of some words that have only masculine forms in the present language; abbreviate the plural endings of the first and second person forms of verbs; the formant -bir etc. of the pronoun is deleted), syntax (some verbs and verbs with prepositions are corrected; sometimes changing the position of the enclitic pronouns m(i), f(i) and the recursive pronoun s(i); s(i) is sometimes deleted when used for the second time in the same word; inserting, deleting or replacing in or postpositional questioning particle -gu; corrections to the lexicon (prajutiec —prapultieo; Pykptoleyo = gobbling; Bwilptoja —wamzdzioja; tykiejomeo —dukle= /jlomeao etc.) and to the grammar (prajutiec —prapultieo; Pykptoleyo = gobbling; Bwilptoja —wamzdzioja; tykiejomeo —dukle= /jlomeao etc.). They reflect the internal characteristics of the Lithuanian language and are not related to differences in meaning, so the influence of other languages a priori seems unlikely. Therefore, they will not be considered in more detail in this article. Determining the extent of the influence of translation sources on some types of corrections (substitution of secondary sentences by participle or noun constructions and vice versa, most corrections of postpositional pronouns, changes in word order, etc.) requires special analysis. The volume of one article does not allow to discuss so many data, therefore this article deals only with the most prominent groups of corrections, undoubtedly conditioned by translation sources. CONDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS OF ORIGINAL VERBS CORRECTIONS OF SECOND PERSON SINGULE AND PLURAL FORMS IN EXPRESS AND CONDITIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. The second person singular of verbs in the main layer of CHNT is often corrected to plural, and vice versa — plural is corrected to singular. Such confusion in Chylinski’s translation may have arisen from the fact that in the 17th-century Dutch the old second-person singular pronoun two was used very rarely (Korne, Rinkel 1987: 37), and STB was not used at all. It was replaced by the old second-person plural ghy, used since the Middle Ages as a form of politeness, which was later generalized to the singular (Toorn et al. 1997: 309-311). The second person singular and plural genders of the verb thus coincided. Indeed, in Chylinski’s translation the second-person singular and plural forms of verbs alternate (12x), cf. : MT 6,16 NKJV When teypag fastnikaughi — you fast STB End when ghy falls GpB A When you fast BraB A When you fast V Cum autem ieiunatis G étav dĖ vnotelnte Similarly changed MT 6,1; MT 6,7; MT 6,16; MK 6,10; Lk 8,5; Lk 23,40; Rom 4,7; APD 16,36; APR 18,4 and others. In such places, the corrections usually coincide with all possible translation sources, so we cannot identify the source from which the errors were corrected. CHYLINSKY'S NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 113 This mixture of forms is a strong argument that the Chylinski Bible was translated from the STB. MIXING SINGULE AND PLURIPLE FORMS OF VERBS IN THE INSTRUCTIVE PRONUNCIATION. CHNT also inconsistently differentiates the second-person singular and plural forms of the imperative verb. This confusion may have been triggered by the particular expression of the imperative in 16th-17th century Dutch. At that time, two imperative forms were used — one coincided with the stem, and the second consisted of the stem + f. In the course of time, grammar suggested forms without -t for addressing a single person, 0 forms with -f — for plural and polite addressing. However, in the STB language this tradition was not yet established. In the 17th century, both forms of the singular imperative were used, and the plural was only the form with the formant -f (Korne, Rinkel 1987: 43). The number of the imperative sentence could only be determined from the context. Thus, Chylinski often failed to identify the form of the number in the imperative clause, resulting in errors in the main text, which were corrected based on additional translation sources: MT 6,1 CHNT Saugokis —Saugokites kad jatmuznos tawo —[awo nedarytumbey —nedarytumbite po 3monemis STB HEDbt acht | dat ghy uwe aelmoel[le niet en doet voor de men[chen GDB STrjejcie sig abyscie jatmužny wafey nie cjynili pred lud3mi BrAB STrsejcie lig /abyščie idlmu3ny wafey nie ciynili pried ludzmi V Adtendite ne iustitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus G TEOGEYETE THY Šixatocdvyny DUGY ut) motely Eunpoo9Ev THY avdpwnwy Lk 10,28 CHNT darykit —daryk tey, 6 gili STB Does that /ende ghy [ult life GDB is very good. V hoc fac et vives G ToUto Toler zai Chom Similarly amended MK 4.39 et seq. Errors of this kind in the explanatory text once again confirm the fact that Chylinskis value from STB. The revisions match any additional merge. PADALYVIU TAISYMAL In Chylinski NT, the divisors are used particularly often. The translation also stands out from other Lithuanian ancient writings by its abundance of subdivisions. Among the possible reasons for such frequent use of participles, the influence of Polish language has been mentioned in the literature (see Ambrazas 1962: 46). Vytautas Ambrazas has also drawn attention to the fact that Chylinskis sometimes associated the partitive constructions with the nominative even when the corresponding place in the Polish text did not prompt him to do so (Ambrazas 1962: 122). Almost everywhere Chylinski writes a participle, STB finds a participle that is not syllabled in Dutch (slightly syllabled only in the position of a sign). Such frequent use of the Dutch language by the participants is not typical, but the STB translators, following the decision of the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618, kept as close as possible to the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) 120 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ them, as is usual in Lithuanian language. But the text changes show that the translator was not sure of his choice and changed his to my, your, yours, his, their (20x): Luke 16,6 NKJV Take a STB GDB BrAB V G rapha fawo — a tawo Takes Your Hand[crip] We3mi 3apis twój Take the tablets twe Accipe cautionem fuam d¢Ear cou Ta Ypauuara Most of these changes are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In Lithuanian, as in Polish, for all three persons, special possessive adjective forms of pronouns are used (in Lithuanian, this is the possessive possessive form of the possessive pronoun, and in Polish — the adjective pronoun). In the third person, it is compulsory to distinguish between the conjugated and non-conjugated nouns, but in the first and second persons, the old texts often use forms that coincide with the non-conjugated ones due to the influence of other languages. The same reasons could have encouraged Chylinski to use mio, tuo, nostro, vostro in such cases. In Dutch, there are no special recursive adjectives: not only in the first and second person, but also in the third person, there is no distinction between recursive and non-recursive forms. Thus, where Chylinski uses non-regressive forms of his, her, their, instead of regressive forms, only the Dutch source could have had an influence, not the Polish (there are several such changes caused teylibec GDB BRAB V G by the Dutch source: MT 3,16, MT 13,43 and Rom 3,25): Rom 3,25 CHNT and parodyma fawo = io —lawo per attaydyma greku STB tot een betooninge van fijne rechtveerdigheyt /door de vergevinge der [onden ku oka3zaniu [prawiedliwosci fwojey | pr3e3 odpuficienie przed tym popetnionych grzechow ku okazaniu [prawiedliwosci /woiey | dla odpufc3enia grzechow pr3eptych ad ostensionem iustitiae suae, cum praetermisset praecedentia delicta elg Evdetliv Tic dxaroclvng adtol dia THY TApeoLY TOV TEOYEYOVOTWY FUADTHUATWY The words my, your, his, your, used in the main text were replaced with their own (8x): Er 525 Wirey CHNT STB Ghy GDB BRAB You V mitekite woman's soul —f(awo men /love your eyes women MEjowie mitujczye żony wafe Viri, husbands mituyčie wives wafe diligite uxores (in some manuscripts + vestras) CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 121 G oi avdpec, ayandte tag yvvaixac (in some manuscripts + duov) Encouraged by the internal laws of Lithuanian language, the translator used the adjective in its reflexive meaning for all persons, but the translation sources forced him to use mine, yours, his, yours in this position. This is the most important reason for the frequent change of pronouns. CHANGES TO THE LEXICON. The changes in the vocabulary can be divided into several groups according to the main layer and the sources of correction: the main text corresponds to the STB, corrected using the Polish source; the main text corresponds to the Polish sources, corrected on the basis of the STB; the main text is translated freely, the correction corresponds to all possible originals. 1. The fact that Chylinski used a Polish source when editing the manuscript is shown by a large number of lexical changes. The vocabulary of the main text was selected according to STB and corrected using Polish originals. This is evidenced by the following passages: MK 15,16 CHNT O zalniereįy nuwede ghi Dwarian, tatey ira Suda namofna — Rotufyn STB Ende de krijgh[knechten leydden hem binnen in de 3ale / welck is het rechthuys GDB Lecž žolnier3e wprowadžili go do dworu /to jeld do Ratufa BRAB Y wwiodfy go žotnierze do dwora /to ielt do ratufa V Milites autem duxerunt eum intro in atrium, guod est praetorium G oi 3¢ orTpatiūTai dnnyayov aŪūTdėv Eco Tic AVA 6 EoTtv TpaLTWpLOV The Suda namofna of the main text responds to the STB rechthuys, and the change brings the translation closer to the GDB and BRAB. The lexical units V and G in this case differ from Chylinsky's translation. In the following examples the manuscript is edited from the Polish source: LK 10,31 CHNT "nuejo pro Pali —aplękie STB gingh hy tegen over [hem] voorby GpDB pomingt BRAB — Mingt go V Praeterivit G AvrinapijA9ev Lk 10,32 CHNT "bet nuejo pro Pali —ir aplgkie STB ende gingh tegen over [hem] voorby GDB pomingt BRAB Mingt V Transit G dAvtinapTnjAdEv 122 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ The main layer of CHNT passed through Pali closer to STB and G, and the change and fold correspond to GDB and BRAB. In the Vulgate, this passage has two different interpretations: praeterivit and pertransiit. The main layer of Chylinski's translation coincides with STB, V and G, and the substitution reflects Polish sources: MT 12,46 CHNT [towejo ore ieBkodami = noredami "Tu jo katbet —kalbet [u jo STB [tonden buyten /foeckende hem te [preken GpB [tali pr3ed domem /chcge 3 nim mowic BRAB [thali na dwor3e chcge 3 nim mowič BB V stabant foris guaerentes logui ei G adToU elothxetoay Ew (nTolvres adTd Aakfjoat 2KoRr 1,15 CENT idand turetumbite antrą foską = gieradeilt- {...} paraštėje: NB STB op dat ghy een tweede genade [oudt hebben GDB abyscie wtore dobrod3iejltwo odebrali BraB abyscie wtore dobrodjiejltwo mieli V ut secundam gratiam haberetis G tva deutépay apy oyfijrE 2KoR 1.15 foska is the usual ol. the lexical equivalent of genade (G yapic, V gratia). In Polish sources, this word is usually echoed by faska. Taking into account the word dobrodjiej/two used in the Polish sources in this place, Chylinski added the word geradeilt{- e}, translated from Polish, for the pamorphem in his manuscript. 2.There are relatively few places where the main text of the CHNT translation would differ from the STB and approach the Polish originals. The influence of the Polish source in the main text is most pronounced in the selection of lexical semantic equivalents: MT 14,6 CHNT But that apiwaykfczynejo —apiwaykPczyneta buwo diena gimines — of Herod's birth STB Maer als de daag van Herodis geboorte gehouden wiert GDB GDy tedy obchodjono djien narod3enia Herodowego BrAB GDy tedy obchod3ono djien narod3zenia Herodowego V Die autem natalis Herodis G yeveotiowg 8¢ yevouévorg Tob "Hpodov CHNT apiwaykfczynejo is a Polish source limestone, different from V and G. It is not the same as the original. Under the STB is specified the form of this word. Mr 5,42 CHNT Dok tamuy kurley prafo —meldsia (ka) nog tawec STB Give to him who [yet] asks of you GpB Give what Cig asks for BrAB Theme that asks for /day V Yes, little one, yes. G ė altobvtt oe 86g CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 123 MT 5,42 The meaning of the word selected according to the Polish source has been adjusted according to the STB. Similar corrections are found in MT 3:17; MT 17:5; MT 23:3; MK 2:19, etc. 3. The freely chosen lexical semantic equivalents in the main text and their corrections reveal one characteristic feature of Chylinski- ’s translation technique: in translating, the author often chose words with a broader meaning, and in editing, he corrected them according to the sources of the translation. This feature of Chylinski- ’s translation is very well illustrated by the changes in the word “land”, which has several different equivalents in the originals: Mt 21,42 CHNT taleygi [tojoc gatwa krafto = kiertes STB dele is geworden tot een hooft des hoecks GbpB ten Sig [tat glowa wegieing BRAB ten [ię [tal głową v wegld V hic factus est in caput anguli G oūTos Eyevndy cic xegakiy yoviaz 1PT 2,7 CHNT [tojoc galwa kraBto —kapo = kampiniu STB is geworden tot een hoofdt des hocks GDB šię [tal glowa wegiefng BRAB then 3/tal [ig pr3zednieyBym w węgfu V hic factus est in caput anguli G obTog Eyevnd elg xegahny yoviag Lk 16,24 CHNT kad pamirkitu kraftą —wirfu —galg pirpta [awo STB dat hy it uyterfte [ijns vingers in het water doope GDB aby omocžyt koniec pélca [wego w wod3ie BRAB aby omoc3yt koniec palca [wego w wodžie V ut intingat extremum digiti sui in aguam G tva Ban to dxpov Tol daxtTUAou adtol Hdxtog Mt 9,20 CuNT dalilitejo krafta = Squernas ruba jo STB raeckte den 300m [ijnes kleets aen GbpB dotknęta Si¢ podotkd Baty jego BRAB Dotknęta [ig krdiu odžienia iego V tetigit fimbriam vestimenti eius G ato Tob xpaonėdov Tob iuatiov adTob App 5,16 CHNT If around gulinciu = giwenaciu kraftu —Paliu STB uyt de omliggende /teden GDB 3 okoloc3nych mialt Good ~~ -" V Vicinarum civitatum G TOV TĖDLĘ TOAEOYV App 27,12 CHNT Irkadkrafitac = portac nemandaguo buwo 3iemawot —3iemaut STB Ende alfoo de haven ongelegen was om te overwinteren P The copies of the Brasta Bible in the LMAbibliotheek are defective, apart from the title pages, they are missing some pages, especially at the beginning and end of the book. Therefore, some examples of the Brasta Bible cannot be given. 124 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ GDB A gdy nie było portu [polobnego ku jimowaniu BraB Y gdy3 niebylo portu [tufnego ku žimowaniu V Et cum aptus portus non esset ad hiemandum G aveudétou dė Tob Atpšvos inapyovTos POS TapayELuaGiav One CHNT word kraštas STB is represented by five lexical units with different meanings: hoeck, uyterste, zoom, stadt and haven. In the Polish sources and in the corresponding places in V and G there are also equivalents of different meanings, whose meanings adequately correspond to the meanings of the words used by STB and are narrower than the meaning of Chylinski's translation of the border. Fixes krafto = twists; kraBto —kapo = corner; ratą —wirBu —gatą; force = Squernas; kraptu — Paliu; krafitac = portao corresponds to all possible originals and specifies the meaning of the lexical unit of the freely iSwerved main text. The corrected places krafto = kiertes and <krafito > kqpo> = kgmpiniu in MT 21,42 and 1Pt 2,7 CHNT correspond to two different constructions v wegfa and w weghu in the Brasta Bible, this difference is not reflected in Chylinski's manuscript. In the remaining sources, the corresponding locations coincide with CHNT changes. In other examples, Chylinski's corrected places in the originals correspond to words of very close meanings, so it is not possible to determine which of the possible sources was used to edit the translation. Similarly, more general meanings of the words woman, sky and others are translated by word, and corrected by editing: App 6,1 CHNT moter...) —naplec ju buwo —budawo aptay[toc STB hare weduwen [...] verluymt wierden GDB były 3aniedbywane [...] wdowy ich BraB były gar{....} wdowy ich V eo guod neglegerentur [...] viduae eorum G napedewpoivto [...] year addy 1TiM 5,14 CHNT Noriu tada kad jaunoc moteric —(naplec) tekietu STB Ick wil dan dat de jonge [weduwen] houwelicken GDB Chcg tedy aby miodfe Bly 3d maj BrAB Chcę więc aby miodfe Bly 3d maj V Volo ergo iuniores nubere G BovAouat o0dv vewtépag youelv MK 9,7 CHNT ballac teypag atajo iff dangauoc —debeliec GDB a pr3ypedt glos 3 obloku BraB a pochodsit glos 3 obloku STB ende eene [temme quam uyt de wolcke MK 9.6" V and come cloud voice G xai EYEVETO QV] EX TNS VEQEATS 4 CHNT MK 9.7 in the Vulgate corresponds to MK 9.6. CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES | 125 Similarly to the previous examples, the more general words women and heaven used in the main text have been specificated and corrected to widows and clouds. The correction of 1 Tim 5:14 to woman—(naflec) is due to the influence of the STB, as widows have no equivalent in other possible sources. It is difficult to say on what basis if8 dangauc —debeliec was corrected, since the sources match. Such lexical changes, when the meaning of the original lexical units is generalized in translation and specificated according to the translation sources in editing, are relatively small. Other lexical corrections include spoken and spoken changes. At the end of the manuscript there is an inscription linking the following words to the STB equivalents: „[egge [akau [prekie kõneln“ (417/ 221). This means that STB /eggen is decided to translate to say, and [preken —to speak. Manuscript corrections do not consistently reflect this decision: /eggen is associated with saying, and /preken with speaking (kalbejo —palakie —geleght hadde IN 2,22; katbejo —gelproken IN 2,22; katbu = trees —legge MT 18,19; katbekite —katbekit —flaki/ki/t —[egget MT 10,27; language —[ako —[eggen Rom 3,8); and in some places the principle of the writing at the end of the manuscript is departed from: katba = (lako) —[preekt 1KOR 14,2; katbejo —tare —[eyden APD 14,11; Kalbejo —Tare —[eyde MT 26,31. In the main text, Sie verbs are often translated according to this principle: fakau —legge GAL 3,17; analogously MT 10,27; App 11,4; APD 5,36; GAL 5,16; [see 1 Corinthians 14:2 and others. However, sometimes STB /eggen and /preken CHNT correspond to different verbs: tare —[eyde APD 25,10; palakie —lakie —[prekende Acts 10,27; praatme —[eggen Rom 3,8; katbetumbime —dat wy leggen Rom 3.8; (katbedamo:) —[leggende] Acts 16,36. Based on this inconsistency in the main text and the corrections, it can be assumed that the note at the end of the manuscript was probably written after the translation was completed. From many signs (underlines, notes with the mark N.B., from often left at least two translation variants of the same place, etc.) we see that the manuscript was not finished editing. Inconsistent corrections indicate that the translator has not decided for a long time how to translate individual words. (In addition, some corrections may be so-called ‘spot corrections’, which can in some sense be attributed to the main text.) The final decision was marked at the end of the text, and it is to be assumed that the intention was to take this note into account in the further editing or rewriting of the text. CONCLUSIONS 1. TRANSLATION AND EDITING PROCESS. The uneven arrangement of corrections in the text shows that Chylinskis, having already finished translating the NT, began editing his translation according to certain criteria (he corrected spelling issues, shortened the plural noun endings, corrected the participles, etc.), but this work remained unfinished: almost the entire Gospel according to Matthew was consistently reviewed, quite carefully — half of the Acts of the Apostles, and other books of the NT were also corrected in passing. At the end of the manuscript, what needs to be corrected in the translation is indicated, but the corresponding places in the text are corrected inconsistently. Apparently, the translator intended to rewrite or at least review the manuscript again and correct it according to the marked notes. 126 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Some types of changes are inconsistent: there are forms or constructions that are consistently replaced by others at the beginning of the translation, and then no longer corrected or even reconstructed (this is most of the translation-independent corrections — corrections by participants, changes of the adjective pronoun “my” to “my”, “your”, etc.). Most of these “reverse corrections” do not depend on the sources of the translation, but show a certain indecision and inability of the translator to decide which form or construction to use. One of the reasons for such hesitation could be that at the time of translating and editing NT, Chylinskis had already lived for many years in a foreign environment” and had no contact with the living Lithuanian language, so it is not surprising that he felt untrue about the Lithuanian words and constructions he used. In addition, the tension felt in the translation and corrections may have been partly conditioned by the critical response of the Lithuanian Reformed Church to his translation and by constant conflicts with the Lithuanian Calvinist delegate in England, Jan Krzysztof Krainskis. The fact that some of the original lexical units were translated with equivalents of a broader meaning, and that they were clarified and specified during editing, suggests that NT Chylinskis was in a hurry when translating. 2. Sources of the main layer. The fact that the main layer was translated from the STB additionally (in addition to what was already established) shows translational characteristics that can only be explained by the structure of the Dutch language (non-differentiation of the second person singular and plural in the indicative and imperative, especially frequent use of participles, etc.) Judging by the influence of the Polish source on Chylinski- ’s translation, the significance of the coincidences of lexical units is relatively smaller than that of syntactic ones, since they may simply reflect the Polish vocabulary of a translator who knows Polish well (perhaps even better than Lithuanian?). Therefore, lexical coincidences are not yet sufficient proof that a Polish source was used in the translation. The influence of the Polish original is more pronounced where the postpositional locals of the main layer coincide with the Polish sources and differ from the STB. The conjunctions Chylinski uses at the beginning of the sentence do not consistently correspond to any of the possible translation sources. The differences in conjunctions in different sources may have prompted the translator to frequently change them. Furthermore, the changes in both —o and 0 —i types may have been influenced by the translator's good knowledge of Polish (not necessarily a specific Polish source). 3. Sources of Editing. In editing the manuscript, the Polish original helped Chylinski to correctly interpret STB formally insufficiently differentiated (participants) and ambiguous forms (second person indicative and imperative). The comparison shows that in these cases the correction was made according to the Polish source. In editing the translation, Chylinski relied mainly on STB. The equivalents of more general meaning of the original lexical units are often refined and specified during editing at5 From 1654 Chylinskis was a student of theology at the Franeker Academy (Album Studiosorum 1968: 162). From the notes in the manuscript we know that he began to translate the NT on October 22, 1657, and we have reason to believe that he was still more or less correcting his manuscript at the end of 1661. CHYLINSKIO NT TRANSLATION AND SOURCES [127 with regard to the sources. Most of the corrections coincide with all translation sources, but in some cases it is apparent that the correction was based on the STB. The significance of the STB in editing the translation is evidenced by the Dutch entries at the end of the manuscript with Lithuanian equivalents and references to specific parts of the NT, as well as entries reflecting the translator’s efforts to link specific parts of the translation with the Dutch text („Tegge [akau [prekie kalbu“ 417/221). There are no records showing similar importance of the Polish source. Chylinskis changed the adjective used in the reflexive meaning, which is usual in Lithuanian, to my, your, his. Changes to mine, yours could have been encouraged by Polish originals, but changes of his —his type could only have occurred under the influence of the Dutch original. 4. THE ROLE OF THE ENTRIES AT THE START AND END OF THE HANDLE. These records once again confirm that Chylinski translated from the STB and that this Bible was his most important authority. There are no records of the Vulgate text. Latin is used here as a metalanguage. It is not always easy to distinguish when Polish entries reflect the source of translation or editing, and when Polish is used as a metalanguage. There are practically no records that could be undoubtedly attributed to a Polish source of translation or editing. The entry "N.T. Ex Verlion and Breflten edition (edited in 4° A* 1593). Vilnae.“ does not necessarily mean that Chylinskis used the Brasta Bible in his translation. It is quite likely that the translator noted that, in addition to the Polish Bible translations available to him or well-known to him, there is one more. The Statenbijbel, whose importance for Chylinski's translation is undoubted, is also not directly mentioned in the manuscript. [...Jkupiūra zmog[us] —restored abbreviation] — — strange į = —synonym {...} —unreadable Z deleted —deleted —beginning of the corrected sequence of words ABBREVIATIONS BRAB —Biblia swigta, Tho iest, Ksiggi Starego y Nowego Zakonu, wtašnie z Zydowskiego, Greckiego, y Lūčinskiego, nowo nd Polski igzyk z pilnosciq y wiernie wylojone, [Brzeszcz], 1563. CHNT -transliterated edition of Chylinski NT translation: Kudzinowski, Otrebski 1958. G Greek New Testament. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece. New York: American Bible Society, 1995. GDB -Biblia swigta, Tho iest, Ksiggi of the Old and New Covenant of the Jewish and Greek Language and Polish diligent and faithfully translated |...], | Dantzig], 1632. STB -Biblia, That Is The Whole Holy Scripture, Containing All The Canonical Books Of The Old And New Testament. By laft der Hoogh-Mog: Heren Staten Generael van de Vereenighde Nederlanden |...) Uyt de Oorfpronkelijcke talen in onfe Nederladt(che tale getrouwelijck over-gelet [...] ende Door gemeene orde der Nederland/lche Kercken verbeterd van Druckfauten en Misltellingen die in den Eersten Druck gevonden worden. T' Amsteldam, Printed by the Widow of the deceased Paulus Aert[z van Ravelteijn [...] in 1657. V - Vulgata. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. 128 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ LITERATŪRA Album Studiosorum 1968: Album Studiosorum Academiae Franekerensis (1585—1811, 1816-1844) Naamlijst der studenten 1, Franeker. AMBRAZAS, V. 1962: Absolute Utilitarian in Lithuanian Monuments of the 16th-17th Centuries. Language Studies 5, 3—146. BRruIN, C.C. de 1993: The Staten Bible and its predecessors. Dutch Bible translations from the Reformation to 1673. Edited by dr. EG.M. Broeyer, Haarlem: Dutch Bible Society, Brussels: Belgian Bible Society. HEINSIUS, J. 1977: The Language of the State Bible. De Statenvertaling 1637-1937, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, KAVALIONAITE, G. 1997: Historiographical context of Samuel Boguslavas Chylinskis' Bible translation and the problem of the source of the translation. Lituanistica 3 (31), 74—84. LEHR-SPLAWINSKI, T., URBANCZYK, S. 1955: Historical Grammar of the Polish Language, Warsaw: State Academic Publishing House. KORNE, de A., RINKEL, T. 1987: Dutch in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Groningen: WoltersNoordhoff. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1964: Chylinski's Lithuanian Bible. The New Testament. 3, Indeks, Poznan: State Scientific Publishing House. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1984: Chylinski's Lithuanian Bible. 145-180. The New Testament. 1, Photocopies, Poznan: University of Applied Sciences. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz., OTREBSKI, J. 1958: The Lithuanian Bible of Chyliriski. The New Testament. 2, Text, Poznan: Zaktad Narodowy im. Ossoliriskich. LUKSAITE, I. 1971: S.B. Chilinskio Lithuanian Bible. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1(35), 87—109. SCHLERATH, B. 2000: Chylinski's Translation of the New Testament: Reflections on his Presentation. Range, J.-D, ed., Aspects of Baltic Research, Essen: Verlag Die Blaue Eule, 279-290. TooRrN, M. C. van den, PIINENBURG, W. J. J., LEUVENSTENN, J. A. van, HORST, J. M. van der, eds. 1997: History of the Dutch language, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ZAWADZKA, I., KOLBUSZEWSKI, St. E. 1959: The basis of Chylinski’s,,Bible“. Report 2nd ed. pp. 158–159. Gina Kavaliūnaitė Received 17 February 2001 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]