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

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIV (2001), 105–128 Chylinskis’s New Testament Translation and Its Sources: Notes and Textual Revisions GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ Institute of the 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 an attempt is made to reconstruct, in its main lines, the process of translating and editing, and to establish the principles guiding the translator and the role played by the source texts. The analysis confirms that the principal source of the translation was the Dutch Statenbijbel. The Polish versions were of lesser importance as sources for the translation, but served as aids in the process of editing. The translator’s glosses prove that the Statenbijbel was his principal authority. Rather than betraying any direct influence of the Latin and Polish versions, they merely reflect the role of Latin and Polish as metalanguages used in clarifying the meaning of Dutch or Lithuanian words. INTRODUCTION The translation of the Bible by Samuel Bogusław Chylinski has received considerable attention in works on the history of the language and historiography. Scholars’ interest was spurred by the manuscript’s remarkable fate; moreover, when Jan Otrębski and Czesław Kudzinowski published a transliterated text of the manuscript in Poznań in 1958 (Otrębski, Kudzinowski 1958), followed by the NT index compiled by Kudzinowski in 1964 (Kudzinowski 1964) and a facsimile edition in 1984 (Kudzinowski 1984), this significant monument of seventeenth-century Lithuanian became readily accessible1. Many Lithuanian and Baltic scholars cite examples from Chylinskis’s language in their work. However, the genesis of this text and the relationship between its language and the languages of its translation sources have not yet been systematically investigated. For research into the text’s genesis and philological and linguistic study of the NT, all textual variants are important, not only the final edition. This is especially so because Chylinskis made many revisions to the translation, chiefly in the opening chapters of the Gospels, particularly the first half of the Gospel according to Matthew (up to chapter 13) and the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. The manuscript’s corrections can be divided into the following groups: 1) revisions to the main text: a) revisions to spelling, morphology, and syntax; b) substitutions of individual units with others; 1Chylinskis’s NT manuscript is held in London, in the British Museum Library (shelfmark: MS 41301). It consists of 225 leaves: the NT translation begins on the fifth leaf (the title page) and ends on leaf 217v. 106 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ c) synonyms provided; d) changes in word order; e) deletions (some deleted words are often repeated elsewhere in the main text or inserted, so in such cases deletions are interpreted as changes in word order); f) underlinings; 2) marginal entries: a) NB notes; b) synonyms for underlined linguistic units; c) replacements of deleted linguistic units; 3) entries at the end of the manuscript. The manuscript was not fully edited and prepared for printing—in many places, what had been revised was not deleted, and in some places two or more variants were left. Judging by the color of the ink, the text was revised at different times: some (though not many) corrections were made immediately, but most are later proof corrections, written in darker ink, whereas at the end of the NT—in contrast—in pale, seemingly diluted ink. Some corrections or changes were written above, others below the line, and still others in the margins. This article does not take the location of the corrections into account; it considers only what was corrected or changed into what, and for which linguistic units synonyms were provided. In many cases, the corrections reflect the history of the translation and various aspects of Chylinski’s translation technique. They make it possible to assess the relationship among the sources used by the translator: which source was most important, which was used as a supplement while translating the text, and which sources were consulted during editing. It is precisely because the corrections reflect the genesis of the translation that their separate study is significant. The aim of this article is to identify the types of corrections and their possible motivations, to reconstruct in broad outline the editing process, and to assess what the corrections tell us about the genesis of the translation, its principles, and its sources. SOURCES OF CHYLINSKIS’S NT TRANSLATION OLANDIŠKAS ŠALTINIS. Jau anksčiau nustatyta (žr. Zawadzka, Kolbuszewski 1959: 158–159; Kavaliūnaitė 1997: 74–84; Schlerath 2000: 279–290), kad pagrindinis arba vienas iš pagrindinių Chylinskio NT vertimo šaltinių neabejotinai buvo olandiška Statenbijbel (toliau – StB). Tai liudija ne tik morfologinės, sintaksinės bei leksinės semantinės vertimo ypatybės, bet ir išoriniai teksto požymiai: 1. Words that had to be added when translating from Greek into Dutch because of differences in the structure of the languages were placed in parentheses by the StB translators, following the general Reformed tradition. Chylinskis’s translation renders precisely the words written in parentheses in the Statenbijbel: ACTS 7:9 ChNT they sold Joseph (so that he might be taken) to Egypt StB verkochten Jofeph, [om] na Egypten [gebracht te worden:] 2. The influence of StB on the structure of the text is evident: at the end of each StB book there are closing formulas, which Chylinskis translated very precisely, e.g.: CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 107 ChNT The End. E.S. according to (the account of) JONAH. StB The end of the Holy Gospel, according to [the account of] JOHN. Other possible sources of Chylinskis’s translation do not contain such sentences marking the end. 3. Dutch entries in the translation itself and at the end of the manuscript also point to StB. POLISH SOURCES. Analysis of ChNT shows that Polish text was often used as an additional source in translation. This is confirmed by an entry at the end of the NT manuscript: “N.T. ex versione et editione Brestensi editum in 4° A⁰ 1593. Vilnae.” 422/224². Although this entry points to the Brest Bible (hereafter BraB), historiography has generally held that the Polish source was the Gdańsk Bible (hereafter GdB), primarily on the basis of internal features of the translation (Kavaliaūnaitė 1997: 74–84 with references). The following passages illustrate this: Luke 1:56 ChNT And Mary stayed with her StB Ende Maria bleef by haer GdB And stayed with her Mary Luke 1:52³ BraB And thus with her dwelt Mary Ephesians 4:8 ChNT that he ascended <and upward → heavenward> StB When he ascended on high GdB Having ascended on high BraB When he ascended to the top However, these differences do not yet mean that Chylinskis did not use BraB in translating, since in such places ChNT most often agrees not only with GdB but also with StB. All the more, this possibility cannot be ruled out given that there are places where ChNT comes closer to BraB and diverges from GdB: Heb 9:6 ChNT O tie dayktey thus being prepared GdB And when thus prepared BraB When therefore these things were thus arranged In view of the circumstances mentioned, ChNT was compared with both Bible translations. LATIN SOURCE. No convincing arguments were found that the Vulgate (hereafter V) may have been used. On the contrary, comparison of the text reveals discrepancies with V: in Mt 6:13, the prayer “Our Father” in the Vulgate does not contain the Doxology, whereas it is present in Chylinskis’s translation; Mk 1:43 ChNT And <he ordered him to be cast out → he immediately drove him> away from himself, V statim eiecit illum; in some places the verse numbering in ChNT and the Vulgate Bible does not agree. Bernfried Schlerath (2000: 279–289) has drawn attention to two notes at the end of the manuscript. 411/218 2 The first number indicates the page in the transliterated edition of the manuscript (Kudzinowski, Otrębski 1958), the second—in Chylinskis’s New Testament manuscript. 3 ChNT Lk 1:56 corresponds to BraB Lk 1:52. 108 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ on the page there is a reference to the biblical verse John 5:13. Here the corresponding passage in StB is translated into Lithuanian, and a Latin version is also given alongside it: “Joh. 5.13. hebbeik u ghechrewen ralzau jumuc. Ergo qdo eft tot u. ad voc. jumup.” In the Vulgate, the passage reads Haec scripsi vobis. Thus, the entry ad vos was made without reference to the Vulgate. On page 411/218, alongside the entry in Hebrew, its translation into Lithuanian and Latin is provided. Clearly, in this case the Vulgate was not consulted: Chylinskis wrote the participle sedens, whereas the Vulgate has the construction qui sedet in that place. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the text of the Vulgate was well known to Chylinskis, as a learned man of his time, and one must allow for the possibility that the translator probably knew many of its passages by heart, so that it may have influenced the translation. For this reason, all passages cited in the article will also be compared with the Vulgate. GREEK SOURCE. It is very difficult to prove whether or not the Greek New Testament (hereafter G) was used: the principal source for Chylinskis’s Bible translation, Statenbijbel, is so close to the original languages that some researchers of the StB New Testament even describe its linguistic structure as more Greek than Dutch (Bruin 1993: 273–274). It is very difficult to find passages that diverge from StB and other possible sources for the ChNT translation yet agree only with G. In the rare cases where StB diverges from G, Chylinskis follows StB rather than G; compare: Mk 9:7 ChNT bahag teypag atajo iþ dangau → debeliec StB ende eene ſtemme quam uyt de wolcke GDB á prżybedł głos z obłoku BrAB á pochodził głos z obłoku Mk 9:6⁴ V et venit vox de nube G καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης The G lexical unit ἐγένετο is usually rendered in StB by geschieden, whereas in ChNT it is most often translated as stotis and frequently emended to nusiduoti. In Mk 9:7, StB translates ἐγένετο as quamen; in this case Chylinskis follows StB rather than G. Furthermore, nothing is written in Greek in the ChNT manuscript, although there are quite a few entries in Dutch, Polish, and Latin. An argument in favor of using a Greek source could be Chylinskis’s own assertion that he knew the “Eastern languages” (and thus Greek) and that this guaranteed the quality of the translation (Lukšaitė 1971: 93). However, it is not known how much credence can be given to the translator’s statement in this case. Nevertheless, for the same reasons as the Latin examples, Greek examples of the cited passages will also be provided below in the article. ENTRIES AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE TRANSLATION The first and last pages contain entries in Lithuanian, Latin, Polish, Dutch, and Hebrew. They were written at different times and in a rather disorderly manner. Some of them are from the Bibl- 4 The Vulgate’s Mk 9:6 corresponds to the verse Mk 9:7 in ChNT. CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 109 his quotations, but among them there is also an undirected letter in Latin, written by an unknown person, urging support for Chylinskis’s efforts to translate the Bible into Lithuanian (3/2v), a list of expenses for printing the Bible, written in Polish (413/219), and entries reflecting events in Chylinskis’s personal life, for example: “Błogosław Panie w małżeńskim stanie” (424/225)⁵, “Pan Bog nadzieję moją” (424 /225). Some of the entries mentioned refer to the text of the Old rather than the New Testament: “Ecl. 5. v 13. moejelich belficheyt bingi rupetis” (416/220v). At the beginning of the manuscript, the translator’s hand indicates when the translation was begun: “translacie zaczęłem w imieniu Panfkim d. 22 8bris 1657. w Oxforcie ftylo veteri” (3/2v). One or another entry helps clarify why Chylinskis revised the NT translation; they allow us to infer something about the translation’s genesis: “NB. loco stojos ubique ponendum nusidawę hoc enim est Lithuanicum” 423/224v (“NB. stojos should everywhere be corrected to nusidavė, because that is Lithuanian”); “faska. matone. N.B. ponendum ubique” 423/224v (“taška. matone. N.B. to be inserted everywhere”); “ta fostą non tas Softas NB 424/225” (“that throne, not that throne”); “Cephas per K an per C” 423/224v (“Cephas with K or with C”); “Pokutuje. gaylos už griekus. NB. ubique emendandum {...} Pakutawokite” 424/225 (“pokutuje gaylos už griekus. NB. to be corrected everywhere {...} Pakutawokite”); “ubi est sulimilet. pone paligaylet. hoc n’est Lithuanicum.” 424/225 (“where there is sulimilet, put paligaylet: that is not Lithuanian”); “mielaßbyrdingas. pone sulimilstąs. NB”. 424 /225 (“mielaßbyrdingas. put sulimilstąs. NB”). As we can see, these entries are at least in part instructions for correcting the text (cf. emendandum “to be corrected”). Entries concerning the use and correction of postpositional locatives are significant for investigating the influence of original prepositional constructions on the use of postpositional locatives in the main text and its revisions: “jump. ad eos jop. ad eum” 411/218; “Joh.5.13. hebbeik u geschaffen rafzau jumuo. Ergo qdo est tot u. ad voo. jusump” 411/218 (“therefore, when there is tot u, ad vos, [jusump should be translated]”); “muspi w nas. musimp u nas” 424/225. A separate question to consider is what can be inferred from the entries about revision models 5 Thus, Chylinskis continued to edit the translation after his marriage. Chylinskis married the daughter of Jonas Andrius Jurskis (Johannes Andreae Jurſki), who had left Lithuania. The marriage took place in Königsberg as Chylinskis was returning from a visit to Lithuania, where he participated in the Lithuanian Reformed Synod in Kėdainiai on August 20–24, 1661. It was at this synod that Teodoras Skrodskis and Jonas Božimovskis were commissioned to examine Chylinskis’s translation, and Chylinskis’s public disagreements with some Lithuanian Reformed Church members began (Lukšaitė 1971: 92–99). 110 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ and about the importance of individual sources in editing the manuscript. The effort to consistently link the corresponding passages to the Dutch source is evidenced by notes such as these6. „Segge (akau Sprekie kalbu“ 417/221; „hier aer7, to. hier in tame“ 415/220 ([Dutch] hier aen [translate] to, [Dutch] hier in [translate] tame); *, „werkiert. Act. 2. 41. nelabag“ 411/218; *, „Luc. 9. v. 45 verfton. ifzmanit. begrepen suprast. potius inverfo ordine ut ex loco patet Luc. 10. v. 21.“ 411/218 („rather in reverse order, as is clear from Luke 10:21“); *, „Gal. 6.v. 8. wertragen tingiet. veſlappen nuſtot NB“ 411/218; „barhertigh. Rom. 9.16. fuſimiſtſag“ 423/224v; „met innerlijcke ontferminghe beweeght zynde. Luc. 10.33. paſigaylėję“ 423/224v. There is no doubt that the words written in Dutch correspond to words in the Dutch source, with which Chylinskis sought to associate consistent Lithuanian equivalents. They confirm StB’s authority and the fact that Chylinskis translated from it. The status of the Latin words is quite different. Latin is used as a metalanguage: “to mow hay. to prick oneself, pandiculari, to yawn. pandiculor” 423/224v; “harmony. concordia” 423/224v. This is all the more strongly confirmed by cases in which Latin equivalents are given alongside lexical items intended for use in specific passages, and these differ from the corresponding passages in the Vulgata. Thus, Chylinskis did not associate the Latin notes with the Vulgata: *, „Joh.5.13. hebbeik u gefchrewen rafzau jumuo. Ergo qdo eſt tot u. ad voo. juſump“ 411/218 („thus, when there is tot u, ad vos, [should be translated] jusump“); *, „ſedens. participium prov. 20 v. 8“ 411/218. Polish notes associated with Lithuanian equivalents cannot be interpreted unambiguously: Polish, too, may be regarded as a metalanguage. Where Lithuanian words in the notes are given with Polish equivalents, there are no references to specific passages in the NT. It is therefore most likely that, when translating from Dutch, Chylinskis first devised a Polish version and then transformed it into Lithuanian: „styrbarkey. deſki zrobione na kȢtałt drabini.“ 420/222v („styrbarkey. boards arranged like a ladder“); „grȝmot gaudimay. zabawimai tyſkania ſię“ 423/224v. 6 Apie žvaigždute pažymėtus įrašus yra rašęs Bernfriedas Schlerathas (2000: 279–290). 7 At this point in the manuscript, it reads hier aen. The editors made an error when deciphering the Dutch word. CHYLINKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 111 Even where, alongside a Polish entry with a Lithuanian equivalent, there is a reference to the NT text, it is not the Polish source but Chylinskis’s own Lithuanian translation that is quoted: “kryfłe. zbło NB emendens [sic!] ut eft Luc. 6 41.” 423/224v (“kryfłe. zbło NB corrected as in Luke 6:41”). PREPARATORY WORK Preparatory work was carried out before this study began. First of all, computer versions of Chylinskis’s NT and the principal translation sources were created. The Lithuanian version was based on the transliterated manuscript text published by Otębski and Kudzinowski. It was scanned8, and changes to the text in comparison with the manuscript photocopy9 were recorded using a special system of symbols so that the computer program “Quest Edition”10 could be used. The texts of the Gdansk Bible and the NT of the Statenbijbel were compiled on a computer11. Using the “Quest Edition” computer program, the edited passages were extracted, grouped, and compared with NT texts in other languages. TYPOLOGY OF CORRECTIONS There are 5,708 corrections in the NT manuscript, of which 1,493 are changes in word order. Two main types of correction stand out: 1) corrections for which the influence of sources cannot be demonstrated or such influence seems unlikely, and 2) corrections that may have been influenced by the translation sources. Both groups include morphological, lexical, and syntactic changes. There are often changes “in both directions” between certain forms, especially those with double forms used in the language of the time. For example, the plural dative ending is often shortened, but there are also instances in which a short ending is lengthened. The same can be said of most other types of correction. Textual corrections independent of the originals include changes in spelling (sometimes <ą>, <ę> is changed to <an>, <en>; the soft sign is deleted, etc.), morphological changes (sometimes noun case forms are changed; the archaic plural of nominal words is shortened- 8 The “Recognita Select 2.0” scanning program was adapted to Chylinskis’s NT by Audronė Stanislovaitienė. The text was scanned with funds from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, as part of the “1996–2005 Programme for the Use and Development of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania,” by Edita Bagaslaukaitė, Neda Marcinkienė, and Danguolė Pukienė, employees of the Publishing Group of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language; the proofs were read by Jolanta Pakalknyskytė. 9 Kudzinowski (1984). Deja, fotokopija yra labai prastos kokybės ir ja ne visada galima pasikliauti. 10 The “Quest Edition” computer program, designed for the study of Hebrew Old Testament texts, was adapted for Chylinskis’s manuscript at the author’s suggestion by Dr. Wolf Dieter Syring, a research associate at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Greifswald. 11 The GbB NT text was compiled by Živilė Matijošienė with funds from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, as part of the “1996–2005 Programme for the Use and Development of the State Language of the Republic of Lithuania”; the proofs were read by Birutė Mikalonienė. The computer version of the StB NT was prepared by the author of this article, with Marija Senkuvienė assisting in proofreading. 112 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ changes to the dative plural ending -mus; long pronoun forms with -jen are replaced by short forms; the gender of some words that have only masculine forms in the modern language is changed; the endings of the first- and second-person plural verb forms are shortened; the subjunctive mood marker -b- is deleted, etc.), syntactic (some cases and preposition–case combinations are corrected; the position of the enclitic pronoun m(i), t(i) and the reflexive pronoun s(i) is sometimes changed; a reflexive pronoun s(i) used a second time in the same word is sometimes deleted or inserted; the interrogative particle -gu, whether written separately or postposed, is deleted or changed; an unstressed word without independent meaning is moved to the second position, etc.) and lexical (prazutieo → prapultieo; βykβtoleyο ⇒ godulingejo; βwitplojα → wamzdzioja; tykiejomeə → dukle=lj/omeə, etc.) corrections. They reflect internal features of the Lithuanian language and are unrelated to differences in meaning, so the influence of other languages a priori seems unlikely. Therefore, they will not be discussed in greater detail in this article. Determining the extent to which translation sources influenced certain types of corrections (replacing subordinate clauses with participial or nominal constructions and vice versa, most corrections involving postpositional locatives, changes in word order, etc.) requires special analysis. The scope of a single article does not allow for discussion of so much data; therefore, this article examines only the most striking groups of corrections, which were unquestionably conditioned by the translation sources. CHANGES CONDITIONED BY THE ORIGINALS CORRECTIONS TO SECOND-PERSON SINGULAR AND PLURAL VERB FORMS IN THE INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE MOODS. In the main layer of ChNT, second-person singular verb forms are often corrected to the plural, and conversely, plural forms are corrected to the singular. This mixing in Chylinski’s translation may have arisen because the old second-person singular pronoun du was already used very rarely in seventeenth-century Dutch (Korne, Rinkel 1987: 37), and was not used at all in StB. Its place was taken by the old second-person plural pronoun ghy, which had been used as a form of politeness since the Middle Ages and was later generalized to the singular as well (Toorn et al. 1997: 309–311). As a result, the second-person singular and plural forms of the verb became identical. Indeed, Chylinski’s translation alternates between second-person singular and plural verb forms (12x), cf.: Mt 6,16 ChNT That likewise pasnikaughi → pasnikaujate StB Ende wanneer ghy valt GDb A Gdy pośćicie BrAB A Gdy pośćicie V Cum autem ieiunatis G ὅταν δὲ νηστεύητε A similar change was made in 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, etc. In such passages, the corrections usually agree with all possible translation sources, so we cannot determine which source was followed in correcting the errors. CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI | 113 This mixing of forms is important evidence that Chylinski’s Bible was translated from StB. MIXING SINGULAR AND PLURAL VERB FORMS IN THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. ChNT also inconsistently differentiates between second-person singular and plural forms of the imperative. This confusion may have been encouraged by the distinctive expression of the imperative in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Dutch. At the time, two imperative forms were used—one coinciding with the stem, and the other consisting of the stem + t. In time, grammarians’ recommendation took hold that forms without -t be used when addressing one person, and forms with -t for the plural and for polite address. However, this tradition had not yet become established in the language of StB. In seventeenth-century usage, both forms were used to express the singular imperative, while the plural used only the form with the suffix -t (Korne, Rinkel 1987: 43). The number of the imperative could be determined only from context. Thus, in the imperative, Chylinskis often could not determine the number of the form, which led to errors in the main text; these were corrected on the basis of additional translation sources: Mt 6,1 ChNT Beware → Beware that you do not give your alms → your alms → before people StB HEbt acht / dat ghy uwe aelmoeffe niet en doet voor de menſchen GdB STrzęśćie się ábyście jáłmużny wáßey nie czynili przed ludźmi BrAB STrzęśćie się / ábyście jáłmużny wáßey nie czynili przed ludźmi V Attendite ne iustitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus G προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων Lk 10,28 ChNT do → do it, O you, StB Doet dat / ende ghy fult leven GdB to czyń / á będźieβ żył BrAB toż czyń á będźieβ żył V hoc fac et vives G τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ Similarly, Mk 4,39 and elsewhere was altered. Errors of this kind in the main text further confirm that Chylinskis translated from StB. The corrections agree with all the additional sources. CORRECTIONS OF GERUNDS. Gerunds are particularly frequent in Chylinskis’s NT. The translation also stands out among other old Lithuanian writings for its abundance of gerunds. The influence of Polish has been mentioned in the literature among the possible reasons for such frequent use of gerunds (cf. Ambrazas 1962: 46). Vytautas Ambrazas has also drawn attention to the fact that in some places Chylinskis linked gerund constructions with a nominative even when the corresponding passage in the Polish text did not prompt this (Ambrazas 1962: 122). Almost everywhere Chylinskis uses a gerund, StB has a participle, which is indeclinable in Dutch (it is declined to a limited extent only when used attributively). Such frequent use of participles is not characteristic of Dutch, but the translators of StB, following the decision of the 1618 Synod of Dordrecht, adhered as closely as possible to the original languages (Greek and Hebrew). 114 | Gina Kavaliūnaitė ir gana tiksliai perteikė jų dalyvines konstrukcijas (Heinsius 1977: 149–151). Šias dalyvines konstrukcijas Chylinskis labai dažnai vertė padalyviais arba dalyvinėmis konstrukcijomis. In many places, the translator replaced gerunds corresponding to participles in StB with other verb forms. In total, the ChNT manuscript contains 77 changes to gerunds. Frequent use of gerunds may have been encouraged by the Dutch translation source, which does not distinguish declinable and indeclinable participles according to syntactic position. Of the Greek, Latin, and Dutch translation sources, only the latter uses indeclinable participles, which are reflected as gerunds in Chylinskis’s translation. The Polish translation source may have influenced the replacement of gerunds with participles and half-participles. Comparison with the Polish originals reveals the following tendencies in the replacement of gerunds: 1) When a gerund linked to a nominative subject in the Lithuanian text corresponds to an indeclinable participial form in the Polish source, Chylinskis most often replaced the gerund with a half-participle: Mt 9,27 ChNT two blind men → two men went blindfolded βaukіant → βaukdamі and kalbant → kalbedami StB zijn hem twee blinde gevolgd / roepende ende seggende GdB βli zá nim dwá ślepi / wołając y mówiąc BraB βli zá nim dwá niewidomi / wołając y mówiąc V secuti sunt eum duo caeci clamantes et dicentes G ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ δύο τυφλοὶ κράζοντες καὶ λέγοντες The gerund kalbant is changed to a half-participle in Mt 2,2. 2,13. 2,20¹². 3,14. 5,2. 8,25. 8,27. 8,29. 8,31. 9,14. 9,18. 9,30. 9,33. 10,5. 10,7. 12,10. 12,38. 13,3. 13,24. 13,31. 13,36. 14,15. 14,26. 14,33. 15,22. 15,23. 15,25. 21,23; Mk 2,12. 11,9 and elsewhere. In these places, the Dutch original always has the participle seggende, while the Polish has the indeclinable participle mowiąc (except in Mt 13,3, where GdB has the finite form rzekł, and in Mt 21,23, where BraB uses the finite form y mówili). The corresponding forms in V are the participles dicens, dicentes. G has the participles λέγων, λέγοντες. 2) When a Dutch participle translated into Lithuanian corresponds to a declinable participial form in the Polish text, Chylinskis changes the gerund to a participle: kalbant → kalbąs, GdB mowiący, BraB mowiący, V dicere, G λέγουσα Mt 3,17; kalbant → kalbatą, GdB mowiącego, BraB mowiącego, V dicentem, G λέγοντος Mt 12,17; kalbant → kalbąty, GdB mowiącego, BraB mowiącego, V dicentem, G λέγοντος Mt 13,35; betayšant → betayšancius, StB vermakende, GdB oprawiających, BraB gdy oprawiali, V reficientes, G καταρτίζοντας Mt 4,21; befganančiu → befiganans, StB weydende, GdB páłacych się, BraB páłacá, V pascens, G βοσκομένη Mt 8,30; beledint → ledinčiu, StB sittende, GdB siedzący, BraB siedzący, V sedentes, G καθήμενοι Mt 20,30. StB has participles corresponding to these forms; the Polish sources have declinable participles (except in Mt 4,21, where BraB has a subordinate clause gdy oprawiali śieci /woie); V and G have participial forms. 12 In ChNT Mt 2,20, BraB corresponds to Mt 2,19. 114 CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 115 Another phenomenon that may have encouraged the use of adverbial participles is the Dutch original’s accusativus cum infinitivo. In Dutch, this construction is used with verbs denoting perception as the equivalent of the Greek (and Latin) accusativus cum participio. Most likely, the infinitive in the Dutch original, as an invariable form, led to the frequent use of adverbial participles in Chylinskis’s translation, since in seventeenth-century Polish the indeclinable participle (characteristic of Old Polish) was no longer used in the accusativus cum participio construction (Klemensiewicz et al. 1955: 431–432). When corrected against the Polish text, where it contains a declined participle, the adverbial participle was often changed to a participle: Mt 3:16 ChNT ir regėjo Dwalia Szwentą nuziengiant → nuziengiancią, kaypo Karweli, ir užžengiant → užžengiančią and Jawes → jo StB and he saw the Spirit of God descending / like a dove / and coming upon him GdB and saw the Spirit of God descending and coming upon him BRAB and saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him V and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him G and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him Mt 3:7 ChNT O iβwidęß daug Faryζeuβu ir Sadduceuβu ateynant → ateynanci[us] Krykβtop ławo StB And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism GdB A When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism BRAB A when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism V But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism G And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism In the examples given, StB’s accusativus cum infinitivo – [agh den Geeft Godts neder dalen ende [...] komen bei siende vele van de Pharizeen ende Sadduceen [...] komen – corresponds in Chylinskis’s translation to the constructions regėjo Dwalia Szwenta nuziengiant [...] užžengiant and iβwidęß daug Faryζeuβu ir Sadduceuβu ateynant. In the Polish sources, the ChNT adverbial participle corresponds to declined participles, zstępującego y przychodzącego and przychodzących. On their basis, Chylinskis changed the adverbial participles in the main layer to participles: nuziengiancia, užžengiančią and ateynanci[us]. In the corresponding places in the Vulgate and the Greek New Testament, participles are used. In the Gospel according to Matthew, adverbial participles are consistently changed according to the principles listed above. Only once was an adverbial participle used in place of a finite verb form— 116 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ …, but the translator apparently noticed his mistake and corrected it: uzzengiant → uzzengie, StB is geklommen, GdB wflapi, BrAB wflapi, V ascendit, G ἀνέβη Mt 5,1. However, reverse changes also appear already in the Gospel according to Mark: zynodama → zynant, StB wetende, GdB wiedząc, BrAB wiedząc, V sciens, G εἰδώς; Mk 5,33; kalbedamo → kalbant, StB legg ende, GdB mówiąc, BrAB mówiąc, V dicens, G λέγων Mk 15,36; likewise, in accusativus cum participio constructions in the following text, the participle is changed to a gerund: Mk 13,26 ChNT And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds StB Ende als dan fullen ſy den Sone des menſchen ſien / komende in de wolcken GdB A tedy ujrzą Syná człowieczego przychodzącego w obłokách BrAB A tedyć ujrzą Syná człowieczego przychodzącego ná obłocéch V Et tunc videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus G καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις From MkE onward, the translator tried to restore gerund forms, and their number increases considerably toward the end of the manuscript, even in places left uncorrected. Most corrections involving gerunds occur in the Gospel according to Matthew (55x), while there are far fewer such corrections in the remaining books of the NT (where participles are most often changed to gerunds): one or two in each book of the NT (22x in total). Thus, it may be concluded that the Polish source influenced the replacement of gerunds with participles and half-participles: in all the aforementioned cases in which gerunds were corrected to participles and half-participles (except Mt 3,17), the Latin text has a participle; the influence of the Vulgate on the corrections cannot be discerned in this instance, since the participles in the Vulgate would not explain why in some places a gerund is changed to a participle and elsewhere to a half-participle; the changes of gerunds to half-participles or participles consistently correspond only to the Polish originals; GdB and BrAB almost never differ in these places, so it is impossible to say which of these translations was used as the basis for correction. On the other hand, the use in Lithuanian of gerunds associated with a nominative subject is incorrect, and the translator may have been prompted by his linguistic intuition to change gerunds to half-participles. The reverse changes, in which gerund forms began to be restored, no longer depend on the translation sources. Nor is the more frequent use of gerunds in the following text determined by the originals. Such inconsistency more likely indicates that the translator hesitated and could not decide which forms—participial, half-participial, or gerund—were more correct and appropriate. CHANGES TO POSTPOSITIONAL LOCATIVES. The ChNT manuscript contains 174 corrections of postpositional locatives. After an initial analysis of the relationship between the postpositional locatives used in the main text and the translation sources, and comparison of its results with the relationship between changes to postpositional locatives and the originals, it was concluded that the translation sources did not influence most corrections of postpositional locatives. However, some individual corrections do depend on constructions found in the originals. Usually in such places the main layer corresponds to the Polish sources, while the correction corresponds to StB. CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 117 Under the influence of the Dutch source, the adessive was replaced with a prepositional construction: 2Cor 13,3 ChNT Since you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me, who among you is not weak, but is powerful ⇒ strong <is> among you → among you StB Dewijle ghy foeckt een proeve Chriſti die in my ſpreekt/ welcke in u niet fwack en is / maer krachtigh is onder u GdB Ponieważ chcećie doświadczyć tego ktory we mnie mowi / CHryſtuś; ktory ku wam nie ieſt ſłaby / ále mocny ieſt w was BrAB Gdyź łukacie doświadćienia Kryſtuśá ktory we mnie mowi / kktóryć przeciwko wam nie ieſth krewki / ále w was ieſt moźny V quoniam experimentum quaeritis eius, qui in me loquitur, Christi, qui in vos non infirmatur sed potens est in vobis G ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν The adessives used in the main text, manimpi and juſlimp (2x), correspond to GdB we mnie, ku wam and w was, BrAB we mnie, przeciwko wam and w was, and V in me, in vos, in vobis. These are typical equivalents of the adessive in the translation sources. ChNT adessives also correspond to the StB constructions in my and in u; however, the construction corresponding to the second juſlimp, onder u, is not normally translated by an adessive, and taking this into account, Chylinskis replaced it with terp julu. Typical equivalents of the allative in the originals are the Dutch constructions tot + Dat., aen + Acc. and the Polish do + Gen., ku + Dat. In the example presented, the allative was replaced by an infinitive under the influence of StB: Jas 1,19 ChNT Let everyone be quick to listen → listening, slow to speak → speaking, slow to anger StB een yegelijk menſche zy raſch om te hooren / traegh om te ſprecken / traegh tot toom GdB niech będźie každy cźłowiek prętki ku ſłuchániu / ále nierychły ku mowieniu y nierychły ku gniewowi BrAB niech wſzelki cźłowiek będźie predki ku ſłuchániu / á nierychły ku mowieniu y leniwy ku gniewowi V Sit autem omnis homo velox ad audiendum, tardus autem ad loquendum et tardus ad iram G ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν The allatives in the main text, ktauſimop, kalbolp and ruſtibelp, correspond in the Polish sources to the constructions ku + Dat, in the Vulgate to ad + Abl, and in StB—in the first two cases—to om + INF, while in the third case it corresponds typically to an allative construction, tot + DAT. Taking the Dutch text into account, Chylinskis replaced the allative with an infinitive where it corresponds to om + INF, but left unchanged the allative ruſtibelp, which corresponds to tot toorn. That the allative is replaced by an infinitive specifically under the influence of StB is evident from the fact that in the one case where StB has a prepositional construction with a noun, Chylinskis left the allative ruſtibelp unchanged. 118 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ In the examples given of changes to the postpositional locative, the adesive and allative corresponding to the Polish sources in the main text in 2Cor 13,3 and Jas 1,19 are changed in accordance with StB when the Dutch source uses unusual equivalents of the adesive and allative. More examples could be given where the influence of the originals on changes to postpositional locatives is clear, but these make up only a small proportion of all corrections of this type. The reason for most changes to postpositional locatives will be identifiable only after a thorough examination of their use in the main text, their relationship to the originals, and comparison with the tendencies in the corrections. For now, we will simply note that in those edited passages where the main layer of the translation departs from StB and agrees with the Polish sources, the text was corrected on the basis of StB. CHANGES TO CONJUNCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE. To determine the reasons for the frequent alternation of conjunctions, we need to compare the conjunctions used in the main text with the originals. In many cases, the conjunctions in ChNT agree with those in all the possible translation sources: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 2,11 And Y Y Ende et καί Mt 6,13 And/but Y/ale Y/ale Ende/maer et/sed καί/ἀλλά Mt 3,14 But Ale Ale Doch autem δέ However, the most frequent cases are those in which the conjunctions used by Chylinskis agree with one or several, but not all, of the possible translation sources: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 1, 3-16 Ó A 3 Ende autem δέ Mt 3,1 O A A Ende autem δέ Mt 3,2 And A Y Ende et [καί] Mt 3,10 O A A Ende enim δέ Mt 2,22 But LecƷ Ale Maer autem δέ Note that the conjunctions used in ChNT do not consistently agree with any of the possible originals. Because of this variation, we may provisionally regard the conjunctions used in ChNT as examples of free translation. At the beginning of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions are changed especially frequently: and → but (59x), but → and (18x), but → but (8x), but → but (2x), but → and (3x), and → but (2x). A coordinate conjunction, and, is used for a comparative-contrastive conjunction, whereas in ChNT it often serves not only as a contrastive conjunction but also as a coordinating one; but always expresses contrast only. In the Dutch source, ChNT’s but quite consistently corresponds to maer and doch. In StB, the conjunction and most often corresponds to the ChNT conjunctions but and ende; it expresses both addition and contrast: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 3,9 And A A Ende et καί Mt 4,21 But A Thedy Ende Et καί CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 119 Mt 3:15 But A A Maer autem δέ Mt 4:4 But A Ale Doch – δέ Thus, the Dutch original and → or as well as or → and-type changes could not have prompted. A comparison of the conjunctions used by Chylinskis with the Vulgate and the Greek NT revealed no patterns: both Chylinskis’s and and or, as well as but, correspond interchangeably in the Vulgate and the Greek NT to et, autem, enim, sed or at and καί, δέ or ἀλλά: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 6:20 But Ale Ale Maer autem δέ Lk 6:1 And Y – ende autem δέ Acts 10:11 And Y – Thedy et καί Mt 3:16 And A A Maer autem δέ Changes of the and → or as well as or → and type could have been prompted only by a Polish source text: the Polish text uses the additive conjunction y and the additive-adversative conjunction a. Contradiction in Polish is marked by the conjunction ale. However, comparison with GdB and BrAB also failed to resolve the question of the alternation of conjunctions: the translation contains passages where GdB may have prompted the alternation of conjunctions: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Acts 3:25 And → But A – Ende Et καί Acts 8:17 and → but á y ende et δέ On the other hand, one can provide just as many examples in which the text or alteration in the main layer diverges from GdB and comes closer to BrAB: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 8:31 But → And – A Ende autem δέ Acts 27:21 and → but – a ende – – Sometimes the influence of the translation source on the choice of one conjunction or another in ChNT cannot be explained at all: ChNT GdB BrAB StB V G Mt 4:3 But Y Y Ende et καί The fact that in the Dutch text the conjunction ende is used both to indicate coordination and contrast, while the use of these conjunctions varies in the supplementary translation sources, may have prompted the translator to change conjunctions so frequently at the beginning of sentences. Without consistently adhering to any one translation source, the translator chose the appropriate conjunction according to the context. CHANGES TO POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. In the main layer, diverging from the originals, Chylinskis often used the possessive pronoun savo reflexively for all persons— 120 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ nims, as is customary in Lithuanian. But the textual changes show that the translator was unsure of his choice and changed savo to mano, tavo, jūsų, jo, jų (20x): Lk 16,6 ChNT take the note ławo → tawo StB Neemt uw’ hant schrift GdB Weźmi zapis twoj BrAB Weźmi tablice twe V Accipe cautionem tuam G δέξαι σου τὰ γράμματα Most changes of this kind occur in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. Like Polish, Lithuanian uses special reflexive possessive-pronoun forms for all three persons (in Lithuanian, this is the genitive possessive form of the reflexive pronoun, while in Polish it is a declined possessive pronoun). In the third person, the reflexive pronoun must be distinguished from the non-reflexive one, but in the first and second persons, forms that coincide with non-reflexive forms are also often used in older texts under the influence of other languages. The same reasons may have prompted Chylinskis to use mano, tavo, mūsų, jūsų. in such cases. Dutch has no special reflexive possessive pronouns: forms are not distinguished as reflexive or non-reflexive not only in the first and second persons but in the third person as well. Thus, where Chylinskis uses non-reflexive forms jo, jos, jų instead of reflexive forms, only a Dutch, not a Polish, source could have influenced him (there are several such changes prompted by the Dutch source: Mt 3,16, Mt 13,43 and Rom 3,25): Rom 3,25 ChNT and parodyma tey[ibeç ławo ⇒ io ⇒ ławo by forgiving our sins StB tot een betooninge van zijne rechtveerdigheyt / door de vergevinge der sonden GdB ku okazániu [prawiedliwości twojej / przez odpußczenie przed tym popełnionych grzechow BrAB ku okazániu [prawiedliwości twojej / dla odpußczenia grzechow przeszłych V ad ostensionem iustitiae suae, cum praetermisset praecedentia delicta G εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων Less often, mano, tavo, jo, jūsų, used in the main text under the influence of the sources, was changed to savo (8x): Ef 5,25 ChNT Wirey mėkite moterią jufu → [awo StB Ghy mannen / hebt uwe ey gene vrouwen lief GdB MEżowie miłujcie żony wábe BrAB Wy mę żowie miłujcie żony wábe V Viri, diligite uxores (in some manuscripts + vestras) CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI | 121 G οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας (in some manuscripts + ὑμῶν) Guided by the internal principles of Lithuanian, the translator used the possessive pronoun savo reflexively for all persons; however, the translation sources required the use of mano, tavo, jo, jūsų in that position. This is the main reason for such frequent pronoun changes. LEXICAL CHANGES. Lexical changes can be divided into several groups according to the sources of the main layer and the corrections: the main text agrees with StB, while the correction was made using a Polish source; the main text agrees with Polish sources, while the correction was made on the basis of StB; the main text is a free translation, while the correction agrees with all possible originals. 1. The fact that Chylinskis used a Polish source when editing the manuscript is demonstrated by numerous lexical changes. The vocabulary of the main text was selected according to StB, while the corrections were made using Polish originals. The following passages illustrate this: Mk 15,16 ChNT And the soldiers led him to the court; that is Suda namofna → Rotußyn StB Then the soldiers led him inside into the hall, which is the courthouse GdB But the soldiers brought him into the court, that is, to the town hall BraB And the soldiers led him into the court, that is, to the town hall V But the soldiers led him inside into the courtyard, which is the praetorium G And the soldiers led him inside the courtyard, which is the praetorium The main text’s Suda namofna corresponds to StB rechthuys, while the correction brings the translation closer to GdB and BraB. The lexical items in V and G differ from Chylinskis’s translation in this case. In the examples below, the manuscript was edited according to a Polish source: Lk 10,31 ChNT went past → went around StB gingh hy tegen over [hem] voorby GdB pominął BraB Minął go V Praeterivit G ἀντιπαρῆλθεν Lk 10,32 ChNT [but went past → and went around StB ende gingh tegen over [hem] voorby GdB pominął BraB Minął V Pertransiit G ἀντιπαρῆλθεν 122 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ The main layer of ChNT went astray is closer to StB and G, while the alteration and aple-kia correspond to GdB and BrAB. In the Vulgate, this passage has two different renderings: praetervit and pertransiit. In Mt 12,46 and 2Cor 1,15, the main layer of Chylinskis’s translation agrees with StB, V, and G, while the alteration corresponds to the Polish sources: Mt 12,46 ChNT ƒtoweją ore jebkodami → noredami [ų jo kalbet → kalbet ƒu jo StB ƒtonden buyten / loeckende hem te spreken GdB Itali przed domem / chcąc z nim mówić BrAB ƒthali ná dworze chcąc z nim mówić BB V stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei G αὐτοῦ εἰστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι 2Kor 1,15 ChNT idand turetumbite antrą łoska ⇒ gieradeift{…} in the margin: NB StB op dat ghy een tweede genade foudt hebben GdB ábyśćie wtore dobrodźiejftwo odebrali BrAB ábyśćie wtore dobrodźiejftwo mieli V ut secundam gratiam haberetis G ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν σχῆτε In 2Cor 1,15, łoska is the usual lexical equivalent of Dutch genade (G χάρις, V gratia). In the Polish sources, this word is usually rendered as łaska. Taking into account the word dobrodźiejftwo used in the Polish sources in this passage, Chylinskis also entered in his manuscript the word geradeift{e}., translated morpheme by morpheme from Polish. 2. There are relatively few passages in which the main text of the ChNT translation differs from StB and approaches the Polish originals. The influence of the Polish source is most clearly felt in the main text in the choice of lexical-semantic equivalents: Mt 14,6 ChNT But when apiwaykβczynejo → apiwaykβczyneta buwo diena of the kinship → birth of Herod StB Maer als de dagh van Herodis geboorte gehouden wiert GdB GDy tedy obchodzono dzień národzenia Herodowego BrAB GDy tedy obchodzono dzień národzenia Herodowego V Die autem natalis Herodis G γενεσίοις δὲ γενομένοις τοῦ Ἡρῴδου ChNT apiwaykβczynejo is a calque from the Polish source and differs from V and G. The form of this word has been refined in accordance with StB. Mt 5,42 ChNT Give to the one who asks → prays (for something) from you StB Geeft den genen die [yet] van u bidt GdB Temu co cię prosi / daj BrAB Themu ktory cię prosi / day V Qui petit a te, da ei G τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI 123 In Mt 5:42, the meaning of the word chosen according to the Polish source was clarified in light of StB. Corrections of a similar type occur in Mt 3:17; Mt 17:5; Mt 23:3; Mk 2:19, and elsewhere. 3. The freely chosen lexical-semantic equivalents in the main text and their revisions reveal one characteristic feature of Chylinskis translation technique: when translating, the author often chose words with broader meanings, then refined them during editing in accordance with the translation sources. This feature of Chylinski’s translation is well illustrated by the revisions to the word kraštas, which has several different equivalents in the originals: Mt 21:42 ChNT tafeygi łtojos głowa krabto ⇒ kierłes StB the stone has become the chief cornerstone GdB it has become the cornerstone BrAB then became the cornerstone V hic factus est in caput anguli G οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας 1Pt 2:7 ChNT łtojos głowa krabto → stone → corner ⇒ corner stone StB has become the chief of the corner GdB became the cornerstone BrAB then became foremost in the corner V hic factus est in caput anguli G οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας Lk 16:24 ChNT kad pamiriktu krabta → rod → tip of the finger StB that he dipped the tips of his fingers in the water GdB so that he might wet the tip of his finger in water BrAB so that he might wet the tip of his finger in water V so that he may dip the end of his finger in water G so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water Mt 9,20 ChNT touched the hem ⇒ of his garment StB reached out and touched the edge of his garment GdB touched the hem of his garment BrAB She touched the edge of his garment V he touched the fringe of his garment G he touched the fringe of his garment ApD 5,16 ChNT From among the people lying around ⇒ living on the ground → nearby StB from the surrounding people GdB from the surrounding crowd BrAB –13 V of the neighboring cities G of the surrounding cities Acts 27:12 ChNT And that krabtaσ ⇒ portaσ was unsuitable for wintering → wintering StB And so the harbour was unsuitable for overwintering 13 The copies of the Brest Bible held in the IMA library are defective and lack title pages; some leaves are missing, especially at the beginning and end of the book. Therefore, we cannot provide some examples from the Brest Bible. 124 | Gina Kavaliūnaitė GdB And when there was no suitable harbor for wintering BrAB And when there was no suitable harbor for wintering V And since there was no open harbor for wintering G And since the harbor was unsuitable for wintering The single word coast in the main text of ChNT is represented in StB by five lexical units with different meanings: hoeck, uyterste, zoom, stadt and haven. The Polish sources and V and G also have equivalents with different meanings in the corresponding passages; their meanings adequately match those of the words used in StB and are narrower than the meaning of coast in Chylinskis translation. The revisions kraβto ⇒ kiertes; kraβto → kaβo ⇒ kaμπiniu; kraβtą → wirβu → gatą; kraβta ⇒ Squemas; kraβtu → βaliu; kraβtaσ ⇒ portao correspond to all the possible originals and specify the meaning of the lexical unit in the freely translated main text. The corrected passages in Mt 21:42 and 1 Pet 2:7 in ChNT, kraβto ⇒ kiertes and <kraβto → kaβo> ⇒ kaμπiniu, correspond in the Brest Bible to two different constructions, v wegtą and w wegtu; this distinction is not reflected in Chylinskis manuscript. In the remaining sources, the corresponding passages agree with the ChNT revisions. In the other examples, the words in the originals corresponding to passages corrected by Chylinskis have very similar meanings, so it is impossible to determine which of the possible sources was used to edit the translation. Similarly, words of more general meaning are translated and then specified during editing, as with woman, heaven, and others: Acts 6:1 ChNT moter{...} → naβleσ they were → were being neglected StB hare weduwen [...] verfuymt wierden GdB byhy źániedbywáne [...] their widows BrAB byby gár{...} their widows V because viduae eorum G were being overlooked [...] their widows 1 Tim 5:14 ChNT I want, then, that the young moterig → (naβleσ) should marry StB I want then that the young [widows] marry GdB I therefore wish that the young women marry BrAB I therefore wish that the young women marry V I therefore want iuniores to marry G I therefore wish the younger women to marry Mark 9:7 ChNT the voice then came from heaven → cloud StB and a voice came out of the cloud GdB and a voice came from the cloud BrAB and a voice came from the cloud Mark 9:6¹⁴ V and a voice came from the cloud G and a voice came from the cloud 14 In the Vulgate, ChNT Mark 9:7 corresponds to Mark 9:6. CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI | 125 As in the preceding examples, the words of more general meaning used in the main text, women and sky, were specified and corrected during editing to widows and clouds. The correction in 1Tim 5,14, women → (widows), arose under the influence of StB, since the other possible sources widows have no equivalent. It is difficult to say what was the basis for the correction įb dangau → debelieg, since the equivalents in the sources coincide. There are relatively many lexical changes of this kind, in which the meaning of the original lexical units is generalized in translation and then specified during editing in accordance with the translation sources. Among other lexical corrections, the changes involving to say and to speak are noteworthy. At the end of the manuscript there is a note connecting these words with their StB equivalents: “Jegge fakau [prekie kalbu” (417/221). This means that it was decided to translate StB leggen as to say, and [preken – to speak. The manuscript’s corrections do not consistently reflect this decision: leggen is associated with to say, and [preken with to speak (kalbėjo → palakie – gefeght hadde Jn 2,22; kalbėjo – gefproken Jn 2,22; kalbu ⇒ fakau – legge Mt 18,19; kalbekite → kalbekit → fakį/ki/t – fegget Mt 10,27; kalba → fako – feggen Rom 3,8); while in some places it departs from the principle written at the end of the manuscript: kalba ⇒ (fako) – [preekt 1Kor 14,2; kalbėjo → tare – feyden ApD 14,11; Kalbėjo → Tare – feyde Mt 26,31. In the main text these verbs are often translated according to the principle mentioned above: fakau – fegge GAL 3,17; similarly Mt 10,27; ApD 11,4; ApD 5,36; GAL 5,16; kalba – [preekt 1Kor 14,2, etc. However, sometimes StB leggen and [preken have different verb equivalents in ChNT: tare – feyde ApD 25,10; palakie → fakie – [prekende ApD 10,27; kalbame – feggen Rom 3,8; kalbetumbime – dat wy leggen Rom 3,8; (kalbedamo:) – [[leggen-de] ApD 16,36. Given this inconsistency between the main text and the corrections, it may be assumed that the note mentioned at the end of the manuscript was probably written once the translation had already been completed. Numerous indications (underlining, notes marked N.B., the frequent retention of at least two translation variants for the same passage, etc.) show that the manuscript had not been fully edited. The inconsistent corrections indicate that the translator remained undecided for a long time about how to translate individual words. (Moreover, some corrections may be so-called on-the-spot corrections, which in a sense can be considered part of the main text.) The final decision was noted at the end of the text, and presumably, while continuing to edit or recopy the text, the translator intended to take this note into account. CONCLUSIONS 1. THE TRANSLATION AND EDITING PROCESS. The uneven distribution of corrections throughout the text shows that, after completing the translation of the NT, Chylinskis began editing it according to certain criteria (correcting spelling, shortening the endings of the plural dative, revising gerunds, etc.), but this work remained unfinished: almost the entire Gospel according to Matthew was reviewed systematically, half of the Acts of the Apostles was reviewed quite carefully, while the other books of the NT were corrected only sporadically. At the end of the manuscript, the translator noted what should be adjusted in the translation, but the corresponding passages in the text were corrected inconsistently. Apparently, the translator intended to recopy the manuscript or at least review it once more and correct it according to the notes made. 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, but later cease to be replaced or are even restored (these are mostly corrections unrelated to the translation—corrections to participial constructions, changes of the possessive pronoun savo to mano, tavo, etc.). Most such “reversions” are unrelated to the translation sources; they indicate a certain indecisiveness on the translator’s part and an inability to decide which form or construction to use. One reason for this indecisiveness could be that, by the time he translated and edited the NT, Chylinskis had already spent many years living in a foreign environment15 and had no contact with living Lithuanian, so it is not surprising that he felt uncertain about the Lithuanian words and constructions he used. In addition, the tension perceptible in the translation and its corrections may have been partly caused by the critical response to his translation from Lithuanian Reformed circles, as well as by his constant conflicts with Jan Krzystof Kraiṅski, the Lithuanian Calvinists’ delegate in England. The fact that some lexical items in the original were translated using equivalents with broader meanings, then refined and made more specific during editing, suggests that Chylinskis was in a hurry when translating the NT. 2. SOURCES OF THE MAIN LAYER. The fact that the main layer was translated from StB is further indicated (in addition to what had already been established) by features of the translation that can be explained only by the structure of Dutch (the lack of distinction between the second-person singular and plural in the indicative and imperative, the particularly frequent use of converbs, etc.). The points of agreement between the main layer and the Polish originals are mostly lexical. When assessing the influence of a Polish source on Chylinskis’s translation, lexical correspondences are of relatively less significance than syntactic ones, since they may simply reflect the Polish vocabulary of a translator who knew Polish well (perhaps even better than Lithuanian?). Therefore, lexical correspondences alone are not sufficient evidence that a Polish source was used in translating. The influence of the Polish original is more clearly reflected where the postpositional locatives in the main layer correspond to the Polish sources and differ from StB. At the beginning of sentences, the conjunctions used by Chylinskis do not consistently correspond to any of the possible translation sources. The differences between the conjunctions in the various sources may have prompted the translator to alternate them frequently. Moreover, the translator’s good command of Polish (though not necessarily of any particular Polish source) may have influenced changes of the → o and o → the types. 3. SOURCES USED IN EDITING. When editing the manuscript, the Polish original helped Chylinskis correctly interpret forms in StB that were insufficiently differentiated formally (participles) or ambiguous (the second-person indicative and imperative). Comparison shows that in these cases the text was corrected according to the Polish source. When editing the translation, Chylinskis relied mainly on StB. While editing, the broader-meaning equivalents of the original’s lexical items were often refined and made more specific— 15 From 1654, Chylinskis was a theology student at the Franeker Academy (Album Studiosorum 1968: 162). Notes in the manuscript tell us that he began translating the NT on October 22, 1657, and we have reason to believe that he was still making more or less extensive corrections to his manuscript at the end of 1661. CHYLINSKIO NT VERTIMAS IR ŠALTINIAI | 127 Looking at the sources, most emendations agree with all the translation sources, but in some cases it is evident that the text was emended on the basis of StB. The significance of StB in editing the translation is attested by the Dutch entries with Lithuanian equivalents and references to specific NT passages at the end of the manuscript, as well as by entries reflecting the translator’s efforts to link particular passages in the translation to the Dutch text (“Legge ſakau įprekie kalbu” 417/221). There are no entries indicating a comparable importance of the Polish source. In Lithuanian, the reflexive meaning is normally expressed by the possessive pronoun savo. Chylinskis changed this to mano, tavo, jo. The Polish originals may also have prompted the changes to mano, tavo, but changes of the savo → jo type could have arisen only under the influence of the Dutch original. 4. THE ROLE OF THE ENTRIES AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE MANUSCRIPT. These entries once again confirm that Chylinskis translated from StB and that this Bible was his most important authority. There are no entries reflecting the text of the Vulgate. Latin is used here as a metalanguage. It is not always easy to distinguish when Polish entries reflect a source of translation or editing and when Polish is used as a metalanguage. There are practically no entries that can be unequivocally linked to a Polish source of translation or editing. The entry “N.T. ex versione et editione Brestensi editum in 4º Aº 1593. Vilnae.” does not necessarily mean that Chylinskis used the Brest Bible specifically when translating. It is quite possible that the translator noted that, in addition to the Polish Bible translations available to him or well known to him, there was also such a one. The Statenbijbel, whose importance for Chylinskis’s translation is beyond doubt, is likewise nowhere directly identified in the manuscript. CONVENTIONS [...] – lacuna žmog[us] – restored abbreviation → – changed to ⇒ – synonym {...} – illegible ∠ deleted⟩ – deleted ┌ – beginning of corrected word sequence ABBREVIATIONS BRAB – The Holy Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Testament, faithfully and accurately translated from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin into the Polish language, [Brześć], 1563. ChNT – transliteruotas Chylinskio NT vertimo leidimas: Kudzinowski, Otrebski 1958. G – the Greek New Testament. Cited from: NESTLE-ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1995. GbB – The Holy Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Covenant, carefully and faithfully translated into Polish from the Hebrew and Greek languages [...], [Dantzig], 1632. StB – The Bible, that is, the entire Holy Scripture, containing all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. By order of the Most High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands [...] faithfully translated from the original languages into our Dutch language [...] and, by common order of the Dutch Churches, corrected for printing errors and mistakes found in the first printing. Amsterdam, printed by the widow of the late Paulus Aertsz van Ravesteijn [...] Anno 1657. V – Vulgate. Cited from: NESTLE-ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. 128 | GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ LITERATŪRA Album Studiorosum 1968: Album Studiorosum Academiae Franekerensis (1585–1811, 1816–1844) Naamlijst der studenten 1, Franeker. AMBRAZAS, V. 1962: Absoliutinis naudininkas XVI–XVII a. lietuvių kalbos paminkluose. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 5, 3–146. BRUIN, C.C. de 1993: De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers. Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen vanaf de Reformatie tot 1673. Bewerkt door dr. F.G.M. Broeyer, Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, Brussel: Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap. HEINSIUS, J. 1977: De taal van den Statenbijbel. De Statenvertaling 1637–1937, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 145–180. KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 1997: Istoriografinis Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblijos vertimo kontekstas ir vertimo šaltinio problema. Lituanistica 3 (31), 74–84. KLEMENSIEWICZ, Z., LEHR-SPLAWIŃSKI, T., URBAŃCZYK, S. 1955: Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. KORNE, de A., RINKEL, T. 1987: Cursus zestiende- en zeventiende-eeuws Nederlands, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1964: Biblia litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament. 3, Indeks, Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz. 1984: Biblia litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament. 1, Fotokopie, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. KUDZINOWSKI, Cz., OTRĘBSKI, J. 1958: Biblia litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament. 2, Tekst, Poznań: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. LUKŠAITĖ, I. 1971: Lietuviškos S.B. Chilinskio biblijos spausdinimo aplinkybės. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A serija, 1(35), 87–109. SCHLERATH, B. 2000: Chylinskis Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments: Überlegungen zu seiner Vorlage. Range, J.-D., Hrsg., Aspekte baltischer Forschung, Essen: Verlag Die Blaue Eule, 279–290. TOORN, M. C. van den, PIJNENBURG, W. J. J., LEUVENSTEIJN, J. A. van, HORST, J. M. van der, eds. 1997: Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ZAWADZKA, I., KOLBUSZEWSKI, St. F. 1959: Podstawa przekładu „Biblii” Chylińskiego. Sprawozdanie PTPN za II półr., 3, 158–159. Gina Kavaliūnaitė Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2001 02 17