In Search of 'the Genuine Word of God': Reception of the West-European Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance [1 ed.] 9783666517075, 9783525517079

Citation preview

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

In Search of ‘the Genuine Word of God’ Reception of the West-European Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance

Academic Studies

73

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

Volume 73

Rajmund Pietkiewicz

In Search of ‘the Genuine Word of God’ Reception of the West-European Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance

Translated by Monika and Jacek Szela

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

The book was cofinanced under the scholarship Reception of Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance (No. 01/2018/C) from the subsidy granted by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher E ­ ducation for 2018.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Publishing reviews: Prof. Dr. Hab. Wojciech Pikor (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń) and Prof. Dr. Hab. Krzysztof Pilarczyk (Jagiellonian University, Cracow) Map: Krzysztof Grabowski Indexes: Anna Kryza Typesetting: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-51707-5

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Biblical texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Libraries names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Hebrew and Aramaic transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.1 Before the Renaissance came . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.1.1 Jewish studies of Hebrew until the sixteenth century . . . . . . . . . 24 1.1.2 Christian studies of the Hebrew Bible in Medieval Europe . . . . 28 1.2 Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1.2.1 Hebrew studies versus Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1.2.2 Hebrew studies versus the Reformation and the CounterReformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1.2.2.1 Lutherans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 1.2.2.2 Zwinglians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 1.2.2.3 Calvinists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 1.2.2.4 Radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1.2.2.5 Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 1.3 Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1.3.1 Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1.3.2 Translations of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1.3.2.1 Targumim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1.3.2.2 Septuagint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1.3.2.3 Vulgate and Renaissance translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6

Contents

1.3.2.4 Translation of Martin Luther into German . . . . . . . . . . . 80 1.3.2.5 Calvinistic translation into French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 1.3.3 Grammars and dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 1.3.3.1 De rudimentis hebraicis by Johann Reuchlin . . . . . . . . . . 85 1.3.3.2 Works by Elias Levita and Sebastian Münster . . . . . . . . . 87 1.3.3.3 Institutiones linguae hebraicae by Robert Bellarmine .92 2. Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.1 The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.2 Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth against the Reformation and Counter-Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.2.1 Lutherans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.2.2 Reformed and Bohemian Brethren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2.2.3 Radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 2.2.4 Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 2.3 Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland . . . . 154 2.4 Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 2.4.1 Elementale hebraicum by Philipp Michael Novenianus . . . . . . . . 163 2.4.2 Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium by Jan van den Campen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 2.4.3 De accentuum ecclesiasticum exquisita ratione by Jerzy Liban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 2.4.4 Ebreae grammaticae institutio by Francesco Stancaro . . . . . . . . . 169 3. Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible as a result of the reception of Renaissance Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3.1 The history of the translations of Scripture into Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3.2 Vulgate or Hebraica veritas? Dispute over the source text of translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 3.3 Translate “sense by sense” or “word by word”? The dispute over the translation concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 3.4 Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 3.4.1 The Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 3.4.2 Ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 3.4.3 Sixteenth-century translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin . 201 3.4.4 Translations of the Bible into Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 3.4.5 Translations of the Bible into other modern languages . . . . . . . . 205

Contents

7

3.4.6 Grammars, dictionaries and other philological aids . . . . . . . . . . 207 3.4.7 Jewish sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 3.4.8 Josephus Flavius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 3.4.9 Other aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 3.5 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Example 1: Gen 12:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Example 2: Gen 24:43 and Isa 7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Example 3: Exod 2:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Example 4: Lev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Example 5: Lev 10:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Example 6: Lev 11:16 ff.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Example 7: Josh 2:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Example 8: Judg 16:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Example 9: 2 Sam 5:6 (in BWj 2 Kings 5:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Example 10: 2 Kings 6:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Example 11: Ez 38:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Example 12: Gen 2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Example 13: Gen 3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Example 14: Gen 43:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Example 15: Gen 44:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Example 16: Gen 44:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Example 17: Gen 44:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Example 18: Gen 44:30f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Example 19: Exod 1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Example 20: Exod 3:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Example 21: Exod 4:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Example 22: Exod 18:2f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Example 23: Josh 21:36f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Example 24: Ruth 2:23b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Example 25: Ruth 3:15b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Example 26: 2 Sam 18:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Example 27: 1 Kings 8:64a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Example 28: 1 Chron 4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Example 29: Neh 7:68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Bible editions (in chronological order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

8

Contents

Index of person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Index of places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Index of topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Index of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Abbreviations

Biblical texts BB

Brest Bible (vel Pińczów Bible, Radziwiłł Bible) (Bjblia swięta […], Brześć Litewski [Brest-Litovsk] 1563) BCa Castellion’s Bible (Biblia interprete Sebastiano Castalione […], Basileae 1554, 1556) BG Gdańsk (Danzig) Bible (Biblia Święta […], Gdańsk 1632) BGen Geneva Bible in French (La Bible […], Geneva 1553, 1559, 1561, 1562 etc.) BH Hebrew Bible BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia […], Stuttgart 1967–1977 BHSt Robert Stephanus’ (Estienne’s) Biblia Hebraica (Parisiis 1539–1543) BL Leopolita’s Bible (Biblia […], Kraków [Cracow] 1561) BR2 Bomberg Rabbinic Bible, 2nd edn, vol. 1–4, Venice 1524–1525 BR3 Bomberg Rabbinic Bible, 3th edn, vol. 1–4, Venice 1546–1548 BSt Robert Stephanus’ (Estienne’s) Bible (Biblia utriusque Testamenti […], vol. 1–2, Genevae 1556–1557) BSzB Budny’s Bible (Nesvizh Bible) (Biblia […], Nieśwież [Nesvizh], Zasław or Uzda 1572) BWj Wujek’s Bible (Biblia […], Kraków [Cracow] 1599) LXX Septuagint NTG Gdańsk (Danzig) New Testament (Novvy Testament […], Gdańsk 1606) NTSzB Bydny’s New Testament (Nowy Testament […], Łosk 1574, 1589) NTWj Wujek’s New Testament (Nowy Testament […], Kraków [Cracow] 1593, 1594) Pag Pagninius Bible (Biblia […], Lugduni 1528) PagSt Bible translated by Santes Pagnini, in BSt PAn Antwerp Polyglot Bible (Biblia Sacra hebraice, chaldaice, graece, & latine […], vol. 1–8, Antverpiae 1569–1572) PCo Complutensian Polyglot Bible, vol. 1–6, Complutum 1514–1517 PsWj Wujek’s Psalter (Psalterz Dawidow […], Kraków [Cracow] 1594)

10

Abbreviations

TgF

Targum Onkelos translated in Latin by Paul Fagiusa (Thargum, Hoc Est, Paraphrasis Onkeli Chaldaica […], Argentorati 1546) TgOnk Targum Onkelos Vlg Vulgate VlgSC Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti quinti Pont. Max […], Romae, 1592, 1593) VlgSt Vulgate, in BSt

Libraries names BJ BK BN

Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska [Jagiellonian Library in Cracow] Kórnik, Biblioteka PAN [Kórnik Library of Polish Academy of Sciences] Warszawa, Biblioteka Narodowa [National Library of Poland in Warsaw] Pa BN Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France Wa BU Warszawa, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Warsaw University Library] Wr BU Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka [Wrocław University Library] Wr BK Wrocław, Biblioteka Kapitulna [Wrocław Capitular Library] Wr PWT Wrocław, Biblioteka Papieskiego Wydziału Teologicznego [Library of Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Wrocław] ZNiO Wrocław, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich [The National Ossoliński Institute in Wrocław]

Others a. after Ant. Flavius, Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (english translation: Flavius: 1828) ASRP Sipayłło, Maria (ed.), Akta synodów różnowierczych w Polsce, vol. 1–4, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego/PWN, 1966–1997 b. between BBKL Bautz, Friedrich Wilhelm (ed.), Biographisch Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 1–, Hamm/Herzberg/Nordhausen: Verlag Traugott Bautz, 1975–. Online version at: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl BCES Boccadifuoco, Maria Rosaria (ed.), Bibbia: Catalogo di edizioni a stampa 1501–1957, Roma: Istituto centrale per il catalogo unico delle biblioteche ecclesiastiche, 1983 BEMC Fabris, Rinaldo (ed.), La Bibbia nell’epoca moderna e contemporanea, La Bibbia nella storia, Bologna: EDB, 1992

Others

Bentk.

11

Bentkowski, Felix, Historya literatuty polskiey wystawiona w spisie dzieł drukiem ogłoszonych, vol. 1–2, Warszawa/Wilno: Zawadzki i Komp., 1814 BFB Chambers, Bettye Thomas, Bibliography of French Bibles, Genève: Librairie Droz S.A., 1983 BI Delaveau, Martine/Hillard, Denise (ed.), Bibles imprimées du XVe au XVIIIe siècle conservées à Paris, [Paris]: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 2002 BIEM Schwarzbach, Bertram Eugene (ed.), La Bible imprimée dans l’Europe moderne, Paris: Bibliothèque National de France, 1999 BM British Museum: Catalogue of Printed Books: Bible, vol. 1–3, London: William Clowes and Sons, 1892–1899 BS 2/1 Strohm, Stefan/Amelung, Peter/Schauffler, Irmgard (ed.), Die Bibelsammlung der württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, vol. 2/1, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1987 BTT V Bible de tous les temps, vol. 5: Bedouelle, Guy/Roussel, Bernard (ed.), La temps des Réformes et la Bible, Paris: Beauchesne, 1989 BTT VI Bible de tous les temps, vol. 6: Armogathe, Jean-Robert (ed.), La Grand Siècle et la Bible, Paris: Beauchesne, 1989 ICO Calvin, Jean (1863–1897), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 1–57, ed. Guilielmus Baum/Eduardus Cunitz/Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29–85, Brunsvigae/Berolinae: C.A. Schwetschke et Filius c. circa, around CHB III Greenslade, S.L., The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963 CHJ VII Karp, Jonathan/Sutcliffe, Adam (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 7: The Early Modern World, 1500–1815, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018 cf. confer, compare CEn Herbermann, Charles G. (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, vol. 1–15, New York: Robert Appleton Company. Online version at: http://www.ourladyisgod.com/ Original-­Catholic-Encyclopedia-Volume-01.php com. commentary CoE Bietenholz, Peter G./Deutscher, Thomas B. (ed.), Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1–3, Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, 2003

12

Abbreviations

d. died DB Deutsche Biographie. Online version at: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/home DDP 1/1 Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (ed.), Drukarze dawnej Polski. Od XV do XVIII wieku, vol. 1/1, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk/Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1983 E Estreicher, Karol, Bibliografia polska, vol. 1–34, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński/Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1870–1939. Online version at: https://www.estreicher.uj.edu.pl/home/ EBibbia Enciclopedia della Bibbia, vol. 1–6, Torino/Leumann: ELLE DI CI, 1971 EBR Klauck, Hans-Josef (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 1–, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009– ed. editor(s)/edited by edn edition EDIt Sicco, Maria/Baffi, M.A. (ed.), Le edizioni italiane del XVI secolo, vol. 1–, Roma: Istituto centrale per il catalogo unico delle biblioteche italiane e per le informazioni bibliografiche, 1985–. Online version at: http://edit16.iccu.sbn.it EK Encyklopedia katolicka, vol. 1–20, Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, 1989–2014 EIt Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, vol. 1–35, Roma: Trecciani, 1929–1937. Online version at: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/enciclopedia-italiana_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/ EJ Roth, Cecil/Wigoder, Geoffrey (ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 3th ed., vol. 1–16, Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica/The Macmillan Company, 1974 EJCD Wigoder, Geoffrey (ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Judaica Multimedia, 1997 (CD-edition) EWJ Grzebień, Ludwik (ed.), Encyklopedia wiedzy o jezuitach na ziemiach Polski i Litwy (1564–1995), Kraków: Ignatianum/WAM, 1996 EP Encyklopedyja powszechna, vol. 1–28, Warszawa: S. Orgelbrand, 1859– 1868 EWoK Encyklopedia wiedzy o książce, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1971 GW Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, vol. 1–7, Leipzig: K.W. Hiersemann, 1925–1938; vol. 8–, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1970– HBOT II Saebø, Magne (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 2: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008

Others

JE

13

Singer, Isidore (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Prepared by More than Four Hundred Scholars and Specialists, vol. 1–12, New York/London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901–1907. Online version at: www.jewishencyclopedia.com Jocher Jocher, Adam, Obraz bibliograficzno-historyczny literatury i nauk w Polsce, od wprowadzenia do niej druku po rok 1830 włącznie, z pism Janockiego, Bentkowskiego, Ludwika Sobolewskiego, Ossolińskiego, Juszyńskiego, Jana Winc. i Jerz. Sam. Bandtków i.t.d. wystawiony, vol. 1–3, Wilno: Józef Zawadzki, 1840–1857 KP 16 BJ Malicki, Marian/Zwinogrodzka, Ewa (ed.), Katalog poloników XVI wieku Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1–3, Kraków: PWN, 1992–1995 KSD 16 ZNiO  Bohonos, Maria (ed.), Katalog starych druków Biblioteki Zakładu Narodowego im. Ossolińskich. Polonica wieku XVI, Wrocław/ Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1965 WA.TR Luther, Martin, D. Martins Luther Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden, vol. 1–6, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912–1921 LW Luther, Martin, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav J. Pelikan/Hilton C. Oswald/Helmut T. Lehman, vol. 1–55, Saint Louis: Fortress Press/Concordia Publishing House, 1955–1986 (CD-edition, Libronix Digital Library System, version 1.0, 2002) n. note, notes NCHB III Cameron, Euan (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3: From 1450 to 1750, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016 NK Budzyk, Kazimierz (ed.), Bibliografia literatury polskiej: Nowy Korbut, t. 1–, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1963– no. number, numbers OER Hillerbrand, Hans J. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 1–4, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996 PL Migne, Jacques Paul (ed.), Patrologia Latina, vol. 1–217, Paris: Garnier Fratres, 1815–1875 PSB Polski słownik biograficzny, t. 1–, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk: Polska Akademia Umiejętności/Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich/ Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1935–. Online version at: https://www.ipsb.nina.gov.pl/Home PT Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (ed.), Polonia typographica saeculi sede­ ci­mi, vol. 1–, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1959– r recto (cf. v) SPXVI Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku, vol. 1–, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966–

14

Abbreviations

Stein.

Steinschneider, Moritz, Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 2nd edn, vol. 1–3, Berlin: Welt-Verlag, 1931 v verso (cf. r) v. verse, verses VD 16 Bezzel, Irmgard (ed.), Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, a. I: vol. 1–22, a. II: vol. 1–2, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983–1997. Online version at: https:// www.bsb-muenchen.de/sammlungen/historische-drucke/recherche/ vd-16/ Vogel Vogel, Paul Heinz, Europaeische Bibeldrucke des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts in den Volkssprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie des Bibeldrucks, Baden-Baden: Verlag Heitz, 19621 WEPWN Wojnowski, Jan (ed.), Wielka encyklopedia PWN, t. 1–31, Warszawa: PWN, 2001–2005 WIEP Wielka ilustrowana encyklopedja powszechna Wydawnictwa Gutenberg, t. 1–18, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Gutenberga, 1927–1939 Wiszn. Wiszniewski, Michał, Historia literatury polskiej, vol. 1–10, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytecka, 1840–1857 WSHP Koehler, Ludwig/Baumgartner, Walter/Stamm, Johann Jakob, Wielki słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, ed. Przemysław Dec, vol. 1–2, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio”, 2008

1 This bibliography does not number items in the order they are referred to. For this reason, in order to refer to it precisely, the page number will be given after the abbreviation symbol and the number of an item from a given page will be given after comma.

Hebrew and Aramaic transcription

‫ א‬ ‫ ב‬ ‫ ּב‬ ‫ ּג ג‬ ‫ ּד ד‬ ‫ ה‬ ‫ ּה‬ ‫ ו‬ ‫ ֹו‬ ‫ ּו‬ ‫ ז‬ ‫ ח‬ ‫ ט‬ ‫ י‬ ‫ ךכ‬ ‫ ּכ‬ ‫ ל‬ ‫ םמ‬ ‫ ןנ‬ ‫ ס‬ ‫ ע‬ ‫ ףפ‬ ‫ ּפ‬ ‫ ץצ‬ ‫ ק‬ ‫ ר‬ ֺ‫ ש‬ ‫ ׁש‬ ‫ ת‬

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

silent v b g d h or silent h w o u z ch t y kh k l m n s silent ph p tz q r s sh t

ַ ָ ֲ ֶ ֵ ‫ ֵ י‬ ֱ ‫ ִ י‬ ִ ׂ ֳ ֻ ְ

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

a a or o a e e e e i i o o u [sound] e

Introduction

Sixteenth-century Europe saw the age of Renaissance and Reformation – two movements pertaining to different realms of culture and religion, which, having affected the Old Continent, led to profound cultural and religious transformations, felt even today. The Renaissance with its flagship motto of returning to the sources (ad fontes) paved the way for the Reformation. The latter in turn drew on the former’s humanistic interests in antiquity, turning its attention to the oldest sources of the Christian faith in their original form, and accordingly coining its own motto: sola Scriptura. As it is, Reformation pointed to the Scripture as the most important source of Christian faith and European culture permeated with it. The knowledge of ancient languages became requisite for studying sources, mainly the Biblical texts. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and to a lesser extent Aramaic – the tongues of the Bible – reigned supreme. Thus at the beginning of the sixteenth century the humanistic and then reformational interest in ancient languages initiated modern Christian Hebrew studies, while the Hebrew language classes worked their way into universities. The instatement of Hebrew studies surmounted a great effort of a small group of enthusiasts, who in the first half of the sixteenth century, overcoming the barriers of mentality, alphabet and prejudice, translated the achievements of Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians into Latin and thus made them comprehensible to Christians. This was a stepping stone to a fast bourgeoning of Hebrew studies among Christians, who in the sixteenth century elaborated a huge number of books containing (mainly Biblical) Hebrew source texts and a plethora of related Latin textbooks: dictionaries, grammars, tables, translations. It was also at that time that a specialized Hebrew typography was developed by Christian printing houses. Hebrew scholarship was also well received in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as best evidenced by three translations of the entire Hebrew Bible into the Polish language (Brest Bible, Nesvizh Bible [Budny’s Bible], Gdańsk [Danzig] Bible) and the Catholic Bible by Father Jakub Wujek, translated, admittedly, from the Latin Vulgate, but “with the addition of the Jewish text” (BWj, title page), all of which contained numerous commentaries. The fact that different Christian

18

Introduction

denominations produced four translations of the Scriptures over the span of several decades is a clear testimony to a kind of competition in quest of, as it would have been said in the sixteenth century, “the genuine word of God (szczyre słowo Boże)” (BB, *4v, *5r; BSzB, b2r). This quest would not have been possible without Christian philological inquiry, also into Hebrew, undertaken in the Commonwealth. This study deals with this process. The title of this publication defines the subject (the reception of West-European Christian Hebraism) and the research framework: topographical (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and chronological (the Renaissance). It further examines the assimilation of didactic and research methods and achievements of Hebrew studies (Hebrew philology) practiced in Western Europe. By Hebrew studies or philology, we mean the academic discipline that deals with the Hebrew language and the proper interpretation of the literature created in it (cf. Kaczmarkowski: 1989, 232). Our research subject is also identified as Christian Hebraism, which refers to the Gentiles’ studies of Hebrew and usually applies to the period between 450 and 1800 (cf. Jones: 2005, 176). By limiting the scope of research to Christian studies, we exclude from the area of interest the Hebrew studies practiced, for example, by the followers of Judaism. When we speak of the Commonwealth, we mean the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the fief lands of the Commonwealth. The chronological framework was limited to the Renaissance, i. e. the period of the birth and the very intensive studies of ancient languages in modern times. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the first mention of Hebraists appears around 1507 and this date is taken as the lower limit of the Renaissance Hebrew studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The year 1638, when the antitrinitarian printing house in Rakov was closed down, where the text of the New Testament was being composed, is considered the upper border. This year is also considered the end of the Renaissance in Polish printing (Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1974, 66; 1975, 23). On account of the links between Hebrew studies and printing and Bible studies, we regard this date as the most appropriate. The literature devoted to Renaissance Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is very scant. The most important works include Robert Kaśków’s dissertation (1996, 186–230 – chapter three Interest in the Hebrew Language) and his article (1994). However, Kaśków’s dissertation has never appeared in print and is therefore little known, while his several-page article has necessarily very limited contents. Noteworthy are the extensive studies on the Brest Bible and the Bible translated by Szymon Budny, both published as part of the monumental Biblia Slavica series. These works, by Irena Kwilecka (2001a; cf. also 1992; 1999; 2001b; 2006), David A. Frick (1994; 2001; cf. also 1989) and Leszek Moszyński (1994), address a number of problems related to the reception of Hebrew studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and present the results of research on history, sources, the concept of translation and the reception of Renaissance trans-

Introduction

19

lations of the Holy Scripture into Polish. They mainly deal with editions of the Bible in the Polish language, so they do not concern themselves with Hebrew studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a primary or comprehensive way. Some aspects of Hebrew studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance era are dealt with by Majer Bałaban (1931a, 102–116; 1931b, 131–134, 523–532), Jan Kamieniecki (1995; 1999; 2002) and Krzysztof Pilarczyk (1995; 1998a; 1998b; 2004; 2007; 2009), but only to a slight extent in the margin of other issues. Information on Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the Renaissance period appears in historical and bibliographical publications, but they are very scattered and often enigmatic (Jocher 1, XXXI, XXXIV; Morawski: 1900, 253–258; Barycz: 1935, 86–95; 1957, 128f; 1969 [scarce information]; Smereka: 1975, 229; also numerous biographical articles in PSB). There are studies of the history of Christian Hebraism in Western Europe (Newman: 1925; Daiches: 1968; Friedman: 1983; Jones: 1983; Katchen: 1984; Manuel: 1992; Burnett: 1996; 2012; Lange: 2001; Coudert/Shoulson: 2004; McKane: 2004; Saebø: 2008; Price: 2011; Posset: 2015; 2019), which either do not deal with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or only mention it occasionally. Only Ludwig Geiger (1870, 121f) devotes some space to the organisation of studies in Königsberg in his work, but he views the subject from a German point of view. A lot of information about Christian Hebraism is scattered in various encyclopaedias and dictionaries (e. g. JE, EJ, EJCD, OER, Kessler/Wenborn: 2005), which hardly ever study the Hebrew language in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first monograph devoted entirely to Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was published in Polish (Pietkiewicz: 2011; cf. 2012), but due to the language barrier it is inaccessible to many researchers. This book is an English version based on the aforesaid Polish original. This is not a mere translation because in relation to the Polish monograph the English version has been improved and extended, illustrations have been added and the bibliography has been expanded and updated. Moreover, the research conducted by the author after 2011 has brought several new important results, which are presented here (e. g. the list of Polish Hebraists has been updated, views on the beginnings of Christian Hebraism printing in Cracow have been revised, the significance of the Pagnini’s version of the Old Testament and the Geneva Bible of 1559 for the creationn of the Brest Bible has been shown). The reception of Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth raises many important questions: were Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth creative or merely imitative? How did the reception of the knowledge derived from Hebrew studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth take place? Were Christian Hebraism influenced by the contacts with the followers of Judaism who lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in large num-

20

Introduction

bers? What was the character of Polish Hebrew studies, humanistic or religious? How were the studies on the Hebrew language organised in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? What was their purpose? What level of knowledge of the Hebrew language did our Hebraists master? What was the popularity of Hebrew studies in the society of the time? A survey of the reception of a given scholarly discipline, especially when it comes to times several centuries ago, requires interdisciplinary research. In our work, we will make use of four research methods: the historical method consisting in a critical study of sources in order to reconstruct historical facts and their cause and effect relations; in our case, we will pay more attention to the history of Hebrew studies and their relation to humanism and the Reformation; the bibliographic method consisting in the classification and description of old prints; the bibliological method which examines the so called bibliological process (production, distribution and consumption of a book); a philological method consisting in the comparative study of different versions of the text of the Sacred Scripture with marginal notes and commentaries, with particular emphasis on their relationship to the original texts and their interdependence; the philological study also necessarily includes elements of criticism of the Bible text. The source base of this work is very extensive. It includes, above all, old prints containing the texts of the Holy Scriptures in the original and in translations, often accompanied by notes and commentaries, and sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Hebrew literature (grammars, dictionaries, tables, textbooks). A great difficulty in researching ancient translations of the Bible is to determine and find the text used as a basis for translation. This is all the more important because progress in text research brought ever new editions of the Bible with different variants, both of original versions and translations (ancient and modern). So, in order to achieve the most objective result possible, we will reach for the Renaissance editions of Scripture. Another group of sources include works and correspondence of eminent figures of the Renaissance and the Reformation (Desiderius Erasmus [1469–1536], Martin Luther [1483–1546], John Calvin [1509–1564], Ulrich Zwingli [1484–1531], Jan Łaski [1499–1560], etc.) and documents of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions (councils, synods, papal documents). Using the comparative method of Biblical texts, we will also refer to the works of ancient writers (Josephus Flavius [37–a. 94], Pliny the Elder [23/24–79], the Fathers of the Church) and the works of other writers active until the early seventeenth century. Works of exegesis will be of particular value here. In the search and description of old prints, numerous catalogues and bibliographies printed and published on the Internet will be very helpful. A valuable source of information are also various types of studies, especially biographies, included in encyclopedias, lexicons and dictionaries.

Introduction

21

This monograph consists of three chapters. In chapter one we will present the birth and development of modern Christian Hebraism in Western Europe. First, we will reach to the source of Christian Hebraism, that is, to the studies conducted by the followers of Judaism up to the sixteenth century. We will devote some space to Christian interests in the Hebrew language in ancient and medieval times. The central part of the first chapter is a reflection on the reception of the achievements of Jewish linguistic studies by the Christians of Western Europe, mainly in the first half of the sixteenth century. Here we will present the different trends in Western European Christian Hebraism: the humanistic trend and the Reformation- and Counter-Reformation-related denominational trends. In the last part of the first chapter, we will devote a lot of attention to the aids assisting sixteenth century Christian scholars in Hebraism (Bible editions in the original and in translation, grammar books, dictionaries). In the second chapter we will describe the advancement of the studies on the Hebrew language in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the sixteenth and at the beginning of the seventeenth century. First of all, we will pay attention to the organization of the teaching of Hebrew at the Cracow Academy, where the humanistic current of Polish Christian Hebraism was created and developed. Then we will describe the four currents of native Hebrew studies with clear religious orientations (Lutheran, Reformed Protestantism and the Bohemian Brethren, Antitrinitarian and the Catholic after the Jesuit fashion). We will devote some space to the presentation of Polish Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing, and then describe the grammars printed on Polish soil. The third chapter will be devoted to the translations of the Hebrew Bible into Polish, which were the most important result of the reception of Western European Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance. After a brief discussion of their origins and history, we will present the sixteenth century discussions of Polish Hebraists and biblicists around the problem of authenticity and fidelity of the text of the Holy Scriptures (Vulgate or Hebraica veritas?) and the choice of the concept of translating ancient versions of the Bible. Finally, we will show what kind of translation method and sources were used by Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible when translating the Old Testament. In the last point we will provide examples illustrating the issues raised in the last chapter. Old Polish texts will be quoted in a transcription of type B (Mayenowa: 1955). In doubtful cases we will follow contemporary punctuation and spelling. As for lower or upper case of letters we are guided by modern principles. Abbreviations are explained in square brackets. Necessary commentaries to the source texts are given in footnotes or in square brackets. Folio signatures of old prints are given in a simplified way (e. g. b3v instead of biijv). All source texts in Polish have been translated into English. When quoting them, in order not to interrupt the reading, the English translation will first be given, fol-

22

Introduction

lowed by the Polish original in parentheses. When quoting Bible translations into Polish and the notes and commentariess accompanying the Biblical text, the Polish original will be quoted first, followed by the English translation in parentheses. The texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are quoted in their original alphabets. Quotes in languages written in the Latin alphabet are given in roman type in quotation marks. However, quotation marks are left out in the case of Bible texts when the quotation is preceded by an abbreviation that refers to the Bible edition. We preserve the highlighted body of text if it occurs in the original. We standardize the spelling of the letters v and u according to modern standards (except for bibliographic descriptions of Polish Biblical prints). We keep the original spelling i and j in Latin. We replace orthographic ligatures with their components and we explain Latin acronyms. Very often in sixteenth century Latin diphthong ae was written as e – in these cases we will correct the text, inserting the missing a. We keep quotations from sixteenth century Hebrew and Aramaic prints in their original spelling, even if they are misspelt (which we mark). There may occur some inaccuracies here due to difficulties in reading the texts. To make it easier for readers not familiar with Hebrew writing to read the book, some terms and titles of Hebrew works are given in a simplified transcription according as shown in the table Hebrew and Aramaic Transcription. We follow the principle of not doubling consonants in the transcription of the titles of Hebrew works from the tenth to the sixteenth century (cf. Tyloch: 1980, 77). We shorten the long titles of the quoted items. In the bibliography we provide signatures and also locations of prints from the period up to the end of the eighteenth century and addresses of sources and studies available on the Internet. In bibliographic descriptions we use different levels of detail: we preserve the original spelling of the titles of the Polish Biblical old prints, rendering their arrangement on the title pages. Other titles of works from the period until the end of the eighteenth century are written in a simplified way. We write with an initial capital letter words printed in capitals, or originally starting with a capital. When describing old prints we use the unified names of authors, printers and printing houses; the year of printing is always given in Arabic numerals. In the attached bibliography we include descriptions of old prints, a copy of which in printed or electronic form we have personally examined. An exception is made for items of major importance to the work, the copies of which are lost (Campen: 1534b; cf. E 14, 32). The current status of all website addresses provided in the bibliography was verified in 2020.

1. Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Before starting research into Polish translations of the Old Testament from the Hebrew language, it is essential to consider the development of Western European studies on Biblical Hebrew during the Renaissance and the Reformation because Polish Hebraists translating the Bible into their mother tongue benefited from the achievements of these studies: they learned Biblical languages in foreign centers, used the grammars and dictionaries published there, and the editions of the Hebrew Bible printed by Western publishing houses. Moreover, their enthusiasm for Scripture in the original was deeply rooted in the humanistic and reformation currents of the era.

1.1 Before the Renaissance came Because of the common roots of Christianity and Judaism, there has always been some interest in the Jewish languages and culture in the Christian environment. In antiquity, the Church produced two eminent Hebraists, Origen (c. 185–254) and St Jerome (b. 331 and 347–419 or 420), who mastered the Hebrew language to read, study and translate the Bible. However, until the beginning of the sixteenth century, interest in Judaism and Hebrew did not extend to wide circles in the Church. Jews and Christians lived side by side and life itself provided many opportunities for mutual relations: Christian-Jewish polemics and controversies (present from the first century AD), the missionary activity of the Church among the followers of Judaism, Jews converting to Christianity, persecution forcing them to frequent migrations: these are some of the most important dimensions and opportunities enabling mutual contacts (cf. Loewe: 1974, 9–11). However, despite the many opportunities for mutual contacts, from the time of St Jerome until the end of the fifteenth century, the knowledge of the Hebrew language among Christians was rare and even seemed strange and suspicious. There were several reasons for this. First of all, St Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible from the Hebrew language was quite sufficient, and for many centuries there had

24

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

been no need to refer to the Hebrew original. Secondly, the relationship between Christians and Jews had been marked with tension, suspicion and prejudice for many centuries. The Jews, effectively resisting Christianization, responded to every sign of rapprochement and interest from Christians with mistrust and even hostility, fearing missionary activity. For Christians, Hebrew was the language of the opponents of faith, who used it to formulate critical arguments about faith in Christ. On the other hand, the few Christians who knew the Hebrew language were suspected of favouring the followers of Judaism or even of accepting their faith. Hostility and suspicion towards Jews caused pogroms and expulsions from many European countries (e. g. from England in 1290, France in 1315 and 1394, Austria in 1421, Spain in 1492; some regions of Bohemia and Germany in the last two decades of the fifteenth century) and legal restrictions pushing Jews to the margins of society. The country where many Jews found shelter was Italy. No wonder that in such a climate there was little interest in Hebrew (cf. Friedman: 1983, 14–18; Pilarczyk: 2007, 3–4). The motive for the few attempts of medieval Christians to study Hebrew was the historical study of the Bible, aimed at a literal interpretation of the text in its historical and cultural context, which required an understanding of ancient Israeli culture and mastering the basics of Hebrew and Aramaic. This was not easy, however, because the grammars and dictionaries existing at that time were only available in Semitic languages (Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew). So, in order to learn Biblical Hebrew, one had to know Hebrew, Arabic or Aramaic beforehand. For this reason, medieval philological studies of the original languages of the Old Testament were very difficult and limited, and the only way to learn Semitic Biblical languages was to use the services of Jewish teachers, both those converted to Christianity and those professing Judaism. What was the medieval method offered access to the study of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages? How and to what extent was it taken over by Christian scholars before the advent of the Renaissance? The answer to these questions will enable a better understanding of the true revolution in Hebrew studies, which, in an organized form, were created and began to develop extremely dynamically at the beginning of the sixteenth century, taking great advantage of the achievements of medieval Hebrew philological literature.

1.1.1 Jewish studies of Hebrew until the sixteenth century The origins of literature on Biblical Hebrew date back to the tenth century AD. The first works in this field were two works by Saadiah Gaon (882–942). The ‫ספר‬ ‫( האגרון‬Sepher ha-Agron) dictionary published in 902 in Hebrew and the second revised edition of Kitab al-Shir written in Arabic. The same author also published

Before the Renaissance came

25

the first grammar of the Hebrew language, Kutub al-Luga in Arabic (cf. Bacher: 1901–1906, 581; Tene/Barr: 1974, 1367ff, 1379). The first dictionary meriting this name to include Hebrew and Aramaic Biblical vocabulary was the work of David ben Abraham Alphasi (d. c. 1026), which was written in Arabic in the middle of the tenth century. The first dictionary of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic written in Hebrew and entitled ‫( ספר מחברת‬Sepher Machberet) was written in Spain during the third quarter of the same century, and its author was Menachem ibn Saruq (c. 920–c. 970) (printed edition: 1854). The first linguistic works devoted to Biblical Hebrew were created at the beginning of the tenth century in northeastern Africa, exclusively in Arabic. In the second half of the same century, studies were also written in Hebrew in Spain. The authors of the first studies were exclusively Jews. In the first dictionaries the words were explained in Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew as used in the Mishnah and the Talmud. The works created in Arabic in the tenth century did not have a direct impact on the creation of Christian literature on Biblical Hebrew because they were not translated into Hebrew and were quoted only from secondary sources. Most of them are lost.1 Several factors influenced the development of such studies during this period. First of all, in the second half of the first millennium the Masoretes established the final form of the text of the Hebrew Bible with vocalisation and Masorah. In this way medieval linguists received a fairly uniform and reliable source of Hebrew. Secondly, the Jewish intellectual centres of that period were located in the areas influenced by Arabic culture, which already in the eighth century developed methods to describe language structure. Hence, Hebrew grammarians inherited from the Arabs ready-made schemes and linguistic tools, also suitable for describing other Semitic languages: Aramaic and Hebrew. Thirdly, it is likely that the emergence of Karaism,2 for which the Bible was the only source of faith, led to the development of new methods of Bible study, different from Masoretic and Talmudic-Midrash methods, which required, among other things, a re-examination of the meaning of words used in the Scriptures. 1 The most important works of Hebrew linguists are briefly discussed here. The full list of about 90 Jewish authors and their works, covering the period from the beginning of the tenth century to 1500, is available in: Tene/Barr: 1974, 1379–1390. 2 As a separate religion, this movement finally emerged from Judaism at the turn of the seventh and eighth centuries. The codifier of the assumptions of Karaism was Anan ben David from Basra (c. 715–c. 795), who formed a political-social party that protested the authorities of Judaism and the principles governing Jewish society after the fall of the second temple. This party absorbed the other Jewish heterodox movements present in Babylon at the time – including those from the Sadducean tradition – and quickly developed into a new religious movement, denying the authority of the rabbis and their main work, the Talmud. The Karaites decided to recognise only the Written Tradition, i. e. the Bible, and especially the Five Books of Moses, and they described themselves as continuators of the Sadducean branch – in opposition to rabbis as continuators of the Pharisees (cf. Kohler/Harkavy: 1901–1906, 438–447).

26

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

The most prolific period for Hebrew linguistic literature stretched from the beginning of the eleventh to mid-twelfth century. During this time, works on Hebrew verbs were created, based on a pattern of trilateral roots borrowed from Arabs. The works of such authors as Judah ben David Chayyuj (c. 945–c. 1000), Jonah ibn Janach (c. 990–c. 1055), Samuel ha-Nagid (993–1056), are descriptions of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary that are still unrivalled today. The persecution of Jews by Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula in the mid-twelfth century and their migration to France and Italy spread the achievements of Hebrew linguistics in Western Europe. Jewish emigrants undertook the effort of adapting and translating into Hebrew the linguistic literature written in Arabic in Spain. During this period, the terminology used to this day in Hebrew and Aramaic grammar was translated from Arabic into Hebrew, and schemes were established to describe grammatical and lexicographic problems that are also valid today. Because of their importance to the reception of Hebrew studies among Christians, several authors of that period deserve special attention. These include Abraham ibn Ezra (1092– 1167), a great promoter of Jewish scholarship in Western Europe, and representatives of the Kimchi family, which originated in southern Spain but later settled in Narbonne, Provence: Joseph (c. 1105–1170) and his sons Moses (c. 1127–c. 1190) and David (1160–1235). In 1160, Ibn Ezra visited Narbonne and probably met with Joseph Kimchi (cf. Gottheil/Levias/Jacobs/Levy: 1901–1906, 493–497). After leaving Spain, Abraham ibn Ezra published a whole series of works that adapted previous achievements of Hebrew linguists for the needs of Jews living in Western Europe between 1140 and 1160 during his wanderings in Italy and France. However, he was most famous for his commentaries, especially on the Pentateuch, widely distributed in manuscripts and printed from 1488 onwards. He used the method of literal text interpretation (cf. Gottheil/Bacher: 1901–1906, 520–524; Bacher/Kohler/McCurdy: 1901–1906, 169; Sela: 2003; Lancaster: 2004). The crowning achievement of the adaptation efforts of this period were the works of grammarians from the Kimchi family. Joseph wrote ‫( ספר זכרון‬Sepher Zikaron) (printed edition: 1888), where he used his own division of Hebrew vowels (i, e, a, o, u), varying in length (long and short). Most grammars adopted this system in later periods, which was propagated by his sons, Moses and David. An important step in systematizing and promoting the achievements of the previous epoch was Moses Kimchi’s work entitled ‫( מהלך ׁשבילי הדעת‬Mahalakh shevile ha-daat) (printed editions: 1563, 1867; also published in a collection prepared by Elias Levita under the common title ‫[ דקדוקים‬Diqduqim] [Kimchi, Moses: 1546; cf. Stein. 3461]) which, because of its practical character, has found wide application among Christian hebraists. David Kimchi wrote ‫( ספר מכלול‬Sepher Mikhlol), later divided into two parts: the first, known as Mikhlol, contained grammar (printed editions: 1545b; cf. Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 621ff), and the second, entitled ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim, known

Before the Renaissance came

27

as Shorashim) – a dictionary (printed editions: 1491; 1513; 1545a; 1546; 1547; 1847; cf. Stein. no. 4821/42–51; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 617–620). David Kimchi drew mainly from the works of Chayyuj and Jonah ibn Janach and his predecessors who adapted and translated works of Spanish linguists. He greatly simplified the lecture of grammar and attached to his work tables containing patterns of inflections. He devoted a lot of space to Hebrew verbs. It was Mikhlol who made the linguistic achievements of the Spanish Jews most popular among the Jewish intellectuals of medieval Europe, and even, thanks to its clarity and simplicity, overshadowed the achievements of its predecessors for many centuries. Some people think that Mikhlol contains so many new ideas about the layout and lecture of grammar material that it far exceeds the usual adaptive work. Shorashim also has a similar character: on the one hand, the work was based on the dictionary Jonah ibn Janach, but on the other hand, many of its features testify to the great independence of the author. David Kimchi was also known as a commentator and exegete. He authored commentaries to Genesis, Prophets, Psalms, 1 and 2 Chronicles. In the sacred texts he sought a literal sense based on grammar and rational reasoning. In his commentaries he used the achievements of philosophy, he often quoted Targumim. Despite the polemics with Christianity present in his works, he exerted a great influence on Christian medieval and renaissance exegesis. His works were repeatedly translated into Latin, published in print and distributed to Christians (cf. ­Gottheil/ Levias/Jacobs/Levy: 1901–1906, 494f; Tene/Barr: 1974, 1353–1359, 1364–1373, 1380f, 1384ff). The Christian exegesis of this period was greatly influenced by the Biblical and Talmudic commentaries of Solomon bar Isaac Rashi (1030–1105), which, due to their popular character, clarity, conciseness and accuracy, spread throughout Europe, and not only in the Jewish community. Rashi did not comment on the text continuously, but supplied it with short and very precise notes relating to the places and dates discussed. Sometimes he translated difficult words or even whole sentences into French: these were the so-called laazim – fragments written in French, but in Hebrew alphabet, being an integral part of the work. In Rashi’s commentaries there are 3,157 laazim, which formed the basis for the creation of Hebrew-French glossaries and dictionaries. In writing his commentaries, Solomon bar Isaac used the works of his predecessors, but mainly drew on Targumim and Talmudic-Midrashic literature (Bacher/Kohler/McCurdy: 1901–1906, 168). The commentaries he wrote proved to be very helpful in philological and exegetical studies of the Hebrew Bible and were copied many times, and from the second half of the fifteenth century also printed, e. g. within the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Miqraot gedolot: 1524–1525). In the sixteen century, Christian humanists and reformers treated Rashi’s work as an expression of the official position of the Synagogue (cf. Jacobs/Liber/Seligsohn: 1901–1906).

28

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

1.1.2 Christian studies of the Hebrew Bible in Medieval Europe Until the twelfth century, Christian exegesis was dominated by the allegorical interpretation of the Bible practised by patristic literature. In the twelfth century there was a wider interest in the literal and historical interpretation of sacred texts. This kind of interpretation encouraged the faithful to read the original texts and to get acquainted with the historical and cultural background of the Bible. In order to meet the requirements of this type of exegesis, the Christians who practiced it began to familiarize themselves with Jewish linguistic and exegetic literature (cf. Wielgus: 1990, 91–110, 166). Hugo of St Victor (c. 1096–1141) learned Hebrew and often quoted the Bible in his own literal translation into Latin. He acquired the knowledge needed for a historical interpretation of the Old Testament from Jews who knew the Hebrew language and from rabbinical commentaries, mainly by Rashi. The precursor of the modern systematic study of Hebrew was a Franciscan monk, Roger Bacon (c. 1210–1294), guided by highly religious motivations in his philological research, although a similar attitude only appeared 200 years after his death. Bacon believed that the Hebrew language should be studied, because in this language God spoke to humanity. Translating Scripture from the original always involves the risk of distorting God’s Revelation. In his work on Semitic grammar he pointed out the affinity of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. He left an interlinear, literal translation of parts of the Hebrew Bible, so-called Superscriptio Lincolniensis. It is likely that this work was not completed, and the part devoted to the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament has only been preserved. Bacon looked for sources of knowledge about the Hebrew language in Rashi’s commentaries and used Jewish teachers (cf. Kohler/Cohen: 1901–1906, 423f; Hirsch: 1905a, 1–72). The result of these first attempts at systematic study of the Hebrew language was the decision of the Council of Vienne (1311), which introduced the teaching of Semitic languages and Greek at the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna and Salamanca. At Oxford, from 1321, Hebrew and Greek was taught by a baptized Jew, John of Bristol, for several consecutive years. In Paris and Salamanca the chair of the Hebrew language was occupied for about 100 years. Hebrew was also taught in Rome. However, in the first half of the fifteenth century, the studies on the Hebrew language declined (Rashdall: 1895a, 30, 79f; 1895b, 459, 521f; Newman: 1925, 25, 53, 70, 89). This was probably due to Nicholas of Lyra (1270– 1340), a Franciscan of Jewish origin who made extensive use of Rashi’s works in his commentary on the Bible (Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam). Postillae were then supplemented by a converted Jew, Paul of Burgos (c. 1351– 1435), based on the works of Abraham ibn Ezra and the Kimchis family. In the fifteenth century, they were the primary source of knowledge about Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, thus removing the need for laborious studies of the Hebrew

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

29

language. Martin Luther (1483–1546) was also among those who benefited considerably from the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra (Jacobs/Liber/Seligsohn: 1901–1906; Wielgus: 1990, 124–127). Medieval interests in Hebrew were not limited to the Bible alone. Representatives of mendicant orders, mainly Dominicans, conducting their missions among the Jews, also studied post-biblical literature in order to collect arguments they could use in polemics. Christian scholars also sought out Hebrew writings from various branches of knowledge at the time, such as medicine, philosophy, astronomy, and mathematics, which became an incentive for learning Hebrew (Loewe: 1974, 12–15).

1.2 Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation The interest in Hebrew philology and literature, especially Biblical literature, as shown above, was not entirely alien to medieval Christians, although it was limited to a narrow circle of enthusiasts. The situation changed radically at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when Christian Hebraism was rapidly developing to such an extent that as early as the middle of the sixteenth century any person interested in the Hebrew language could easily find active and high-level centres of Hebraism studies and a great number of tools for even mastering the language on their own. Jerome Friedman (1983, 12–14) estimates that between 500 and 1500 only a few dozen Christians knew Hebrew, around 1500 there were less than a hundred Christians able to read Hebrew in Europe, but around 1550 the knowledge of Hebrew became commonplace in the scholarly community of Europe. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Hebrew literature was printed by Jews and for their own needs. Around the middle of the sixteenth century, the most important Hebrew works were printed by Christians, for Christians and under the direction of Christian representatives of philology at the time. This was influenced mainly by three factors: the humanistic interest in antiquity (ad fontes), the Reformation, which recognized the Bible as the only source of Revelation (sola Scriptura), and the invention of printing, which was used by both humanists and reformers who spread their views and results of scholarly and religious research on an unprecedented scale. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, a Christian tradition of Hebrew studies began to emerge, which underwent a certain evolution, freeing itself from Jewish and humanistic influences. Gradual independence from the Jewish tradition was shaped by a different type of recipient, who was brought up in a different culture and did not know Hebrew from childhood. Thus, the need arose to translate the achievements of Semitic philology into the patterns and concepts used in Latin.

30

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

In its first phase, Hebrew studies were marked by a humanistic interest in antiquity, including not only the Bible, but also the Talmud, Mishnah and Cabala (cf. Deutsch/Ochser: 1901–1906, 32; Deutsch/Hanan: 1901–1906, 389f). However, after the outbreak of the Reformation, which exploited the sources for different purposes, the philological studies gradually lost their humanistic character, and began to serve theology. Around the middle of the sixteenth century, the most important chairs of the Hebrew language were occupied by theologians, who were mainly interested in Biblical Hebrew studies. The study of Jewish literature in its broadest sense, especially the Talmud and Cabal, unfortunately connected with esotericism and magic,3 was ultimately condemned by both the Catholic and Protestant sides (cf. Tene/Barr: 1974, 1390–1393).

1.2.1 Hebrew studies versus Humanism Starting from the end of the thirteenth century, on the Apennine Peninsula the interest in ancient culture began to grow.4 The studies into antiquity served the humanists not only as a means of satisfying intellectual needs or as a response to temporary fashion. In learning about ancient sources they discovered a way to repair the world by returning to the roots of European civilisation and faith (cf. Hall: 1963, 38; Friedman: 1983, 18f, 54f). In order to read them, knowledge of ancient languages was needed: Latin, Greek and Hebrew, which was to open the way not only to ancient wisdom, but above all to God’s Revelation, which was to be read in its original form (cf. Dąbrowski: 1967, 18). Among the ancient sources, the Bible was the focus of attention (cf. Bedouelle: 1999, 95f; Krzyszkowski: 2010, 350–358). Initially, humanists used the then widespread Latin Vulgate, but the deepening knowledge of Greek and Hebrew began to reveal its shortcomings. In the fourteenth century, the first works critically assessing the translation of St Jerome as compared to the Greek and Hebrew original texts appeared in Italy. In this context, two authors in particular should be mentioned: Lorenzo Valla (1405/1407–1457) and his Collatio Novi Testamenti, a work that inspired the Biblical interests of Desiderius Erasmus, and Giannozzo Manetti 3 A good example that illustrates this phenomenon is a Benedictine abbot from Sponheim, Johannes Trithemius (1462–1516), who combined his Hebraist interests with esotericism, alchemy, magic and astrology. He inspired the famous Renaissance alchemist and astrologer, Henricus Cornelius Agrippa (1486–1535) and the famous philosopher and alchemist Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim [1493–1541]). For Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Trithemius (together with his pupils) became the prototype of the tragic figure of Faust (Silverman: 1997h). 4 The Rennaisance began in Italy at the end of the thirteenth century and lasted till the sixteenth century; for the Northern and Western Europe it covered the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (cf. Zarosa: 2010, 346).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

31

(1393–1459), one of the first Hebrew scholars of the early Renaissance, a translator of the New Testament and Psalms from the original language into Latin (Cassuto: 1997). The next step was to undertake new, partial (for the time being) translations of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew. In this way Italian humanists turned to the Bible in its original version (cf. Garofalo: 1946, 344–365). However, it was not only the Bible that inspired the humanists to learn Hebrew, but also the interest in Cabala was of great importance here. The person who played an important role in the initial phase of Hebrew studies was the Italian humanist and cabbalist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494), a pupil of a Spanish Jew converted to Christianity, an outstanding philologist, Flavius Mithridates (c. 1450– c. 1490), who introduced his pupil to the secrets of Jewish mysticism. Inspired by his master, Pico believed that the study of the Cabala will enable the deciphering of numerological mysteries related to God’s names in the Old Testament, which in turn will release God’s creative power in the world. This power has long been given to people. It was given to Adam when he named animals in the Garden of Eden. The secret of this power was entrusted to Moses on Mount Sinai and passed on in the form of oral tradition, later written down in the Jewish writings. The same creative force worked in Jesus and enabled him to perform miracles. The study of the Cabala could thus be a method of gaining revealed knowledge of the world and power (thus Cabala was approaching esotericism and magic), which was believed to be able to renew the world. Cabala was also treated as a hidden form of Christian revelation, in which there was even evidence of the deity of Christ. In this way, Cabala became another source of true wisdom for humanists, and the key to it was knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic. The Cabala as a written oral tradition, which was associated with Moses, was also considered a proper key to interpret the Old Testament. Pico made also Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522), who shared his views, become interested in the Cabalistic studies (cf. Friedman: 1983, 19f, 25, 56f, 71–98; 1996a, 233; 1996b, 312; Manuel: 1992, 37–44; Artom: 1997; Posset: 2015, 93–98; 2019, 48–58). A very important element, enabling the study of ancient thought, were libraries equipped with appropriate texts. The wealthy collectors of ancient books organized numerous and expensive expeditions to the East in search of valuable manuscripts. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused an influx of antique culture products into the Apennine Peninsula and aroused even more interest in antiquity. The interest in philosophical literature, poetry, as well as early Christian writings (cf. Dahl: 1965, 108–114) was also stirred. Hebrew manuscripts also had an important place in the Renaissance book collections, access to which was facilitated, especially in Italy, by the presence of many Jews exiled from other European countries (cf. Friedman: 1983, 19f; Pilarczyk: 2007, 3). A rich collection of Hebrew literature was gathered in the Vatican on the initiative and under the patronage of Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) (cf. Audin: 1885, 274–282; Gauthier: 1945, 177; Garofalo: 1946, 349,

32

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

359; Loewe: 1974, 16). A library well equipped with Hebrew manuscripts was also owned by Pico della Mirandola (cf. Deutsch/Ochser: 1901–1906) and Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1470–1532) (cf. Enelow: 1901–1906, 219). An eye-catching collection of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts was collected by the Benedictine Abbot of Sponheim, Johannes Trithemius (1462–1516) (cf. Silverman, 1997h: Posset: 2015, 154f). Of course, the most important work of the ancient world, the Bible, whose study had a very rich history, could not be omitted in this situation. At the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, an increasingly insistent call for a return to the sources of faith could be heard, which was supposed to renew not only the individual but also the theology, entangled in medieval speculation, as well as the Church in need of reforms. At that time, there was a growing demand for an established knowledge of Scripture, not only among educated clergy and humanists such as Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (1460?– 1536) and Desiderius Erasmus, but also among wealthy and influential lay people who supported financially the initiatives taken to this end. Lefèvre was therefore not alone when he appealed to “the sovereign pontiff, kings, princes and noblemen, the peoples of every race, to attach themselves only to Christ and the vivifying Word of God, his holy Gospel” (Hall: 1963, 39). The efforts of the era in the field of Biblical research and making the text of Scripture available went in three main directions: 1) the dissemination of the original texts and their retranslation into Latin; 2) the elaboration and publication of textus receptus of the Bible in original languages and the most important ancient versions (here a great role was to be played by printing at the time); 3) the provision of modern commentaries to facilitate reading, from short notes to marginalised editions of the Bible to very extensive works (cf. Hall: 1963, 38–48; Bedouelle: 1989, 59–68; Buzzetti/Bravi: 1992, 28f). In order to respond to the challenges of the era, a large number of philologists with a good command of ancient languages, including Hebrew, were needed. The realization of humanistic demands was not easy, however, because of mutual prejudices between Jews and Christians and because of the lack of the necessary aids in Latin or modern languages. A good knowledge of Latin turned out to be very useful here, because the meaning of particular Hebrew words was studied in an intuitive way, comparing the Hebrew text with its Latin translation by St Hieronim. This, however, was not enough, and many humanists were assisted by Jewish teachers. The enthusiasm of the humanists meant that they were able to make huge expenses and undertake long journeys to acquire the necessary knowledge and valuable manuscripts (cf. Posset: 2015, 64ff, 92–98). The cooperation with Jewish teachers was not easy due to mistrust on their part. They realized that one of the motives for Christians to study their language was the willingness to use the acquired knowledge in interreligious polemics and missionary activities. Jerome Friedman (1983, 20f) stated that Jews teaching Chris-

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

33

tians were subject to certain restrictions. One could only teach the basics of the language, and it was forbidden to read the Hebrew Bible together with the pupil. It was not allowed to reveal the secrets of the Cabala. However, these prohibitions were less strict in Italy and, of course, the Jews who adopted Christianity were not subjected to them (cf. Loewe: 1974, 10, 13f). Therefore, it was much easier to use the services of Jews converted to Christianity, whose number increased after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula. For many of them, teaching the language and helping to print Hebrew books published by Christians were a means of earning a living (cf. Tene/Barr: 1974, 1391). Among the teachers of Jewish origin who played an important role in the early development of Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance were Immanuel ben Abraham of San Miniato, Matthaeus Adrianus (c. 1470–1521), Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno (c. 1470–c. 1550), Flavius Mithridates, Jacob ben Jehiel Loans (d. 1505?), Elias Levita (1468–1549), Antonius Margaritha (1492–1542) (cf. Geiger: 1870, 41–48; Garofalo: 1946, 375; Rummel: 2006, 4ff; Posset: 2015, 68ff, 110ff, 189ff; 2019, 93–97). Some Jewish teachers who converted to Christianity later taught Hebrew within university structures, for instance: Matthaeus Adrianus, Antonius Margaritha, Werner Einhorn of Bacharach (cf. Burnett: 2004, 183f). Private lessons with Jewish teachers were used by pioneers of Christian Hebraism, who in the first half of the sixteenth century laid the foundations for the organization of Hebrew studies structures at university level: Johann Reuchlin, Conrad Pellican (1478–1556), Johannes Boeschenstein (1472–1540), Johannes Eck (1486–1543), Santes Pagnini (1470–1536), Agathias Guidacerious (1477–1540), Paul Fagius (1504–1549) (cf. Geiger: 1870, 48–55, 65–74; Silverman: 1997a; Jacobs/ Levias: 1901–1906, 325; Article “Fagius, Paulus”: 1997). The efforts of a small group of enthusiasts would not have led to such a dynamic development of Hebrew studies as was the case in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, if it had not been for fertile ground. The creation of developed and stable academic structures for the effective teaching of Hebrew was made possible by the following factors: broad interest on the part of students and academic circles; material support from influential and economically prosperous individuals; the birth and development of Christian printing houses providing academic centres with appropriate tools for studying Hebrew; extensive cooperation with Jewish linguists (cf. Friedman: 1983, 22–49). The prejudices against the Hebrew language were overcome and the popularization of interest in Hebrew was achieved by several people who laid the foundations for Christian Hebraism. A key figure in the early Christian Hebraism during the Renaissance was the German humanist and eminent Greekist, Johann Reuchlin, who already in the 1480s tried to learn Hebrew but did not manage to find a teacher. He was taught the alphabet in 1486 by a Jew called Calman. Reuchlin’s Hebrew and Cabalistic interests were greatly influenced by Pico della Mirandola, whom he met in Flor-

34

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

ence in 1490. In 1492, Reuchlin found a teacher in the person of the Jewish doctor of Frederick III (Holy Roman Emperor: 1452–1493), Jacob ben Jehiel Loans. In 1496 he visited the famous Trithemius library in Sponheim. In 1498 in Rome, on the recommendation of Cardinal Dominicus Grimanus (1461–1523), he took private lessons with a Jewish doctor and exegete, Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno. It is assumed that among his teachers also was Flavius Mithridates, a Jewish convert, a famous humanist and lecturer in Semitic languages in Italy, France and Germany, a teacher of Pico della Mirandola (Friedman: 1983, 21, 24; Artom: 1997; Grossman: 1997; Silverman: 1997 g; Posset: 2015, 67–77, 93–98, 110ff, 154f, 189ff). An important result of Reuchlin’s studies was a Hebrew grammar, which was published in 1506 in Pforzheim (Phorce), titled De rudimentis hebraicis (Reuchlin: 1506). This work was largely based on the works of David Kimchi. The grammar turned out to be a pioneering work and standing on a much higher level than Conrad Pellican’s earlier work (see below). Reuchlin also added a dictionary to the grammar. For the purposes of teaching beginner students, in 1512 in Tübingen he published penitential psalms with a literal translation into Latin and grammatical explanations (Reuchlin: 1512). In this way he provided his students with material for practical exercises with the text. A few years later his De accentibus et orthographia linguae hebraicae (Reuchlin: 1518) was published, devoted to Masorah, vowel points and accents. This work was valuable in reading and interpreting consonantal texts. The set of these three works was suitable for those who wanted to learn the language on their own (cf. Deutsch/Hanan: 1901–1906, 389f; Loewe: 1974, 16; Silverman/Scholem: 1974, 108; Friedman: 1983, 24f; Silverman: 1997; Posset: 2015, 251–285, 434–446). De rudimentis hebraicis became the basis for the grammar published in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, entitled Introductio artis grammaticae hebraicae (Jacobs/Ochser: 1901–1906, 575). Reuchlin was not only interested in the Hebrew Bible, he also devoted much attention to Cabalistic and Talmudic studies. He is considered to be the founder and propagator of the so-called Catholic Cabala. His most important Cabalistic works are Liber de verbo mirifico (Basel 1494, Tübingen 1514) and De arte cabalistica (Stuttgart 1517) (Deutsch/Hanan: 1901–1906, 389f; Silverman/Scholem: 1974, 108–111; Posset 2015, 117–166, 631–657). In 1510 Reuchlin opposed Johann Pfefferkorn (1469–1523) and the Dominicans supporting him, who on the order of Maximilian I of Habsburg (Holy Roman Emperor: 1508–1519) confiscated and destroyed Jewish books in Frankfurt and Cologne (mainly Talmud and Cabalistic literature). The so-called Battle of the Books or the Battle over Jewish Books, fought with pens for about 10 years, involved the highest authorities of Europe at the time, led by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, in a discussion on the subject of Hebrew studies (see more: Hirsch: 1905b; Pilarczyk: 1998b, 49–53; Price: 2011; Posset: 2015, 289–867). The Hebrew interests thus promoted and publicised soon took a leading place in the Renaissance study

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

35

programme. This was an undoubted success for Reuchlin. Moreover, the Battle of the Books caused a certain group of authorities at the time who shared Reuchlin’s views (e. g. Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon [1497–1560]) to openly oppose the Church authorities. Many of them later became leaders of the Reformation. Some even believe that the Battle of the Books directly prepared and accelerated the Reformation. In this context, since the sixteenth century many considered Reuchlin to be the forerunner of the Reformation (cf. Nauert: 1973; Silverman/ Scholem: 1974, 110; Friedman: 1983, 28; Posset: 2015, 14–28). This opinion about the Pforzheim Hebraist was voiced in the speech given in 1552 on the thirtieth anniversary of his death by Melanchthon, a relative of Reuchlin, in which he portrayed the humanist (also as a Hebraist) as a precursor of the Reformation (Melanchton: 1843). For several centuries this speech was one of the basic sources for the life of the famous humanist, which established his position as Martin Luther’s predecessor and precursor of the Reformation. However, the most recent research on Reuchlin’s life conducted by Franz Posset proved that such claims are unfounded. Pope Leo X (pontificate: 1513–1521), who initially did not take a firm stance on the Battle of the Books, in 1520 imposed a ban on reading Reuchlin and condemned his unfortunate book Augenspiegel, but, as Posset pointed out, not for doctrinal reasons (unlike in the case of Luther), but because of the favouritism towards the Jews and the slander contained therein. Posset drew a picture of Reuchlin that was little known so far, showing him as an exemplary Catholic and secular theologian loyal to Rome. The relationship between Reuchlin and Luther lied in the fact that they both used the Bible for the purposes of exegesis and highly valued the study of Bible languages. However, Luther had no interest in the Cabala, which Reuchlin studied as a source of Christian dogma. “Reuchlin studied the common grounds of Judaism and Christianity. Luther was interested only in the distinctiveness of the pure Gospel as he saw it and as he interpreted it in contrast to Jews, Turks, and papists” (Posset: 2015, 879). There are even more differences between them when it comes to their attitude towards the Jews: Reuchlin treated them with respect and kindness, and Luther treated them with contempt and dislike (Posset: 2015, XII, 1f, 10, 20f, 25f, 793–798, 868, 873–880; 2019, 60–82; cf. Silverman/Scholem: 1974, 109f; Friedman: 1983, 25–28; Manuel: 1992, 45f). In the last years of his life, Reuchlin took over the chair of the Greek and Hebrew languages at the University of Ingolstadt (1520–1521) and the chair of the Hebrew language in Tübingen (1521–1522), attracting large numbers of students. Reuchlin’s teaching activities contributed significantly to the establishment of the chairs of Hebrew in the most important universities in northern Europe. He was the first Christian Hebraist to systematically teach Hebrew to Christian students. His students were eminent Hebraists of the epoch: Johannes Forster (1496–1558), Sebastian Münster (1489–1552), Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Boeschenstein, Johannes Cellarius (1496–1542), Bartholomaeus Caesar, who in the first half of

36

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

the sixteenth century held the chairs of the Hebrew language in the most important academic centres of the Old Continent and wrote and published books on Hebrew studies (cf. Burnett: 2004, 183). Undoubtedly, it was Reuchlin, through his philological publications and his steadfast stance in the Battle of the Books that played a decisive role in the process of popularizing Christian Hebraism. He managed to break the centuries-old prejudices against the Hebrew language and make Hebrew studies the interests of scholars in the epoch he happened to live in. Another important person at the beginnings of Christian Hebrew was Conrad Pellican (Pellicanus) (1478–1556), a Franciscan friar from 1493 and later a supporter of the Swiss Reformation. In his childhood, he witnessed a public dispute in which a Christian was unable to respond to the arguments of a Jew because the latter was familiar with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Following this experience Conrad decided that he would learn Hebrew. Initially, however, he could not find a suitable teacher, although he sought one in many towns in Germany. He received from a neophyte, Paul Pfedersheimer, a codex with the Hebrew text of the Prophets, which he began to study. He studied Hebrew on his own, based on short texts written in Hebrew using the Latin alphabet. In 1500 he met Reuchlin who encouraged him to continue working on the Hebrew-Latin dictionary. He improved his language in 1502 in a Franciscan convent in Basel, where a converted Jew, M ­ atthaeus Adrianus, taught Hebrew. The result of his studies was the first grammar in Latin: De modo legendi et intelligendi hebraeum, probably written around 1503 and published a year later in Strasbourg by Johann Grüninger (1455–1533). He then gave up his academic life for a few years to devote himself to traveling for scholarly purposes. He visited the famous Trithemius library in Sponheim, met the famous humanist and Biblicalist Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples in Paris, rewrote and purchased Hebrew books. From 1519 onwards, he once again devoted himself to teaching in Basel, where his knowledge was made use of, among others, by Sebastian Münster. In 1526, having accepted the proposal of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), he took over the chair of the Hebrew language in Zurich, thus openly joining the Reformation. He was Zwingli’s closest collaborator in translating the Bible into German. He was interested not only in the Hebrew Bible, but also in Cabala. He also mastered the Aramaic language and translated into Latin and published many works of rabbis, including Abraham ibn Ezra (cf. Tene/Barr: 1974, 1391; Silverman: 1997e; Friedman: 1983, 31; Posset: 2015, 230–233). A highly respected and widely used version of the Bible during the Middle Ages and at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was the Vulgate. However, the humanists who preached the slogan of returning to the sources more and more often showed its defects and imperfections. For this reason, during the Renaissance period, attempts to translate the Hebrew Bible into Latin again appeared in the circles of humanists from within the Church; these attempts to a large extent broke down prejudices and entailed a turn towards the original Hebrew-Aramaic

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

37

version of the Old Testament. The first attempts of this kind were made and finalised with the approval and financial support of the popes. The retranslation of the Bible into Latin was also an opportunity to promote the achievements of medieval rabbinical Hebrew studies, which were used in the translations. One of the pioneers in this field, whose magnum opus was the translation of the entire Bible, was a Dominican friar, Santes Pagnini. He learned Hebrew from a converted Spanish Jew, Abraham Clemente (Burnett: 2012, 53). At the request of Pope Leo X, from 1513 to 1521, he taught Hebrew at the Sapientia University in Rome. After the Pope’s death, he went to Avignon and then in 1524 settled permanently in Lyon, where his main works were published. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Pagnini undertook the effort of translating the entire Hebrew Bible into Latin for himself, the first time since the time of St Jerome, based on a study of many available manuscripts from the Vatican Library. The translation work, which lasted about 25 years, was supported and financed by, among others, Pope Leo X. In a preface addressed to Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), Pagnini explained that the Vulgate did not reproduce the Hebrew text in many places and quoted as an example St Jerome himself, who complained about unresolved translation problems. In translating the Hebrew Bible, Pagnini made extensive use of medieval rabbinical exegesis, mainly in places that caused grammatical and lexical difficulties (cf. Jones: 1983, 41f). Unlike the Vulgate, he transcribed proper names in their original Hebrew form. He held on to the literal translation, which, while leaving much to be desired in terms of the Latin style, proved to be an invaluable help for beginners in Hebrew. The edition with the full approval of the Holy See was published in Lyon in 1527 or 1528. (Bible: 1527/1528). Pagnini did not stop at just translating the Hebrew Bible. To help Christians read the Old Testament in the original language, at the end of the 1520s he published his own grammar and dictionary of the Hebrew language, which he based mainly on David Kimchi’s works. He was also the author of many other philological works. Pagnini’s works had a great influence on Renaissance Hebrew studies, and were repeatedly revised, expanded and reprinted. His translation of the Bible was appreciated by Christians and Jews alike. It was revised and reprinted in the sixteenth century, including the Antwerp Polyglot Bible. It was used by translators of the Holy Scriptures from the original into national languages (e. g. Pierre-Robert Olivétan [c. 1506–1538]) and numerous other Christian Hebraists (e. g. François Vatable [c. 1493–1547], Sebastian Münster, Leo Jud [1482–1542], Martin Bucer [1491–1551]). Pagnini, next to Reuchlin, Pellican, Münster and the printer and publisher Daniel Bomberg [1480–1549], was one of the most eminent Hebraist of the early sixteenth century, who opened modern Western culture to the richness of the achievements of Jewish scholarship and contributed to arousing broad interest in the Jewish language and writings among many Christians (cf. Audin: 1885, 363f; Gauthier: 1945, 176– 183; Jones: 1983, 40–44; Roussel: 1996, 194f; Silverman: 1997d; Tronina: 2010, 1114).

38

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Introducing trilingual philological studies into university structures was far from being easy. Although the provisions of the Council of Vienne (1311) and Basel (1434) requiring the establishment of Hebrew language chairs in important academic centers in Europe were in force (cf. Newman: 1925, 25, 53, 71f, 89), they were not satisfactorily implemented by medieval universities that objected to the changes in philological studies. The political and economic patronage of influential supporters of humanism and the Reformation, who founded several important centers of trilingual philological studies in Spain, Italy, England, France, Switzerland and Germany, played a major role in the institutionalization of Hebrew studies (cf. Friedman: 1983, 28–36). In Spain, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436–1517), Archbishop of Toledo, opened in 1508 the University of Alcalá de Henares (Complutum), where four colleges were established, including the Collegium Trilingue (1516), which comprised fourteen chairs, focused on the study of Biblical languages. This is where the first Polyglot Bible, the so-called Complutensian Polyglot Bible or the Polyglot Bible of Alcalá, was prepared and printed. With the support of the King, Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros employed baptised Jews: Alfonso de Alcalá, Alfonso (Alonso) de Zamora (c. 1474–1544) and Paul Coronel de Segovia (1480–1534) to teach Hebrew and publish the Bible (cf. Gottheil/Kayserling: 1901–1906, 277; Kohut: 1901–1906, 378; Lyell: 1917, 24–52; Rechowicz: 1973, 316; Friedman: 1983, 29; Jones: 1983, 98f; Bedouelle: 1989, 65; Maltby: 1996, 346). Hebrew was also taught in Rome at the Sapientia University, renovated by Leo X in 1513. From 1514 the first Hebrew teacher was Agathias Guidacerious (1477– 1540), who after sacco di Roma in 1527 lost his library and left the Eternal City, going to Avignon and then to Paris. Simultaneously with him in Rome until 1524 in Hebrew lectured Santes Pagnini. Semitic languages were also taught in Rome by Teseo Ambrogio degli Albonesi (Theseus Ambrogio) (1469–1540), famous for his knowledge of thirteen Eastern languages (cf. Audin: 1885, 283–290, 359–368; Gauthier: 1945, 176–183; Jones: 1983, 71; Bedouelle: 1989, 65f; Silverman: 1997a; 1997d; Vanderjagt: 2008, 185–189). The first centres of Hebrew studies in Northern Europe were established in England. Under the influence of Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1473–1530), Archbishop of York and Primate of England, and Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher (1469–1535), the University of Cambridge reformed its curriculum and adapted it to new needs. In 1511 St John’s College was founded. The statutes of this institution, written down by Bishop of Rochester himself in 1516, gave a prominent place to teaching Latin, Greek and Hebrew. From 1511 to 1514 Greek at the College was taught by Erasmus himself, invited by Fisher, and from 1524 to 1530 lectures in Hebrew were given by one of the most prominent English Orientalists of the period, Robert Wakefield (d. 1537), a pupil of St John’s College and Collegium Trilinguae in Leuven. During the English Reformation the University of Cambridge became one

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

39

of the main centres supporting Protestantism. Thomas Cromwell (1485–1540), introducing a new religious order, placed emphasis on the teaching of Greek and Hebrew at Cambridge. The chair of the Hebrew language was officially established here with the royal decree in 1540. It was taken over by Robert Wakefield’s younger brother, Thomas (d. 1575), who held it until his death. During the reign of Edward VI (1547–1553) the chair of Biblical languages was occupied by Protestants connected with Strasbourg: Paul Fagius and a converted Jew, Immanuel Tremellius. In 1517 Richard Foxe (c. 1448–1528), Bishop of Winchester, founded Corpus Christi College in Oxford, a well-known centre for classical studies. However, within the classical languages, specialized classes were conducted in Latin and Greek, while Hebrew was only used during lectures on the Scriptures. The most prominent Hebrew scholar of this period was Robert Wakefield, who settled here permanently in 1530. However, it was not until 1546 that the chair of the Hebrew language was officially established by King Henry VIII (1509–1547) (cf. Friedman: 1983, 28f; Jones: 1983, 50f, 93–98, 181–186, 191–194; Wiśniowski: 1985b, 1293; Porter: 1996, 248; Rex: 1996, 109; 2008, 520–527; Roth: 1997; Silverman: 1997i). Between 1517 and 1522 it was Agostino Giustiniani (1470–1536), Bishop of Nebbia from Corsica, publisher of Psalterium octaplum (Genoa 1516) who taught Hebrew in Paris. He was sponsored by Guillaume Petit (c. 1470–1536), confessor of Francis I of France (1494–1547). In 1530, at the instigation of Parisian humanists, including Guillaume Budé (1468–1540) and Guillaume Petit, Francis I established Noble et Trilingue Académie (Collège des Lectures Royaux, also known as Collège des Trois Langues), which was later called Collège de France. The university was founded in opposition to the conservative Sorbonne to educate young people in the spirit of the Renaissance. Thanks to French humanists, other Hebrew scholars came to Paris. The most outstanding of them was François Vatable (d. 1547). Simultaneously with Vatable, between 1530 and 1540 Agathias Guidacerious did the teaching in Paris, while between 1530 and 1549 a converted Jew, Paul Paradis, Vatable’s successor at the Paris chair was his pupil Jean Mercier (Mercerus) (d. 1570) in 1546. From 1569 onwards, Hebrew was taught at Collège by a Benedictine monk, Gilbert Génébrard (1537–1597). Apart from lecturing, he also translated the works of rabbis into Latin. He wrote Biblical commentaries, among which the commentary on the Psalter gained the greatest popularity (Psalmi: 1582). The King and the Parisian humanists provided remuneration for Collège professors, supplied them with manuscripts and financed the printing of works. None of Collège’s first professors joined the Reformation, although some of their students did, including John Calvin (cf. Ott: 1909; Friedman: 1983, 29ff; Jones: 1983, 71f; Krakowiak: 1989, 942; Farge: 1996; Goitein: 1997; Silverman: 1997b; Burnett: 2004, 197; Vanderjagt: 2008, 183ff). In 1518, on the initiative of Desiderius Erasmus from Rotterdam, a philological school called Collegium Trilinguae Lovaniense was founded at the University

40

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

of Leuven, where Hebrew, Greek and Latin were taught. Collegium soon became one of the most important centres for the study of classical languages, bringing the university fame as an international centre of humanistic thought. Here the Greek was taught by Rutgerus Rescius (c. 1497–1545) and Erasmus itself, while Hebrew by Matthaeus Adrianus,5 Jan van den Campen (1490–1538), and Andreas van Gennep (c. 1484–1568). During the Reformation, the Leuven University remained faithful to the Catholic Church and strongly opposed and condemned Luther’s teachings. Among the eminent philologists from this centre was a pupil of Rescius, Nicolaus Clenardus (1495–1542). Until 1531 he taught Greek literature at Collegium, but after failing to receive the Greek chair he went to the Iberian Peninsula, where he studied Arabic and taught Greek (Salamanca, 1531–1533). He was the author of textbooks for teaching Biblical languages, including Tabula in grammaticen hebraeam (1st edn: Leuven 1529), used later by the Jesuits in Vilnius, among others (cf. Friedman: 1983, 29; Jones: 1983, 99f; Bedoulle: 1989, 66f; Swastek: 1989, 1063; O’Connell: 1996, 455; Bietenholz: 2003b, 312; Piechnik: 2003, 66, 116; Gach: 2004, 1415; Burnett: 2004, 183; Vanderjagt: 2008, 181ff).6 A high-level centre for Hebrew studies was established in Zurich as a result of the efforts of Ulrich Zwingli. In 1525 he reformed the old Latin educational institution in Zurich, called Carolinum, which after the death of the reformer (d. 1531) became an academy focused on educating the clergy. Hebrew was taught here by Jacob Ceporinus (1499–1525) and Conrad Pellican. In 1601 the academy was transformed into Collegium Humanitatis (cf. Baker: 1996, 316f). A significant city for Hebraism in Switzerland was Basel. The university was founded by the Council of Basel in 1431 and by the fifteenth century it had already become an important centre of humanism. The University of Basel was established in 1459 and began to promote the Renaissance culture. Until 1521, Desiderius Erasmus was active here (he left the city in fear of the victory of Protestantism, but returned in 1535, and died here a year later). From 1522 onwards, Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531), the famous humanist, Greekist, Hebrew scholar and theologian, worked here. Not only did he teach theology here, but also lectured in the Old Testament. In 1532, the university became an important centre for the spread of Reformed Protestantism and a place of refuge for supporters of the Reformation fleeing from France, the Netherlands and Italy. Hebrew was taught here by many prominent Orientalists, including Conrad Pellican (in 1524–1526) and 5 He was a Jewish doctor of Spanish origin. He taught Hebrew in Tübingen, Basel, Heidelberg, Liége and Leuven. Erasmus admired his knowledge of Hebrew and proposed him to the chair of that language in Leuven. Having taken Reuchlin’s side in the Battle of the Books, Adrianus had to leave Leuven and went to Wittenberg in search of a job (Erasmus: 1917, no. 656, 658, 660–663; cf. Friedman: 1983, 34). 6 A lot of attention is devoted to the organisation of the chairs of ancient languages in Leuven by Erasmus in his letters (1917, no. 656, 658, 660–663).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

41

Sebastian Münster (in 1529–1552). Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1478–1541) published here his grammar in Hebrew (Hebraicarum institutionum libri duo, 1518) (cf. Herzog: 1778, 12–17, 442–457; Walton: 1996, 169ff; Mesguich: 2008, 264–272; Janowski: 2010a, 375ff). The University of Basel provided an intellectual background for Christian Hebraism printing. Until 1555, 95 Hebrew books for Christians were printed here (cf. Wójcik/Zahajkiewicz: 1985, 128; Burnett, A.N.: 1996; Avneri: 1997; Avneri: 1997; Burnett: 2004, 183, 185). Basel also became the place of working for Johann Buxtorf the Elder (1564– 1629), one of the most outstanding Hebrew scholars at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, considered to be the father of Christian Jewish studies. He was educated in Marburg, Herborn and Basel. From 1591, he took up a professorship in Hebrew at the University of Basel, where he taught for 37 years. His studies mainly focused on the Hebrew Bible, but this interest also led him to undertake research on Masorah, Talmud and Targumim. The most famous works of this Hebrew scholar include Biblia rabbinica (5th edn) published in four volumes (Biblia Sacra: 1618–1619) with an addendum dedicated to Masorah (Tiberias, commentarius masorethicus, Basel 1620), grammar Praeceptiones grammaticae de lingua hebraea (Basel 1605), republished many times under the title Epitome grammaticae hebraeae and popular lexicographical, Hebrew and Aramaic works (Epitome radicum hebraicarum et chaldaicarum, Basel 1607, reprinted many times under the title Lexicon hebraicum et chaldaicarum; Manuale hebraicum et chaldaicum, Basel 1612, 1658; Lexicon chaldaicum talmudicum – completed by the son of this Hebrew scholar in 1639). Buxtorf ’s bibliographic work entitled Bibliotheca rabbinica (Basel 1613) was of great importance for Jewish literature studies. The chair of Hebraism run by Johann Buxtorf the Elder was taken over by his son, Johann Buxtorf the Younger (1599–1664), who continued his father’s faithful studies and editorial activity (cf. Herzog: 1778, 444–449; Kayserling/Toy: 1901–1906a; Pilarczyk: 1995; Burnett, S.G.: 1996). Another centre of Hebrew studies in Switzerland was Geneva. In 1559, under the influence of John Calvin, the Geneva government reformed the existing education system, establishing a school, in Latin documents called Academia, and in French – Collège. The first rector of the Academy was an outstanding humanist and philologist, Théodore de Bèze (1519–1605). The most important task of the Academy was to teach about the Scripture. By Calvin’s will, the foundation of the academic curriculum was the study of ancient languages. Until 1566, Hebrew was taught in Geneva by a pupil of François Vatable, Antoine Rodolphe Chevallier (1523–1572), who taught grammar and commented on selected books of the Old Testament, making also use of rabbinical works. His successor was Jean Mercier’s pupil, Cornelius Bonaventura Bertram (1531–1594), who taught in Geneva until 1587 (he later moved to Lausanne), also profusely drawing on the achievements of Jewish linguistic studies, which in turn was replaced by Pierre Chevallier. At

42

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

the end of the century, the leading Hebrew scholar of the Geneva Academy was an Italian, an exile from Lucca, Giovanni Diodati (1576–1649), who in 1607 published his own translation of the Bible into Italian. The school quickly gained European fame, attracted students from all over the Old Continent and became an important centre for promoting the ideas of the Reformation in the Calvinist spirit (cf. Olson: 1996, 163f; Jones: 1983, 77ff). In Germany, Frederick III the Wise, Elector of Saxony (1463–1525) established in 1502 the University of Wittenberg. Between 1508 and 1512 Martin Luther studied there and, after obtaining his doctorate in theology, began lecturing in Scripture. In 1518, the Duke founded the chair of classical languages at this university. The chair of Greek was offered to Reuchlin, who refused because of his age. It was finally taken over by his relative, Philipp Melanchthon (cf. Junghans: 1996, 284f). Initially, between 1518 and 1521 the university had problems with scholars to hold the chair of the Hebrew language. Luther was personally involved in the search for a Hebrew scholar (Luther: 1913, 188f [no. 150f], 290f [no. 230 and n. 4], 306 [no. 247], 314f [no. 252], 365 [no. 303], 387 [no. 328], 465 [no. 400]; cf. Friedman: 1983, 33ff), proposing this position to Johannes Cellarius Gnostopolitanus7 and the baptized Jews: Matthaeus Adrianus and Werner Einhorn of Bacharach.8 Adrianus was employed, but after a year, in conflict with Luther, he left Wittenberg. Eventually, in 1521 the chair was given to Matthaeus Aurogallus (Goldhahn).9 His successor was Johannes Forster10 (cf. Geiger: 1870, 91–104). Another important centre of humanistic studies in Germany was the University of Heidelberg (the oldest university in Germany, opened in 1386). It flourished 7 Among the Renaissance philologists there were several Hebrew scholars bearing the Latinized name Cellarius from the German Keller or Kellner. Among them was a professor at the University of Leipzig and Frankfurt, Johannes (1496–1542), also known as Gnostopolitanus, a student of Reuchlin. He taught Hebrew in Mainz, Tübingen, Heidelberg, Leipzig, Liège and Leuven. He wrote a small grammar of the Hebrew language Isagogicon in hebraeas literas (Haguenau: ­Thomas Anshelm, 1518), which attracted Luther’s attention. In May 1519, he stayed in Wittenberg and met Melanchthon and Luther, who together decided that he was fairly well prepared for teaching Hebrew (Luther: 1913, 188 [no. 150]). He finally rejected Luther’s proposal and, until 1521, taught Hebrew at a competitive academic center in Leipzig (cf. Capito: 2005, 50; Friedman: 1983, 33f; Guenther: 2008, 287). The second sixteenth-century Hebrew scholar named Cellarius was Martin Borrhaus (1499–1564), also a student of Reuchlin, Eck and Melanchthon, educated in Tübingen, Inglostadt and Wittenberg, professor and several times rector of the University of Basel (cf. Deutsch/Haneman: 1901–1906, 390; Bietenholz: 2003a). 8 He taught Hebrew in Ingolstadt and Erfurt (cf. Burnett: 2004, 183f). 9 He was born around 1490 in Chomutov, a student of Cellarius Gnostopolitanus. He came to Wittenberg in 1519, where he taught until his death in 1543. He helped Luther to translate the Old Testament. In 1535 he published a Hebrew grammar (cf. Friedman: 1983, 35; Luther: 1913, 465 [no. 400 and n. 3]). 10 A student of Reuchlin’s, educated in Ingolstadt. His opus magnum was a cutting-edge Hebrew-­ Latin dictionary Dictionarium hebraicum novum; contrary to the previous works it was no longer based on the Jewish lexicography (cf. Article “Forster”: 1997).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

43

during the Renaissance and Reformation period and in the second half of the sixteenth century it became an important centre of the Reformed Protestantism in Germany, which was also visited by Polish students. After the Renaissance renewal of the curriculum (1521/1522), the first efforts of philological studies here ended in failure, as the professors abandoned their chairs and found more profitable jobs at other universities. The study of ancient languages was revived in the middle of the century, inspired by Paul Fagius (cf. Seebaß: 1996a). Before 1521 Hebrew was taught in Heidelberg by Wessel Gansfort (1419–1489), Cellarius Gnostopolitanus, Matthaeus Adrianus and Johannes Reuchlin. From 1521 onwards, the Hebrew language was taught on the arts faculty (not theology faculty) by several well-known Hebraists: Johannes Brenz (taught in 1521), Johannes Boeschenstein (in 1521/1522), Sebastian Münster (in 1524–1529), who then went to Basel, and Georg Siboldi (in 1529–1530), Valentin Cleinmann (in 1531–1537) and Paul Staffelsteiner (in 1551– 1555). The University was not always successful in filling this position, as the gap between 1537 and 1551 reveals (cf. Geiger: 1870, 88ff; Gach: 1993; Drüll: 2002, 51, 80, 133, 503; Burnett: 2004, 183; Merkle: 2015, 41f, n. 12). Christian Hebraism was also present at the University of Leipzig. Around 1519, it was Johannes Cellarius Gnostpolitanus who taught Hebrew there. In the same centre, the Hebrew classes were also conducted by Conrad Pellican’s student, Philip Michael Novenianus (d. 1574). He published (1520) a textbook entitled Elementale hebraicum. It was the first book printed in Leipzig in Hebrew font (cf. Deutsch/ Porges: 1901–1906, 674; Gottheil: 1901–1906, 302f). Other important German-speaking centres where lectures in Hebrew were delivered before 1535 include Erfurt, Cologne, Strasbourg, Freiburg, Bern, Tübingen, Frankfurt/O, Marburg, Vienna, Freiburg/Br, Ingolstadt, Liegnitz (cf. Burnett: 2004, 183). Support from political and ecclesiastical authorities has played a very important role in popularizing the study of Biblical languages, helping to overcome resistance to a new way of education. The problem was so serious that those who had so far undertaken Greek and Hebrew studies and the study of ancient literature and even the Bible in its original form were suspected of heresy (cf. Jones: 1983, 100f). Thanks to patronage, mainly from the crowned heads, trilingual study centres equipped with appropriate tools and staffed by largely Jewish teachers with a good command of classical languages were able to educate a significant number of Hebrew scholars within a few years. Therefore, by the second and third decades of the sixteenth century, Hebrew studies were also easily accessible in northern and central Europe without the need to go to Italy to study. In addition to German-speaking Hebrew centres, Hebrew could be studied in Paris, Liége, Oxford, Cambridge, Alcalá and Cracow, among others. Jerome Friedman (1983, 31, 35) estimates that in France alone, Hebrew instruction was so popular that it can be reasonably assumed “that after just a year or two of instuction, more Frenchmen

44

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

could read Hebrew than all the Christians in Italy at the turn of the century when Reuchlin studied with Obadiah Sforno”. The development of Christian Hebraism in the first half of the sixteenth century would not have been possible without print, which allowed professors to publish grammars and dictionaries and provided students with the necessary help to learn. The first printing houses in Hebrew published mainly for Jewish readers (cf. Pilarczyk: 2007, 7–12) and were of little significance for the development of Christian Hebraism. On the editorial level, a huge role in the development of Christian Hebraism was played by Daniel Bomberg, a printer from Antwerp but active in Venice. He printed the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud and the most important works of Jewish grammarians. He improved the printing technique in Hebrew and developed a commonly imitated layout of the contents of Biblia rabbinica and the Talmud. He produced works of the highest quality, practically free from misprints. His books set the standards of printing in Hebrew for many years, overshadowing the products of other Jewish publishing houses, and were used by greatest Hebrew scholars of the epoch. He even managed to obtain the privilege to print Hebrew books (cf. Brown: 1891, 63f, 98, 105; Jacobs/Schwab: 1901–1906; Friedman: 1983, 36ff). Another publishing house that played an enormous role in the formation of Christian Hebraism was that of Johann Froben (c. 1460–1527) in Basel. He worked closely with Sebastian Münster and published his most important books promoting the works of Elias Levita (cf. Friedman: 1983, 44; Burnett: 2000; 2012a). Between 1501 and 1600 there were almost 200 European printing houses dealing with Hebrew. The largest number of them were in Germany and Switzerland (without Geneva) – a total of 111 houses, in France – 33, in Italy – 19, in Geneva – 10, in the Spanish Netherlands and Spain alone – 10 in total, in England – 4, in the Netherlands – 2, in Portugal – 1. Small Hebraist publications appeared sporadically in Cracow. In this case, however, it is difficult to say that these were printing houses specialised in Christian Hebraism. The most active Christian printers publishing Hebrew books in the sixteenth century include: Johann Crato (1510–1578) and heirs from Wittenberg (75 publications), Johann Froben and heirs from Basel (59 prints), Christopher Plantin (1514–1589) and Jan Moretus (1543–1610) from Antwerp and Leiden (58 prints), Heinrich Petri (1508–1579) and heirs from Basel (50 prints), Martin le Jeune (Juvenis) (d. 1584) from Paris (49 prints), Robert I Stephanus (Estienne) (1499–1559) and heirs from Paris and Geneva (42 prints) (cf. Burnett: 2000, 19f, 22; 2012a, 298). In terms of printing volume, by 1555, 396 editions of Hebrew works for Christians had been printed in Europe, of which 95 in Basel, 88 in various German printing houses, 139 in Paris, 10 in Lyon and 6 in Leuven, 32 in Italy and 20 in Spain, the remaining 6 in other centres. These figures testify to the enormous development of Christian Hebraism, which received

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

45

a great number of textbooks, dictionaries and other aids for studying the Old Testament in the original (Burnett: 2004, 185). The production of Hebrew books for Christians between 1501 and 1600 was as follows for each country: Switzerland (without Geneva) and Germany – 464 editions (c. 52 % of total European production), France – 235 editions (c. 26 %), the Netherlands under Spanish rule – 66 editions (c. 7 %), Italy – 44 editions (c. 5 %), the Netherlands – 32 editions (c. 4 %), Geneva – 18 editions (c. 2 %), Spain – 17 editions (c. 2 %), England – 5 editions, Portugal – 4 editions, Poland – 2 editions.11 A total of 887 items, half of which were grammars and dictionaries, and about 33 % were Hebrew, mainly Biblical, texts (cf. Burnett: 2004, 15f, 20). The organization of Hebrew studies and high-level publications would not have been possible without the cooperation of Christian Hebrews with Jewish philologists, both those converted to Christianity and those who remained with Judaism. The level of knowledge of the Hebrew language among Christians was initially not sufficient to find the best texts in the manuscripts and to prepare them for printing. A key role in this field was played by Daniel Bomberg, who employed a large group of outstanding Jewish linguists in his workshop.12 Initially, Bomberg cooperated with Felix Prato (d. 1539), for whom he printed the Latin translation of Psalms (1515). After accepting Christianity in 1518, Prato continued to work with the Venetian publisher and prepared the first edition of Biblia rabbinica (1516–1517) for printing (cf. Kohler/Broydé: 1901–1906). Bom­ berg’s next collaborator was an Orthodox Jew (converted to Christianity at the end of his life), Jacob ben Chayyim ibn Adoniyah (1470–1538), author of the general introduction to Biblia rabbinica, working on the first (1516–1517) and second edition of the Bible (BR2; 1524–1525), Babylonian (1523) and Palestinian ­Talmudim (1522–1523), among others. He found the best Hebrew manuscripts scattered all over Europe, due to which the best quality texts were published in Bomberg’s printing houses (cf. Jacobs/Broydé: 1901–1906a; Friedman: 1983, 42f; Mandelbrote: 2016, 99). Another collaborator of the Venetian publisher was Chiya Meir ben Meir, a former Jewish judge in Venice, who was very familiar with Jewish law.

11 Burnett (2004) only informs about two editions for Poland. Actually, in the first half of the sixteenth century three different grammars of the Hebrew language for Christians were published in Cracow, altogether in four editions, in two different printing houses (see 2.1, 2.3, 2.4). 12 The stay of Jews in Venice was limited by law. They had to wear visible signs to distinguish them from other inhabitants (cf. Deutsch/Lolli: 1901–1906, 410). In 1517, an entrepreneur applied for a permit to stay in Venice for four Jews needed to work on Biblia rabbinica. Felix Prato, who was completing the formalities on behalf of the printing house, asked to exempt those Jews from the obligation to wear their distinctive mark in the form of a yellow cap to protect them against being humiliated by the inhabitants. He received permission for the employed people to wear black caps, but only for four months (cf. Brown: 1891, 105; Jacobs/Schwab: 1901–1906).

46

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

He was involved in the publishing of the Talmud and developed an editorial model that was reproduced over the next centuries. Cornelius ben Baruch Adelkind also worked for Bomberg for 20 years (1524–1544) as a proofreader and financial manager. At the end of his life he was baptized (cf. Milwitzky: 1901–1906; Friedman: 1983, 43f; Schrijver: 2018, 295ff; Dunkelgrün: 2018, 326f). The work of the Orthodox Jew, Elias Levita (1468–1549), called Magister totius Christianitatis in recognition of his merits (Bałaban: 1931b, 522), was of great importance in translating the achievements of Jewish Hebrew linguistics into Latin and modern languages, and thus making them available to Christians. He was born in Germany, but moved to Italy, where he initially worked in Venice and Padua. In Padua in 1504 he published and provided his own commentary ‫מהלך‬ ‫ ׁשבילי הדעת‬Mahalakh shevile ha-daat by Moses Kimchi. From 1509 onwards, for 13 years Levita enjoyed the protection of Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo, one of the first Christian cabalists to be taught Hebrew by him (cf. Enelow: 1901–1906). At Cardinal request, Levita wrote a grammatical treatise ‫( ספר הבחור‬Sepher ha-Bachur – 1st edn: Rome 1518; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/6)13 dedicated to his principal. The work was dedicated mainly to Hebrew verbs and nouns. In 1518 Elias developed paradigmatic tables for beginners entitled ‫לוח בדקדוק הפעלים‬ ‫( והבנינים‬Luach be-Diqduq ha-Pealim we-ha-Binyanim – an unpublished work) and a work on exceptions in the Bible entitled ‫( ספר ההרכבה‬Sepher ha-Harkava – exemplary editions: Basel 1525, Venice 1546, Prague 1793; cf. Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 756ff). In 1520, another work by Levita, ‫( פרקי אליהו‬Pirqe Eliyahu), was published in Pisa, devoted to Hebrew letters, the vowel points, accents and individual parts of speech.14 In 1527 Levita returned to Venice, where he found employment in Bomberg’s printing house as a proofreader of Hebrew texts. During this period he gave private lessons in Hebrew. His pupil was Georges de Selve (1508–1541), French ambassador to Venice, and later Bishop Lavaur. Through De Selve, Levita sent the first concordance to the Masorah ‫( ספר הזכרנות‬Sepher ha-Zikhronot) for printing in Paris. Although the work did not appear in print for unknown reasons, it made a great impression in Paris and King Francis I of France proposed that the author take over the chair of the Hebrew language at the Collège des Lectures Royaux in the capital city. Levita refused because he did not want to settle in a city officially forbidden to his co-religionists.15 He still received many pro13 Another printed edition: Levita: 1556; 1789; see also: Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/6–12; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 749. 14 This work was also publish in bilingual Hebrew-Latin version (Levita: 1527; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/37; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 747; see also: Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/35–41; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 748). 15 In 1394, Jews were expelled from France by Charles VI of France (1368–1422). They left Paris on 2 November 1394 and could only live there after receiving a special permit. During the reign of Francis I the Jewish presence in Paris increased. He brought a Jewish doctor from Constan-

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

47

posals to teach the Hebrew language in Christian universities, but he kept refusing (cf. Jacobs/Broydé, 1901–1906b, 46ff). He was willing though to teach Christians by giving them private lessons. He was a master to such eminent Christian Hebraists as Egidio da Viterbo, Georges de Selve, Paul Fagius, Jan van den Campen, Andreas Maes (Masius) (1515–1573), Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) and Johann Albrecht Widmanstetter (Widmanstadius) (1506–1557). Sebastian Münster was considered a pupil of Levita, who popularized his grammars among Christians (see below; Article “Levita, Elijah”: 1997). Levita’s attitude, expressed in his openness to Christians, was the reason for the hostility of his fellow believers. They believed that Christians learn Hebrew and study Jewish literature, especially the Cabala, to seek arguments against the Jews. Elias defended himself by explaining that he never taught the Cabala to the Christians, but only the basics of the language. He also argued that Christian Hebraists usually stand up for Jews. Another subject of dispute between Levita and his co-religionists was his work on the Masorah ‫( ספר מסורת המסורת‬Sepher Masoret ha-masoret – see Levita: 1539; 1867; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 744; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/20–23), in which he claimed that the vowel points come from about the fifth century A. D. and is an invention of the Masoretes. Orthodox Jews believed that vowel points belong to an ancient tradition dating back to inspired authors (cf. Jacobs/Broydé: 1901–1906b, 48f). This discovery was of great importance for Christian Hebraism because it showed, first of all, that the commonly accepted then Masoretic interpretation of the texts has no divine inspiration, hence the Christian study of the Hebrew Bible does not necessarily depend on post-Talmudic Jewish exegesis. Secondly, it challenged the value of the Cabala, whose mysticism was largely based on Masoretic punctuation. In this way the ground was prepared for the dejudaization of Christian Hebraism (cf. Friedman: 1983, 41f). After the liquidation of the Bomberg printing house in Venice, Levita accepted the invitation of the Hebrew scholar Paul Fagius and moved to Isna im Allgäu (1540–1542) and then to Constance (1542–1544), where the Hebrew printing houses founded by Fagius were operating. During this period Levita published lexicographic works: ‫( תׁשבי‬Tishbi) (1541b; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/46; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 761) – a dictionary containing 712 Hebrew words used in the Talmud and post-Talmudic literature, with German and Latin explanations translated by Fagius, and the first Yiddish-Hebrew dictionary ‫( ׁשמות דברים‬Shemot Devarim – Isny 1542; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/44; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 764). In Constance, Levita continued his publishing activity. There he published a Hebrew-German version of Pentateuch, Five Megillot and a revised version of Sepher ha-Bachur. After returntinople to the capital city, established the chair of the Hebrew language in Collège de France, and during his reign in Paris there were Jewish printing houses (cf. Deutsch/Lévy/Jacobs/Schwab: 1901–1906, 529f).

48

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

ing to Venice, he continued to work and published Michlol by Dawid Kimchi with his own notes in 1545. In 1546 he collected and published at Bomberg’s in Venice under the common title ‫( דקדוקים‬Diqduqim) (Kimch: 1546) the works of his predecessors, which included the studies by Moses Kimchi and Ibn Ezra (cf. Ginsburg: 1867, 1–84; Geiger: 1870, 55–74; Jacobs/Levias: 1901–1906; Jacobs/Broydé: 1901–1906b, 48f; Tene/Barr: 1974, 1375f, 1385f, 1390; Article “Fagius”: 1997). Sebastian Münster, who learned Hebrew from the best philologists of the era: Pellican and Reuchlin, played an important role in the formation of Christian Hebraism. In 1524, he converted to Protestantism. From 1524 to 1529 he taught Hebrew in Heidelberg, and in 1528 he took over the chair of the Hebrew language at the University of Basel. His first work was published in 1520 in Basel at Froben’s. It was a grammar entitled Epitome hebraicae grammaticae, corrected and reissued four years later under the title Institutiones grammaticae in hebraeam linguam (Münster: 1524; VD 16, no. M 6685). These works were largely based on studies by Abraham ben Meir de Balmes16 (d. 1523) (cf. Friedman: 1983, 44f). Münster’s linguistic achievements were greatly influenced by the works of Elias Levita. After getting acquainted with Sepher ha-Bachur, he acknowledged the value of this work, claiming it surpassed those of his predecessors, including Abraham de Balmes. He put aside other activities and took up translating grammar into Latin. The translation, adapted to the needs of Christians, was published in Basel in 1525, under the title ‫( ספר הדקדוק‬Sepher ha-Diqduq). The work is also known under the Latin title Grammatica hebraica absolutissima (Levita: 1525; Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/7 and 6591/1; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 750; other editions: Steinschneider: 1931, no. 4960/8–12; Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 751–755). Münster was so enthralled by Levita’s works that he stopped writing his own grammars and devoted a lot of time to translating and printing the works of this Jewish linguist. He crowned his activity in 1541 with a collection of various Levita’s works entitled ‫מלאכת הדיקדוק הׁשלם‬ (Melekhet ha-Diqduq ha-shalem), also known as Opus Grammaticum Consummatum ex variis Elianis libris concinnatum (Levita: 1541b; other editions: Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 745f). This collection, reprinted many times, became the most popular Hebrew grammar of the era used by Christians. Other achievements of Münster include Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries: ‫( ערוך הׁשורׁשות‬Arukh ha-Shorshot) – Dictionarium hebraicum (Münster: 1523; 16 Abraham de Balmes was a Jewish linguist. In 1523 in Venice he published ‫ספר דקדוק מקנה אברם‬ (Sepher Diqduq Miqne Avram) together with its Latin translation (Pilarczyk: 2011, no. 60). In the seventh chapter of this book, he attempted to describe Hebrew syntax using concepts of Latin grammar, applying for the first time to Hebrew grammar a three-part scheme of language description consisting of phonology, morphology and syntax, and thus opening a new stage in the history of Hebrew linguistic literature. At the request of his principal, Cardinal Domenico Grimani of Venice, he also gave private Hebrew lessons. His student was, among others, Daniel Bomberg (cf. Tene/Barr: 1974, 1360, 1374f, 1390; Friedman: 1983, 21f).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

49

VD 16, no. M 6658), and ‫( ׁשילוׁש לׁשונות‬Shilush Leshonot) – Dictionarium trilingue (1st edn: Basel 1530; see also Münster: 1562) – the most popular Biblical dictionary for Christians containing Hebrew, Greek and Latin terminology. Münster also published the first Aramaic grammar for Christians (Münster: 1527; VD 16, no. M 6648) and his own translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, which was published in 1534/1535 and was largely based on Targumim and the work of Jewish grammar and commentators: Rashi, David Kimchi, Ibn Ezra and others (cf. Jones: 1983, 46f). The second edition of this Bible (Miqdash: 1546) contains a well-known preface showing the benefits of using the works of rabbis by Christians (cf. Friedman: 1983, 165–168). Münster also translated the Gospel of St Matthew into Hebrew, which was published in 1537. He published well-prepared texts of selected Biblical books and rabbinical commentaries (cf. Toy/Jacobs: 1901–1906; Friedman: 1983, 45–48; Silverman: 1997c). Due to Münster’s extensive use of Jewish sources, he was accused of judaization by Luther. The attacks on Münster resulted in his withdrawal from Hebrew studies. He devoted the last years of his life to studying geography (cf. Friedman: 1996c). The best Christian Hebraism works of the Renaissance were written by this linguist. Friedman (1983, 44) estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century there were about 100,000 copies of Münster’s works dedicated to the most important aspects of Hebrew studies, and Burnett (2000, 28) calculated that this Hebrew writer wrote, published or translated a total of 74 pieces of hebraica. At the time of his death (1553), Christian Hebraism was such a mature and developed discipline that the cooperation of Christians with Jewish linguists was no longer necessary. In this way, the Hebrew studies, in which Jews had been involved for centuries, became in the middle of the sixteenth century a field universally recognized and practiced by Christians (cf. Geiger: 1870, 74–88; Burmaister: 1969; Friedman: 1983, 48; Burnett: 2000, 25–29).

1.2.2 Hebrew studies versus the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation The humanistic call ad fontes was also responded to in numerous ways in the Reformation movements. Their main leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) expressed the idea of a return to the sources in their cry of sola Scriptura. Just as for humanists the way to the renewal of civilization was a return to the sources of ancient culture, so for reformers the ancient sources of Divine Revelation became a way to renew faith and theology (cf. Friedman: 1983, 19). However, the common interest in the Bible on the part of the humanists and the reformers did not mean that the latter put the idea of humanism fully into practice. For reformers, the Bible was not one of the ancient sources pointing the way to moral, cultural, political and economic renewal; it was for them the most important and actually the only source of faith

50

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

and centre of worship. They proclaimed that the authority of God’s Revelation did not lie in a Western Tradition closely related to the papacy, which imposed a certain interpretation of the Scripture, but in the “genuine” word of God. Therefore, in order to make the best possible text available to readers, and because of the constant improvement in translating the Scripture, emphasis was placed on the study of the original languages and the printing of ever new editions of the Bible in the original and in the translations (cf. Bainton: 1963, 1–6; Loewe: 1974, 17). A change also occurred in the way the Bible was interpreted: the medieval method of lecturing based on the so-called quadriga, the doctrine of the fourfold sense of Holy Scripture (istorum quatuor sensuum) (cf. Friedman: 1983, 313; Hagen: 2009),17 was largely abandoned; the scholars turned to a literal-historical exegesis, based on the text itself and its lexical-grammatical explanation, without reference to traditional medieval authorities (cf. Jones: 1983, 56, 89). With regard to such hermeneutical assumptions, Jewish philology and exegesis, focusing on the literal-historical interpretation of the inspired text, proved to be very helpful. Such an approach to exegesis also entailed certain risks. Rabbinical exegesis dealt mainly with the linguistic and historical problems of sacred texts, clearly arguing with the Christological sense preferred by Christians. In this situation, the Bible researchers of the Renaissance era were threatened by the de-Christianization of the Old Testament, the breaking of the bond between the two Testaments and the consequent judaization of Christianity. Aware of this danger, representatives of various Protestant currents undertook the effort of searching for new hermeneutical solutions that would open the possibility of literal interpretation without losing the Christological and moral sense, so important in the pastoral sense for the Bible reading that was the basis of the Reformation (cf. Friedman: 1983, 123–126). For the reformers, the Bible was not a book containing moral and practical doctrine alone, but a “theological locus” in which a free act of salvation is carried out for whoever accepts the revealed contents in the word with faith (Buzzetti/Bravi: 1992, 30). In placing the Bible at the centre, the reformers, with some mistrust and scepticism, referred to other sources of ancient Hebrew wisdom, such as the Cabala, the Talmud and rabbinical works. Some even saw them as a threat to the purity of faith. They tried to use their humanistic linguistic studies for their own purpose, which was to revise Christian doctrine. The knowledge of Biblical languages opened up new possibilities of interpretation. The reformers sought support from eminent humanists and philologists of the era. Luther found them in Reuchlin’s disciples: 17 The medieval exegesis was based on two basic senses of the Scripture: literal and spiritual. Three more were distinguished within the spiritual sense: allegorical, moral and anagogic. The principle of “fourfold sense” is summarized in the Latin distich: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, | Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia (“The letter teaches, what happened | the allegory what you have to believe, | the morality, how you have to act, | and the anagogia, what you have to strive to”).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

51

Melanchthon – Reuchlin’s relative, and Forster, although Luther failed, despite his efforts, to make Reuchlin support the reform. Until his death he remained a Catholic, openly opposed the Reformation, and even renounced Melanchthon, disappointed with Melanchton’s attitude (cf. Deutsch: 1901–1906, 213; Deutsch/ Haneman: 1901–1906, 389; Article “Melanchthon”: 1997; Burnett: 2000, 30ff). When presenting Hebrew studies against the background of the religious polemics of the sixteenth century, it should be noted that they were not treated in the same way by all Christian denominations. Catholics had a different approach to Christian Hebraism, contrary to that of various Protestant currents. These, in turn, also differed in terms of the objectives, the way they studied and used Hebrew. On the fringes of the reform movements, it is necessary to place those who sought ancient wisdom not only in the Bible, but also widely used works of post-biblical Judaism as a source of faith. On the part of representatives of the “orthodox” currents of reform, their activity was considered a heretical return to Judaism (cf. Friedman: 1983, 55f). 1.2.2.1 Lutherans The differences in the humanistic and reformist approach to linguistic studies are very well reflected in Luther’s own attitude towards learning and using Hebrew. He began studying the Hebrew language during his stay in an Augustinian monastery in Erfurt,18 when around 1507 he received a copy of De rudimentis hebraicis and probably started learning it himself. Between 1513 and 1515, while lecturing in the Book of Psalms (Dicta super Psalterium) at the University of Wittenberg, he occasionally used the original text. However, he mainly used the medieval works of Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos and St Jerome’s Psalterium juxta hebraeos, as his knowledge of Hebrew was probably still very limited. In his teaching on the Psalms, he uses the medieval hermeneutics of the fourfold sense of the Bible (quadriga) (cf. Reader: 2008, 370–374). His later work, Operationes in Psalmos from 1519–1521, testifies to the reformer’s progress in studying the Hebrew language, to which he refers more often than before. He also changed his approach to the principles of interpretation. Luther’s hermaneutics was summarized by Reader (2008, 275) as follows: Luther emphasizes that Holy Scripture has only one (unus), literal (literalis), legitimate (legitimus), proper (proprius), genuine (germanus), pure (purus), simple (simplex) and constant (constans) sense, and this one sense is both literal and spiritual simultaneously (cf. Schwiebert: 1950, 281; Jones: 1983, 57f).

18 At that time, Hebrew was not taught at the University of Erfurt, and the professors were hostile to new ideas, proclaimed, among others, by Reuchlin, who was considered a heretic by Erfurt theologians in 1514 (cf. Jones: 1983, 57).

52

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Opinions on Luther’s Hebrew education are divided, e. g. Schwarz (1955, 66) believed that even in 1518 the reformer was far from understanding the Hebrew text of the Psalms well. He doubted whether Luther had the Hebrew Bible at all during this period. He used the works of Reuchlin instead (cf. Jacobs: 1906, 105, 208, 225). On the basis of Reuchlin’s work, he made detailed notes on his copy of the Vulgate, which testifies to his efforts to find the original meaning of words. He also paid close attention to the sources from which the texts he used came, looking for the best variants. As his knowledge of Hebrew deepened, he slowly lost confidence in the Vulgate and increasingly turned to the Hebrew Bible. He believed that without knowledge of the original languages it was impossible to understand the Bible well. He kept repeating that “the Hebrews drink from the sources, the Greeks from the rills that flow from the source, but the Latin people [drink] from the puddles”19 (see Jones: 1983, 57f; Posset: 2019, 198–210). Luther himself never considered himself a philologist, and he was critical of his knowledge of Biblical languages, saying that as far as grammar was concerned, he knew neither Hebrew nor Greek well. He believed that the strict application of grammatical rules and lexical definitions made the translator too uncomfortable, who should not translate the text literally (WA.TR 1, 525 [no. 1040]). According to Luther, the ability to translate the Bible well is a gift from God himself, a kind of inspiration. He also disagreed with Johann Forster (cf. Posset: 2019, 205–210), who claimed that the study of grammar was the best way to learn Hebrew. Luther claimed that the best way was to read the text itself and compare it with parallel passages, as this lead to mastering the spirit of the language and learning the spirit of the Bible itself. This did not mean, however, that he dropped studying Hebrew grammar at all because, as mentioned above, he was familiar with Reuchlin’s work, he referred to the exegetical and linguistic works of Moses and David Kimchi, he used Solomon Rashi’s commentaries, be it in a critical manner. To this day it has not been clearly established whether he was able to read them directly from the original. Perhaps he knew them through the works of Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos, which he valued and widely used.20

19 “Die Ebräer trinken aus der Bornquelle; die Griechen aber aus den Wässerlin, die aus der Quelle fließen; die Lateinischen aber aus der Pfützen” (WA.TR 1, 525 [no. 1040]). 20 Cf. Laird (1998) for Luther’s knowledge of Hebrew (the author quoted there from the reformer’s works on his attitude to the learning and use of the Hebrew language in exegetical and translational works). Cf. also: Deutsch: 1901–1906, 213; Jones: 1983, 58f; Heller/Ansbacher: 1997. The publications quoted here also provide Luther’s sources. As for Luther’s use of medieval linguistic and exegetic literature, both Jewish and Christian, see e. g., LW 10, 43, 413; 15, 269, 321; 25, III; 47, III. In his works, Luther quotes Nicholas of Lyra several hundred times and Paul of Burgos at least several dozen times (data obtained from the results of the Libronix system search engine publishing LW).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

53

As for the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into German, Luther’s knowledge of the Hebrew language was not sufficient for him to work independently. He therefore organised weekly meetings with Bible language teachers from the University of Wittenberg (with the participation of Philipp Melanchthon, Matthaeus Aurogallus, Bernhard Ziegler [1496–1552] and Johann Forster), with whom he discussed the problems associated with the original text of the Bible. Andreas Osiander21 and Caspar Cruciger the Elder22 were also among Luther’s consultants. Having determined the appropriate variant and its meaning, the reformer himself looked for German expressions that best reflected the original (cf. Jacobs: 1906, 225f). Luther’s attitude to Judaism also deserves attention. Until about 1537, he expressed himself positively about Jews, and even enthusiastically about the attempts to convert them to Christianity. He condemned the persecution of Jews and encouraged a more tolerant policy towards them by invoking Christian mercy. He believed that in his day a reformed and purified Christianity would succeed in attracting all the Jews and thus fulfil St Paul’s announcement that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). However, when Luther’s hopes were dispelled, he changed his attitude and began to speak about the Jews in a hostile way and even incited their persecution (cf. Deutsch: 1901–1906; Jones: 1983, 62f; Heller/Ansbacher: 1997; Manuel: 1992, 47). Luther was seriously concerned about the judaization of Christianity that took place in Moravia and Austria (cf. LW 2, 361f; 3, 78; 47, 65–99; 54, 239 [no. 3597]). The reformer’s aversion to Jews deepened over time, which can be clearly traced in the treaty against the Sabbatarians of 1538 (LW 47, 65–99). Luther’s attitude to Judaism was reflected in his views on the use of rabbinical works by Christians. The views of his on the use of Jewish Hebrew studies were radicalised around 1542 when he read a Jewish pamphlet polemic with the 21 Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), German reformer and Lutheran theologian, cabalist. He taught Hebrew at an Augustinian monastery in Nuremberg. After the introduction of the Reformation in that town, he held the office of a preacher. As a preacher and theologian, he had a great influence on the Prussian prince Albrecht Hohenzollern. In 1548, he moved to Königsberg, where he became a preacher and professor at the Königsberg University and taught theology and Hebrew. He became involved in Christological disputes with Lutheran theologians. He also had a different, more Catholic-like view of the doctrine of justification by faith. As for Christology, he believed that Christ was only a Mediator in terms of human nature, and thus separated natures in Christ. His activity in Königsberg was connected with the translation and edition of the New Testament in Polish by Stanisław Murzynowski (c. 1528–1553) and Jan Seklucjan (c. 1510/1515– 1578), who were accused of favouring Osiander’s views, which even led to a temporary suspension of work on the New Testament. Osiander is considered by some authors as  the best Hebraist among the German Reformers” (Jones: 1983, 59). See also Małłek/Pepłowski: 1974, 14f; Seebaß: 1996b; Amir: 1997; Janowski: 2010b; Pietkiewicz: 2016, 338 f. 22 Caspar Cruciger the Elder (1504–1548), German humanist and Lutheran theologian, a close friend of Melanchthon. He studied in Wittenberg, where he later taught Hebrew between 1528 and 1548 (cf. Jones: 1983, 59; Rosin: 1996).

54

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Christian faith. After reading it, he decided that on the part of the Jews it was an attempt to gain followers, which threatened with the Judaisation of Christianity (LW 47, 137). The reformer believed that the Hebrew scholars themselves, who lent authority to the Jewish interpretation of the Bible, were partly to blame for this state of affairs. Luther urged the Christian Hebraism scholars to refrain from using rabbinical commentaries and to remember that they were mostly Christians and only later Hebraists (LW 15, 269, 343). Moreover, Luther was not wiling to trust the rabbis in all questions of grammar. He doubted that they had kept the original understanding of the Hebrew language and text. Towards the end of his life, he expressed his regret that he devoted so much attention to the use of Jewish teaching in his translations (LW 15, 269; cf. Friedman: 1983, 195–201, 204; Burnett: 2004, 191ff; Reader: 2008, 403f). Luther believed that the Jews were unable to find the full meaning of the Old Testament because they did not believe in Christ and the Gospel, thus depriving themselves of the key to interpret the Bible, so the use of rabbinical exegesis for Christians was very limited. The influence of Lutheran theology based on the juxtaposition of the Law of the Old Testament and the Gospel (which can be expressed in opposition: Judaism/Christianism) and Christocentrism giving meaning to the whole Bible was clearly visible here. These principles had a strong influence on Luther’s practical exegesis, which was used primarily in his translations (cf. LW 15, 269; 54, 42f [no. 312]). The reformer translated the text of the Old Testament in such a way that the Spirit of Christ was present in each of its verses, even at the cost of rejecting the philological remarks and commentaries of the Hebraists. In this situation, the Jewish writings referring to the Old Testament and commenting on it in isolation from the New Testament were, according to Luther, virtually useless (cf. Manuel: 1992, 47). According to the reformer, another factor reducing the value of rabbinical literature for the Christian interpretation of the Bible was the fact that the Jewish exegesis and their grammatical and lexicographic works were based on Masoretic vocalization and accentuation, secondary to the consonantal text and without the authority of divine inspiration (LW 6, 301f; 7, 169; 8, 141). Finally, he was irritated by the lack of unanimity among rabbis (so necessary in his translation work) in interpreting more intricate fragments of the Bible. He believed that by their contradictory voices they made the text even more incomprehensible (LW 6, 266; cf. 15, 343). This already very unfavourable opinion should be supplemented with Luther’s accusations of Jewish commentators who, according to him, falsified the text of the Old Testament, depriving it of a clear reference to Christ. The reformer, like other Christians, was also irritated by the presence of blasphemies towards Jesus and Christians in the Talmud and other Jewish scriptures (cf. Manuel: 1992, 47). Luther’s growing aversion to Judaism and Hebraists at the end of his life took the form of open, directly obsessive hostility. He put the Jews on an equal footing

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

55

with the Muslims and even identified them with Satan. It also seems that he failed to see a clear line between Christian Hebraism and the judaization of Christianity. He encouraged rulers to drive Jews out, burn down synagogues and Jewish schools, deprive them of books, destroy houses, forbid rabbis to teach, restrict their use of public roads, and even directly called for murdering Jews (LW 47, 212, 214, 268– 272, 276, 285–288; cf. Friedman: 1983, 203–207). Thus, the attitude of the father of Reformation to the achievements of Hebrew studies strongly evolved. Initially, he accepted the possibility of using Jewish teaching, although his confidence in it was very limited and cautious, even sceptical at times. Over time, however, his caution turned into open hostility. As far as the attitude towards Judaism of other Hebraists from Wittenberg circles was concerned, they too were very careful and critical in the promotion of exegetical and linguistic rabbinical thought among Christians. One can observe among them a desire to dejudaize Biblical and Hebrew studies. A good illustration of this process are the views of one of Reuchlin’s students, Johann Forster. In 1557, he published a dictionary of the Hebrew language in Basel in the printing house of Hieronimus Froben (1501–1563) and Nicolaus Episcipius (1501–1564); in this dictionary he consciously and openly cut himself off from the rabbinical traditions, as evidenced by the title itself: Dictionarium hebraicum novum, non ex rabbinorum commentis, nec nostratium doctorum stulta imitatione descriptum (Forster: 1557). In the foreword to this work, Forster criticized his contemporary Christian Hebraists for their use of rabbinical works without criticism and discernment, which, according to the author, brought more errors to the Church than true light. He believed that the Jews did not have a true knowledge of God or even an adequate knowledge of their own language (cf. Orme: 1824, 192f; Tene/Barr: 1974, 1392). Forster’s dictionary was on a very low linguistic level, reflecting the direction adopted by Wittenberg Hebraism, which was never as good as that of Basel, Zurich or Strasbourg (Friedman: 1983, 170–175). Luther’s views and those of Wittenberg theologians played a very important role in the process of dejudaizing Christian Hebraism. The change of attitude towards Jews and their exegesis did not mean a similar attitude towards Hebrew in Luther’s case. While humanists believed that the study of ancient languages was an essential part of modern upbringing and education, the German reformer went one step further and claimed that knowledge of Biblical languages was essential for a proper reading of the Bible, and thus for the freshness and purity of faith. He therefore strongly encouraged the teaching of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, especially for those who were engaged in preaching. Undoubtedly, this attitude of Luther’s to linguistic studies was greatly influenced by Melanchthon, who from an early age grew up in the shadow of his uncle, Reuchlin. In this way, Luther’s studies in the humanities produced practical results: ancient languages were harnessed to the service of theology and faith (cf. Jones: 1983, 65f).

56

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

1.2.2.2 Zwinglians As a child, Ulrich Zwingli had already met with a humanistic program of study and upbringing, mainly because of his uncle, a high-ranking clergyman from Wesen, an ardent supporter of the new way of teaching. It was the uncle who sent Ulrich to schools in Bern, Vienna and the University of Basel, where he later studied from 1502 to 1506 (cf. Myconius: 1912, 5; Jackson: 1901, 5). Zwingli strongly promoted language learning as an essential element of Christian education and upbringing. The knowledge of three classical languages (Latin, Greek and Hebrew) was to be the basis for studying theology, especially the Old and New Testaments (cf. Jones: 1983, 69ff; Leu/Weidmann: 2019, 24). After his ordination to the priesthood (1506) he undertook the study of Biblical languages himself. He began with Greek, which he learned by reading the New Testament, Greek philosophers and theologians in the original. He started learning Hebrew several times, alone or with the help of teachers. In 1519 he learned alone from available textbooks. A copy of Reuchlin’s De rudimentis hebraicis with notes and other books for learning Hebrew are preserved from that period. He returned to the study in 1522, making significant progress, when he took lessons from Johann Boeschenstein,23 who was staying in Zurich, and Jacob Ceporinus. Zwingli mastered the Hebrew language to such an extent that he was able to read the Hebrew Bible and use it himself during public disputes, as he did during the first Zurich dispute on 29 January 1523. Zwingli himself, however, was dissatisfied with his learning progress, and still in 1526 he maintained that his knowledge of languages was unsatisfactory. Apart from Reuchlin’s work, the reformer’s library contained textbooks by Sebastian Münster and Elias Levita. Hebrew literature constituted one percent of his book collection (Myconius: 1912, 5, 10; Jones 1983, 67ff; Rabbi: 1997; Leu/Weidmann 2019, 20, 24–31). Zwingli’s interest in learning Biblical languages resulted not so much from humanistic motives as from theological ones. The main goal of his linguistic efforts was an in-depth study of the Bible, which he considered the most important source of faith. He claimed that all preachers and scholars should use the original when using the Bible. He considered the use of Greek and Hebrew in sermons and disputes an essential part of preaching. During theological disputes, he used the original languages so often that he made even Luther annoyed and irritated, who doubted the language skills of the Swiss reformer (Jones: 1983, 68). In 1540, recalling Marburg Colloquy (1–4 October 1529), Luther said: People always want to seem more learned than they are. When we were at Marburg, Zwingli wanted to speak Greek. Once, when he was absent, I said: “Why isn’t he ashamed 23 Jones (1983, 67, 69) quoted incorrectly after Bullinger (1838, 30) that it was Andreas Boeschenstein (cf. Leu/Weidmann: 2019, 31).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

57

to speak Greek in the presence of so many learned classicists – Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, Osiander, and Brent?” They know Greek. These words were carried to him, wherefore the next day he excused himself in the presence of the Landgrave by saying: “Illustrious Lord, I speak Greek because I have read the New Testament for thirteen years.” No indeed! It is more than reading the New Testament, it is vainglory that blinds people. When Zwingli spoke German he wanted everyone to adopt the Swiss dialect. […] Oh, how I hate people who use so many languages as did Zwingli: at Marburg he spoke Greek and Hebrew from the pulpit (Smith: 1911, 244). (Die leut wolten über iren danct gelert sein. Cum essemus Marpurgi, tum ille semper Graece loquebatur. Aliquando autem absente illo dixi: Cur non pudet Graece loqui praesentibus tot doctis Graecis, Oecolampadio, Philippo, Osiandro, Brentio? Die kunnens und vorstehens doch! Haec verba erant ad ipsum delata. Quare mane coram principe sic se purgavit: Illustris princeps, ego saepe loquor Graece, nam iam 13 annos legi in novo testamento. Ach nein! sagt Doctor, es gehortt mehr darzu dan testamentum lesen, aber die ehresucht verblendt die leut gar. So redt er auch Deutsch; wolt, alle weldt solte Schwezerisch reden. […]. Ach, wie bin ich den leuten so seindt, die so vill sprachen einfuren wie Zwingel! Redet Grechisch und Hebreisch auss der canzel zu Marburg.) (WA.TR 4, 609f [no. 5005f]).

Zwingli’s efforts and persistence in studying the Hebrew language came to fruition after 1526, when he published a whole series of Biblical commentaries, proving his good knowledge of the Biblical languages, but also of the Targumim and of the rabbis’ exegetic and linguistic works. Zwingli was much more eager than Luther to study rabbinical works, although he did not always admit it. Some people place him among the most distinguished sixteenth-century Hebraists (Jones 1983, 69). Correspondence between Zwingli and his collaborators reveals they discussed the teaching of the Bible at the Zurich Academy, where the exegesis method called Prophezei, based on a lecture of the original Bible texts, was practised. On weekdays (except Fridays) the students gathered with Zurich professors and clergy. At first, a Hebraist (Ceporinus and then Pellican) prepared a fragment of the Hebrew text for each lecture, read it, indicated idioms, properties of the language, discussed the meaning of words, syntax, often provided a literal translation, quoted Jewish grammarians and rabbis. Next, Zwingli taught about the text in Latin, quoting also the Greek translation, the Septuagint. At the end, a preacher (often Leo Jud [1482– 1542]) summarized the lecture in German. This exegetic method was also imitated by other teaching centres in the spirit of the Reformation (Strasbourg, Basel, the Netherlands, England, Scotland) and was intended mainly for clergy preparing for the ministry. Other Biblical initiatives of this community had their roots in Prophezei as well: the Zurich Bible and published Zwingli’s exegesis (cf. Bullinger: 1838, 290f [no. 160]; Kidd: 1911, 449f; Friedman: 1983, 32; Baker: 1996). Another Biblical interest Zwingli pursued was the translation of the Bible into German, which appeared in six pieces in 1529, and in 1530 in one volume and was largely based on Luther’s unfinished translation complemented by the Zurich humanists (Zurich Bible), that is five years before Luther finished his version.

58

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Zwingli gathered around him a large group of Hebraists, such as Jacob Ceporinus, Conrad Pellican, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), Leo Jud, Johann Boeschenstein, and Johannes Oecolampadius from Basel, who were involved in lecturing and translating the Bible and became Zwingli’s consultants in his own exegetic and translation projects (cf. Friedman: 1983, 31ff; Jones: 1983, 69). The same community likewise made a new translation of the entire Bible into Latin. Leo Jud was mainly involved in this work, but he was also assisted by Theodore Biblander (1509–1564), Conrad Pellican, Peter Cholinus (1528–1588) and Rudolf Gualterus (1519–1586). They made extensive use of the works of Jewish grammarians and commentators (cf. Newman: 1925, 506ff; Hubbard: 1947, 199; Jones 1983, 49f). The so-called Biblia tigurina was published in 1543 (Bible: 1543). Zwingli’s attitude to the followers of Judaism was much more tolerant than that of Luther. He regarded rejection of Christ and resistance to conversion to Christianity as the greatest sin of the Jews, but did not support persecutions against the Jewish community (cf. Jones: 1983, 69). 1.2.2.3 Calvinists John Calvin’s knowledge of Hebrew at one time was underestimated and even disregarded. Richard Simon (1638–1712) (1682, 98) believed that the Swiss reformer was only familiar with the Hebrew alphabet (cf. Jones: 1983, 76). Today this opinion has been challenged, and a more detailed analysis of Calvin’s writings and the way he lectured proves his good knowledge of the language. It is not known exactly where Calvin learned Hebrew, as he left no information about it in his numerous writings. Most often it is assumed that the decisive moment in his Hebrew studies was his stay in Paris (from about 1530), where at the Collège de France at that time several eminent philologists, with François Vatable (c. 1493–1547) at the forefront, taught Hebrew. Others followed the opinion of Calvin’s biographers, Théodore de Bèze (1516–1605) (1565, 7f; 2008, 8) and Nicholas Colladon (c. 1530–1586), and believed that Calvin did not master Hebrew until Basel (1534–1536), where he made friends with outstanding Hebraists Simon Grynaeus (1493–1541) and Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1478–1541) (cf. Jones: 1983, 71f; Louvish: 1997). Calvin’s further deepening of his knowledge of Hebrew was also undoubtedly influenced by his stay in Strasbourg between 1538 and 1541 (during his exile from Geneva), where thanks to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito and Martin Bucer (1491–1551), who came from Basel, the studies of this language were at a very high level. Calvin’s close contact with Hebraists of European renown undoubtedly contributed to his mastery of the original language of the Old Testament, as can be seen in his Biblical commentaries. John Calvin was one of the greatest exegetes of the Old Testament in the Renaissance era and left commentaries on almost all of Scripture (cf. Baron: 1997; Jones: 1983, 71–75).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

59

Calvin had an ambivalent relationship to rabbinical exegesis. He knew it from Nicholas of Lyra, Pagnini and Vatable. He quoted David Kimchi (e. g. in com. to Gen 3:1, Ps 86:9, Jer 8:22, Ezek 8:3, 9:9, 17:3, etc.), and even praised him sometimes as “the most correct expositor among the Rabbis” (com. to Ps 112:5), but most often one can find in Calvin’s works a criticism of rabbinical exegesis, which he accused of distorting the most important texts of the Old Testament in order to undermine the Christian interpretation (e. g. com. to Ps 36:7). In his commentary to Daniel, Calvin he repeatedly criticized Rabbi Isaac ben Judah Abarbanel (Abrabanel) (1437–1508),24 calling him “very foolish”, “absurd”, “proud”, “insipid”, “trifler” (e. g. in com. to Dan 2:44f, 4:13–16, 7:27, 9:24f). He also held unfavourable opinions about other rabbis, accusing them of ignorance (cf. Baron: 1972a, 342ff). The environment in which Calvin lived, studied and worked was less hostile to the followers of Judaism than that of Wittenberg. During his stay in Strasbourg, there were even people who were very sympathetic to Jews, such as Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (cf. Louvish: 1997; Jones: 1983, 75). Martin Bucer, who has benefited greatly from the rabbinical linguistic and exegesis, was highly esteemed by Calvin (cf. Jones: 1983, 73f). On the other hand, however, Bucer’s anti-Judaic attitude when discussing the problems of the Jews’ stay in Hessen must also have had a significant impact on Calvin, whose theology depended on Bucer’s thought (cf. Baron: 1972a, 339f; Friedman: 1983, 199ff; Hanc: 1985, 1145). The attitude of the Geneva reformer towards Orthodox Jews was more tolerant than that of Luther, although not devoid of criticism and prejudice. He argued with the Jews, accused his enemies (e. g. Michael Servetus [1511–1553]) of crypto-­ Judaism and expressed his satisfaction with the exile of Jews from Geneva (1491) (cf. Baron: 1972a, 346–349). However, despite an apparent aversion to Judaism, numerous links, fraught with consequences, between Calvinist and Jewish theology can be discovered. Calvin was strongly attached to the severity of the Old Testament Law, which he sought to imitate as far as possible when building a Christian republic in Geneva. His interpretation of the Decalogue was similar to the rabbinical to a large extent. For this reason Calvin himself was also accused by his opponents of judaizing Christianity. Servetus accused him of ignoring the novelty of the Gospel, and the Lutheran theologian Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) published a polemical pamphlet in Wittenberg in 1595 entitled Calvinus Judaizans (cf. Baron: 1972a, 341f, 350). In this perspective, it is not surprising that some of the supporters of the Reformation, who were to varying degrees connected with Calvinism, radicalized their attitude to the Old Testament Law even further, and in various parts of Europe they accepted circumcision and even converted to Judaism. These events, espe24 A famous rabbi from Portugal. Author of commentaries to the Torah, the Prophets and of ­Daniel (cf. Lawee: 2009, 36f).

60

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

cially the case of Servetus, explain to some extent Calvin’s ambivalent attitude to Judaism and its writings (cf. Baron: 1972c, 328–332; 1997). Despite this not entirely consistent attitude towards Judaism, the enthusiasm for studying Biblical languages among the supporters of the Geneva Reformation movement was so great, and the education was so effective that Reformed clerics and scholars were among the leading Christian Hebraists for the next two centuries (cf. Jones: 1983, 79). 1.2.2.4 Radicals In addition to the main branches of the Reformation discussed above, radical factions emerged in Europe. Some of them drew extensively on Judaism and its writings, which led to sharp clashes not only with the Catholic Church, but also with representatives of traditional Reformation branches. The best known conflict between Radicals and Calvinists was the dispute between Michael Servetus and John Calvin, which ended with the death of the former at the stake in Geneva in 1553. Michael Servetus believed that theology, especially Christology and Trinitology, practiced since the time of Constantine the Great (272–337), was wrong because it was created by Greek Christians with no knowledge of the Hebrew language which gave access to a proper reading of the Old Testament and to Jewish culture and thought contemporary to Jesus, and enabled a correct interpretation of the New Testament. So in order to reach the “true apostolic faith”, it was necessary to reject the doctrine of the past, and to reach for the Jewish sources from the first centuries of Christianity since they were created in the intellectual and religious environment in which the New Testament was written. Only those truths of faith which can be derived and justified on the basis of the sources of Judaism from the times of Christ and the Apostles or slightly later can be accepted. The theology thus renewed is to be based not on the concepts and ideas of Greek philosophy, but on the ideas and concepts of post-Pharisaic Judaism. According to Servetus, the essential criterion of authenticity and the point of reference for the truths of faith was extreme monotheism. Servetus was an ardent Antitrinitarian. He criticized the faith in the Holy Trinity as a form of Christian polytheism. He believed that in the history of salvation God revealed Himself to people, assuming many names under which He passed on His messages. Such names, not separate Divine Persons according to the heresiarch, were Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Servetus, being an outstanding philologist, Greekist and Hebraist, made extensive use of rabbinical exegesis in his works, including David Kimchi. He also used Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan. After Servetus’ true views were exposed, he was sentenced to death in France, but managed to escape to Geneva, where Calvin had him captured and executed (cf. Newman: 1925, 511–609; Friedman: 1983, 55f, 59–70; 1996d, 48f).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

61

The case of Servetus echoed throughout Europe and had a huge impact on the propagation of antitrinitarianism which was promoted by itinerant Italian theologians who first fled to Geneva and then – after a conflict with Calvin – to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, among others. This group included Giorgio Biandrata (Blandrata) (1516–1588) and Giovanni Valentino Gentile (1520–1566). Other representatives of this trend, Ferenc Dávid (1510–1579) and Jakob Paleologus (1520–1585), translated a large part of Servetus’ works into Polish and Hungarian, spreading strongly judaizing antitrinitarianism in Central and Eastern Europe (cf: Związek: 1979, 1045f; Wojtyska: 1985, 374f; Krasiński: 1989, 969; Friedman: 1996b, 313; 1996d, 48f; Eyre: 1997, 3–12). Servetus’ attitude and views also influenced the French reformer, an outstanding expert in Hebrew and Greek, Sébastien Castellion (1515–1563). He received a very careful humanistic education in Erasmian spirit. After becoming acquainted with Calvin’s works, he became interested in the Reformation in its Geneva version and began his work in Strasbourg and Geneva, where he also taught classical literature. But then he came into conflict with Calvin, which forced him to move to Basel, where he taught Greek at the university. Castellion refused the divine inspiration of Song of Songs and literally interpreted the truth of Christ’s descent into the underworld while Calvin translated it symbolically. He called for the revision and reduction of the number of dogmas, including Trinitarian ones. He criticized Calvin for his attitude towards Servetus. Castellion’s most important work was the translation of the Bible from the original languages into classic Latin, done with the purpose of “purifying” the Word of God from “deformations” introduced to it by theological traditions (Biblia: 1551; subsequent editions: BCa 1554; 1556), dedicated to English King Edward VI (1537–1553), and into French (Basel 1555), dedicated to French King Henry II (1519–1559). These translations were very popular and were reprinted many times. Because of their controversial nature, Castellion also published a work defending these translations (Defensio translationum Bibliorum, Basel 1562). Increasing attacks on him by Calvin and De Bèze became the reason for Castellion’s plans to go to Poland, which were later dropped (cf. Goczoł/Misiurk: 1985, 1357f). Between 1570 and 1580, Polish antitrinitarianism began to drift towards judaization. Its followers demanded the abandonment of the worship of Christ and placed strong emphasis on the importance of the Old Testament for the whole of faith and customs. They claimed that Christ did not abolish the principles of Old Testament ethics with its injunctions and prohibitions, but only criticized the abuses of the Pharisees. In charge of this group were Szymon Budny (c. 1530–1593),25 Jacob Paleologus and Stanisław Budziński (c. 1530–a. 1593) (cf. Górski: 1985, 1004). In 25 Budny was accused of having Judaizing tendencies, but he himself definitely cut himself off from this movement (cf. NTSzB 1574, a5v–6r).

62

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

extreme cases, groups of Judaizers in Silesia, Slovakia and Moravia led by Andreas Fischer (1480–1540) and András Eőssi (d. c. 1599), returned to observing the Sabbath, circumcision, used Jewish prayer books and accepted the Talmud as a source of faith. These were the so-called Sabbatarians (cf. Friedman: 1983, 189f; Liechty: 1996a; 1996b). 1.2.2.5 Catholics Interest in the study of ancient languages appeared in Western Europe in the run-up to the Reformation. Hence, the first successes in organizing structures and methodology for Hebrew studies were closely linked to the Catholic millieu. In this context, it is necessary to recall some of the great promoters of this trend that have already been mentioned: Pope Nicholas V and Leo X, Cardinal Francesco Jiménez de Cisneros, Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Bishop John Fischer, Thomas More. Among the most eminent Hebraists of that period were Catholics, Johann Reuchlin and Santes Pagnini, who never joined the Reformation. As far as the Catholic methodology of Hebrew studies is concerned, works such as the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, De rudimentis hebraicis by Reuchlin, the Latin translation of Pagnini’s Hebrew Bible, were groundbreaking and were often the starting point for further development in this field. Later, after the Council of Trent (1545–1563), when the Vulgate was officially placed at the centre in the teaching and liturgy of the Church,26 the Hebrew text of the Bible and, consequently, the Catholic Hebrew studies lost some of their importance and lagged behind the didactics and achievements of Protestant Hebraism (cf. Friedman: 1983, 313; Burnett: 2000, 32–35). However, this did not mean rejecting other versions, including new translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, which included editions with papal approval (e. g. Pagnini translation) (cf. Jones: 1983, 53, 55 [n. 36]). It is true that at the time of the Council of Trent there were plans to publish a new Catholic edition of the Hebrew Bible, but these plans were abandoned. This also affected the translation work, which was based on the Jerome’s version. This was the case, for example, in Poland, where both Catholic translations of the entire Bible (Leopolita’s Bible and Wujek’s Bible) published during the Renaissance were made from the Vulgate. The greatest achievement of Hebraists of this period was the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (1569–1572), published with the papal approval, which 26 “[…] sacrosancta synodus […] statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur […]” (Council of Trent, Decreta de sacris Scripturis [session IV, 8.04.1546], Enchiridion biblicum: 1994, no. 61). “[…] holy Synod […] ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic […]”.

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

63

was a Catholic response to the Biblical fascination of the Reformation. Sometimes it is even called “counter-reformation in folio” (Jones: 1983, 44). The attitude of Catholics to rabbinical literature, mainly the Talmud and Cabala literature, was relatively open at the beginning of the sexteenth century, before the Reformation broke out. Many eminent Catholic humanists, often belonging to the highest spheres of the Church, studied Hebrew and Aramaic to study the Cabala (e. g. Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo, Cardinal Girolamo Seripando [1493–1563]27) (cf. Friedman: 1996a). However, the Church’s approach to the Talmud changed over the centuries. Until the thirteenth century this work did not attract much attention from Christians. From the thirteenth century, discussions began on the harmfulness of the Talmud and its blasphemous contents (especially those directed against Jesus and His Mother). The opposition to the Talmud was first growing stronger, then weaker to disappear altogether with time. On the one hand, there were known cases of censorship, confiscation and burning of this book, and on the other hand, the recommendation to study it by Christians (Pope Clement V in 1307), and even an attempt to use its contents to prove the deity of Jesus. In the thirteenth century Raymond of Penyafort (c. 1175–1275), a general of the Dominican Order, set up a special institute for missionaries who were to convert Jews, to study Hebrew and Aramaic languages and to study the Talmud. The institute employed baptized Jews whose task was to teach students to use arguments from both the Bible and the Talmud in polemics with confessors of Judaism (cf. Pilarczyk: 1998a, 150–155; 1998b, 41f). The ambivalent attitude of the Church towards the Talmud also prevailed in the first half of the sixteenth century. On the one hand, Pope Leo X himself considered the possibility of printing this work in Rome, while Bomberg, who issued various rabbinical sources, including the Talmud, did not encounter any major obstacles on the part of the Church, and even received in 1520 the papal permission to print the Talmud three times in his printing house (1519–1523, 1526–1539, 1543–1549). The Talmud was also published in 1546–1551 in the Venetian printing house of Marco Antonio Giustiniani (cf. Baron: 1972b, 359; Pilarczyk: 1998b, 44, 52ff). On the other hand, however, since the time of the Battle of the Books, Hebrew books and the works of Reuchlin who defended them were among the forbidden books due to suspected links with the Reformation, which, however, did not meet with full support in church circles. The opposition on the part of the Church against the Hebrew books also took more drastic forms. On 12 August 1553, Pope Julius III (1550–1555) issued a bull ordering the confiscation and destruction of the Talmud and other Jewish books and under the threat of excommunication prohibiting Catholics from reading the Talmud. The main charge against this book was 27 An Augustinian, an outstanding humanist, since 1539 a general of his order. One of the leading theologians at the Council of Trent, Bishop of Salerno (cf. Alberigo: 1996, 47f).

64

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

the presence of blasphemous passages against Christ and Christianity. On 9 September 1553, copies of the Talmud collected from all over the city were burned at Campo dei Fiori in Rome. A year later, the Pope issued another bull, toning down that from 1553. Restrictions on the Talmud were maintained, and other Hebrew books were subject to censorship: if they did not contain anti-Christian content, they could be printed and used (cf. Raz-Krakotzkin: 2004, 125).28 At the time of the Council of Trent, the Church undertook the effort to develop and publish Index librorum prohibitorum, which would protect Catholics from heretical teachings. The first official list of forbidden literature, published by Pope Paul IV (1555–1559) in 1559, forbade Catholics, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment, to possess and read the Talmud and other works commenting on its contents, which obviously did not favour Hebrew and Jewish studies in Catholic countries (cf. Baron: 1972b, 357f, 362; Pilarczyk: 1998a, 170–175; 1998b, 57). Among the fathers of the Council there were a few outstanding humanists who were kindly disposed to the study of Biblical languages. These included Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga (1505–1563) and an Augustinian Girolamo Seripando, a cabalist. The Portuguese king was represented by the Dominican Francisco Foreiro (1510– 1581), secretary of the Index commission, who during the Council issued his own translation of Isaiah from Hebrew to Latin with a commentary (Venice 1563). He also prepared a Hebrew lexicon and commentaries on several other books of the Old Testament, but most of his works did not appear in print. He was responsible for printing Index librorum prohibitorum after the Council (Rome 1564). The chairman of the commission working on Index, Archbishop of Prague, Antonín Brus (1518–1580) was also supportive to the Jews (cf. Loewe: 1997; Baron: 1972b, 360–365). The Jews took advantage of the fact that the members of the commission working on Index were favourably inclined to Judaism and its writings and intervened not to include the Talmud in it; they proposed even to remove from the future editions of Talmud the texts offending Christians (cf. Baron: 1972b, 366f). Their efforts were successful and influenced the decision of Pope Pius IV (1559–1565), who had the final say on the Index. The Talmud was in fact on the index, but with the clause that if it was published without the title “Talmud” and without fragments that are hostile or offensive to Christians and if it was approved by the Church censor, it may be tolerated: “Thalmud Hebraeorum ejusque glossae, annotationes, interpretes et expositiones omnes” (Index: 1559, H3r); “si tamen prodierint sine nomine Thalmud et sine injuriis et calumniis in religion Christianan, tolerabuntur” (Index: 1564, E3r). The removal of the word “Talmud” was motivated by the 28 The actions against the Talmud were provoked by a dispute between printers Marco Antonio Giustiniani and Alwise Bragadini, who sought the Inquisition decision for the right to print Hebrew books (cf. Pilarczyk: 1998a, 163–170; 1998b, 55f).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

65

Apostolic See’s earlier condemnation of this work under this very title – for the first time in 1239 by Gregory IX (1227–1241) (Glikson: 1997) – and was an attempt to undermine its authority. As we can see, the attitude of the Catholic Church to the Talmud was not unambiguously negative (cf. Raz-Krakotzkin: 2004, 132). After the Council of Trent, attitudes towards rabbinical writings varied from country to country. In some regions (e. g. Spain), they created their own lists of forbidden books, in which the former rough statement of Paul IV of 1559 was placed. Other restrictions on printing and possession of the Talmud, issued by successive popes, were also tightened. The 1596 edition of Index left out the relaxation clause. These constraints resulted in halting the printing of the Talmud in Italy for four and a half centuries, restricting Catholics’ access to this source of Hebrew and Jewish studies. After the Council of Trent, the Talmud was printed in Poland and Turkey (cf. Baron: 1972b, 371; Pilarczyk: 1998b, 44, 59). The establishment of Index had yet another impact on Catholic Hebraism: the ban on reading all kinds of Protestant books cut the Catholics off (at least officially) the highest-level Protestant Hebraist literature at the time. On the one hand, this disrupted the free exchange of ideas between the Protestant and Catholic Hebraists and, on the other hand, forced Catholics to develop their own studies of the original languages of the Bible (cf. Burnett: 2000, 34f, 37f). This process was best seen in Jesuit Hebraism. Not only Protestants, but also Catholics had their achievements in the field of didactics and study of Biblical Hebrew in the second half of the sixteenth century. At that time many universities in Europe resisted the Reformation. This was the case, for example, in Spain (Salamanca, Valencia), Portugal (Coimbra), Italy (Padua, Rome), France (Paris), Austria (Vienna), Flanders (Leuven) under the Austrian and Spanish rule, in some parts of German-speaking countries (e. g. Ingolstadt, Cologne, Mainz, Dillingen, Würzburg, Graz) and Poland (Cracow), where it was possible, at least at certain times, to master the basics of Semitic languages (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 23–27; Burnett: 2000, 32ff). The Jesuits played a leading role in using the achievements of the Renaissance Biblical studies and sacred philology in the religious disputes, and they included the Hebrew language in their scholarly and didactic plans. One of the main apostolic tasks of the Jesuits was to teach and educate young people, and to cope with this task they established colleges for male youth in different parts of Europe. Initially, they were intended for young members of the Society of Jesus, who thus received a residence near the university (Paris, Coimbra, Padua, Leuven, Cologne, Valencia) at which they studied. With time, the Jesuits began to teach clerics in colleges, giving their institutions a didactic character (cf. Natoński: 1994, 34). Subsequently, they established colleges that were also open to the laity. Jesuit schools, prosperous and of a high standard, were often elevated to the rank of universities. The Jesuits resigned from the medieval method of education, and chose modern humanistic

66

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

education giving a thorough knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Ancient literature was also taught, including the Scripture. The first college of this type was founded in 1548 in Messina. In 1551 the Collegium Romanum was established in Rome, which was later transformed into the University called Gregoriana, where the most prominent representatives of the Polish Counter-Reformation were educated (cf. Nowak: 1993, 133f; Grzebień: 1997, 1280f). Educational undertakings of the Society of Jesus were inscribed in its main goal – religious formation. The studies on the humanities were also subordinated to this goal. The Society’s Constitutions read: Since the end of the Society and of its studies is to aid our fellowmen to the knowledge and love of God and to the salvation of their souls, and since the subject of theology is the means most suited to this end, in the universities of the Society the principal emphasis ought to be placed upon it. Accordingly, there should be diligent treatment by excellent professors of what pertains to scholastic doctrine and Sacred Scripture […]. Moreover, since both the learning of theology and the use of it require (especially in these times) knowledge of humane letters and of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, there should be capable professors of these languages, and that in sufficient number. Furthermore, there may also be teachers of other languages such as Chaldaic, Arabic, and Indian where these are necessary or useful for the end stated, taking into account the diversities of place and the reasons for teaching them (The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus: 1996, no. 446f; cf. Bednarski: 1994, 20).29

Education in Jesuit colleges lasted five years. There were three types of colleges: Latin-Greek college, where grammar, poetry and rhetoric were taught, philosophical college and philosophical-theological college. The last type of college could also be given the status of an academy, i. e. a higher educational institution in the rank of a university. In Jesuit colleges, the greatest emphasis was placed on learning Latin in speech and writing. To a lesser extent, Greek was taught, which was one of the obligatory subjects taught in the two upper classes. Even less time was devoted to the Hebrew language, which mainly theologians learnt. The study of this language consisted in acquiring basic grammatical principles, interspersed

29 “Cum Societatis atque studiorum scopus sit, proximos ad cognitionem et amorem Dei, et salutem suarum animarum juvare; cumque ad eum finem medium maxime proprium sit facultas Theologiae: in hanc potissimum Societatis Universitates incumbent; ac diligenter per idoneos admodum Praeceptores, quae ad Scholasticam doctrinam, et sacras Scripturas pertinent […]. Et quia tam doctrina Theologiae, quam ejus usus exigit (his praesertim temporibus) litterarum humaniorum, et Latinae ac Graecae, et Hebraicae linguae cognitionem: harum etiam idonei Professores et quidem justo numero constituentur. Aliarum praeterea linguarum, qualis est Caldaica, Arabica, et Indica, ubi necessariae vel utiles ad dictum finem viderentur, habita regionum diversarum, et causarum, quae ad eas docendum movent, ratione, possent Praeceptores constitui.” (Constitutiones Societatis Iesu: 1583, 159 [cap. XII, 1f]).

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

67

with reading easier fragments from the Old Testament (cf. Barycz: 1938, 121; Grzebień: 1997, 1281). The problem of teaching Biblical languages recurred repeatedly during discussions on the Jesuit curricula Ratio studiorum. A temporary version of it was created in 1556, but soon the Jesuits began to develop a new, permanent and universally applicable version. The first draft, which was discussed in all the Provinces, was produced in 1586 and its final version came into force in 1599 (cf. Grzebień: 1997, 1280f; Piechnik: 2003). The authors of the 1586 project expressed their dissatisfaction with the poor level of the teaching of the Hebrew language, but warned not to give up this subject as it would be detrimental to the study of the Scripture. They proposed that lectures in Hebrew should be held for one year as part of a cycle of theological studies, with the possibility of an extension for another year, but within the framework of the so-called academy, i. e. an interest group. It was assumed that the initial two months should be enough to study Bellarmine or Clenardus grammar (cf. Piechnik: 2003, 66). The provincial representatives were critical of this point of the project and proposed that the basics of Hebrew should be taught as part of the humaniora, not only during the theological studies. Balthazar Hagelius, a professor of Hebrew in Ingolstadt, presented in his commentaries an ideal picture of a professor of Scripture who was to be educated not only in Hebrew and Greek, but also in Aramaic (Chaldaic) and Syriac, as these languages are also useful for studying Scripture. He suggested that only after studying the grammar (a revised version of Bellarmine’s textbook) should a proper study of the Old Testament begin. Another professor, Spanish Alfons Pisanus (De Pisa) (1528–1598),30 proposed to introduce Hebrew language learning in secondary schools, once the students had acquired sufficient proficiency in Latin and Greek. The French demanded that the requirements for knowledge of Hebrew be the same as for Greek. Ultimately, contrary to voices calling for an improvement in teaching of the original language of the Old Testament, the guidelines of Ratio studiorum of 1599 regarding the teaching of Hebrew were modest, similar to those of the 1586 project, which planned to teach it for one year during the theological studies, usually in the second or third year of theology. It was recommended that Hebrew should be taught by a professor of Scripture, and if there were none, it must at least be a good theologian. It was proposed that the teacher should also have a good knowledge of the Greek language of the New Testament and the Septuagint and should master the Caldaic and Syriac language because of their importance in the exegesis of many passages in the Canonical Books. Less able students could be exempted from Hebrew les30 An outstanding theologian and Spanish philologist, educated in Toledo, Salamanca, Alcalá and Collegium Romanum, polyglot; he knew Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac well. In Poland, he taught polemic theology in Poznań (1581–1584) and Kalisz (1584–1598) (cf. Piechnik: 2001, 136ff; EWJ, 514).

68

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

sons in general, and those with special abilities in studying the language should be offered special conditions for developing. During the lectures the basic principles of grammar should be studied and easier books of the Old Testament read (Farrell: 1970, 2, 32f; cf. Piechnik: 2003, 116, 66f). Furthermore, Ratio studiorum encouraged that the Hebrew professor “should so plan his teaching techniques as to reduce and relieve by his efforts that outlandish harshness which in the minds of some bedevils the study of this language” (Farrell: 1970, 33). Among the eminent Jesuit Hebraists of that period one should mention Giovanni Battista Romano (Eliano, Bressano) (1530–1589), a Jewish convert, grandson of the famous Hebrew philologist Elias Levita, a great expert not only on the original language of the Old Testament but also other Semitic languages. He translated the New Testament and the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent into Arabic. He developed a Hebrew and Arabic version of the Catholic catechism, and published a grammar and dictionary of the Arabic language. As an eminent expert in Middle Eastern languages, he served the Pope and the Cardinals as a translator. He taught Hebrew at Collegium Romanum (cf. Deutsch/Rhine: 1901–1906; Piechnik: 1984, 145, n. 420). Another Hebraist was Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), one of the greatest minds among the Jesuits of the Renaissance, author of a popular grammar of the Hebrew language (1578; other editions: 1585; 1596; 1606; 1616; 1618; 1619), which, due to its clarity and small size, was revised and reprinted for many years, serving as a textbook in many Jesuit centres, including Poland (cf. Luzzatto: 1836, 44; Donnelly: 1996, 139). *** As part of his description of the approach of particular Reformation currents to the use of Hebrew in Christian theological studies, Jerome Friedman (1983, 165–176) wrote about the Basel-Wittenberg conflict, which was an example of two radically different approaches to Hebraism and to the way and purpose of using rabbinical sources. This position was somewhat mitigated by Stephan G. Burnett (cf. Burnett: 2004). Summarizing the role of Hebrew studies in the process of creating the Reformation theology, it is worth emphasizing, on the one hand, the universal nature of Hebraism and, on the other hand, its inner diversity shaped by particular currents. The universality of Hebrew studies translated into the establishment of the chairs of Hebrew in all the most important university centres of Europe at that time. Professors involved in teaching the Hebrew language, as well as other people who were fluent in the language (e. g. publishers and printers), were a group based on a teacher-pupil relationship, friendship or acquaintance. They exchanged their positions at universities, recommended each other, wrote and published similar works, read the same professional literature, used the same sources, took part in discussions and disputes.

Christian Hebrew studies in times of the Renaissance and the Reformation

69

In the approach to exegetical and linguistic Jewish literature, there are also some common features shared by different currents of the Reformation: caution and criticism in the use of such works was typical of almost all traditional Reformation factions; the same was true of the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, absent in the teaching of rabbis (cf. Burnett: 2004, 189, 192, 194). The claim that the Reformation rejected the interpretation of the Bible based on the medieval hermeneutical principle of the “fourfold sense” should also be challenged. The material presented above shows the care and even struggle of representatives of Protestant orthodoxy to preserve the Christological sense of the Bible as the key to its understanding. Many reformers also stressed the moral sense of the Scriptures. It is true that in the Renaissance period the allegorical sense was abandoned, and more emphasis was placed on the literal and historical sense using the Jewish philology of the time, but such an interpretation of Scripture was not entirely alien to the Christian medieval exegesis (littera gesta docet). A radical novelty in the study of the Bible was the decisive break with many aspects of its dogmatic interpretation, which was derived from the Tradition and experience of the Catholic Church (cf. Hagen: 2009). Diverse approaches to Hebraism adopted by various currents of the Reformation could be primarily seen in the use of rabbinical sources in Christian theology. Three such approaches can be distinguished: radical – represented by Servetus, moderate (Strasbourg, Basel, Zurich), sceptical (Luther and Wittenberg groups). The exegesis provided by radical currents was limited to a historical-literal interpretation and commentaries on the Old Testament only in its historical-philological context. It drew extensively on the work of rabbis, going as far as to give up the Christological key in the interpretation of the Old Testament, which led to the questioning of Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, and then to the Judaization of Christianity (Friedman: 1983, 126f, 138–146). Representatives of the moderate current (Bucer, Capito, Fagius, Münster, Oecolampadius, Pellican) also benefited profusely from the achievements of Jewish philology and exegesis, but were aware of their limitations. In general, however, they believed that each of the Testaments was created in its own historical and cultural context and was written according to a system of notions appropriate to a given culture. However, more emphasis was placed on the New Testament, as manifested for example in the Christological reading of the prophecies. The continuity between the Old and New Covenant, and thus between Jewish and Christian traditions (e. g. Fagius, Münster) was also emphasized. Fagius believed that the extensive use of Jewish sources would facilitate a correct interpretation of the Old Testament and shed more light on disputed New Testament dogmas (the Lord’s Supper, the relationship between faith and deeds, nature and grace). Münster claimed that since the New Testament was created in Jewish circles, rabbinical sources could also be useful for its study. Representatives of this trend were accused by opponents, espe-

70

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

cially from the Wittenberg groups, of judaizing Christianity (cf. Friedman: 1983, 57f, 99–118, 127f, 134f, 148–163). As for Calvin and his attitude to the use of Hebrew in Christian Bible studies, he was influenced by the moderate option. He emphasized the continuity between the two Testaments and realized that the excessive use of rabbinical sources could end up with the Judaization of Christianity. Luther also rejected the allegorical sense and turned to the literal and historical sense (LW 54, 46 [no. 335]; cf. 406f [no. 5285]), recognizing the need to study Hebrew, but at the same time maintaining a decisive distance between rabbinical and Christian Hebraism. Trying to avoid problems connected with the historical interpretation of the Old Testament, the Wittenberg school proposed a thematic reading of the Bible, the method of loci theologici, based on two principles: Christocentrism and the opposition between the Law and the Gospel (LW 54, 42f [no. 312]). The main creator and propagator of this method was Melanchthon (cf. Janowski/Koza: 2008, 481, 484). The Lutherans proposed to start reading the Bible with the Romans, then read the other apostolic letters and the Gospels. Only after reading the New Testament was the student encouraged to study the Old Testament, starting with Psalms and Genesis. In this way, students were taught to read the Old Testament construed as the foreshadowing of the New Testament, and the whole message of Scripture was read through the prism of Paul’s theology. This method, however, made historical reading difficult and diminished the importance of philological skills, which to some extent explains Luther’s reluctance to Hebraism. There is a certain tension in the Lutheran method: on the one hand, he tried to avoid allegories, but on the other hand, he shunned strictly historical reading. He accepted the literal sense of the Bible, but at the same time he wanted to read it applying the Christological key and the dichotomy Law-Gospel. In this way the literal meaning of the Bible becomes for Luther a spiritual meaning, hidden in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, who speaks of Christ through the whole written Revelation. This method awakens, feeds and strengthens the faith, but at the same time comes close to the medieval principle “allegory leads to faith” (quid credas allegoria). Luther himself explained the difficulties in applying this method of exegesis by the fact of falsifications of the Hebrew Bible by the Jews, who by changing the text were to prevent a possible Christological interpretation of the Old Testament (WA.TR 1, 524f [no. 1040]; 2, 639 [no. 2758a.b]; 3, 243f [no. 3271a.b]; 5, 60f [no. 5327]), which once again explains the Lutheran reservations to the Hebrew studies (cf. Friedman: 1983, 129–135). The Catholics refrained somewhat from the discussions. They mainly focused in the Hebrew studies on publishing the best possible Bible text in as many ancient versions as possible, including the Hebrew Old Testament. This diversity of approaches to Hebrew studies gave rise to conflicts and mutual accusations of the Judaization of Christianity between representatives of different

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

71

factions and shades of the Reformation. Catholics made the same accusations against all Protestantism (cf. Friedman: 1983, 182f). The danger of contaminating Christianity with Judaism was so great that even Hebraists interested in the rabbinical tradition, such as Münster or Fagius, were forced by the situation to write anti-­ Judaic treaties to demonstrate their Christian faithfulness (Friedman: 1996b, 313). To sum up, it must be said that, as a result of the real threat of the Judaization of Christianity, at the turn of the thirties and forties of the sixteenth century, among the Hebraists related with the Reformation, mainly from its Lutheran faction, a decisive process of dejudaization of Christian Hebraism began. The scholars continued to study the Old Testament in the original language, but more and more rarely reached for rabbinical literature the enthusiastic study of which gave rise at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to modern Christian Hebraism.

1.3 Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible An essential element of any kind of studies is an appropriate scholarly methodology and sources. As a result of the cooperation of fifteenth and sixteenth century printers and Jewish and Christian Hebraists, a large number of printed editions of Holy Scriptures in the original languages and various grammatical and philological aids for translators, exegetes and theologians were created. At the beginning of the sixteenth century there were no Hebrew grammar textbooks or dictionaries written in Latin available to Christians. However, there were many manuscripts of grammars and dictionaries published in Semitic languages, which from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards were gradually published in the original languages, then in Latin and to a lesser extent in modern languages. At this point we will devote some attention to the presentation of the sixteenth-century methodology of Hebraism, which was also used by Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible.

1.3.1 Hebrew Bible The philological interests of the humanists coincided with the emergence and rapid development of printing, resulting in numerous critical editions of the text of Scripture, among which an important place belonged to the Hebrew Bible. There were also the so-called polyglots, i. e. multilingual Bibles, very useful for text criticism and translation works. At the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth century, printers were already using a large range of fonts. The first books printed entirely in Hebrew were Rashi’s commentary to Pentateuch, printed without the Biblical text in Reggio di Calabria by

72

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Abraham Garton in February 1475 and ‫( ספר ארבעה טורים‬Sepher Arbaa Turim) by Jacob ben Asher (c. 1269–c. 1343) (July 1475 by Meshullam Cusi at Piove di Sacco) (cf. Gottheil/Jacobs: 1901–1906, 575f; Jacobs/Liber/Seligsohn: 1901–1906). The first Bible book printed in Hebrew was Psalter, published with Kimchi’s commentary in 1477, probably in Bologna (Stein., no. 1). After each Biblical verse there is a corresponding note. The printer working on this edition could not cope with the vowel points and he gave up the punctuation in Ps 4:4 (except for 5:12– 6:1). In 1482 he printed it in Bologna with Rashi’s commentary (Stein., no. 2). The book was published on the initiative of Joseph ben Abraham Caravita (Crovetta). Its publisher was Joseph Chayyim ben Aaron of Strasbourg. Between 1479 and 1480 he invited to Bologna Abraham ben Chayyim de Tintori of Pesaro, who largely solved technical problems with vowel point and accent marks. The Bible text was in the middle column, surrounded by a commentary and Targum Onkelos. Such a pattern became established in Bible printing and was used in editions of the Hebrew Bible with commentaries in the sixteenth century. In 1454 Israel Nathan ben Samuel (d. c. 1492) settled near Mantua in northern Italy. He founded a printing house and entrusted it to his son Joshua Solomon Soncino and his nephew Gershon ben Moses Soncino (d. 1533). Having Abraham ben Chayyim de Tintori come from Bologna, he printed out the Major Prophets in 1485 (Stein., no. 3). The first complete Hebrew Bible came out of the same press in February 1488, with vowel points and accent marks, but without any commentary (GW, no. 4198; BM, no. 245; Stein, no. 7). Subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible (1491–1493, 1492–1494 and 1495 – GW, no. 4199f; BM, no. 245; Stein., no. 17) with the vowel and accent system further improved were published in the printing houses of the Soncino family operating in Naples and Brescia. The 1494/1495 edition31 was a revised version of the 1488 Bible, but was published in a small octavo format created for persecuted Jews who found it difficult to carry the Bible in large and heavy formats. This edition was used by Martin Luther as the basis for his translation of the Bible into German. At the same time, the Biblical texts in Hebrew were also published in Spain (by Solomon ben Maimon Zalmati of Jativa – Ixar [Hijar] 1490) and Portugal (Faro 1487; Lisbon 1491, 1492), except that the printers there were unable to solve the problem of printing dagesh inside the consonants, so they omitted them (cf. ­Gott­heil/Jacobs: 1901–1906; Zilberberg: 1974, 1096–1104; Schenker: 2008a, 276–286; Pilarczyk: 2012, 19–34). After the exile of Jews from Spain (1492), the Hebrew Biblical printing on the Iberian and Apennine Peninsulas regressed as rich patrons allocated their financial resources to help the refugees. 31 Some claim that this edition was published in May 1494 in Gershon Soncino’s printing house in Brescia (Gottheil/Jacobs: 1901–1906, 579 [no. 94]) – hence the double date.

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

73

Between 1511 and 1517, the Soncins (this time in Pesaro) resumed work on the printing of the Hebrew Bible, using manuscripts brought from Spain (BM, no. 245; Stein., no. 27). They also improved their printing technique. The result of this work was another edition of the Hebrew Bible, this time with the commentary of the famous rabbi, Isaac ben Judah Abarbanel (1437–1508). The first so-called Biblia rabbinica was published in the years 1516–1517 in ­Daniel Bomberg’s printing house in Venice (BM, no. 246; Stein., no. 28), in cooperation with Felix Prato. It was a four-volume edition dedicated to Pope Leo X and published with papal approval, very richly equipped with Hebrew text study tools (Targumim, commentaries, the Thirteen Articles of Faith by Maimonides, a treatise on accentuation by Jacob ben Asher). In this edition, for the first time, following the Vulgate, the Samuel was divided into two parts. Another edition, equally rich, was published by Bomberg between 1524 and 1525 (BR2; Stein., no. 52), this time the printer worked with Jacob ben Chayyim ibn Adoniyah (c. 1470–before 1538), an Orthodox Jew exiled from Spain. He verified this edition against a large number of manuscripts containing Masorah, which he also added to the prepared edition. This was the first edition of the Hebrew Bible with the Small Masorah (in latin: masora parva or marginalis). The Bible was published in four volumes and also contained the Targumim and commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, David and Moses Kimchi and Levi ben Gershon (1288–1344). This edition become a generally accepted text for the next 400 years. Bomberg printed the Hebrew Bible from 1525 to 1528, a combination of the editions of Felix Prato and Jacob ben Chayyim ibn Adoniyah, who converted to Christianity just after 1525 (cf. Snaith: 1974, 839). After the conversion of Ben Chayyim, Bomberg started working with Elias Levita, who became the chief advisor of his printing house. In 1546–1548 another Bible was published there (Stein., no. 125). Bomberg’s editions were reprinted many times with various additions: in the years 1539–1544 by R ­ obert I Estienne in Paris (BM, no. 246f; Stein., no. 99; cf. McLeod: 1999), in 1566 by Plantin in Antwerp (BM, no. 247; Stein., no. 190–3), in 1568 by Giovanni di Gara in Venice (Stein., no. 206), in 1617–1619 by Pietro and Lorenzo Bagradin in Venice (Stein., 424–5). All these editions included a text developed by Ben Chayyim, who represented the Ashkenazy tradition. It was not until 1611 and 1619 that the Bibles representing the Sephardic tradition published by Johannes Buxtorf the Elder appeared in Basel (cf. Hall: 1963, 48–53; Snaith: 1974, 836–841; Bedoulle: 1989, 78ff; Fabris: 1992, 49f; Schwarzbach: 1999; Nilesen: 2011; Stern: 2011). As for the Catholic editions of the Hebrew Bible, the Council of Trent found it necessary to prepare and publish a revised and critical edition not only of the Vulgate, but also of the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. However, official Council documents did not explicitly mention this postulate of the fathers. Only in a letter written by the papal legates to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (1520–1589) of 26 April 1546 is it postulated that as many as three versions be developed and published:

74

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

Vulgate, Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. We also know that after the Council the popes appointed commissions whose tasks was to correct and publish critical editions of the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible. Of these, only two were implemented in the post-conciliar period by publishing the Latin and Greek versions of the Bible (see 1.3.2.2; cf. Tromp: 1941; 1943; Vosté: 1941; 1946, 302–310; Fabris: 1992, 46f; Wicks: 2008, 627f). The work of humanists, philologists and Biblical scholars was crowned in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the so-called Polyglot Bibles, which also contained the text of the Hebrew Bible. The first attempt to develop and publish a multilingual Bible was made by Agostino Giustiniani, who managed to publish only Psalterium octaplum in 2,000 copies (Genoa 1516 – BM, no. 383; BCES, no. 2618; cf. Vollandt: 2016, 57f). Some of the multilingual Bibles were called the classic or larger polyglots. Until 1638, three such editions were published.32 The first was developed under the patronage of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros at the University of Alcalá de Henares (Complutum) and is known as the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (PCo; BM, no. 1; BCES, no. 46). A team of learned philologists worked on this Bible from 1502. The work was printed between 1514 and 1517 with a circulation of 600 copies, but was not officially published until 1522, after it received the approval of Pope Leo X, to whom the edition was dedicated. This Bible consisted of six volumes. The initial four contain the Old Testament in Hebrew, the Latin version of the Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint. The Targum Onkelos was also added to Pentateuch. Alongside the original texts, new Latin translations of the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Targum Onkelos are included. Volume five printed in 1514 contained the New Testament in Greek and Latin versions of the Vulgate. At the end of the fifth volume there is a Greek-Latin lexicon of the New Testament. Volume four included Hebrew grammar, and the last volume included a Hebrew and Aramaic dictionary with indexes and an etymological dictionary of Biblical names. Masoretic accentuation were omitted, only the ones that fell on the penultimate syllable were marked. Vowel points system was also far from perfect. This edition was very expensive and rare as a large number of copies were destroyed in a catastrophe of a ship transporting books to the Apennine Peninsula (cf. Lyell: 1917, 24–52; Burnett: 2004, 198 [n. 33]; Schenker: 2008a, 286–291; Fernández Marcos: 2016; Hamilton: 2016, 140–143). Another multilingual Bible is the so-called Antwerp Polyglot, also called the royal one, Biblia Regia (PAn; BM, no. 3; BCES, no. 47). It was published with papal approval by Plantin between 1569 and 1572. In order to publish a multilin32 The best polyglot is considered the so-called London polyglot, still retaining its scholarly value (BM, no. 6; BCES, no. 58). It was developed under the direction of Brian Walton (1600–1661) and printed in 6 volumes between 1654 and 1657, which chronologically goes beyond the period we are interested in.

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

75

gual text of the Bible, the printer wanted to supplement a small number of copies of the Alcalá edition. He addressed the King Philip II of Spain (1556–1598), who financed the project and sent to Antwerp an outstanding humanist and Biblical language expert, a Catholic priest educated in Alcalá, Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) (cf. Strzałkowska: 1973), who became the head of an editorial team gathering about twenty eminent personalities of the Biblical philology of the time, among them: Guillaume Postel, François Raphelengien (1539–1597) and Andreas Masius (1514–1581). He used the Complutensian text, extending it to eight volumes. In the New Testament the Peshitta text with a Latin translation was added and in the Old Testament the Targumim were added to the whole text and the pages were rearranged. The Greek New Testament text is taken from the fourth Erasmus edition. Additions were greatly expanded. The sixth volume contains grammars and lexicons: Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek. In volume seven, the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible are provided with an interlinear translation of Pagnini. Volume eight was a collection of additions containing a lot of information from the history of the text and the Biblical environment and theological commentaries.33 The Bible was reproduced in 1,200 copies on paper and 13 copies on parchment (cf. Jones: 1983, 43, 54; Schenker: 2008b, 775–779; Hamilton: 2016, 143–147). The third Bible of this type, the so-called Paris Polyglot (BM, no. 6; BCES, no. 57), was published in 1628–1645 in Paris. The work was begun by Cardinal JacquesDavy Duperron (1556–1618) as early as 1615 and completed by Guy Michel Le Jay (Jajus) (1588–1674) with the collaboration of Jean Morin (Johannes Morinus) (1591–1659) and other philologists. This edition was mainly based on the Antwerp edition. It was published in 10 volumes by Antoie Vitré (1595–1674). Its text was extended to include the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan Targum and Peshitta for the entire Old Testament, an Arabic version with corresponding Latin translations. The Bible lacks an introductory and philological tools. It also does not include the Roman editions of the Septuagint and Vulgate and contains numerous misprints. For this reason, it was heavily criticised and did not gain popularity (cf. Kłoniecki: 1959; Hall: 1963, 48–75; Gutiérrez-Larraya: 1971; Snaith: 1974, 838; Bedouelle: 1989, 80ff, 262–269; Kessler-Mesguich: 1989, 91f; Fabris: 1992, 52ff; Rhodes: 1997; Péligry: 1999, 306–322; Schenker: 2008b, 779ff; Hamilton: 2016, 148–151).

33 The copies we use have different numbering of volumes: copies ZNiO XVI.F.14071 and Wr BU 464835; XVI.F.13823 have interlinear editions of the text in volume 6 (parts 1 and 2), and grammatical-lexical additions in volume 7; Wr PWT III-666 has the interlinear text in volume 7.

76

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

1.3.2 Translations of the Hebrew Bible The sixteenth century brought many attempts to translate the Hebrew Bible into Latin and national languages. Some of them were also used as aids in translating the Bible into Polish. 1.3.2.1 Targumim Aramaic Targumim are a valuable source for the study of the Hebrew text, both in solving problems related to the criticism of the text and in interpreting individual words and expressions. Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament appeared several times in the sixteenth century. Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch was added to the first volume of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible at the bottom of the verso pages. In addition to the recto pages, the publishers also put a Latin translation of the Aramaic text. The text of Targumim to the whole Hebrew Bible is in the first two editions of the Rabbinic Bible, where it was printed in a smaller font size in a separate column, parallel to the Hebrew text. In 1546 Paul Fagius published his own translation of Targum Onkelos into Latin (Targum: 1546), adding a commentary after each chapter. The Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible was again published in the Antwerp Polyglot. The first volume included Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch, and in subsequent volumes Targum Jonathan to the Former and Latter Prophets and other versions for the Books. The column next to the Aramaic text contains Latin translations. These types of items with Latin translations were often used by Old Testament translators and commentators, even those who had little knowledge of Aramaic. 1.3.2.2 Septuagint A very important role in the study and translation of the Hebrew Bible was always played by the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew text made between the third and first centuries B.C. in the community of Alexandrian Jews. The first printed texts of the Septuagint were the Psalters, which appeared in the fifteenth century (BI, no. 2212f). For the first time the entire Septuagint was printed between 1514 and 1517 in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible. The text was based on manuscripts from the Vatican Library as well as the Venetian ones, and the personal collection of Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros. The editors used several manuscripts for the different parts of the Old Testament. The Greek text therefore is not uniform. However, Codex Vaticanus was omitted from the works. A separate edition of the entire Bible in Greek (Septuagint and the New Testament by Erasmus) was published in Venice in 1518/1519 (BI, no. 90) – the so-called Aldine edition, or Aldine Bible. The text was prepared for printing by the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius (1449/1452–1515) and printed by his father-in-law, Andrea Torresani di Asolo

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

77

(Asolani) (1451–1529). This edition was based on some manuscripts from Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, mainly on the three codices of Cardinal Basilos Bessarion (1403–1472). The Old Testament in Greek was also in other Polyglot Bibles. For exemple, the Antwerp Polyglot used the revised text of the Complutensian. Lesser known is the reprinting of the Aldine Bible with a list of variants with respect to the Aldine edition based on other manuscripts, published in 1526 by Johannes Lonicerus (1499–1569) at Wolfgang Köpfel’s (Cephalaeus) in Strasbourg (BI, no. 91f), and that from Basel from 1545 (Divine Scripture: 1545; BI, no. 93). This last edition was preceded by a preface by Philipp Melanchthon (cf. Horne: 1836, 23 [of the second pagination]). After the Council of Trent, there was also a Catholic version of Septuagint (the so-called Sixtine edition) prepared by the relevant commission and printed in 1586/1587 by Francesco Zanetti in Rome. The reformers of Wittenberg used Septuagint, but were critical of it. Melanchthon, like Luther, thought Septuagint was “cruder” than the Hebrew and not very polished in its style. Despite this, Melanchthon recommended studying this version because it is quoted in the New Testament, especially by St Paul. Calvin was also critical of this version. Bucer, on the other hand, valued Septuagint as the version that spread the word of God in the ancient world and as a kind of model for later translations of the Bible into other languages. Zwingli valued Septuagint and placed it much higher than the Vulgate, which he considered full of errors. According to him, the Greek version of the Bible preserved the word of God in a version uncontaminated by Masoretes, who gave the rabbinical interpretation with the vowel and accent points to the Hebrew original. Zwingli used the Aldine edition. He used Septuagint generously in his exegetical works, often quoting it in commentaries. He compared words from the Hebrew Bible with their Greek equivalents, thus seeking their meanings. He used the Greek version in a public lecture of the Biblical text used in Zurich, called Prophezei. A similar approach was represented by Théodore de Bèze (cf. Newmann: 1925, 459–462; Hall: 1963, 56ff; Bedoulle: 1989, 80; 1996, 159f; Fabris: 1992, 48; Hobbs: 2008, 484; Opitz: 2008, 423; Schenker: 2008a, 285, 290). 1.3.2.3 Vulgate and Renaissance translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin At the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century the text of the Vulgate was already heavily distorted by centuries of manual copying. The situation was not improved by the printed editions of this version from the second half of the fifteenth century, as they were based on manuscripts from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Numerous humanists postulated the improvement of the translation of St Jerome based on the oldest codex and the Hebrew Bible. The first attempts of this kind were made at the end of the Middle Ages, but they failed to yield the expected result (cf. Loewe: 1974, 14).

78

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

After the invention of printing, the first attempt to repair the text was made by Adrien Gémeau (d. 1550), which was published in Paris in 1504 (BM, no. 32; BI, no. 766). The next edition corrected by the Dominican Alberto Castellano (c. 1450–c. 1523) was printed in Lyon by Jacques Sacon in 1506 (BI, no. 768; BM, no. 32). It was later reprinted many times by Lyon typographers, including Sacon (e. g. BI, no. 777, 779, 781–789; BCES no. 576–580). The first reviewed editions also included the text printed in the years 1517–1522 in the Complutensian Poliglot Bible. Robert I Estienne had great merit in correcting the Vulgate. After his first attempts at a critical edition of the Latin text of the New Testament in 1523 in 16º (Renouard: 1985, no. 428), he published a critical edition of the entire Bible in 1528 (BI, no. 815), which he reprinted in 1532 in folio (BI, no. 825), in 1534 in 8º (BI, no. 829) and again in folio between 1538 and 1540 (BCES, no. 638; BM, no. 39), with extended critical notes on the margins and excellent typography. Despite criticism from professors of the Sorbonne levelled at the exegetic commentaries and theological-interpretative syntheses in the editions of Estienne’s Vulgate, the printer continued to work on the text of this version and published in 1545 in octavo the Bible in two columns (BM, no. 41), where he placed a revised Jerome’s version and a new Latin version in the translation of a Zurich philological team, so-called Biblia tigurina, printed in Zurich in 1543 (Bible: 1543). In addition to the Biblical text, the work contained notes. Estienne claimed they were taken from François Vatable. The printer was to copy them from the notes of Collège des Lectures Royaux’s students himself and prepare them for printing. After the publication of the Bible, however, Vatable did not admit the authorship of the notes, which had clear reformation inclinations. Nevertheless, this edition is called the Vatable’s Bible (BM, no. 40). However, there is another more accurate term: the Stephanus Bible (cf. Greswell: 1834, 241f; Hubbard: 1947, 200). The next edition of Estienne was published in 1546 (BCES, no. 662). Due to a growing conflict with the Sorbonne community, Estienne moved to Geneva in 1550, where he offered his press for the use of Calvinists. There he continued to work on the Vulgate, printing the Greek-Latin version in 1551 (BI, no. 3810), the French-Latin New Testament in 1552 (BI, no. 4277) and the entire Latin Bible in 1555 (BM, no. 42; BI, no. 879). The last edition of the Vulgate was published by Robert I Estienne in 1556–1557 (BSt; fig. 1). The work was published in two volumes: the first part of volume one contained the text of the Old Testament taken from the Vulgate of 1546 and in the column next to it Pagnini’s version revised by Estienne. This edition included extensive notes assigned to Vatable. The second part of volume one contained the Latin version of the deuterocanonical books. Volume two included the New Testament with Théodore de Bèze’s commentary. Like the 1545 edition, this one is known as the Vatable’s Bible and the Stephanus (Estienne) Bible. Robert I Estienne published a total of eight editions of the Latin Bible (cf. Hall: 1963, 65ff; Hubbard: 1947, 197–209). The next edition of the so-called Vatable’s Bible, with a parallel

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

Fig. 1: Stephanus Bible, Geneva 1557, Genesis 1 (ZNiO XVI.F.13809).

79

80

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

text from Biblia tigurina, was published in Salamanca in 1584 (Biblia: 1584). The same text was also printed within the framework of the minor Polyglot Bibles, in the so-called Polyglotta Sanctandreana (Geneva, 1586–1587 – BI, no. 64f) and its reprints made in Heidelberg in 1599 and 1616 (BI, no. 66, 80). They were also called the Vatable Polyglots) (cf. Hubbard: 1947, 201–209). Along with the Parisian and later Geneva publications by Robert I Estienne, one should mention the critical editions of the Vulgate, developed by philologists from Leuven under the supervision of Joannes Hentenius (1500–1566), called Vulgata lovaniensis. The work on correcting the Vulgate started there in 1546. The best printed versions and about thirty oldest manuscripts were subjected to comparison. As a result Biblia sacra ad vetustissima exemplaria castigata was published in folio in 1547 by Bartholomeus Gravius (BM, no. 41; BI, no. 866; BCES, no. 665). The professors from Lueven continued their work on textual criticism, preparing a subsequent edition based on about seventy manuscripts. It was published in Antwerp in 1565 and 1569 by Plantin (BM, no. 44; BCES, no. 705, 717; BI, no. 898, 918), and reprinted in 1571 and 1572 in Venice in Giunta’s printing house (BM 45; BI, no. 930; EDIt 2, no. 1972f; BCES, no. 726, 728) and in other houses. In 1574, in Antwerp, Plantin’s house published another edition of Vulgata lovaniensis corrected by Benito Arias Montano, editor and publisher of the Antwerp Polyglot. This edition became a commonly accepted and recognised version in the Catholic Church before the Sistine Vulgate (Vulgata Sixtina) printed in 1590 (cf. Hall: 1963, 68; Bedouelle: 1989, 72). Simultaneously with attempts to reconstruct the text of the Vulgate, work was undertaken in the sixteenth century on the revision of the Latin Bible, based on the Hebrew original, and on new Latin translations of the Hebrew Bible. Among the first undertakings of this type is the work of a Benedictine monk, Isidoro Chiari (Clario) (1495–1555), who, on the basis of the Hebrew Bible, revised the text of St Jerome’s translation and published his work at Peter Schoeffer’s in Venice in 1541–1542 (BI, no. 849; BM, no. 40; BCES, no. 652). Among the new translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin the most significant is the work of Santes Pagnini, who translated it at the request of Pope Leo X and published it after his principal’s death in Lyon in 1527 or 1528 at Antoine du Ry’s (BM, no. 36; BI, no. 814; BCES, no. 612). Pagnini’s literal translation played a major role as a reference point for many sixteenth century translators who undertook the translation of the Hebrew Bible into vernaculars. Translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin were also undertaken by Protestants: Sebastian Münster, Leo Jud, Sébastien Castellion and Immanuel Tremellius (1510–1580) (cf. Jones: 1983, 40–53; Gryglewicz: 1989, 398). 1.3.2.4 Translation of Martin Luther into German Luther was not satisfied with the old translation of the German Bible dating from the fourteenth century. It was archaic, at times incomprehensible and based on

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

81

the Vulgate, not on the original versions. It did not, therefore, meet the two basic requirements that the reformer of Wittenberg set for translations of Scripture, namely, that they must be made from the original languages and comprehensible to all. This is why he undertook a new translation of the Bible around 1520. Encouraged by Melanchthon he began with the New Testament, which appeared shortly before 21 September 1522 at Melchior Lotter the Younger’s in Wittenberg (BS 2/1, no. E71; Vogel, 27 [no. 19]). Already at the time of printing the New Testament, Luther started working on the Old Testament, which, due to its length and difficulties faced during the translation work, was published in parts. The Pentateuch was printed in 1523 (BS 2/1, no. E92f; Vogel, 28 [no. 27]). Historical (BS 2/1, no. E98) and poetic books (BS 2/1, no. E99) and separately Psalms (BS 2/1, no. E103) were published in 1524 (Vogel, 28 [no. 28ff]). The translation of the prophetic books, which were originally intended to make the fourth volume of the Old Testament, posed most problems for Luther. Eventually, they were printed one by one until 1532 (BS 2/1, no. E150, 157, 190, 194, 231, 233; Vogel, 28f [no. 31–34, 36]), when Die Propheten alle Deudsch (BS 2/1, no. E255; Vogel, 29 [no. 37]) appeared at Hans Lufft’s (1495–1584). Only Deuterocanonical books considered by Luther to be apocrypha remained to be translated. The reformer himself translated Wisdom of Solomon (published in 1529 – BS 2/1, no. E206; Vogel, 29 [no. 35]) and Sirach (1533 – BS 2/1, no. E260; Pietsch: 1909, no. 528ff). 1 Maccabees and supplements to ­Daniel were published in 1533 (BS 2/1, no. E261; Pietsch: 1909, no. 531f; Vogel, 29 [no. 39f]). In order to accelerate the publication of the entire Bible, the translation of the remaining deuterocanonical books was entrusted to other translators, or existing anonymous translations was used. Eventually, the entire Bible in six volumes appeared in Wittenberg at Hans Lufft’s in 1534 (BS 2/1, no. E266; Vogel, 29 [no. 41]). The reformer used original texts as the basis for the translation. He translated the New Testament from the second edition of Erasmus, the Hebrew books of the Old Testament from the Gershon Soncino edition printed in Brescia in 1494/1495 (see 1.3.1), the Psalter was based on the Hebrew edition of Johann Froben from 1516 (BI, no. 2159), while the deuterocanonical books on the Vulgate and Septuagint (Aldine edition of 1518). He also made use of old German translation and some contemporary translations, e. g. the translation of prophets done by Anabaptists: Ludwig Haetzer (1500–1529) and Hans Denck (c. 1500–1527) (BS 2/1, no. E172; BM, no. 314). Luther was never satisfied with his translations, which he constantly reviewed and improved. Psalms were published three times after successive revisions in the years: 1525 (Pietsch: 1909, no. 345), 1528 and 1531 (BS 2/1, no. E195, 249). Luther initially improved his work with Melanchthon, and from 1531 a whole team of Wittenberg scholars worked on the reviews. The next four editions of the Bible (1535, 1536, 1538/1539, 1540 – BS 2/1, no. E290, 294, 303, 317; Vogel, 29 [no. 42–45])

82

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

were published without major amendments. The first revision of the entire Bible (except for the deuterocanonical books) was carried out in the years 1539–1541. Minor corrections can be already seen in the 1540/1541 edition (BS 2/1, no. E318; Vogel, 29 [no. 46]), as the entire corrected text was not published until the autumn of 1541 (BS 2/1, no. E324f; Vogel, 30 [no. 47]) in 1,500 copies. This edition had a changed layout and consisted of two volumes. Subsequent editions with few amendments were published in spring and autumn 1543 (BS 2/1, no. E339f; Vogel, 30 [no. 48]). In 1544 Luther revised the Bible up to and including 2 Corinthians, but his work only appeared in print in 1546 (BS 2/1, no. E358; Vogel, 30 [no. 50]), so after the death of the reformer. This was the last edition the translator worked on in person. Since he could not personally supervise the entire publishing process, the Bible was wrongly considered for many years not to be an authentic work of Luther, and as the model version the 1545 edition was taken (BS 2/1, no. E349ff; Vogel, 30 [no. 49]), which contained a worse text. After Luther’s death, unauthorised variations and glosses crept into the text. For this reason, August I, Elector of Saxony (1553–1586) ordered an examination of the text that ended up with the mistaken conclusion that the 1545 edition was authentic. On the basis of this very edition, the Scriptures were published in 1581 (BS 2/1, no. E510), becoming the model version. Luther’s Bible enjoyed an incredible success and was widely distributed due to illegal reprints, published with various language modifications mainly in Erfurt, Augsburg, Strasbourg and Nuremberg. There were also numerous translations into other German dialects. These reprints became available before the whole Bible was published in Wittenberg. These were editions composed of Luther’s and other translations, especially prophets and deuterocanonical books. Such “combined” Bibles were published from 1527 in Zurich (BS 2/1, no. E182–188, 252), Strasbourg (BS 2/1, no. E214–220), Worms (BS 2/1, no. E223), Lübeck (Vogel, 40 [no.135]). The success of Luther’s translation of the Scriptures can be best proven with numbers. The whole Bible was published during the translator’s lifetime in 354 editions in the German literary language and 91 editions in dialects (Flood: 1999, 157). The centre of the printing of the Lutheran Bible was Wittenberg, where, after the death of the reformer, until 1600, sixty editions of the Bible were published in various German dialects, each with a circulation of about 2,000 copies (Volz: 1963, 102). Until 1620, there were in total about one hundred editions, that is about 200,000 copies, of which a majority was printed by Hans Lufft. It is estimated that 44 editions of the entire Bible in folio were published in his printing house, totalling c. 88,000 copies (Black: 1963, 432f; cf. Vogel, 23–45; Volz: 1963; Kornfeld: 1971; Schildenberger: 1971; Strohm: 1999, 166–176; Cameron: 2016).

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

83

1.3.2.5 Calvinistic translation into French The first version of the French Bible, which can be considered reformed, appeared in 1535 in Neuchâtel at Pierre de Vingle’s (La Bible: 1535; BI, no. 334), and its translator was Pierre-Robert Olivétan. In 1546 Calvin worked on a revision of the entire Bible, but his name was not printed on the title page (BGen 1546; BFB, no. 128). In the foreword signed by him, he referred to the editor responsible for the revision in the third person. However, Calvin was not satisfied with this version and created a team of experts in ancient languages who reviewed the text, contributing thus to the concept of team work on translations and revisions of Scripture. The beginning of this project can be seen on the occasion of another revision undertaken in 1550. This time Calvin shared his work. He was mainly concerned with the New Testament, Louis Budé (d. 1551) worked out the story of David, Solomon and Job. Théodore de Bèze corrected the deuterocanonical books. The result of this collaboration was the Bible of 1551 (BFB, no. 150). It was at this time that Robert I Estienne settled in Geneva and was encouraged by Calvin to publish a new version of the French New Testament. This version was published together with the Latin text in 1552 (BM, no. 759). In 1553 a full edition of the French Bible was published in the same spirit (BGen 1553; Vogel, 87 [no. 8]; BFB, no. 172). This was the first edition of the entire Scripture divided into verses as introduced by Robert Estienne. As far as the Old Testament was concerned, it was this very text that the Geneva publishers reprinted until 1588 (BGen 1588; cf.  BFB, XII, XV). The extensive notes alongside the text were only reduced after Calvin’s death, for the first time in the edition of the entire Bible published by François Perrin in 1564 (BFB, no. 333; cf. ibid., XIV). In 1557, the same printer proposed another edition of the entire Bible in French. The team took up the work again. Estienne himself was involved in the revision of the Old Testament, while Calvin and De Bèze worked together on the New Testament. Estienne died on 7 September 1559 and did not live to see the end of his undertaking. His son Henri II (c. 1528/1531–1598) continued the work. A team of pastors signed a joint preface to this edition on 10 October 1559. The Bible came out in March 1560 (Vogel, 87 [no. 10]). The annotated Bible was also published by other Geneva-based printers. In 1559 Nicolas Barbier and Thomas Courteau published an edition in octavo “[…] avec argumens sur chacun livre, nouvelles annotations en marge, fort utiles: par lesquelles on peut sans grand labeur, obtenir la vraye intelligence du sens de l’Escriture, avec recueil de grande doctrine.” (BGen 1559). This edition had extensive commentary notes, but only to the protocanonical books. The deuterocanonical and apocryphal books were equipped with only a few references to parallels. The same Bible, “Avec argumens sur chacun livre, annotations augmentées, et nouvelles sur les Apocryphes”, appeared in the same printing house in 1562; however, in filio and with extensive notes to the apocrypha (BGen 1562). The widely commented edition also appeared in 1561 at Antoine Reboul’s (BGen 1561), but

84

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

with notes other than those in the Barbier and Courteau editions. The work on the Geneva Bible was crowned with the 1588 edition (BGen 1588; BM, no. 179; BFB, no. 515–518; BI, no. 442f), corrected by Geneva philologists and theologians. As a summary, it is worthwhile to look again at the objectives of the Calvinist revisions. The criterion for the changes was not philological accuracy or fluency of the French language, but theological fidelity and pastoral usefulness. The evolution of the footnotes of the Geneva Bible went in the same direction. Calvin’s work influenced editions of the Bible in other national languages. From 1555 to 1562, communities of other nationalities settled in Geneva began working on their own translations of the Bible. Italian, Spanish and English versions were published there (BM, no. 220; Vogel, 61 [no. 29f]; BCES, no. 417). Without going into details, it must be stated that Calvin’s influence on these translations was significant, even if direct traces of his intervention are rare. The reformer’s correspondence shows that he encouraged the translation of the Bible also into Polish (see 2.2.2) (cf. BFB, XI–XV; Black: 1963, 441–445; Sayce: 1963; Gilmont: 1999, 231–237; Chédozeau: 2016, 285–288).

1.3.3 Grammars and dictionaries Early grammars and dictionaries of the Hebrew language created by Christian humanist circles were dependent on Jewish studies. The humanistic Hebraism was seriously influenced by the works of representatives of the Kimchi family, especially David and Abraham ibn Ezra; their works were adapted to the new requirements and disseminated by Elias Levita, Johann Reuchlin and Sebastian Münster (see 1.2.1). The initial works of the humanists were very simple, not going beyond the basic achievements of the Jewish tradition. With time, however, a humanistic tradition of Hebraism was born, addressed to Europeans who had no contact with Hebrew since childhood, so to make it possible for them to learn the language it was necessary to create a different system of terms and grammar description, taken from classical philology. To this end, textbooks and dictionaries written in Latin or national languages were needed. Modest beginnings brought in the mid-sixteenth century a rich assortment of learning aids, mainly for Biblical Hebrew (cf. Tene/Barr: 1974, 1391f). The first printed grammar of the Hebrew language for Christians was the work of Conrad Pellican (Strasbourg 1504), which, however, was of a lower quality and therefore did not gain popularity, giving way to Reuchlin’s grammar (1506; cf. Jacobs/Liber/Seligsohn: 1901–1906; Loewe: 1974, 16; Silverman/Scholem: 1974, 108). The latter work became the most popular model for further linguistic aids, such as lexicographic (Vocabolarium hebraicum atque chaldaicum) and grammatical (Introductio artis grammaticae hebraicae) additions to the Complutensian

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

85

Poly­glot Bible and works of Sebastian Münster. An insight into the contents of De rudimentis hebraicis, selected books by Münster and the popular grammar by Bellarmine will give some idea of the philological knowledge that sixteenth-century Hebraists had. 1.3.3.1 De rudimentis hebraicis by Johann Reuchlin Reuchlin’s work was printed “back to front”, like books in Hebrew. It is divided into three sections. Liber primus (Reuchlin: 1506, 1–258) contains basic information about letters, consonants and vowels (ibid., 5–11), followed by a lecture about syllables and shewa (11–18). In this way, Reuchlin provided the reader with the information necessary to master the basics of reading in Hebrew. The next step in learning to read were practical exercises. For this purpose, the author used the Hebrew list of names taken from the first three chapters of 1 Chronicles. First, he placed the names with their Latin transcription, and then discussed each word individually, explaining how it was split up into syllables and consonants and vowels (19–31). After mastering the art of reading and dividing words into syllables, the reader received a comprehensive dictionary containing entries arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet. The author not only wrote a word in Hebrew with its meaning, but also provided various forms, illustrating them with exemplary texts. Consider two examples: in the case of nouns, Reuchlin often gave their plural form, status absolutus, status constructus and forms with pronominal suffixes. For status absolutus he used the term divisim scribitur, for status constructus – coniunctim scribitur. For example, the entry ‫( ָאב‬32) is accompanied with the meaning (‘pater’) and some selected grammatical forms with examples. He pointed out that this word is written with qametz when it is divisim scribitur, referring to Ezek 22:734 and giving its Latin translation (‘patrem et matrem contumeliis affecerunt in te’); moreover, he added that it also occurs with patach (coniunctim scribitur), e. g. in Gen 17:4 (‘pater multarum gentium’). He also noted that this word may appear with yod paragogic: ‫א ִבי‬, ֲ as in Gen 10:21 (‘pater omnium filiorum Heber’), thus giving the second form of status constructus (he wrote it without shewa: ‫)א ִבי‬. ַ He then provided the plural ‫( ָאבו ֺת‬Num 36:1 – ‘accesserunt principes patrum per familias Gallad’)35 and the Aramaic form with the possessive suffix ‫‘( ֲאבּוְך‬pater tuus’ – Dan 5:11.18) (cf. Kimchi: 1847, 1). i

34 Reuchlin of course did not mark the verses added here on the basis of his examples quoted in Latin. The author provided references to the text in the form characteristic for his era, e. g. Ezechiel.xxij, Geñ.xvij (Reuchlin: 1506, 32), etc. 35 Reuchlin incorrectly referred to this place as Numeri.xxxviij. He also misspelled the word ‫ַאבו ֺת‬ by patach; however, it may be a printing defect.

86

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

The verbal stems were given with vocalization of the corresponding conjugations. For example, the root ‫( ברך‬Reuchlin: 1506, 92) is vocalized in piel ‫ּב ַרְך‬.ֵ It was defined twice: first as ‘benedixit’ (Ps 118:26), and then as ‘blasphemavit’, ‘increpavit’, ‘reprehendit’, ‘maledixit’ (1 Kings 21:13; Job 2:9). Reuchlin did not confine himself to giving only basic meanings and examples, but showed their different applications in specific places in the Hebrew Bible. For example, for ‫ ֵּב ַרְך‬he differentiated between the meanings ‘salutavit’ (Gen 47:7.10) and ‘flexit genua’ (Ps 95:6; Gen 24:11). He also added other commentaries. For example, in this entry, he pointed out that in 1 Kings 21:13 Targum Jonatan the word ‫ֵּב ַרְך‬ was translated into Aramaic ‫ּגַ ֵּדיף‬: (‘[he] cursed’, ‘blasphemed’), and referred to the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra to Job 2, where ‫ ברך‬also occurred in the sense of ‘(he) cursed’ (cf. Kimchi: 1847, 49f). After explaining verbal forms and their meanings, the author provided the noun ‫ ִּב ְר ָּכה‬36 derived from the root ‫ברך‬, together with its meanings (‘munus’, ‘donum’) and an example: “Genesis. xxxiij. Et suscipe benedictionem quam attuli tibi. Id est suscipe munus quod allatum est tibi” (Gen 33:11). He then added two nouns in dual in status absolutus and status constructus (‫ּב ְר ַּכיִ ם‬,ִ ‫)ּב ְר ֵכי‬, ִ derived from the same root in the sense of ‘flexit genua’. He indicated their importance (‘genua’) and gave an example: “Percutiat te diminus ulcere pessimo in genibus et in suris” (Deut 28:35). The dictionary in De rudimentis includes numerous notes taken from other works. They come, for example, from St Jerome (translations and commentaries – see Reuchlin: 1506, 92, 309ff, 346, 349), from Targum Onkelos (ibid., 310f), from the works of David Kimchi (310, 312, 350), Rashi (261, 310), Septuagint (310, 346), the Greek translation of Symmachus (310, 350) and others. Liber secundus (260–545) is a continuation of the dictionary (letters ‫)ל–ת‬. Liber tertius (546–620) contains a short lecture on Hebrew grammar. Reuchlin first discussed parts of speech in general, dividing them, like David Kimchi, into three categories: nomen (‫)ׁשם‬, ֵ verbum (‫)פ ַעל‬ ָ and a category called consignificativum (‫)מ ָּלה‬ ִ containing non-inflected parts of speech (550ff; cf. Kimchi: 1545b, ‫ב‬r). The first category additionally included pronouns and participles, and the third category included adverbs, prepositions, interjections and conjunctions. In the same point, he also explained basic accents, those that make it easier to read the text with understanding (revia, zaqeph qaton, zaqeph gadol, atnach, silluq). The next part of the lecture was divided into sections corresponding to three parts of speech. At first Reuchlin described the noun, its grammatical gender and number. Following the Latin grammar, he introduced the concept of cases, which are created mainly by prepositions: in nominativus the noun is without a preposition, genetivus is the status constructus, dativus is obtained by means of ‫ל‬,ְ accusai

i

36 This form cannot be found in BH (cf. WSHP 1, 152 [no. 1421]; Münster: 1523, 57).

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

87

tivus by means of ‫את־‬, ֶ ablativus by ‫( ִמן‬556f). The grammarian devoted plenty of space to numerals (564–567), and then explained constructions with pronominal suffixes and pronouns: demonstrative and personal (576–584). The next part of Reuchlin’s Liber tertius is devoted to the verb. The author discussed conjugations of paal (qal), piel, hiphil, hitpael, which he successively described as first, second, third and fourth conjugation. He treated the conjugations of niphal, pual and hophal as the passive voice of the first, second and third conjugation. For each of them he provided their forms and their descriptions (585–598). He devoted plenty of space to different types of roots (599–615). Similarly to the noun, he used a system of terms taken from Latin (praesens, adiectivum verbum, futurum, imperativus, infinitivus, etc.). The final part of the lecture (De consignificativo) was devoted to prepositions and adverbs (of time and place), conjunctions and other parts of speech (615–620). i

1.3.3.2 Works by Elias Levita and Sebastian Münster Among the works of Elias Levita and Sebastian Münster, we will present their joint work entitled ‫( ספר הדקדוק‬Sepher ha-Diqduq) – Grammatica hebraica absolutissima (Levita: 1525) and two lexicographic works by Münster himself (1523; 1562): ‫( ערוך הׁשורׁשות‬Arukh ha-Shorshot) – Dictionarium hebraicum and ‫ׁשילוׁש לׁשונות‬ (Shilush Leshonot) – Dictionarium trilingue. Grammatica hebraica absolutissima consists of four parts. In the beginning, Münster posted his own elaboration of the Hebrew alphabet, printed bilingually, in Hebrew and Latin: Elementaria institutio in hebraicam linguam (Levita: 1525, sheets a–c). The next part of the work is a translation of Bachur by Elias Levita (ibid., d1–y4). Münster kept the Hebrew text by Levita and juxtaposed it with his Latin translation. The third part is exclusively in Latin: Accentuum hebraicorum compendium, per Sebastianum Munsterum (y5–8). At the end, he added clearly arranged tables with patterns of verb conjugations and noun declensions (sheets A–C). In the first part (Elementaria institutio in hebraicam linguam), after a few pages of introduction (a2–4) there is a chapter De literis (a5–7), in which consonants and vowels are presented. Münster gave the names of the consonants in Hebrew and in transliteration, and then described them, drawing attention to the different graphics of the five final characters (‫ך‬, ‫ם‬, ‫ן‬, ‫ף‬, ‫)ץ‬, and dividing the consonants into five categories according to their articulation (guttural, palatal, lingual, dental and labial). He then devoted some space to the two aspirated consonants (‫ ה‬i ‫ )ח‬and the difference between ‫ ׂש‬i ‫ׁש‬. He added a few words of explanation to consonants BeGaDKePaT, distinguishing between dagesh forte and lene. Chapter De punctis (a7–b2) describes the vowel points, and clarifies the rule of shewa in nine points (b2–3). In De literis quiescentibus (b3–5), the author presents three consonants that act as matres lectionis: ‫י‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ ה‬and ‫א‬. He then goes to explain

88

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

the rules of dagesh (Regula de dages – b5) and the cardinal and ordinal numerals (De numeris – b5–7), giving their male and female forms. De literis radicalibus et servilibus (b7–c1) contains an interesting division of consonants by function. The author divided the letters into root letters (literae radicales), i. e. those that only form the roots of words, carrying the meaning; and auxiliary letters (literae serviles), i. e. those that also give the word a certain morphological form – they can be added to the roots, disappear or be silent. Münster included eleven consonants as root letters: ‫ג‬, ‫ט‬, ‫ח‬, ‫ס‬, ‫ד‬, ‫ק‬, ‫צ‬, ‫ר‬, ‫ז‬, ‫ע‬, ‫פ‬, and another eleven as auxiliary letters: ‫ת‬, ‫ו‬, ‫י‬, ‫ם‬, ‫ה‬, ‫נ‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ש‬, ‫ב‬, ‫ל‬, ‫א‬. Münster developed this theme in the next chapter: Explicatio compendiosa omnium literarum et syllabarum servilium, in quarum perfecta noticia ferme tota consistit hebraica grammatica (sheet c). The author divided the auxiliary letters into three groups: ‫ת‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ם ;י‬, ‫ה‬, ‫נ‬, ‫ש ;כ‬, ‫ב‬, ‫ל‬, ‫א‬, and discribes them with regard to their position in words. Here are some examples. Consonants ‫ש‬, ‫ב‬, ‫ל‬, ‫ א‬at the beginning of words (c2): ‫ א‬creates the first person of the singular in futurum; ‫ ל‬forms dativum (articulus dativi); ‫ ב‬creates prepositional (‘in’, ‘cum’) and adverbial phrases; ‫ ֶש‬functions as a relative pronoun (‘qui’, ‘quae’, ‘quod’, e. g.; np. ‫ה־ׁש ָהיָ ה‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ – ַ ‘id quod fuit’ – Eccl 1:9). The consonant ‫ ה‬appears in Hebrew words both at the beginning and the end of the words. In the beginning it can function as articulus genitivi casus (meaning nomen rectum). It also occurs as a definite article, an interrogative particle ha, a prefix of some conjugations. At the end of the words, it means the female gender of nouns and adjectives and functions as the pronominal suffix of the third person of the female gender in the singular, and also appears as the so-called directive he – ‫ – ָ ה‬it also appears in the verb endings in the imperative mood and the form ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫( ָר ִא‬instead of ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָ)ר ִא‬as litera otiosa. After discussing the auxiliary letters (c2–6), Münster gives some space to the auxiliary syllables (De syllabis servilibus – c6–8). It discusses the function of the particle ‫)את־( ֵאת‬ ֶ (marker et-), followed by prefixes and suffixes ‫ה ְת‬,ִ ‫ִ ים‬, ‫ו ֺת‬, ‫כם‬, ֶ ‫ּתם‬, ֶ ‫הם‬, ֶ ֺ ‫מו‬, ‫הּו‬, ‫נּו‬, ‫ּנָ ה‬, ‫ּתי‬, ‫נִ י‬. Part two of the grammar is entitled: ‫( ספר הבחור‬Sepher ha-Bachur) – Liber electus complectens in grammatica quatuor orationes, quarum cuique tredecim sunt elementa seu fundamenta (d1–y4) and, accoridng to the title, it is divided into four Orationes, which were preceded by a few pages of introductions by Levita and Münster. Oratio prima declarat ordinem verborum, et dividitur in tredecim elementa (e1– i3). According to the title, the first Oratio contains a systematic lecture on Hebrew verbs. It was divided into thirteen smaller parts, called elementa, containing explanations on Hebrew verbs. The content of this Oratio can be demonstrated by the titles of its individual parts: i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

89

Ȥ Elementum primum, in quo dividitur quaeque radix in octo partes. Ȥ Elementum secundum explicat differentiam quae est inter singulas octo memorates divisionem. Ȥ Elementum tertium declarat tria nomina imposita tribus literis radicalibus, explicatque definitionem verborum perfectorum et imperfectorum. Ȥ In elemento quarto incipitur ad explicandum sex tempora quae operationes vocantur, declarantur autem duo et duo fitque initium a praeterito et futuro. Ȥ Elementum quintum declarat participia praesentis et praeteriti temporis. Ȥ Elementum sextum explicat infinitivum et imperativum. Ȥ In elemento 7. incipiemus declarare significantiam 7. coniug. explicabitur tñ in eo solius coniugationis kal significandi modus. Ȥ Elementum 8. explanat modum significandi passivum. Ȥ Elementum 9. declarat significationem coniugationis pie. Ȥ Elementum decimum explicat significantiam coniugationis pual. Ȥ Elementum undecimum declarat significationem coniugationis hiphil. Ȥ Elementum 12. declarat significationem coniugationis hophal. Ȥ Elementum decimumtertium declarat significationem coniugationis hithpael. Oratio secunda explicat differentias coniugationum ratione punctorum et literarum singulis superadditarum, quae sunt signa ad cognoscendum unam ab alia, sive sit in perfectis sive in defectivis. Habet autem et ipsa tredecim elementa (i3–q1).

In particular parts of Oratio the morphology of the seven basic Hebrew conjugations with particular emphasis on vowel points is described (elementa 1–4). The next elementa (5–13) present the conjugation of different types of roots. Oratio tertia and quarta are devoted to the inflected parts of speech that can function as the subject (nomina): Oratio tertia declarat ponderationes seu formas nominum perfectorum et dividitur in tredecim elementa (q1–t5). Oratio quarta declarat formas nominum imperfectorum, et dividitur ipsa quoque in tredecim elementa (t5–y4). As with the verbs, Levita, followed by Münster, presented different forms of nouns first for the so-called nomina perfecta. In Oratio quarta, they presented the forms of nomina imperfecta, categorising them to particular classes of roots. The third part of the grammar contains Münster’s treatise on Hebrew accents (y4–8): Accentuum Hebraicorum compendium, per Sebastianum Munsterum. The fourth part includes tables showing in a clear way the conjugations of eight types of the Hebrew verb roots (sheets A–C): ‫לּוח ַה ִּבנְ יָ נִ ים‬ ַ (Luach ha-Binyanim) – Tabula omnium hebraicarum “coniugationum” iuxta octo verborum classes pulchre in ordinem digesta. First, in Praefatio Sebastiani Munsteri in tabulam hebraicarum coniugationum (A1–4) the author divided the verb roots into eight groups (ordines), according to which he arranged tables with examples (A4–B8). After the verbs, Münster presented similar tables containing declination of nouns divided into different classes: Declinationes nominum secundum diversas formas et primo

90

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

nominum perfectorum (C1–8). The nouns are accompanied with status constructus and status absolutus for the singular and plural and the form cum affixis, i. e., with pronominal suffixes. An important lexicographic work by Münster was ‫( ערוך הׁשורׁשות‬Arukh ha-Shorshot), or Dictionarium hebraicum, published by Froben in 1523. At first, on several dozen cards (Münster: 1523, Aa2–Cc3), the Hebraist from Basel provided introductions in which he gave, among other things, basic information about the letters (De literis radicalibus et servilibus), about the Hebrew verb (De verbis perfectis et defectivius; De coniugatione hebraica quam hiphil vocant etc.). This is the same material that was once published in Grammatica hebraica absolutissima with general information about Hebrew and Aramaic and Hebrew numerals. He then included a selection of Biblical texts in the original (Gen 1–2; Deut 30) along with their Latin translation and with a philological commentary on the more difficult places on the margins (Cc3v–8). In the next part of the work there is a dictionary containing alphabetically arranged entries. For the purposes of comparison with the work of Reuchlin, the entries ‫( ָאב‬ibid., 1) and ‫( ברך‬57) will be presented as above. The description offered by Münster and the text articulation he used are simpler and clearer than those of Reuchlin. The author first exposed the main entry (‫)אב‬ ָ on the wide outer margin, so that it could be well visible. He then placed the form with the pronominal suffix ‫ ָא ִבי‬and the meaning of the word: ‘Pater generatione, aetate et honore’. He also pointed to the Aramaic equivalent: ‫א ָּבא‬. ָ He then specified that this word is a masculine noun, although in the plural it takes on the feminine ending: ‫אבו ֺת‬. ָ He failed to add examples from the Bible in this entry as Reuchlin did. However, exemplary quotes appear in other entries in Münster’s dictionary (cf. the next entry: ‫ ַא ַבב‬37 – ‘flos’, ‘ponum’, ‘virgultum’ – cf. Reuchlin: 1506, 32; Münster: 1523, 1). Discribing the root ‫ברך‬, the author listed various words derived from the root, together with their forms and meanings. The verb was given in piel (‫)ּב ַרְך‬, ֵ similarly to the way Reuchlin did, and pointed to its basic meaning: ‘benedixit’, ‘salutavit’, ‘commendavit’. Next there are two noun forms ‫ ְב ָר ָכה‬i ‫ ִב ְר ָכה‬38 and their Aramaic equivalent: ‫ ִב ְר ְכ ָתא‬39 with the meanings ‘benedictio’, ‘munus’ and information that it is a noun of feminine gender. The feminine gender imposes the use i

37 This is a noun ‫)אב( ֵאב‬, ַ that occurs twice in BH, and only in status constructus or with the pronominal suffix (Job 8:12; Cant 6:11), so it is difficult to determine its form in status absolutus (cf. WSHP 1, 3 [no. 3]). 38 The words were printed without dagesh (inconsistency in the use of dagesh is often repeated in the Dictionarium hebraicum). The form ‫ ִב ְר ָכה‬is not present in BH (cf. WSHP 1, 152 [no. 1421]; cf. Reuchlin: 1506, 92). 39 Printed without dagesh. This form is not found in BH. It appears instead in Targumim (cf. WSHP 1, 152 [no. 1421]; Jastrow: 2005, 196). i

91

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

of numerals in the same grammatical gender: “unde Gen.27. ‫ ְב ָר ָכה ַא ַחת‬40 Benedictio una”. At the very end of the entry, Münster gave two forms of the plural: ‫ְב ָרכו ֺת‬ and ‫ ִב ְרכו ֺת‬41. One line below, the author presented the form of past participle in qal from the root ‫ברך‬, which he treated as a separate entry: ‫ ָ;ּברּוְך‬he included its Aramaic equivalent (‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ב ִר‬ – ְ written without dagesh), meaning (‘benedictus’) and the plural form ‫רּוכים‬ ִ ‫ב‬.ְ Next, Münster presented two additional meanings of the root ‫ ברך‬in piel: ‘blasphemavit’, ‘increpavit’, ‘maledixit’ (examples like in Reuchlin’s from Job 2:9 and 1 Kings 21:13) and ‘genuflexit’. The second meaning is accompanied with an explanation: “inde ‫ ֶב ֶרְך‬genu”, the dual of the noun (‫ב ְר ַכיִ ם‬ – ִ written without dagesh – ‘genua’, ‘crura’, ‘sinus’), the feminine gender and an example from Isa 35:342: ‫‘( ִּב ְר ַּכיִ ם כ ְֹׁשלו ֺת‬genua debilia’ – ‘fainting knees’). Another Münster’s lexicographic work worth presenting (1562) is his dictionary entitled ‫( ׁשילוׁש לׁשונות‬Shilush Leshonot), or Dictionarium trilingue. After three pages of an introduction (ibid., 2–4), the author placed the entries in three well-defined columns. The first column contains Latin words, the second their Greek equivalents, and the third Hebrew and possibly Aramaic (marked with +). The entries are arranged in Latin alphabetical order, as mentioned in the title of this part: Dictionarium trilingue, in quo latina in alphabeti ordinem sunt digesta (5). Here are some exemplary entries: i

 

Benedico

εὐλογέω, εὐφημέω.

‫ֵב ַרְך‬

Benedictio

εὐλογία.

‫ִב ָר ָכה‬

Libellus

βιβλίον, γραμμάτιον, δέλτος, πυκτίς

‫ֵס ֶפר ָקטו ֺן • ְמגִ ָּלה‬

Pater

πατήρ, πρόγονος, πάππας

‫ ָא ָּבא‬+ ‫ָאב‬

At the end of the work there is an Appendix containing a Latin-Hebrew dictionary of grammatical terminology, terms in the field of logic, philosophy and mathematics, as well as the names of zodiac signs, names of planets, months and others (241–257). Here are some examples of this very useful supplement for beginning Hebraists, especially for those who wanted to make use of the works of the rabbis:

40 Printed without dagesh, probably because in BH it was used in this fragment (Gen 27:38) without the point inside the consonant ‫)ה ְב ָר ָכה ַא ַחת( ב‬, ַ even though it was preceded with the definite article. This form was used in BH only once (cf. masora parva in BHS). 41 Both words written without dagesh. 42 He referred incorrectly to: “Isa 36”. i

92

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

grammatica

(sic) ‫ִּד ִקדּות‬

radix, thema

‫ׁשו ֵֺרש‬

nomen

‫ֵׁשם‬

verbum

‫ָּפ ַעל‬

dictio indeclinabilis & consignificativa

‫ִמ ָּלה‬

As can be seen from the description of this dictionary and from the examples provided, its scope far exceeded the Biblical terminology, including vocabulary from the most important fields of science of that time. 1.3.3.3 Institutiones linguae hebraicae by Robert Bellarmine Institutiones linguae hebraicae by Robert Bellarmine at the end of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were among the most widely read textbooks for learning Hebrew in the Catholic community. This work actually comprised two smaller works (each with its own title card, although they were printed and bound together): Institutio linguae hebraicae (a lecture on grammar) and Exercitatio grammatica in Psalmum trigesiumtertium, Secundum Hebraeos trigesimumquartum (exercises on the basis of Ps 34). As this work was published many times (1578; 1585; 1596; 1606; 1616; 1618; 1619, among other) by various printing houses, eventually taking on an increasingly clear form, we will use two editions for its presentation: one published in Rome, 1585, “Ex Officina Dominici Basae”, and the second printed in 1619, “Apud Franciscum Fabrum” (no place of publication given; catalogues refer to Lyon or Cologne). The publication Institutio linguae hebraicae consisted of four parts. Pars prima, quae est de ratione legendi, et scribendi (1585, 7–42; 1619, 1–47) lists the alphabet (consonants and vowels), presents the rules of using shewa and dagesh, touches upon mute letters (matres lectionis) and accents. The clarity of the explanations should be emphasized: Bellarmine presented the alphabet in a five-column table (1585, 7–11), providing the reader with: the numerical equivalent of the letter, its sign, pronunciation and name in Hebrew and in Latin transcription, the meaning of the name, e. g.:

93

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

Num. Figu.

Potestas

Nomen Significatio

1

‫א‬

aspiratio lenissima

Aleph ‫ָא ֶלף‬

Quasi ‫ ַאּלּוף‬Alluph, id est, princeps, quod sit principium Alphabeti.

2

‫ב‬

B, Graecum sive, v consonans.

Beth ‫ֵבית‬

Domus, quod figura sua domum imi­ tetur: summa enim linea tectum, in­­ fima pavimentum, media parietem, vacuitas est regione portam referit.

3

‫ג‬

gh

Gimel ‫ימל‬ ֶ ִ‫ּג‬

Quasi ‫ ּגָ ָמל‬gamal, id est, camelus, ­ ropter gibbum, quem in dorso gerit. p

Under the table, the author explained the content of particular columns (ibid., 11–15). Similarly, he presented vowel points: he provided the graphic sign of particular vowels, their pronunciation, name and meaning (17–21), and then showed the way consonants are written, providing relevant examples with his own commentaries (22–25). The table also included Hebrew accents with the explanations below (40ff). In Pars secunda, quae est de nomine the author described Hebrew nouns, pronouns and adjectives (1585, 43–72; 1619, 48–92). In the first chapter of part two (De iis quae nomini generaliter accidunt – 1585, 43–48), Bellarmine divided, like Reuchlin, the parts of speech into three groups: “Nomen, cum quo pronomen coniungunt” (‫;)שם‬ ֵ “Verbum, cui etiam participium annectunt” (‫;)ּפ ַעל‬ ָ “Dictio, quae praepositiones, coniunctiones, adverbia et interiectiones complectitur” (‫)מ ָּלה‬ ִ (1585, 43; 1619, 48f). He followed the order throughout the lecture. As far as nomina are concerned, they have gender, number, case and status (e. g. regimen genitivi), which Bellarmine explained in detail in the examples. Describing the grammatical gender, he mentioned three types: masculinum, foeminum, commune, and provided typical gender endings (with exceptions). Further, he went to describe grammatical numbers (singularis, pluralis, dualis), cases, and to a lesser extent adjectives. Similarly to Reuchlin, Bellarmine implemented the concept of a grammatical case to Hebrew grammar. First, he pointed out that the Hebrew nomina do not take case-specific endings. The equivalents of the Latin cases are obtained in Hebrew by the use of the article, prepositions and particle ‫( ֶאת־‬1619, 52f; cf. 1585, 46f). As far as the status of nouns is concerned, Bellarmine distinguished between nomen absolutum and nomen in regimine (status constructus) and then explains, by way of examples, how the status constructus is created (1619, 54f; cf. 1585, 47f). In the second chapter (De variis nominum formis – 1585, 48–52; De variis nominum formis, et de gradibus comparationis – 1619, 55–65) Bellarmine first described adjectives, that is, those nomina that change their grammatical gender when they i

i

94

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

take appropriate endings (1585, 49; 1619, 56), and then explained the way in which the comparatives and superlatives are formed in the Hebrew language (by using preposition ‫מן‬, ִ adverb ‫מאֹד‬, ְ participle ‫ יו ֵֺתר‬or by repeating the adjective). He further explained that nomina are divided into different categories: nomina primitiva and nomina derivativa: “primitiva dicuntur quae non derivantur aliunde, sed ex ipsis derivantur alias” (1585, 49; 1619, 57); nomina perfecta and nomina imperfecta: “perfecta tres literas radicales habent […] imperfecta sunt, quae vel unam radicalem supprimunt […] vel duas” (1619, 58f). After these initial definitions, he delivered a short lecture on vocabulary (1585, 50ff; 1619, 59–65). The third chapter is devoted to numerals (De nominibus numeralibus – 1585, 53ff; 1619, 65–68), which are placed in clearly-arranged tables. The next, fourth chapter of part two presents pronouns (De Pronomine – 1585, 56–59; 1619, 69–93). Bellarmine divided pronouns into four groups: primitivum (personal pronoun), derivativum or possessivum (pronominal suffixes), demonstrativum (indicative pronouns) and relativum (relative pronoun). The declension of pronouns is shown in tables. Below is an example of a declension table of the personal pronoun in singular (Inflexio pronominis Primitivi – 1585, 56; 1619, 69). Nomi. sing. ego c. g.

Genitivus mei c. gen.

Dativus mihi c. ge.

Accusativus me c. gen.

Ablativus à me c. g.

‫ֲאנִ י‬ tu m. gen.

‫ֶׁש ִּלי‬ tui m. ge.

‫ִלי‬ tibi m. ge.

‫או ִֺתי‬ te m. gen.

‫ִמ ֶּמּנִ י‬ à te m. ge.

‫ַא ָּתה‬

‫ֶׁש ְּלָך‬

‫ְלָך‬

‫או ְֺתָך‬

‫ִמ ְּמָך‬

tu foem. g.

tui foe. ge.

tibi foe. ge.

te foem. g

à te foe. ge.

‫ַא ְּת‬ ille m. ge.

‫ֶׁש ָּלְך‬ illius m. g.

‫ָלְך‬ illi m. gen.

‫או ָֺתְך‬ illum m. g.

‫ִמ ָּמְך‬ ab illo m. g.

‫הּוא‬ illa foe. ge.

ֺ ‫ֶׁשּלו‬ illius foe. g.

ֺ ‫לו‬ illi foe. ge.

ֺ ‫או ֺתו‬ illam foe. ge.

‫ִמ ֶּמּנּו‬ ab illa f. g.

‫ִהיא‬

‫ֶׁש ָּלה‬

‫ָלּה‬

‫או ָֺתּה‬

‫ִמ ֶּמּנָ ה‬

Except for Latin equivalents of particular forms, Bellarmine also provided the grammatical gender. He prepared similar tables for the plural forms and for other pronouns. In conclusion, he paid some attention to the interrogative pronouns (Interrogativum – ‫מי‬, ִ ‫מה‬, ָ ‫מה‬, ַ ‫)מה‬. ֶ The 1585 edition also comprises Chapter Five: De mutatione punctorum in nominibus (60–72). The same content in the 1619 edition can be found in the appendix to Chapter Four (Appendix de mutatione punctorum in nominibus – 77–92). i

i

i

95

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

The third part of Bellarmine grammar is dedicated to Hebrew verbs (Pars tertia quae est de verbo – 1585, 73–145; 1619, 93–214). Pars tertia was divided into seven chapters. 1. De verbo in genere (1585, 73–85; 1619, 93–100). This chapter first states that “verbo in universum accidunt sex: modus, tempus, persona, genus, numerus, coniugatio”, and then generally describes the terms related to mode, time, person, gender, number and conjugation of Hebrew verbs. At the end, he listed in a table the verb forms in various conjugations for the root ‫פקד‬. In the 1619 edition, the same table is moved to the end of chapter two (134f). 2. De verbo perfecto (1585, 86–105; 1619, 100–135). Bellarmine distinguished here between verba perfecta and verba imperfecta: sunt igitur verborum Hebraicorum alias perfecta, alias imperfecta. Perfecta dicuntur, quae solum tres literas habent in themate, quae radicales dicuntur, ex iis nulla excidit inter coniugandum. Imperfecta dicuntur, quae vel constant pluribus quam tribus literis radicalibus, aut ex tribus inter coniugandum aliqam amittunt (1619, 100).

Then the author provided tables with patterns of seven verb conjugations: qal, niphal, piel, pual, hiphil, hophal, hitpael. To each table he added notes and explanations. 3. De verbis defectivis (1585, 105–113; 1619, 136–152). In the beginning the author divided verba imperfecta into four classes: verba defectiva (“quae videlicet inter coniugandum aliquam literam perdunt, et eius loco substituunt daghes”); verba quiescentia (“quae literam aliquam inter coniugandum amittunt, et eius defectum longa motione compensant”); verba composita (“quod ex defectivis, et quiescentibus, vel ex vario genere quiescentium constent”); verba quatuor, vel quinque literarum (1585, 105; 1619, 136). Then there are patterns for three types of verbs called defectiva: I-nun (e. g. ‫ נגׁש‬and a similar root ‫)לקח‬, I-jod (sequente ‫צ‬: ‫יצב‬, ‫יצג‬, ‫יצע‬, ‫יצק‬, ‫יצר‬, ‫ )יצת‬and for verbs with geminate roots (e. g. ‫גלל‬, ‫)סבב‬. 4. De verbis quiescentibus (1585, 113–126; 1619, 153–194). This chapter presents the conjugation of six types of verbs I-alef, I-jod, II-waw/jod, III-alef, III-he. 5. De verbis compositis, polysyllabis et anomalis (1585, 126–130; 1619, 194–199). Here Bellarmine described five types of verbs composed of: I-nun and III-alef (‫נׁשא‬, ‫נׂשא‬, ‫נבא‬, ‫ ;)נוא‬I-nun and III-he (e. g. ‫נוה‬, ‫נזה‬, ‫ ;)נחה‬I-jod and III-alef (‫יצא‬, ‫;)ירא‬ I-jod and III-he (e. g. ‫ירה‬, ‫ ;)יפה‬I-alef and III-he (e. g. ‫ארה‬, ‫)אתא‬, rare verbs of four and five stem-consonants (these are forms like ‫ּגִ ְלּגַ ל‬, ‫ׁש ֲע ַׁשע‬, ִ ‫ ֲח ַמ ְר ַמר‬that today are generally classified as geminate roots conjugated as pilpel, hitpalpel, pealal, etc.) and irregular verbs (e. g. ‫נתן‬, ‫)ה ְׁש ַּת ֲחוָ ה‬. ִ 43 i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

43 The then knowledge of the Hebrew language was the reason why Bellarmine could not handle the problem with verbs he called multi-syllable and irregular. For example, he derived the form ‫ ִׁש ֲע ַשע‬from the root ‫ׁשעה‬, whereas it is pilpel from ‫( ׁשעע‬cf. Isa 11:8); he connected ‫ֲח ַמ ְר ַמר‬

96

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

6. De affixis verborum (1585, 131–143; 1619, 199–212). In this section Bellarmine explained verb forms with the object suffixes. At first, he described how to create these forms, and then he arranged them in tables. 7. De literis Paragogicis (1585, 144f; 1619, 212ff). The fourth part of grammar (Pars quarta quae est de reliquis grammaticae partibus – 1585, 146–174; the 1619 edition also included: et de Syntaxi – 1619, 214– 244) presents the remaining parts of speech and syntax. Bellarmine divided it into five chapters. 1. De Adverbio, Praepositione, Coniunctione, et Interiectione (1585, 146–150; 1619, 214–219). 2. De literis servilibus (1585, 150–159; 1619, 219–232). In this chapter the author discussed the functions of auxiliary letters, similarly to Münster in his grammar. 3. De investigatione radicis, sive Thematis, et usu dictionarii (1585, 160ff; 1619, 232ff). 4. De Syntaxi (1585, 162–168; 1619, 234–244). The lecture on syntax in Bellarmine’s grammar is very modest and limited to basic issues only. The author devoted some attention to the sentence structure, using examples taken from the Bible to demonstrate how the verb form is agreed with the subject. He also dealt with cases of sentences in which the subject in the plural is combined with verb forms in the singular and vice versa. He explained in an interesting way the example from Gen 1:1 (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫)ּב ָרא ֱא‬: ָ “Ad mysterium denique Trinitatis insinuandum […] creavit Dii, id est, Deus in personis trinus creavit” (1585, 164; 1619, 238). He then discussed the syntax of an adjective with a noun, of two nouns and the use of the relative pronoun ‫א ֶׁשר‬. ֲ The 1619 edition additionally includes in this chapter Appendix de verbi constructione (243f), where the author, among others, touched upon the use of the verb ‫( היה‬with dative marked with ‫)ל‬, ְ functioning as the Latin ‘habeo’, and constructions with infinitivus absolutus. 5. De Poetica (1585, 168–174). In the 1619 edition, this chapter forms part five of the whole work (Pars quinta, de poetica universe, sive de Metris, et Canticis recentiorum Hebraeorum – 245–277), which, divided into eight subsequent chapters, explains the rules of Hebrew poetry. As mentioned above, another Bellarmine’s work was published together with Institutiones linguae hebraicae, i. e. Exercitatio grammatica in Psalmum trigesimumtertium, Secundum Hebraeos trigesimumquartum (1585, 175–229; 1619, 282– correctly with the root ‫חמר‬, but he did not know that it is the form pealal. He spelled the form ‫ ּגִ ְלגַ ל‬with an a, whereas it should be spelled ‫ ;ּגִ ְלּגֵ ל‬moreover, he did not know either that this is pilpel – the incorrect spelling can be probably put down to the fact that it is accompanied with a suffix only once in BH and there it is spelled with an a (‫וְ גִ ְלּגַ ְל ִּתיָך‬ – Jer 51:25). The form ‫ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחוָ ה‬ is derived by him from the root ‫ׁשתח‬, because he was not aware that the root ‫ )חוו( חוה‬belongs to the conjugation pattern hishtaphel (1585, 128; 1619, 197; cf. Gesenius: 2006, § 55f; Joüon/ Muraoka, § 79 t). i

97

Sources and aids for studying the Hebrew Bible

334). The explanations to Ps 34 [33] are a practical exercise in which the author demonstrated how to apply the acquired grammar knowledge when reading the Hebrew Bible. First, he quoted the original text of the psalm, and then performed a thorough analysis of particular verses, examining each word. For example, he quoted a verse in Hebrew with its literal translation into Latin and with a transcription (verse two):44 semper

tempore omni in

Dominum

Benedicam

‫ָּת ִמיד‬

‫ל־ע֑ת‬ ֵ ‫ְּב ָכ‬

‫ֶאת־יְ ה ָו ֺה‬

‫ֲא ָ ֽב ְר ָ ֽכה‬

tamid

gheth chol be

Adonai eth

Avarecha

in ore meo.

laus eius

‫ְב ִפי׃‬

ֺ ‫ְת ִה ָּלתו‬

vephi.

tehillatho

He then analysed each word one by one, giving its grammatical forms depending on the part of speech. For example, for the first verb ‫ ֲא ָ ֽב ְר ָ ֽכה‬he provided the person and the number, root, time and conjugation: “prima persona singul. futuri a verbo ‫ ָּב ַרְך‬in coniugatione Piel.” Furthermore, he pointed out that the letter ‫א‬ indicates the first person of the future tense and referred the reader to page 93 of the grammar, where there is a description of auxiliary letters typical of particular verbs in the future tense, etc. (1585, 181; cf. 1619, 282). Subsequent editions of this grammar were revised and published with various additions. For example, the seventeenth-century editions (1616, 1618, 1619) were provided with two additional tables containing information on Hebrew conjugations, with particular emphasis on vowel changes. The 1618 edition also contained a short grammar of the Syriac language. *** In conclusion, it should be stated that the development of Hebrew study centres, the huge number of editions of the Hebrew Bible, grammars, dictionaries and other study aids, the number of translations of the Hebrew Bible into national languages in the making in the sixteenth and at the beginning of the seventeenth century as well as frequent references of the then authors to the Hebrew Bible quoted in 44 In Bellarmine’s grammar it is versus I, because he did not number the headings. The Hebrew text is given exactly after Bellarmine, although it is slightly different from the BHS version used today.

98

Hebrew studies in Renaissance Europe

the original in theological, legal and other works testify to the enormous development of the knowledge of Hebrew in Europe at that time (cf. Loewe: 1974, 17f). After reading the contents of the sixteenth and seventeenth century grammars and dictionaries, one can safely assume that Renaissance Hebraists had a very good knowledge of Hebrew morphology and Hebrew vocabulary. Their fluency in syntax is slightly worse. The multilingual editions of the Bible also prove a very high level of knowledge of other Semitic languages. This abundant source Poles could exploit as well and their efforts were crowned with three translations of the entire Hebrew Bible. The problems presented above concerning the adaptation of humanistic studies on the Hebrew language by particular currents of the Reformation, mainly by Reformed Protestants and radical factions, are extremely important for understanding the environment in which Polish Biblical translations were created.

2. Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Just like in Western Europe, so in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there grew an interest in Biblical languages. This was naturally initiated among the humanists, for whom fluency in three ancient languages – Latin, Greek and Hebrew – was an educational basis (2.1). As the Reformation penetrated into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hebrew studies took on a religious character and became a tool supporting new religious currents. After the Council of Trent, especially in the Jesuit circles, the knowledge and teaching of Hebrew also served the purpose of the Counter-Reformation (2.2). As shown above, a very important factor influencing the progress of Hebrew studies was the development of printing. Jewish along with Christian Hebrew books were printed also in sixteenth and seventeenth century Poland. Publishing houses undertaking such initiatives, on the one hand, provided those interested in Hebrew studies with the necessary aids, and on the other hand, made their presses available to Christian Hebraists by publishing the results of their work (2.3). In presenting Christian Hebrew books, which were released by Polish publishers, we will consider their contents (2.4).

2.1 The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies The first signs of interest in Hebrew in Poland can be traced back to the fifteenth century and lead to Płock and Cracow. In the former Seminary Library in Płock there was a manuscript (no. 91 from the years 1463–1465), lost today, in which Dawid of Mirzyniec (d. 1475) wrote the Latin scripte per Davidem in the Hebrew alphabet on card 333.1 From this note it is difficult to say whether he was conversant with Hebrew because the note he left behind leaves much to be desired as regards the correctness of the language used. For all that, he was certainly interested in the Hebrew alphabet and mastered it to such an extent that he could express three Latin words with it. The note of David of Mirzyniec looked as follows (cf. Kaśków: 1994, 41): 1 A similar image of a Hebrew note made according to a copy of Władysław Mąkowski can be found in the book: Wydra: 1979, 204.

100

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

d i v a d ‫ד א ו י ד‬

r e p iudaice

‫פ ה ר‬

e t p i r c s scripsi

‫ס צ ר י פ ט ה‬ m e ‫ה ם‬

The second trace of Hebrew interests in fifteenth–century Poland was left by Michał of Wieluń (d. 1487), a professor at the Cracow Academy. According to the testimony of Maciej of Miechów (c. 1457–1523), he had a thorough knowledge of Hebrew. He is also said to have known Greek, so he could have been the first homo trilinguis of the Cracow Academy (cf. Zwiercan: 1975, 627; Kaśków: 1994, 41). The beginnings of teaching Hebrew in Poland date back to the first years of the sixteenth century. The situation in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth compared to Western Europe had its advantages because the Jews were not subjected to strong repressions and even enjoyed considerable autonomy, which made it easier for Poles to contact people who spoke Hebrew (cf. Pilarczyk: 1998b, 65ff; 2007, 4f). However, contact with the Jewish population did not have to mean easy access to Hebrew, as this dead language was only used by Jewish scholars studying the Torah and Talmud, which Christians were not allowed to do. In everyday business Jews spoke Yiddish or modern languages, most often German and Polish, and a good knowledge of Hebrew grammar was not common among them (cf. Pilarczyk: 1998b, 263; 2009, 129). Mostly, it was the converted Jews that earned their living by teaching Hebrew. As elsewhere so also in Poland, people interested in Hebrew were accused of Judaizing tendencies. In general, the Renaissance interest in antiquity – and thus in Greek and Hebrew – as every new mental current met with resistance from the proponents of the previous method of scholarly practice. The beginnings of the Reformation also aroused suspicion of ancient languages, which were treated with prejudice as “seedbeds of heresy”. They were thought to pose a danger to faith. There was a widespread view that the learning of these languages gave rise to heresy and brought confusion to the Christian world (Kaśków: 1994, 42). The first humanists with a knowledge of Hebrew appeared in the Cracow Academy from 1507 onwards. One of them was a Silesian, Wacław Koler (d. 1546) from Hirschberg (Jelenia Góra), using the humanistic name Antraceus; who in the years 1507–1513 taught Latin philosophy and literature. He taught Hebrew privately because he was professionally engaged in medicine, which did not stand in the way of his fame as homo trilinguis. He was educated in Cracow, where in 1500/1501 he won the Baccalaureate, and in 1507 he earned his Master of Liberal Arts. He probably learned Greek here too. However, it is not known where he acquired the knowledge of Hebrew. After his death, he left a library of nearly 100 items, which

The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies

101

also contained Hebrew cannons, including works by Reuchlin, Münster and Van den Campen (cf. Morawski: 1900, 253; Barycz: 1935, 86ff; Kaśków: 1994, 42). Hebrew learning found its promoters in Cracow. They included two bishops, Piotr Tomicki (1464–1535) and Samuel Maciejowski (1499–1550) (cf. Morawski: 1900, 257f). About the first one, Stanisław Hozjusz (1504–1579) wrote that at his own expense he fed and maintained teachers of Latin, Greek and Hebrew (cf. Barycz: 1935, 88f). On the initiative of Bishop Tomicki, the first Hebrew language chair was established at the Academy of Cracow, which was entrusted to a baptized Jew, Dawid Leonard from Warsaw, around 1528. In 1530 he published at the Maciej Szarfenberg publishing house the Hebrew primer authored by Philip Novenianus of Hasfurt (cf. fig. 14)2 for the needs of the students of the Academy. Dawid provided the work with a preface and a dedication to Bishop Tomicki. He also composed his own Hebrew grammar, now lost, whose manuscript was kept at the Załuski Library. It received a very flattering opinion from Van den Campen, who included a letter of commendation to Dawid Leonard in his own grammar published in Cracow: Indeed, I have found out that you are God-fearing, and God has done so that I have met you to help me; you have written this book, which gives beautiful rules of the holy tongue, and although it is small, it is rich in content, it is excellent and faultless. I guarantee that I have already seen textbooks written by others, but they were not so skilfully arranged, and I have found many worthless things there that do not satisfy the needs of the learners; but in your book no item receives too little or too much attention, it is like a key to the holy language, and each one of us can read it himself, just like the grammars of other languages. And since you have honoured me [with this book], I will not let it out of my hand, and I will read it to anyone who wishes to learn Hebrew, and great will be your merit, and your glory will be eternal. (Zaiste przekonałem się, żeś bogobojny, i Bóg to zdarzył, żem cię spotkał, byś mi był pomocą; tyś to książkę napisał, która podaje piękne prawidła świętego języka, a chociaż niewielka, za to bogata w treść, jest znako­mita i bez usterek; zaręczam, że widziałem już podręczniki przez innych napisane, lecz nie były tak składnie ułożone, i wiele tam znalazłem rzeczy bezwartościowych, przez co nie zaspokajają potrzeby uczących się; ale w twojej książce niczego ani za mało, ani za dużo, jest ona jakby kluczem do świętego języka, a każdy z nas może ją czytać sam, podobnie jak gramatyki innych języków. A żeś mnie zaszczycił [tą książką], nie wypuszczę jej z ręki i czytać ją będę każdemu, kto by tylko chciał się uczyć języka hebrajskiego, i wielka będzie twoja zasługa, oraz wieczna będzie twoja chwała) (Bałaban: 1931b, 526, n. 10).3 2 Elementale Hebraicum: in quo praeter caetera eius linguae rudimenta, declinationes et verborum coniugationes habentur, Cracow, Maciej Szarfenberg, 1530, 4 °. This work has not survived. It is mentioned by: Jocher 1, 68f (no. 607); Łukaszewicz: 1849, 110; Wiszn. 4, 217; E 23, 188; DDP 1, 243. None of the bibliographers gives the location of this work. PT 12 doesn’t mention it at all. 3 Van den Campen posted a letter of dedication praising Leonard in Hebrew next to the Latin introduction. The Hebrew text was published by Bałaban, commenting on it as follows: “As if to document his knowledge of Hebrew, he places a second introduction in Hebrew, according to the taste of the time, partly rhymed and full of phraseology and nonsense, and dedicates it to

102

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Fig. 2: Jan van den Campen, Ex varijs ­libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, title page (BN SD XVI.O.71).

Fig. 3: Jan van den Campen, Ex v­ arijs ­libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, folio I3v (BN SD XVI.O.974).

The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies

103

Fig. 4: Jan van den Campen, Ex varijs ­libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, folio a3r (BN SD XVI.O.974).

Jan van den Campen, the famous Dutch humanist, Hebraist and theologian, quoted above, stayed in Poland in the years 1533–1534. He was the author of a popular outline of Hebrew grammar based on the works of Elias Levita (ed.: Leuven: Theodoricus Martinus, 1528; Paris: Christianus Wechelus, 1539, 1543, 1544). Inspired by Jan Dantyszek (Johannes Dantiscus, actually Johannes von Hoefen) (1485–1548), Ambassador of King Sigismund I the Old (1507–1548) to the Imperial Court, he published his Psalms paraphrase,4 which enjoyed great popularity during the Renaissance throughout Europe. In 1533 he came to Cracow, accompanying Dantyszek on his return to the country and, at the invitation of Bishop Piotr Tomicki, in the period from February to May 1534, he taught Hebrew and

his predecessor Dawid Leonard, whose grammar he praises very much (Jakoby dla zadokumentowania swej wiedzy hebrajskiej, umieszcza on drugi wstęp w języku hebrajskim, wedle smaku owego czasu, częściowo rymowany i pełen frazeologii i nonsensów, a dedykuje go swemu poprzednikowi Dawidowi Leonardowi, którego gramatykę bardzo wychwala)” (Bałaban: 1931b, 526; cf. 523f; Barycz: 1935, 89f; Article “Dawid Leonard”: 1938; Kaśków: 1994, 42f). 4 The work was first published in Nuremberg in 1532 (VD 16, no. B3149; E 14, 32) and had more than thirty consecutive editions (e. g. VD 16, no. B3154; E 14, 32f), including the Cracow ones (Psalmorum omnium: 1532; fig. 5; cf. E 14, 32; PT 7, 62 [no. 99], 15, 40, 42; Dyl: 1987, 9).

104

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

St Paul’s letters at the Academy.5 Two reprints of the above-mentioned Hebrew grammar were published in Cracow in 1534 (fig. 2–4).6 Also his other works were published in Cracow: a paraphrase of Proverbia Salomonis7 and a commentary on Romans and Galatians (Campen: 1534c; cf. Bazydło: 1985b, 1303). This is how Kazimierz Morawski (1935, 258) wrote about the Cracow editions of the Hebrew grammar of the Dutch humanist: Tomicki received him here and wanted to keep him here as long as possible; however, since Campensis could not stay, nor lecture at the university, as he wished, he wanted to compensate and pay for his departure, publishing a Hebrew grammar in Cracow for the use of the scholars. (Tomicki go tu przyjmował i chciał jak najdłużej zatrzymać; ponieważ jednak Campensis pozostać nie mógł, ani według życzenia na uniwersytecie wykładać, chciał on swój wyjazd niejako okupić i opłacić, wydając gramatykę hebrajską w Krakowie do użytku scholarów).

In the foreword to the Ungler edition of this work, Van den Campen (1534a, a1v–2r) wrote that since circumstances no longer allowed him to stay in Cracow and continue teaching at the Academy, he left in memory of his stay in Cracow a grammar of the Hebrew language based on the works of Levita (cf. Jocher 1, 169 [no. 608b]). From Cracow, the Hebraist went to the Apennine Peninsula with the intention of visiting, among others, Elias Levita. He died unexpectedly in 1538 on his way back in Freiburg (cf. Barycz: 1935, 93; 1937, 197f; Bietenholz: 2003c). The stay of the famous Hebraist in Cracow further boosted Hebrew language teaching. In the years 1536–1537 Walerian Pernus (d. 1569) began lecturing Hebrew at the Academy based on Van den Campen’s grammar. Pernus came from a Cracow patrician family. After three years of studies in Cracow (1526–1529) and obtaining a degree in the liberal arts, he left for Paris, where he enrolled, probably as the first Pole, in the famous Collège des Lectures Royaux, where, under the tutelage of famous humanists, he gained a thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. His studies lasted a full six years (1530–1536). During this period Pierre Danès (1497–1577) 5 Barycz (1935, 91ff) states that “invited by Tomicki, immediately after his arrival in Cracow, he takes up a lecture by van Campen at the Academy on Saint Paul’s letters to the Romans from the original Hebrew [sic!]. (uproszony przez Tomickiego, zaraz po swym przyjeździe do Krakowa podejmuje van Campen w Akademji wykład listów św. Pawła do Rzymian z oryginału hebrajskiego.)” 6 The first edition (Campen: 1534a) has been preserved in several copies and the second (­Campen: 1534b) has been lost (cf. Jocher 1, 69 [no. 608a.b]; J. Łukaszewicz: 1849, 110; E 14, 32; PT 7, 65 [no. 124]). 7 Two Cracow editions of this translation are known: 1534 and 1547. The first edition was dedicated to Tomicki. Perhaps there was another Cracow edition of 1534 printed by Maciej Szarfenberg, as can be seen in the Ossolineum in Wrocław Precationes aliquod, which were published as part of Proverbia Salomonis (cf. E 27, 38f; PT 7, 15, 65 [no. 122]; KSD 16 ZNiO, 91 [no. 293ff]; Dyl: 1987, 12).

The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies

105

Fig. 5: Psalmorum Omnium iuxta Hebraicam veritatem paraphrastica interpretatio, autore Ioanne Campensi […], Cracow 1532, folio A6v (ZNiO XVI.O.912).

and Jacques Toussaint (1490–1547) taught Greek at Collège, while François Vatable, Agathias Guidacerius and Paul Paradis taught Hebrew. Pernus was also greatly influenced by the college’s clergyman, the renowned philologist, Guillaume Budé. After his return to Cracow, a young humanist educated in Paris tried to revive philological studies at the Academy, which was not easy, as at that time the supporters of the medieval tradition of scholarship had a strong influence at the Cracow Academy. Henryk Barycz (1969, 219), researcher in the history of Polish scholarship, assesses Pernus’ activity in Cracow as follows: Pernus’ lecturing activity as an assistant professor and then as a “minor colleague”, although of short duration (1536–1540), is of great importance in the development of our humanism, as it overcame the existent resistance in the field of public teaching of the three languages, paving the way and, more importantly, linking our classical philology with its French counterpart which with its outstanding achievements was more advanced than the Italian one. (Działalność wykładowa Pernusa na stanowisku docenta, a następnie “kolegi mniejszego”, mimo że krótkotrwała (1536–1540), posiada w rozwoju naszego humanizmu duże znaczenie, przełamała bowiem dotychczasowe opory na polu nauczania publicznego trzech języków, torując drogę i – co ważniejsze – wiążąc naszą filologię klasyczną z bardziej nowoczesnym aniżeli włoski kierunkiem filologii francu­ skiej oraz jej wybitnymi osiągnięciami.)

106

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Pernus’ didactic activity did not last long. From 1537/1538 he no longer lectured Hebrew, but Greek classics and then Cicero. In 1540 he left the Academy, became a city writer and later a councillor. He finally converted to Lutheranism (cf. Sobieszczański: 1867a; Morawski: 1900, 258; Barycz: 1935, 93f; Bieniarzówna: 1980; Kaśków: 1994, 43). From the 1540s, the development of the teaching of Biblical languages at the Cracow Academy was halted by the growing scholastic reaction, for which humanism, with its love for Greek and Hebrew, was the source and, in a way, the test of heresy. Adam Jocher (1, XXXI [of the second pagination], 109f [no. 60]), writing about the activity of Jerzy Liban from Liegnitz (1464–1546), a Greek teacher at the Academy, mentions the problems encountered by Cracow’s humanists promoting the teaching of Greek and Hebrew: Soon, however, from the beginning, he suffered many hardships and confusions from the members of the academy themselves, who considered the learning of this [Greek] language, as well as Hebrew, to be detrimental to the Catholic religion. (Wnet od początku jednak, doznał on wielu trudności i zamitrężeń od samych osób w skład akademji wchodzących, którzy naukę tego języka [greckiego] równie jak hebrajskiego, za wywierającą szkodliwy wpływ na religią katolicką poczytywali.)

Jocher (1, XXXIV, 135 [n. 171]; cf. Pilarczyk: 1995, 82–85) says that at that time “the learning of such languages as Greek and Hebrew encountered difficulties and attracted few enthusiasts (nauka języków tak greckiego, jak hebrajskiego szła opornie i mało zwolenników znajdowała).” This crisis mainly affected Hebrew. Most people who were interested in the original language of the Old Testament had to learn it privately, only learning its basics. The official Hebrew lectures delivered so far within the Faculty of Philosophy were very insufficient. After Pernus until the end of the century, i. e. for the period of sixty years, only a few masters taught the language. Jan of Trzciana, called Arundinensis (c. 1510–1567), educated in Cracow (from 1526) vir trium linguarum, lectured in the summer semester of 1548 on comparative grammar of Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Afterwards, in the winter semester 1556/1557, Master Andrzej Troperus “read” Hebrew grammar, and then, after a few years of break, an avid Hebrew scholar Wojciech Buszowski (d. 1606), later an Olkusz depositary, taught Hebrew grammar three times in the years 1564–1569. Jan Porębny was the last sixteenth-century Hebraist who lectured in the Old Testament language at the Academy and it was during the summer semester of 1590. In addition to these few official lecturers, four bachelors tried to teach the basics of Hebrew during their summer and Lenten lectures (cf. Barycz: 1935, 95; Palacz: 1962–1964; Czerkawski: 1997).

The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies

107

Fig. 6: Francesco Stancaro, Ebreae Grammaticae Institutio, Basel 1555, title page (ZNiO XVI.O.988).

Bishop Maciejowski, in order to remedy the crisis in the teaching of the Hebrew language, which arose in the late 1540s, made efforts to have a Hebraist come from abroad. He brought to Cracow Francesco Stancaro (c. 1501–1574). Unfortunately, this attempt ended in a complete failure. Stancaro, homo trium linguarum, came from Mantua. He was an outstanding Hebraist. In 1526 in Strasbourg he published the Hebrew language textbook Ebreae grammaticae institutio. The work was reprinted in Venice (1530) and Basel (1547, 1555; fig. 6) and attracted the attention of Bishop Maciejowski. In 1548 the book was also published in Cracow. The Cracow edition of the handbook was dedicated by the author to Bishop Maciejowski, who financed the printing.8 Stancaro converted to Protestantism in 8 The Cracow edition of the work has not survived, but was noted by eighteenth and nineteenth– century bibliographers (Janocki: 1776, 249f; E 29, 173; Jocher 1, 69 [no. 609]; J. Łukaszewicz: 1849). In this work we use two Basel editions (Stancaro: 1547; 1555). As for the Strasbourg edition, Karol Estreicher (E) questions its existence. He describes the Cracow edition as: “Gram-

108

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

1540 when he worked as a teacher in Padua. For fear of the Inquisition, he fled to Venice, where he was briefly imprisoned. In 1544 he took up the post of professor of the Hebrew language at the University of Vienna, but because of his pro-Reformation sympathies, in 1545 he had to leave and went to Basel in the company of Bernardino Ochino (c. 1487–c. 1564/1565). At the end of 1548 he stayed in Transylvania, from where in 1549 Bishop Maciejowski brought him to Cracow to take over the Hebrew language chair.9 However, when the reformational views of the Hebraist came to light, he was imprisoned in the bishop’s prison in Lipowiec Castle, from where he escaped with the help of Andrzej Trzecieski the Younger (c. 1525–c. 1584). Then he went to Pińczów, where he stayed in the second half of 1550. From there, prosecuted by royal decree, he fled to the province of Great Poland, where he took refuge under the protection of the Górka family, who recommended him to Prince Albert Hohenzollern of Prussia (1490–1568). Thus in the spring of 1551 Stancaro found himself in Königsberg, where in the Albertina he held the Hebrew Language Chair until 15 August 1551. In all the circles in which he appeared, he was involved in christological and soteriological disputes, introducing dissensions, unrest and splitting Polish Protestantism (Ruffini: 1935, 207–213; Kossowska: 1968, 226; Urban: 1996; Frick: 2001, 1676f). Among the professors from Cracow, there were also other eminent personalities who knew the Hebrew language, although they did not deal directly with its didactics. This group included Wojciech Nowopolczyk (c. 1504–1559), who taught Greek, Latin literature and theology (cf. Hajdukiewicz: 1978). Another was Jan Leopolita’s disciple, Stanisław Mareniusz (c. 1532–1580), who taught Greek literature, grammar, philosophy and theology and left in his manuscript three valuable codes including Greek and Hebrew versions of the Prayer of the Lord (cf. Hajdukiewicz: 1974; Barycz: 1957, 128f). Among those who know at least the basics of Hebrew are also Cracow’s Greekists. The first to mention is Jerzy Liban from Liegnitz, whose teacher was homo trilinguis, Wacław Koler. In the preface to the Cracow edition of Erasmus’s work on the art of writing letters (Opus de conscribendis epistolis, 1523; fig. 7), stigmatising opponents of humanistic education, Liban wrote about them that they “are unjustifiably fierce against and attack not only more ornate and pure Latin, but also Hebrew and Greek, although the rudiments of which, they have never tasted.” (I quote from Barycz: 1972a). Circa 1539 Liban had Maciej Szarfenberg publish his De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione (Liban: 1539; cf. E 21, 253; fig. 8), in which five pages were also devoted to Hebrew accents (G2r–4r). Other Greek scholars, who were no strangers to Hebrew, matica Institutio linguae Hebreae. In Regia Poloniae Cracovia, apud Joann Haelicz anno ab incarnatione Verbi Mysterio MDXLVIII (1548) Mensis Februarii die XXI. 8ce.” 9 Morawski (1935, 258) incorrectly states that it was in 1546, while Bałaban (1931b, 526f) that in 1547.

The Academy of Cracow and the humanistic current of Hebrew studies

109

Fig. 7: Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, title page (Silesian Library in Katowice 65201 I).

were a pupil of Marenius, Błażej Bazyli Goliniusz (c. 1545–1625) (cf. Hajdukiewicz: 1959–1960a), and Stanisław Grzepski (1524–1570), who probably took up Hebrew studies under the influence of Francesco Stancaro and left behind pioneering works on the Hebrew system of measurements and numismatics (cf. Barycz: 1960–1961). Mateusz of Kościan (d. 1545), who taught at the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel at the Academy in the years 1534–1536 must have had at least an elementary knowledge of Hebrew (cf. Hajdukiewicz: 1975; Kaśków: 1994, 44). In the second half of the sixteenth century, the Hebrew lectures, which were given – as can be seen – occasionally, lost their importance and with time almost completely disappeared. Cracow’s last Renaissance viri trilingues operated at the turn of the Renaissance and Baroque. They included Jan Kłobucki (from Kłobuck) (c. 1570–1609), professor of the Academy. He knew Hebrew, but it was not possible to determine whether he taught it in official lectures. He gave some private lessons, but it is not known if it was Hebrew (cf. Urban: 1967–1968). Another one was Jakub Vitelius (Vitellius; d. 1648), a doctor of theology, also a professor of the Academy, a librarian thereof from 1639. In 1629 he published Hermes trismegitus in Cracow, which contained poems in three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin, in honour of Adam Opatowczyk (cf. Sobieszczański: 1867b). Marcin Słonkowic (d. 1658) – educated in Cracow (1626/1627–1633) and Padua (1652–1653) – also

110

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Fig. 8: Jerzy Liban, De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione […], Cracow c. 1539, folio G3v (ZNiO XVI.O.756).

belonged to this group. He took up his teaching job at the Academy in 1638, when he started to teach philosophy. As a so-called royal professor in 1650 he taught Hebrew. During the war with the Swedes in the years 1655–1656 he was a librarian of the Academy. In 1657/1658 he was Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Professor of Theology. He died as a result of fire in his apartment on the night of 7/8 May 1658. During the fire his private library, rich in Hebrew grammar books, burned down. He published a textbook on the grammar of this language (Słonkowic: 1651), dedicated to Rector Jakub Górski (c. 1585–1652) (cf. Baczkowska: 1999–2000). Also the following scholars were familiar with the Hebrew language: Mikołaj Żórawski (Geranius; born 1595) – educated exclusively in Cracow (Bachelor of Arts and Philosophy in 1618, Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy in 1620), where he mastered ancient languages (cf. Przyborowski: 1868), Szymon Gołkowic (d. 1667), who from 1637 gave lectures in Hebrew at the Academy, teaching grammar and principles of accent (cf. Hajdukiewicz: 1959–1960b) and Wojciech Gryglicki (Griglicius; d. 1670) – educated in Cracow, an orientalist who also knew Arabic, Syriac and Greek, who from 1649 was a professor of canon law

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

111

at the Zamość Academy (cf. Reychman: 1960–1961; see also: Barycz: 1935, 95; 1957, 129; Wadowski: 1900, 125f; Kaśków: 1996, 186–196). Some researchers (Burnett: 2012b) also mention Tomasz Rerus among the Hebraists of the Cracow Academy, but no information was found on this person. As can be seen, there was a possibility to study Hebrew in Cracow, but as early as in the 1540s, due to the crisis described above, it did not guarantee a regularity, and thus probably also a high level. Those interested in studying this language in depth had either to look for private teachers or go to other academic centres in Europe.

2.2 Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth against the Reformation and Counter-Reformation Polish Hebraism, like its Western European counterpart, over time took on various religious shades, representing the most important trends of the Reformation: Lutheran, Calvinist (in Poland associated with the Bohemian Brethren) and Radical (antitrinitarian). The teaching and knowledge of the Hebrew language became a tool also used by the Polish Counter-Reformation, especially in its Jesuit version.

2.2.1 Lutherans The Lutheran centre of Hebraism with ties to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was Königsberg. Albert of Prussia had stayed in contact with Martin Luther since the early 1520s, leaning more and more towards the Reformation. In 1523, under the influence of Andreas Osiander’s sermons, which he heard in Nuremberg, the prince became a follower of Lutheranism (Nischan: 1996, 360). In the same year the former Catholic bishop of Samland and Pomesania, Georg von Polentz (1478–1550), officially converted to Lutheranism and then took over the newly established Lutheran diocese in Königsberg. By 1525, the Duchy of Prussia were already Protestant. The duke became a protector and promoter of Lutheranism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he dreamt of the Polish throne and – it seems – to this end he maintained extensive contacts with influential people of the Commonwealth. He was a patron of Polish and Lithuanian scholars, humanists and artists. He funded numerous scholarships for young Protestants who studied in Königsberg and other Protestant centres in Germany, mainly in Wittenberg (cf. Nischan: 1996, 360f; Serczyk: 1994, 15f). In order to promote Protestantism and to provide parishes with a steady flow of educated clergy, Albert paid great attention to education by setting up Latin schools in all major cities. In 1542 the Duke opened a

112

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

gymnasium in Königsberg and then in 1544 a university, called Collegium Albertinum, which was to promote humanistic education in the Protestant spirit: it was not without reason that the university was called “Wittenberg of the East” (Nischan: 1996, 361). The first rector of the gymnasium was the Lithuanian humanist, Abraham Culvensis (c. 1510–1545), also known as Kulvietis or Kulwa, and the rector of the university, Georg Sabinus (Schuler) (1508–1560), Melanchthon’s sonin-law. Both schools were staffed with professors mostly from Wittenberg, mainly on Melanchthon’s recommendation, who was personally interested in the development of Lutheran education in Prussia (cf. Serczyk: 1994, 16f). Some lecturers came from Poland or other foreign centres. Among the professors employed in or visiting Königsberg was also a group of Bible language experts (cf. Warmiński: 1906, 32; Gigilewicz: 2002, 1357). About the middle of the century Königsberg was visited by many talented Hebraists. Most of them had received their degrees at the University of Wittenberg, where the teaching of Hebrew and Greek was one of the most important subjects of the current curriculum of theological studies. There was also no shortage of people who had studied in Italian university centres. Here, we will just quote the most important names. Lithuanian Abraham Culvensis, a humanist, lawyer and philologist was the first professor of Hebrew and Greek at Königsberg. He started learning Greek and Hebrew in Cracow in 1528, probably under the tutelage of Dawid Leonard, where he received the Baccalaureate of Liberal Arts. He continued his studies in philology and additionally law in Leuven (1530–1535), Wittenberg (1536), Leipzig (1536) and Siena (1536–1538/1539). Due to the propagation of the Reformation, he had to take refuge under the protection of Prince Albert. He conducted classes in Greek and Hebrew at the Albertina in 1544, but his premature death in 1545 interrupted his teaching work (cf. Warmiński: 1906, 32, 109f, 121f, 126f; Barycz: 1971; Oracki: 1984, 163ff; Krahel: 2004; Augusiewicz/Jasiński/Oracki: 2005, 51–57). Hebrew was also well known to Stanisław Rafajłowicz, also known as Rapagelan (Rapagelanus). Albert had hoped for a new translation of the Bible. Rapagelan had his first academic achievements in Cracow (from 1528), where he studied theology and Greek under Jerzy Liban. However, Rafajłowicz’s biographers believe that he was more committed to the Hebrew study conducted at the time by Dawid Leonard from Warsaw (cf. Małłek: 1987, 576). Most probably in Cracow he also earned his Bachelor of Theology degree, where he probably started to lean towards Lutheranism. His convictions were further strengthened when he studied in Wittenberg (1542–1544), where he obtained his doctorate in theology under Caspar Cruciger the Younger (1504–1548). He was Luther’s pupil and Melanchthon’s friend. Rafajłowicz certainly deepened his knowledge of Biblical languages in the centre of Lutheranism, as evidenced by an advertisement in which he invited to his private lessons, claiming that within a few months, using Münster’s grammar, he is ready to teach any willing student Hebrew, which he thought was easier than Greek

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

113

(cf. Małłek: 1987, 577). In 1544 he arrived in Königsberg, where from July he occupied the chair of theology. He started his teaching work with lectures on Psalms; he also taught Hebrew. His lectures attracted a large number of students; even the prince himself honoured them with his presence. He worked on translating the New Testament into Polish, probably introducing Stanisław Murzynowski (­Suszycki) (c. 1526/1528–1553) into the art of translation. Rafajłowicz’s brilliant career in the Albertina was interrupted by his sudden death on 13 May 1545 (cf. Warmiński: 1906, 125f; Małłek: 1987, 576f; Augusiewicz/Jasiński/Oracki: 2005, 59–62). In 1546 Melanchthon’s protégé, Andreas Wesseling (d. 1570), took up lecturing after Culvensis. In his inaugural lecture he explained the usefulness of Hebraism and announced that he would teach grammar using examples taken from the Psalms (cf. Geiger: 1870, 121). Wesseling’s successor was Melanchthon’s another student and protégé, Friedrich Staphylus (1512–1564), educated in Cracow, Padua and Wittenberg. In Wittenberg, in 1541, he obtained the degree of Master of Liberal Arts, and in 1543 he lectured at the Faculty of Philosophy. In 1546, at the request of Georg Sabinus, Melanchthon sent Staphylus to Königsberg to give lectures on theology after the deceased Rafajłowicz and to continue working on the translation of the Bible into Polish. In Königsberg Staphylus taught Greek alongside theology. While working on the translation of the New Testament, he asked Bernard Wojewódek (d. 1554) to lend his version of the translation, but Wojewódek was reluctant to do so, as he was probably planning to edit his own translation. In 1547, Staphylus became the second rector of the Albertina (1547–1548), and the first elected by the Senate of the university. However, at loggerheads with the staff, he left the university in 1549, and in 1552 he converted to Catholicism in Wrocław (Breslau) (cf. Loffler: 1912; Biedrzycka/Szorc: 2003–2004). According to Geiger (1870, 121), he also gave lectures in Hebrew at the Albertina, which were then taken over by Johann Sciurus (Eichhorn) (1518–1564), who previously taught Greek. Andreas Osiander, a fugitive from Nuremberg, the Prince’s “spiritual father”, lectured in Königsberg in the years 1549–1552. According to some (Jones: 1983, 42 [n. 20], 59) he was one of the most eminent Hebraists among the German reformers, who also spread his controversial and divisive views (cf. Serczyk: 1994, 28, 30; Nischan: 1996, 361; Seebaß: 1996b; Amir: 1997). In the years 1551–1552 the professorship of theology at the Collegium Albertinum was also taken up by the eminent Hebraist, Francesco Stancaro, who passionately joined in the discussions evoked by Osiander.10 In one of his works published 10 Stancaro joined the dispute in Königsberg between Andreas Osiander and his opponents – supporters of Luther and Melanchthon. The Lutherans believed that Christ was the mediator and savior according to both the Divine and the human natures. Osiander claimed that Christ’s mediation is based solely on his divine nature. Stancaro took the position that Christ is a mediator and saviour only according to his human nature (cf. Ruffini: 1935, 212).

114

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

during this period he styles himself as Sacrae Theologiae, et Ebraicae linguae in Academia Regiomontana Prussiae, publicus professor (cf. E 29, 172). Initially, the professorship of the Hebrew language was subordinated to the Faculty of Philosophy. This language was also taught as part of lectures in theology and it was only in 1553 that the Chair of Hebrew was established and its first professor was Andreas Wesseling, whose statutory duties included teaching the history books of the Old Testament in the summer semester and the Five Books of Moses in the winter semester. His long teaching activity (until 1570) contributed to a significant increase in the standing of Hebrew studies in Königsberg. Towards the end of his life in his will, he set a scholarship for three students of theology, on whom he imposed an obligation to study the Hebrew language. The chair after Wesseling was briefly taken over by Henning Adendorp (cf. Geiger: 1870, 121f). Also Stanisław Murzynowski, Prince Albert’s scholar, was one of Königsberg’s Biblical philologists (although he did not give lectures in Königsberg). He knew three languages considered to be the basis of humanistic education, including Hebrew, although on the basis of the translation of the New Testament he left behind it seems he was more conversant with Greek. Murzynowski studied at the Königsberg Gymnasium (c. 1541–1545), where he began studying Biblical languages (probably under the tutelage of Culvensis and Rafajłowicz), and then at the age of about 17–19 (c. 1545–1547) he studied in Wittenberg, deepening his knowledge of Biblical philology under the direction of Melanchthon. From 1547 to 1549 he also stayed in Italy. In 1549 he was back in Königsberg, where he was introduced and recommended to Prince Albert by Jan Łaski (Joannes à Lasco) (cf. War­ miński: 1906, 311–322, 409–415; Małłek: 1977; Augusiewicz/Jasiński/Oracki: 2005, 74f; Pietkiewicz: 2019a, 391f).11 11 I gave the names of the Hebrew teachers above, which I managed to establish on the basis of my own research. A conference entitled Christian Hebraism in Eastern Central Europe from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment took place in Wittenberg in 2012. Some of the speakers have devoted some of their speeches to teaching the Hebrew language in Königsberg, giving slightly different lists of Hebrew teachers. Stephen Burnett (2012b) provided the following list: Abraham Culvensis (taught in the years 1544–1545), Andreas Wessling (Wesseling) (1546–1551), Francesco Stancaro (1551), Johann Sciurus (Eichhorn) (1554–1558), Johann Campinge (1568), Johann Olearius/Coppermann/Kupfermann (1577), Christoph Gruner (1593–1598), Georg Mylius (1598–1614), Georg Radike/Radicius (1614–1620), Coelestin Myslenta (1619–1626), L ­ evin Pouchenius (1626–1635), Hieronymus Ernesti (1641–1644), Andreas Mylius (1641), Stephan Gorlov[ius] (1647–1678), Johann Rittangel (1650). Johannes Thon (2012) gave a list of Hebrew teachers from Königsberg who studied in Wittenberg: Stanisław Rapagelanus (years of studies in Wittenberg: to 1544), Abraham Culvensis (1536/1537), Johann Sciurus (Eichhorn) (1537), Christoph Gruner (1586), Andreas Wessling (Wesseling) (1551), Coelestin Myslenta (after 1606), Levin Pouchenius (until 1620), Andreas Mylius (1632–1635). As we can see, the issues related to the teaching of the Hebrew language in Königsberg need further study in order to at least organize and complete the list of lecturers.

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

115

With a large number of well-prepared philologists, the prince made efforts to obtain a new translation of the Bible, which was to be done in the Lutheran spirit from the original languages into Polish. The demand for such a translation was not only among the Poles living in the Duchy of Prussia, but also the Crown’s inhabitants who sympathized with Lutheranism. Albert’s plans were very ambitious. He was thinking about having all the Scripture translated. To begin the translation he urged Rafajłowicz to return from Wittenberg; he died shortly after starting work. After his death, the rector of the university, Georg Sabinus, asked Melanchthon to send a theologian to Königsberg, who would not only take over the vacated chair, but could also continue work on the translation of the Bible. Melanchthon recommended Friedrich Staphylus, who also failed to complete the translation of the Bible. Osiander, the successor to Staphylus, could not be entrusted with the translation of the Holy Scriptures because he did not speak Polish. In this situation, the Duke entrusted this task to Jan Seklucjan (c. 1510/1515–1578), who, with the help of Stanisław Murzynowski, completed the translation of the New Testament itself and published it in the years 1550–1553. The Poles had to wait ten more years for the Old Testament to be translated from the original languages (till 1563 only Medival translations from Latin were available) (cf. Warmiński: 1906, 268–274). As can be see, Poles, mainly those connected with the Reformation, had the opportunity to study Hebrew also in Königsberg, although the constant changes of lecturers of this language, especially in the initial phase of the Albertina’s activity, and the anxiety accompanying personal and dogmatic disputes certainly did not facilitate systematic and high-level learning.

2.2.2 Reformed and Bohemian Brethren The study of Biblical languages was also very popular among Polish Reformed and Bohemian Brethren. The main forces of the Biblical philologists of this milieu focused on the translation of the entire Bible from the original into Polish, resulting in two complete translations of Scripture: the Brest Bible called also Pińczów Bible or Radziwiłł Bible (1563; fig. 9) and the Gdańsk Bible (1632; fig. 10). The translation of the Brest Bible was made in Pińczów, where, after the exile of the Pauline Fathers in 1550, Mikołaj Oleśnicki (c. 1526–1566/1567) founded a gymnasium and a printing house, which brought together a large group of Polish and foreign adherents and supporters of the Geneva Reformation trend, creating a strong Reformed Church in the province of Little Poland. Among the people brought to Pińczów by Oleśnicki were also outstanding philologists from the Polish-­Lithuanian Commonwealth and abroad (cf. Frick: 2001, 1663–1666).

116

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Fig. 9: The Brest Bible, Brest-Litovsk 1563, title page (ZNiO XVI.F.4015).

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Fig. 10: The Gdańsk Bible, Gdańsk 1632, the first title page (ZNiO XVII-3246).

117

118

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

It is not possible today to establish an exhaustive list of Hebraists and men of letters working on translating the Pinczów Bible. The lists of people working on the translation, from the initiation of the work to its completion, which have been preserved to this day, are quite long and include almost 20 names: Jan Łaski (Joannes à Lasco), Szymon Zacjusz (c. 1507–1591), Grzegorz Orszak (1520–1567), Fran­ cesco Stancaro, Pierre Statorius (Piotr Stojeński, c. 1530–1591), Andrzej Trzecieski the Younger, Jakub Lubelczyk (1530–1563), Jan Utenhove (1516–1566), Franciszek Lismanin (Lismanini, 1504–1566), Bernardino Ochino, Giorgio Biandrata, Gianpaolo Alciati (1515–1573), Marcin Krowicki (c. 1501–1573), Jean Thénaud (d. 1582), Alexander Vitrelin (d. c. 1586), Piotr Brelius, Grzegorz Paweł of Brzeziny (c. 1525–1591), Jerzy Schomann (c. 1526–1591) (cf. Ringeltaube: 1744, 92ff). Recent research has led us today to question the participation of many of these people in translating the Bible (e. g. Leszczyński: 2013; 2015). Bernard Wojewódka is also connected with the creation of the Brest Bible, whose publishing and literary activities and Biblical translations are part of the history of the first reformed translation of the Bible into Polish.12 Like many other literary works, the Brest Bible has its own prehistory, as a result of previous attempts to translate the entire Bible into Polish. It is likely that Bernard Wojewódka translated the New Testament into Polish in Brest, which, however, did not appear in print, and it is not known at all whether the work was completed (see 2.2.1). He is also attributed with the rhymed translations of several psalms, which appeared in print in the years 1546–1558 (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 99, 102, 103, 107, 111, 115, 116),13 thus partly after the translator’s tragic death (he drowned while crossing the river in 1554). In May 1555, Bernard’s widow Dorota Wojewódka, through the intermediary of Szymon Zacjusz, sought the possibility of printing the Polish version of Genesis – probably in her husband’s translation (cf. Piekarski: 1937– 1939, 433ff). A year later, in April 1556, a similar initiative was taken at the synod in Pińczów by the Cracow deacon Stanisław Wiśniowski, who advocated purchasing from the widow a manuscript with the texts of translations left by her husband and publishing them in print.14 On this basis, some people believe that although the Wojewódka’s name is not on the lists of translators, his translation work submitted by Dorota could have been included in the Brest Bible (cf. Frick: 2001, 1673). 12 A handwritten list of alleged translators of the Brest Bible can also be found in a copy of this Bible kept in Paris (Pa BN Rés. 458). Lists of translators and writers working on the Brest Bible provide other sources and studies, but do not match (cf. Frick: 2001, 1661). 13 Some of these psalms are signed with the initials B.W. (no. 99, 103, 115) or B.V. (no. 107). Michał Wiszniewski (Wiszn. 6, 471) believed that their translator was Bernard Wapowski, Ignacy War­ miński (1906, 462ff; cf. NK 3, 412) objected to this. The number refers to items in the bibliography of Polish Biblical prints published in English (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, 76–91). 14 “S. Wiśniowski egit negotium viduae Bernatowa de libris translatis per maritum eius, ut iudicio ecclesiae edantur in lucem ad eius sustentationem” (ASRP 1, 58).

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

119

Wojewódka’s literary activities in Brest were accompanied by Andrzej Trzecieski the Younger, son of Andrzej Trzecieski the Elder (d. 1547) from the first generation of Polish supporters of the Reformation, who studied Hebrew in Leuven. The only thing we know about the humanistic studies of Trzecieski the Younger is that between 1544 and 1547 he studied in Wittenberg at Melanchthon’s, with whom his father maintained regular correspondence. In 1547, Trzecieski the Younger returned to Cracow, and in 1550, together with other powerful supporters of Protestantism, he organized Francesco Stancaro’s escape from the prison in Lipowiec (see 2.1). Further years of his life were spent under the patronage of Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black (1515–1565). In 1551–1553 he cooperated in Brest-Litovsk with Wojewódka, publishing Protestant literature and translating the New Testament into Polish. He is also considered to be the translator of Psalm 1, which appeared twice in the brochure edition (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 100, 104). It was Trzecieski the Younger who was urged by Calvin himself in 1555 to make an effort to organize the translation of the entire Scripture into Polish (ICO 17, 910ff). In May 1560, he represented Mikołaj Radziwiłł at the synod in Pińczów, submitting his proposal to finance the translation and printing of the Bible. As for the participation of Trzecieski in the work on the Pińczów translation of the Holy Scriptures, only some vague references have been preserved. He himself informed the Gdańsk patrician Joachim Pełka that he was working on the Bible and the holy language (i. e. Hebrew), and therefore he had no time to write poetry.15 Jan Kochanowski (1530–1584) in Elegy (III, 13, 15) praised Trzecki for his proficiency in three classical languages and for his translations of the Biblical song of creation.16 However, it is not known whether Kochanowski had in mind fragments of the Brest Bible or any other translations of Biblical texts (cf. Krókowski: 1954, 71). However, in spite of the doubts connected with these testimonies, the participation of Trzecieski the Younger in the work on the Bible is very probable, both because of his philological qualifications and because after the May synod of 1560 he remained in Pińczów, and perhaps it was he who delivered the manuscript of the Bible to Brest in 1562, where of course he also had the opportunity to make the last corrections (cf. Jasnowski: 1939, 365).17 15 “Nunc quia, tractantem divini oracula verbi, / Avocat a Musis me sacra lingua meis, / Nec potis est animus iustum indulgere laborem / Carminibus, mitto carmina pauca tibi (Since in the present moment, being busy working on the revealed word of God, with the sacred tongue distracting me from my muses, I cannot care about poetry as much as I would like to, I am only sending you some poems)” (Trzecieski: 1958, 176f; cf. Krókowski: 1954, 71). 16 “Concinit acceptos superis Tricesius hymnos, / Linguarum praestans cognitione trium / Et quae de mundi perscripsit origine Moses, / Ignota esse suae non patitur patriae (Trzecieski, an excellent expert in three languages, sang hymns pleasing to the gods: what Moses wrote about the beginning of the world, he wants his homeland to know too)” (Kochanowski: 1884, 131; cf. Krókowski: 1954, 71). 17 Frick (2001, 1674) raises doubts about the credibility of Jasnowski’s sources. On Trzecieski’s participation in the work on the Bible, see also Krókowski: 1954, 71–74.

120

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

An important member of the translation team (until 1560), who initiated work on the translation of the Holy Scriptures, was Grzegorz Orszak, one of the earliest supporters of the Reformation in Poland, a participant in the 1550 Pińczów Synod, who laid the foundations for the Reformed Church of Little Poland. His contemporaries considered him a homo trium linguarum. He received his humanities education in Cracow (c. 1543), where he mastered Latin, Greek and the basics of Hebrew, although Henryk Barycz (1979, 260f) believes that he learnt Hebrew himself. Undoubtedly, Francesco Stancaro, an eminent expert in Old Testament philology (see 2.1 and 2.2.1), who wielded influence over Orszak, contributed to his further progress in studying Hebrew; he met with him in Pińczów (Orszak was the rector of the Pińczów school in the years 1551–1560) at the end of 1550 and in the years 1553–1554, and also in the summer of 1559 (cf. Ruffini: 1935, 350–354). Orszak had to start working on his own Biblical translations before 1556, as they are clearly visible in his Postylla domowa polska (Polish home postil, Königsberg 1556 and 1557), based largely on Melanchthon’s Biblical works. It is likely that Orszak’s literary and translation skills, revealed in the postils, led the 1556 Pinczów Synod to entrust him with the translation of the Psalter. There are many indications that the enthusiasm, erudition and ingenuity of Orszak resulted in a translation project which ended with the publication of the Brest Bible. In 1560, as a result of promoting Stancaro’s erroneous teachings, Orszak was removed from the translation team and left Pińczów (cf. Bodniak: 1935–1936, 1–12; Barycz: 1979; Frick: 2001, 1665f; Baczewski: 2010). Another official member of the translation team was Pierre Statorius, a Reformed Protestant and outstanding humanist educated in Lausanne. He was brought to Poland by Franciszek Lismanin through Calvin and De Bèze in 1556 to teach at Pińczów gymnasium, which he reformed on the model of the Leuven collegium (although Orszak continued to be rector) and where he taught Greek. He quickly mastered the Polish language and Polonized himself, taking the name Stojeński; he soon joined important personalities of the Pińczów milieu and Polish Reformed Evangelicism. He wrote and published the first printed Polish grammar: Polonicae gramatices institutio (Cracow 1568). Due to his philological qualifications, he must have participated in the work on the Brest Bible from the very beginning of his stay in Pińczów. On 1 February 1559 he reported to Calvin on the progress of his work. According to Statorius, Orszak was the leader of this undertaking and he strongly asked him and Jean Thénaud for help. The author of the letter boasted to the addressee of his progress in the study of the Polish language and devoted a few sentences to the description of the organization of translation works. French philologists, including Statorius, had already learned the Polish language to such an extent that, although they were not yet able to speak correctly, they were able to determine which of the Polish expressions correctly expressed Hebrew and Greek idioms, which was their main task in the translation team. The beauty of the Polish language was taken care of by men of letters who had been speaking Polish since

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

121

childhood (ICO 17, 426). Statorius’ religious orientation was constantly changing. Circa 1561 he began to lean towards antitrinitarianism, then around 1566 he came close to Calvinism, to fall back into antitrinitarian heresy at the end of his life (cf. Frick: 2001, 1675, 1683; Leszczyński: 2013, 72f). The translators of the Brest Bible included another Frenchman, Jean Thénaud of Bourges (d. a. 1582). He received his humanistic education in Geneva from Calvin (he graduated c. 1555). He came to Poland, like Statorius, at the invitation of Lismanin in 1558 to teach at the Pińczów school. As one of the three official translators of the Brest Bible (Orszak, Statorius, Thénaud) he appears in synodal sources on 25 April 1559 as Ioannes Gallus (ASRP 1, 298), but in a letter to Calvin of 29 October 1560 he claimed that he had been working on the Bible for over two years (ICO 18, 227f), i. e. from the very beginning of his stay in Poland. After the breakup of the Reformed Church of Little Poland, he did not succumb to antitrinitarian influence and remained faithful to Calvinism; he left Pińczów when Statorius – the rector of the Pińczów gymnasium (after Orszak had been removed) – began to favour Antitrinitarians and sought to make the Pińczów school a centre of this trend (cf. Birn: 1926, 41–45; Frick: 2001, 1676). The decisive role in breaking up the community of Polish Calvinists was played by Italian heresiarchs seeking refuge in the Commonwealth from Catholic and Protestant religious authorities chasing them all over Europe. Their activity in Pińczów and on Radziwiłł estates in Lithuania led to halting the work on the translation of the Bible in 1559. The group that sowed anxiety and division was headed by Francesco Stancaro, who has already been mentioned above many times (see 2.1 and 2.2.1). He evoked hot and emotional discussions in Pińczów about Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. He claimed that Christ was a mediator only according to his human nature, thus resurrecting ancient heresy under a different name (cf. Leszczyński: 2013, 71). In October 1550, he was present at the Pińczów Synod, promoting his plans to reform Christianity in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After the publication of an edict against supporters of the Reformation (12 December 1550), he fled to Königsberg, but his radical views again forced him to seek new protectors in Prussia, Brandenburg and Saxony. In 1552, he returned to Poland, playing an important role in the progress of the Reformation in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Then he went again to Transylvania, where he led a constant dispute over the truths of faith and the mediation of Christ. In the spring of 1559 he returned to Pińczów, where he recruited Orszak for his teaching. During the August 1559 Pińczów Synod, he entered into conflict with Jan Łaski, and then was excommunicated by the church of Little Poland and went to Dubiecko – the property of his next protector, Stanisław Maciej Stadnicki (cf. Ruffini: 1935, 210–222, 338–357; Kossowska: 1968, 226; Urban: 1996, 107; Frick: 2001, 1676f). The confusion caused by Stancaro was exploited by other Italian Antitrinitarians arriving in Pińczów, who stirred up discussions about the deity of Christ

122

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

and led to the disintegration of the church and the emergence of Antitrinitarians called the Polish Brethren. The most important role in this process was played by Giorgio Biandrata (Blandrata), who adopted an attitude of defending orthodoxy against Stancaro’s teachings and led many members of the Pińczów church to adopt heretical views that underwent a gradual evolution: from tritheism to antitrinitarianism to unitarianism. Biandrata came from Saluzzo in Piedmont, he came to Poland for the first time as a doctor to Queen Bona; he also treated Isabella Jagiellonka in Transylvania. After returning to Italy (1552–1557), he studied philosophy and theology and converted to Protestantism, becoming, alongside Gianpaolo Alciati (d. c. 1581), the main organizer of the Reformation in northern Italy. His activity ended in imprisonment. After regaining his freedom, he took refuge in Geneva and received the citizenship of that city. Calvin quickly recognized Biandrat’s heretical views and told him to sign a confession of faith in the spirit of the early ecumentical councils. Biandrata did so in May 1558, but, fearing the same fate that met Servet, he did not take the risk of further attempts at demonstrating his integrity and left Geneva, going through Bern and Zurich to Poland (end 1558). Biandrata’s way of acting was very tricky. He did not enter into direct theological disputes and did not directly formulate theses against Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, but rather asked questions and raised doubts, thus dissuading from orthodoxy. Thanks to his personal qualities, he managed to ingratiate himself with Jan Łaski, who recommended him to Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black, who in turn got under the strong influence of the heresiarch. The leading figures of Polish Reformed Protestantism, Franciszek Lismanin and Pierre Statorius, interceded for him with Calvin. The sharp and negative response of the Geneva reformer did not weaken the position of the Piedmontese physician; rather, it cooled the relationship between the Polish Reformed Churches and Geneva. After Łaski’s death, Biandrat, still casting doubt on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, managed to gain even greater influence in the Reformed Church of Little Poland. In the years 1560–1561 he strengthened his position, and sought shelter with Radziwiłł, protecting himself from charges levelled by Calvin. In September 1560, the synod in Książ Wielki chose him to be one of the secular seniors of the Little Poland Church (ASRP 2, 35f). A year later, Biandrata’s former friend Gianpaolo Alciati, who openly preached antitrinitarian theology taught by Giovanni Valentino Gentile, came to Poland. The teaching spread by Italian Antitrinitarians resembled the theses advanced by Servet. They claimed that the only way to avoid Stancaro’s mistakes was to completely reject the doctrine of the Trinity and return to a “simple” faith based on the word of God and the creed of the original Apostolic Church. Pressed by Calvin,18 Radzi18 Calvin was kept informed about the situation in Poland (cf. Statorius’ letter to Calvin dated 20 August 1559 [ICO 17, 601]). In the summer of 1560, Calvin dedicated his commentary on Acts to

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

123

wiłł the Black asked the Little Poland church to authenticate Biandrata’s orthodoxy. The heresiarch provided a very intelligently formulated profession of faith, which had only the appearance of orthodoxy, but was in fact a profession of faith in three gods: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (tritheism). In addition, a large number of ministers, who were to test Biandrat’s legitimacy, were already under his strong influence. Thus, the Pińczów Synod of January 1561 confirmed the orthodoxy of the Piedmontese doctor (cf. ASRP 2, 85–90). A year after these events, in 1562, Grzegorz Paweł from Brzeziny, one of Biandrata’s supporters, began to openly question the teaching of the Holy Trinity. Biandrata’s stay in Pińczów during the period of intensive work on the Brest Bible, his high position and influence on some members of the translation team, as well as the presence of his name on the list of people involved in the creation of the translation suggest that he put his hand to the creation of the Pińczów Bible. A small (if any real) contribution could have been made by Alciati, who arrived in Poland in mid-1561, when the work on the translation was coming to an end. However, the contribution of another Italian heretic, Bernardino Ochino (cf. Prejs: 2010), who found several months’ refuge in Poland only in April 1564, i. e. after the Bible was printed (cf. Frick: 2001, 1680ff, 1684), is completely impossible. In any case, the latest research (Leszczyński: 2013; 2015) has shown that no elements of antitrinitarianism penetrated the Brest Bible, and that the translation and marginal commentaries are typically in the spirit of Reformed theology. After the interruption of work on the Bible, a new team of translators had to be formed, which was done in January 1560: Statorius and Thénaud, the French translators, remained and they were assigned Jakub Lubelczyk and Jerzy Schomann for assistance (cf. Birn: 1926, 42f; Frick: 2001, 1677). We have rather little information about Jakub Lubelczyk. We do not even know the date of his birth or death, we do not know how he became a Protestant and how he made his way to Pińczów, his education remains unclear. It is known that from 1556 to 1560 he was stayed in the household of and worked as servant to Mikołaj Rej (1505–1569). He was interested in Bible translations. In 1558 he published his own rhymed translation of the Psalter intended for singing (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 42), translations of Psalm 36 (ibid., no. 105) and 79 (no. 109) and a commentary on Job (no. 97; lost print, cf. E 18, 604f; PT 10, 5; NK 2, 458). He may have contributed to the translation of Luther’s commentary on Hosea (no. 138–138a; cf. PT 10, 12; NK 3, 160; E 31, 137; Brückner: 1905, 403f), which is attributed to Rej. It was probably these facts that decided that he was included in the team of translators, which in 1560 consisted of exclusively foreigners: so it was necessary Radziwiłł. In the foreword he warned him directly against heretics such as Stancaro and even worse than him Biandrata (ICO 18, 158f; cf. Liedke: 2015, 36ff). In a similar tone, the Geneva reformer spoke of Biandrata in a letter to Franciszek Lismanin of November 1558 (ICO 17, 378f).

124

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

to have someone who in the last phase of the work on the text would take care of the beauty of the language of translation done by philologists. It is not known whether he knew Hebrew (cf. E 15:64; Wiszn. 6, 506–511; Maciejowski: 1852, 360f; Meller: 1992, 17; Cybylski: 1999, 23f; Frick: 2001, 1678f). The last member of the official translation team was a Silesian, Jerzy Schomann from Racibórz (1530–1591), a pupil of Jan Łaski. He studied in Wrocław, where he came close to Lutheranism. From 1552 he worked as a teacher in Cracow and Wieliczka, teaching in the cathedral school and privately. As a guardian of young noblemen, in 1558 he stayed in Pińczów and Wittenberg, where he listened to Statorius and Melanchthon’s lectures. In 1559, he settled down in Pińczów and was already influenced by the Antitrinitarians, mainly Biandrata. Finally, he took the side of the Polish Brethren. His philological skills are not exactly known either as regards the Polish language (it is not known whether he was bilingual due to his Silesian origin) or as regards Biblical languages. However, if he was included among the official translators, he had to be at least familiar with the basics of Greek and Hebrew. He may have gained knowledge of these languages in Cracow or Wittenberg (cf. Frick: 2001, 1679f, 1683f; Leszczyński: 2013, 75f). In addition to the people who formed a close group of translators, the above mentioned lists give other names related to Pinczów. However, the contribution of these people to the creation of the translation cannot be demonstrated, let alone fully estimated. We do not always have accurate information about their knowledge of Hebrew, although the mere indication of the centres where they had acquired their humanistic education allows us to assume that they had at least a general orientation in Biblical philology. Some of them probably served mainly with their proficiency in the Polish language, giving the translation its final literary form. This group included Marcin Krowicki (c. 1501–1573), a clergyman educated at the Cracow Academy. Sentenced by the bishop’s court for getting married and for spreading Lutheranism, he took refuge in Pińczów, where he stayed with a break of several months between in the years 1551–1554. At the turn of 1553 and 1554 he studied briefly under the tutelage of Melanchthon in Wittenberg. Krowicki leaned towards the views of Stancaro and eventually became an Antitrinitarian. His contribution to the creation of the Brest Bible is not exactly known. There is also no certainty that he participated in this work. He may have taken part in the works organized by Orszak even before the official team was established, which took place in 1556, and casually in the years 1556–1562, during visits to Pińczów (cf. Frick: 2001, 1666f; Śliwa: 2002, 1327f). We know little more about the participation of Silesian Alexander Vitrelin of Bytom (d. 1586), a supporter of Stancaro, and from 1568 a declared Antitrinitarian. Nothing is known about his education either, as he only appears in the sources in 1551 as a Pińczów preacher (cf. Frick: 2001, 1667).

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

125

Another person whose name is on the lists of translators is Szymon Zacjusz (c. 1507–1576/1577). In 1531, he obtained a master’s degree in artium liberalium at the Cracow Academy, where he also learned Hebrew, Greek and Latin. About 1550, he openly joined the supporters of Lutheranism, and five years later, as a superintendent of the lands subordinate to Radziwiłł the Black, he devoted himself to spreading Reformed Protestantism, which he defended against the spreading anabaptism and antitrinitarianism. Circa 1560, he came into conflict with Radziwiłł, who established ministers without consulting his elders. Eventually, Zacjusz left Lithuania and moved to Cracow and then to Bochnia. He remained Reformed Protestant until his death (cf. Budka: 1922). In the minutes of the Pińczów synod of May 1560, a note about Zacjusz’s participation in the work on the Bible was preserved. The document states that the minister submitted his translation for review by the community of Little Poland. It was accepted and passed on to translators who were commissioned to review the translation.19 From this laconic information, however, it is not possible to deduce whether it was a part of the text entrusted to Zacjusz for independent translation (which would have been done in Lithuania) or whether those translators who were to revise the text were the team working in Pińczów (Statorius, Thénaud, Lubelczyk, Schomann) (cf. Frick: 2001, 1667f). Among the names of people working on the Bible there is also the name of the father of Polish antitrinitarianism, Grzegorz Paweł from Brzeziny (c. 1525–1591). In the early 1540s he studied at the Cracow Academy, then in Königsberg (1547– 1549) under Friedrich Staphylus and in Wittenberg under Melanchthon (1550). In his religious views, he evolved from Catholicism through Lutheranism to Reformed Protestantism, to eventually succumb to the antitrinitarian heresies brought to Poland by the Italians, mainly by Biandrata. His participation in the work on the Bible is questionable. Perhaps he contributed to it during his occasional visits to Pińczów (cf. Misiurek: 1993; Frick: 2001, 1668f, 1683). The next person from the above mentioned list of ministers working on the Bible is Franciszek Lismanin, of Greek descent, brought up in Italy, who may have come to Poland with Queen Bona’s entourage. In 1525 he joined the Conventual Franciscans in Cracow. He studied theology and philology at the Cracow Academy and in Padua, where he received his doctorate in theology. In the years 1538–1554, he was Provincial of the Franciscans, and in 1545 he also took up the post of Commissioner General of the Order for Poland and Bohemia; he was professor of the Cracow Academy, confessor of Bona and throughout this period a hidden supporter of the Reformation. In 1553, at the King’s order, he went to Italy to buy books for the royal library; he was arrested there for a short time, after leaving prison he fled to Switzerland, where he came into contact with the Reformation leaders. In the 19 “Quinto, d. Simon Zacius obtuli suam translationem ecclesiae revidendam. Mox seniores commiserunt translatoribus revidere, qui acceperunt et diligentiam suam detulerunt” (ASRP 2, 21).

126

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

years 1554–1555, he listened to Calvin’s lectures in Geneva and then abandoned the Catholic Church and openly joined the Geneva Reformation movement. In 1555, in preparation for his return to Poland, he conducted discussions and correspondence with Reformed believers in various centres in Switzerland, informing them about the progress of the Reformation in Poland. One of the most valuable for him must have been his acquaintance with the young theologian and Bible philologist, Théodore de Bèze (cf. Barycz: 1996, 254f). One of the subjects of discussion with the Geneva reformers was the need to translate the entire Bible into Polish. Lismanin persuaded Calvin to write to the poet Andrzej Trzecieski the Younger on this matter and urged him personally to make concrete efforts in this matter (ICO 15, 910ff; cf. Barycz: 1969, 259). In 1556, he returned to Poland as a pastor and superintendent of the Reformed Church in Little Poland and stayed a lot in Pińczów, mainly in the years 1558–1563. Finally, in 1563, he settled in Königsberg, where he committed suicide in 1566. Lismanin’s familiarity with things connected with books played a great role in popularizing Protestant literature in Poland. In his traveling luggage he brought to Poland in 1556, among other things, the first test sheets of the Latin New Testament in De Bèze translation and with his annotations (see BSt; cf. Barycz: 1969, 255f; 1972b). He could have worked on the Brest Bible occasionally during his residence in Pińczów in the years 1558–1563 (cf. Frick: 2001, 1669f; Napiórkowski: 2004, 1146f; Leszczyński: 2013, 75). The person who undoubtedly assisted the translators of the Brest Bible was Jan Łaski – the most recognisable representative of the Reformation from Poland outside the Commonwealth. He came from a wealthy and influential Łaski family. Under the patronage of his uncle, also Jan (1456–1531), he received a thorough education in the humanities and law in Vienna (1514), Bologna (1515–1518) and Padua (1518–1519), where he gained a good knowledge of Latin, Greek, German and Italian. After his return to Poland in 1519 he was ordained a priest (1521) and became the secretary to King Sigismund I (until 1539). From 1524 he continued his studies in Paris at the Sorbonne and then stayed in Basel as a household member and Erasmus’ student (1525–1526), where he met Ulrich Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius and began his Hebrew studies under Conrad Pellican. Łaski in the Basel environment functioned not only as a student learning from famous masters. This is how Barycz (1969, 202) assesses his contacts with eminent Basel personalities: He mobilized both representatives of the university and the printing and publishing world [including Pellican and Froben – RP] […]. Łaski’s zeal and enthusiasm led not only to a closer connection between their activities, but also to the development among them of a lively bustle inspiring literary and academic activities. (­Zmobilizował on dookoła siebie zarówno przedstawicieli uniwersytetu, jak świata drukarsko-­ wydawniczego […]. Zapał i entuzjazm Łaskiego doprowadził nie tylko do ściślejszego

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

127

powiązania ich działalności, ale potrafił rozwinąć wśród nich żywą akcję inspirującą literacko-naukowe poczynania).

In 1526, he returned to Poland (for the time being still a Catholic), where, due to his friendship with Erasmus, he was widely recognized as the patron of Polish humanists. He broke with the Catholic Church during his stay in Leuven in 1540. He then spent many years abroad, conducting intensive Reformation activities in East Friesland, England and Germany, maintaining contacts with Calvin, Melanchthon, Bullinger and Bucer. In 1556, he returned to Poland, where he took over the helm of the Reformation and developed his activities in Lithuania and Little Poland, strengthening the Reformed congregation and taking steps to unify Polish Protestantism. He settled in Pińczów, where he took part in the work on the Brest Bible: among other things, he was involved in the revision of the New Testament (already in spring 1557). At the end of his life and immediately after his death, the activities of Stancaro and Biandrata frustrated plans to strengthen the Polish Reformation, spreading heresy that was detrimental to unity (cf. Frick: 2001, 1669f, 1684f; Janowski: 2006). Certainly, Jan Łaski’s secretary, Jan Utenhove, a pupil of the outstanding humanist Joris Cassander (1513–1566)20 and a friend of Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius, must have been interested in translating the Bible. He came to Poland with Łaski in 1556. Utenhove was a talented Bible philologist and translator of the Holy Scripture. Even before coming to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth he had published his own translation of the New Testament and selected psalms into Dutch. It is from his correspondence with another Dutch Biblical philologist and translator, Godfried van Wingen, that we learn that in the spring of 1557 Łaski was working on a revision of the Brest New Testament, and he also commented on Utenhove’s translations. Łaski’s secretary may also have helped translators from Pińczów, especially because during his stay in Poland (1556–1559) he continued to work on his own rhymed translation of the Psalter, which was published in 1566 (cf. Frick: 2001, 1672, 1684f; Decavele: 1996b). We know nothing certain about Peter Brelius’ biography and participation in the work on the Bible (cf. Frick: 2001, 1684). In summary, a group of five translators directly involved in translation can be extracted from the list of people working on the Brest Bible. These are Orszak, Statorius, Thénaud, Lubelczyk and Schomann. There are either only enigmatic references to the contributions of the others (Łaski, Utenhove, Zacjusz, Trzecieski), or we do not have any information at all and can only make guesses, considering 20 A graduate of Collegium Trilingue in Leuven, director of the Latin school in Ghent (1540–1541), Utenhove’s hometown, discoverer of the famous Codex argenteus with a Gothic translation of the Bible (cf. Decavele: 1996a).

128

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

their philological competence and following the chronology of their contacts with Pinczów. We can assume Wojewódka’s participation on the basis of other sources (cf. Frick: 2001, 1684f). Not all outstanding followers of Calvinism worked on the translation of the Brest Bible. In this milieu there were many more educated humanists who knew the Hebrew language. This group included Jan Mączyński (c. 1515–a. 1584), author of ground-breaking works on the Polish language, lexicographer and personal secretary to Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black. Mączyński started his humanistic education probably at the Lubrański College in Poznań or at one of Silesian schools. As a sympathiser of the Reformation, he went to Wittenberg (1543–1544) to study, where he won the favour of Melanchthon, who praised his linguistic skills. During his further study trips he visited Johannes Sturm Gymnasium (1507–1589) in Strasbourg, stayed in the Rhineland, then in Paris, and finally in 1545 we meet him at the University of Basel, where he studied Hebrew under the tutelage of the eminent Hebrew scholar, Martin Cellarius (Borrhaus). In the years 1545–1546 he continued his Hebrew studies in Zurich at Pellican’s and lived in his guesthouse. He continued his education in Italy, in Padua (1546–1548) and Bologna (1552). After his return he took up his duties in the office of Radziwiłł the Black, with whom he underwent a religious evolution from Reformed Protestantism to antitrinitarianism (cf. Barycz: 1957, 110ff; 1975). Another circle of Polish Hebraists was connected with subsequent projects, trials and finally translations of the entire Scripture into Polish, created in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The work of this group of people resulted in the printing of the Gdańsk Bible in 1632. In this context, it is worth noting that at the turn of the seventeenth century there were changes in the Polish Reformation milieu. Protestants pushed to the margins by the fast-paced Counter-Reformation began to join forces. The first step towards reunification was the union of the Reformed and Bohemian Brethren in Koźminek in 1555, and another attempt, this time to unite Lutherans, Reformed Protestants and Bohemian Brethren, was made in Sandomierz in 1570 (so-called Sandomierz Consent). However, this agreement proved to be unsustainable. The Reformed Protestants and Bohemian Brethren were closest to each other. This rapprochement was doctrinal, ritualistic and organizational. An important element uniting Protestant communities were to be common books: cannons, prayer books, agendas, psalters and, of course, the common Bible (cf. Tworek: 1971; Wiśniowski: 1985b, 993f). The unification tendencies among the Polish Protestansts were also reflected in the milieu of Biblical philologists who worked together to develop a joint translation of the Bible from the original languages for the Reformed and Bohemian Brethren. As for the names of those working on the Reformed-Brethren translation of the Bible, it has not always been possible to establish clearly their knowledge of Hebrew,

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

129

but given their education in centres where Hebraism was at a high level and the appearance of their names as translators and possible revisers of ready-made translations, it must be assumed that they had competence in sacred philology. The first attempt (after the Brest Bible) at a new, reformed translation of the entire Scripture from the original languages was made by Krzysztof Trecy (c. 1530– 1591), a follower of the Swiss Reformation, a disciple of Calvin, Bullinger and De Bèze. He studied in Wittenberg, Strasbourg, Paris, Padua and Geneva. During his education, he devoted a lot of time to the learning of Biblical languages. He studied philology at the Collège des Lectures Royaux in Paris, at the Academy of Geneva (1561), where he came into contact with the method of Bible study practised there, consisting in commenting on the text of the Bible read in its original form; he studied Greek and Hebrew (cf. Barycz: 1969, 264–275). Already in 1570 he used the Bible texts in his own translation. His translation was to be published in Geneva by Michel Varro (1546–1586), who in 1578 received a privilege to print the Polish Bible for twenty years. However, these plans did not come to fruition, as Trecy probably did not complete the translation (cf. Barycz: 1969, 305f; Leszczyński: 1996; 2001, 140). Marcin Janicki, another reformed expert in holy philology, the minister from Secemin, succeeded in completing the task in 1600. He translated the entire Scripture from the original (cf. E 18, 449). The revision of this translation and the drafting of commentary notes was to be done by a team appointed by the common synods of the Reformed Protestants and Bohemian Brethren. Among those entrusted with this task were representatives of the Helvetian Reformation line: Daniel Mikołajewski (1560–1633), Franciszek Stankar the Younger (1562–1621), Bartłomiej Bythner (c. 1559–1629), Andrzej of Łuków, Józef of Szczekociny, Baltazar Krośniewicz (d. 1624), Andrzej Strażnicki; and from the Bohemian Brethren: Jan Turnowski (1567–1629), Marcin Gracjan Gertich (1568–1629), Stanisław Laurencius (cf. Wojak: 1985, 18, 20). Finally, during the team meeting in Baranów, on 1 May 1604 it was decided that Daniel Mikołajewski and Jan Turnowski would take part in the work on the New Testament. The result of this cooperation was the edition of the New Testament, which was published in Gdańsk in 1606 (NTG). Today it is not possible to determine the exact contribution of Mikołajewski and Turnowski to this edition. It is also impossible to examine the relationship between the Brest text and Janicki’s translation, as his manuscript has not been preserved. The minutes of the General Convocation in Baranów (1–3 May 1604) show that a team was also established there to work on the Old Testament and it included Junior Stankar, Laurencius, Bythner and Gertich. They split among themselves the Old Testament, starting with 1–2 Kings to Malachi. Apparently the work of this group was not completed, as the later protocols do not mention anything about it. In the following years, all the questions on the Bible refer exclusively to Mikołajewski (see sources: ASRP 3, 211, 218, 222, 239, 242, 245, 254, 256f, 261f;

130

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

cf. Wiszn. 6, 608f, 611; Szeruda: 1985, 12f; Wojak: 1985, 18f, 20; Frick: 2001, 1695f; Pawelec: 2008, 30ff). The first reviser of Janicki’s translation of the Bible, Daniel Mikołajewski, a polemicist and superintendent of Great Poland’s combined Reformed and Bohemian Brethren churches came from the small nobility. After gaining basic education at a Radziejów Protestant school, in 1581 he went to study in Frankfurt (Oder), where he was at the same time the Preceptor of Wojciech and Władysław Przyjemski. After five years, all three went further west and began studying in Heidelberg (mid 1586) and on their way home again in Frankfurt (end 1586; cf. Barycz: 1969, 315). After his return, Mikołajewski began preparations for ordination. In 1590 he appeared for the first time as a polemicist, publishing On the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord (O Sakramencie Ciała i Krwi Pańskiej), directed against Jakub Wujek. The following year he adopted the ordinance for the Reformed minister and took over the church in Radziejów. In 1597, he became a senior member of the Reformed Church in the Kujawy (Kuyavia) region, continuing his writing and polemic activity. In 1601, again, this time for only a few months, he went abroad, to Swiss Reformation centres, Basel and Geneva, as a guardian of Andrzej Leszczyński’s son and stepson. In Geneva, he is said to have introduced both young men to De Bèze (cf. Łukaszewicz: 1835, 371ff; Barycz: 1969, 315f; Wojak: 1985, 19). In the following years Mikołajewski had to face the growing Counter-Reformation. After the liquidation of the church in Radziejów (1615) he moved to Izbica Kujawska, and after the unification of the Reformed and Bohemian Brethren (1627) he became a superintendent of the unified church. That same year he had to leave Izbica Kujawska, which passed into Catholic hands, and settled in Świerczynek. He died in 1633 (cf. Sipayłło: 1976, 154f; R. Leszczyński: 2008). As for Mikołajewski’s philological studies, the key moment for him must have been his stay between in the years 1581–1586 at university centres in Germany. The visit to Basel and Geneva in 1601 and the contact with one of the most eminent biblical philologists of the time, Théodore de Bèze, were probably also not without significance. Mikołajewski was the author of the last Renaissance translation of the Hebrew Bible into Polish, which was published in Gdańsk in 1632. Among the would-be revisers of the translation of the Bible prepared by the Minister of Secemin was also Franciszek Stankar the Younger, son of Francesco Stancaro, an outstanding Hebraist and heretic from Mantua (see 2.1 and 2.2.1). On Stankar’s education, his biographer, Henryk Gmiterek (2003–2004, 163), wrote only briefly that “he received a thorough education (odebrał on staranne wykształ­ cenie)”. However, it is not known how much he learned directly from his father, since he lost him at the age of twelve. The younger Stankar returned to the Helvetian faith and held the office of minister and superintendent. He was heavily involved in the project to publish a new translation of the Bible. The Bełżyce General Convocation entrusted him with the preparation of a commentary on some

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

131

of the apostolic letters and parts of the Old Testament (including the Five Books of Moses). However, these decisions were not put into effect. Stankar also contributed to the publication of the Bible in other ways: he supported this work financially, took part in negotiations with the Lithuanian Reformed on a joint edition (Gmiterek: 2003–2004). The same milieu featured Baltazar Krośniewicz (Krośniewicki), who studied in Vilnius, Heilderberg, Aldorf, Geneva, Basel. He received a doctorate in philosophy (Heidelberg, 1600) and a doctorate in theology (Basel, 1601). He held the office of Lithuanian minister and a Reformed superintendent. The Synods entrusted him with many duties, including in 1613 the evaluation and revision of Psalms (perhaps in Solomon Rysiński’s translation? – cf. Pietkiewicz: 2019, no. 120; Barycz: 1969, 317f, 335; Tworek: 1970). Another Reformed Protestant, Bartłomiej Bythner, who probably came from Wrocław, from a German family, belonged to the team set up in Baranów to work on the Old Testament. His thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language was certified by researchers (Pawelec: 2008, 19, 87). We don’t know exactly where he studied. It is believed that this could have happened in Heidelberg (Szturc: 1998, 45) or Neustadt an der Haardt (Pawelec: 2008, 43; cf. NK 2, 70f; Starke: 1937; Bazydło: 1985a). A good testimony about his education was presented by Łukaszewicz (1853, 310): “a scholar and elder in the church of God well-deserved irenico and enchiridio consolatorio books in print given and in other countries famous (czło­ wiek uczony i starzec w kościele Bożym dobrze zasłużony irenico i enchiridio consolatorio księgami w druku podanemi i w cudzych krajach sławny).” It seems that Bythner’s participation in the work on the translation of the Old Testament of the Gdańsk Bible could have been much greater than previously thought. However, this problem requires more detailed research (cf. Pawelec: 2008, 69, 85ff). The second reviser of the New Testament in Janicki’s translation was a Bohemian Brother, Jan Turnowski. He was a respected philologist and theologian. In the years 1588–1592 he studied in Strasbourg, Zurich, Basel and Geneva. He was among the students of eminent Geneva theologians and philologists, Théodore de Bèze and Antonine de la Faye (1540–1615). He received his doctorate in theology from the University of Marburg (1608). He was an outstanding expert in Greek, he read The Odyssey in the original, he knew classical authors and Petrarch (1304–1374). As a reviser he was to deal with the New Testament (cf. Wojak: 1985, 20). On the basis of his thorough philological and theological education in foreign centres and his appointment to work on the revision of the Bible, it can be assumed that he also had to know the Hebrew language (cf. Wiszn. 6, 527f; Article “Turnowski (2. Jan)”; Article “Turnowski Jan”; NK 3, 355ff; Łukaszewicz: 1835, 370f; Barycz: 1969, 308ff). Józef Łukaszewicz (1799–1873) associates with the work on the translation of the Gdańsk Bible another member of the Turnowski family – Szymon Teofil (1544–

132

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

1608), Jan’s uncle, of Czech descent (he emigrated to Poland at the age of four). Łukaszewicz (1835, 375) quotes an excerpt from a 1608 letter by Szymon Teofil to Daniel Mikołajewski, in which the author admits that he and his nephew are working on a translation of the Bible.21 Szymon Teofil had the right preparation for this work. He first studied at the school of the Bohemian Brethren in Koźminek and Ostroróg (1555–1562), where he began studying Latin and Greek. Then, at the expense of the Unity, he studied in Wittenberg (1562–1568). From 1573 he served as a minister, from 1587 – as a senior member of the Great Poland churches or – according to Karol Estreicher (E 31, 396) from 1594 as a bishop to the Unity. Łukaszewicz (1835, 366) gave testimony of his Renaissance erudition and extensive international contacts with outstanding theologians and Bible philologists: He had connections with many scholars in Germany and other countries, such as Théodore de Bèze, Grynaeus, professor of theology in Heidelberg […]. Apart from Polish, he knew Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German and Czech; he had a good knowledge of general history, rhetoric, and was not a bad poet and church speaker. (Miał związki z wielu uczonymi w Niemczech i w innych krajach, jakoto z Teodorem Bezą, Gryne­ uszem, professorem teologii w Heidelbergu […]. Prócz polskiego posiadał języki: grecki, łaciński, hebrajski, niemiecki i czeski; znał dobrze historyą powszechną, retorykę, i był nie złym poetą i mówcą kościelnym.) (cf. Łukaszewicz: 1835, 364–367; NK 3, 357–360).

Another of the Bohemian Brethren appointed as a Bible reviser was Marcin Gracjan Gertich, rector of the dissident school in Poznań and organizer of the famous gymnasium in Leszno. He studied in Wittenberg, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Geneva and Basel. He was a member of the team entrusted with reviewing the Old Testament (cf. Łukaszewicz: 1835, 368–379; Grabowski: 1948–1958; Barycz: 1969, 316f, 332; Misiurek: 1989; Wojak: 1985, 20). The translation of the Gdańsk Bible was sometimes (Bentk. 2, 535; Jocher 2, 97; E 13, 19; Wiszn. 6, 613f; cf. Wojak: 1985, 19) erroneously attributed to Bohemian Brother Paweł Paliur (1569–1632). He was Czech, studied in Germany, Bohemia, Switzerland, and Hungary. He also travelled around Italy. He came to Poland in 1593. At the end of his life (1629), he became a senior member of the churches in Great Poland. Łukaszewicz (1835, 374) gave testimony of his erudition: “He was a scholar; he knew excellent Greek, Latin and Czech, and some Polish; he was also versed with music (Był to mąż uczony; posiadał doskonale języki grecki, łaciński i czeski, i w polskim się nieco przećwiczył; znał także muzykę).” Did he know Hebrew? It remains a question. Today, however, his real contribution to the cre21 “Literae tuae honorandae frater, quas ad me penultima Maji scripsisti, redditae sunt mihi Ostrogi. In expoliendo et apparando novo opere biblico te una cum nepote meo (J. Turnovio) strenne laborare et feliciter pergere gaudeo plurimum; paratusque etiam operam meam non denegare, et a vobis limata libenter perlegere.”

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

133

ation of the Gdańsk Bible is definitely sceptical and his qualifications needed for such work are questioned (Pawelec: 2008, 86). Some bibliographers and researchers (Bentk. 2, 535; Jocher 2, 97; E 32, 296; Barycz: 1969, 325) also attributed co-creation of the translation of the Gdańsk Bible to Tomasz Węgierski (1587–1653). He was first educated in gymnasia in Bytom and in Toruń, he was a pupil of Jan Turnowski. He went to Heidelberg (1614–1617) to study; he also visited Geneva. His knowledge of Hebrew cannot be excluded, although nothing has been verified in this respect. In addition, his direct participation in the translation of the Bible is being questioned today. He was probably only involved in collecting funds to cover translation and printing costs (Sipayłło: 1934, 150f; Pawelec: 2008, 86). Not only those who took part in the work on the Gdańsk Bible knew Hebrew. This skill was also possessed by the other ministers belonging to the Unity of Bohemian Brethren and Reformed Churches. Undoubtedly one of the most eminent Hebraists among the Bohemian Brethren was clergyman Łukasz Helicz from Poznań (born c. 1517), probably the son of Asher Paweł Helicz, co-founder of the first Jewish printing house in Poland (see below 2.3). In the years 1579–1600 he was active in Poznań and Moravia, where he took part in the work on the translation of the Holy Scriptures from the original languages into Czech. This Bible, known as the Kralice Bible, was published in the years 1579–1594 and was an aid in the translation of the Gdańsk Bible (cf. DDP 1/1, 380f; Article “Heliczowie”, 866). Because of his troublesome disposition, the provocation of numerous conflicts with Lutherans and co-religionists, and because of his incompetence in his clerical ministry and his lack of discipline, he was removed from the Unity in 1600 (cf. Bidlo: 1922, 121). Perhaps the Hebrew language was known to the brothers Jan (c. 1565–c. 1621) and Maciej (1566–1612) Rybiński, sons of Jan Ryba (d. 1596), a Bohemian Brother who emigrated from Bohemia around 1548 and settled in Poland, where he Polonized himself and took the surname Rybiński. The Rybińskis played an important role in the history of the Reformed Churches and Bohemian Brethren and in the history of Polish literature at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Both studied in Poland and in important foreign centres, including Wittenberg, Marburg, Heidelberg and Geneva, where they received a thorough education in the humanities and theology. Biographers say nothing about their Hebrew education, although following their journeys to gain knowledge and their interest in the Scriptures, it can be assumed that during their education they have at least come into contact with the Hebrew teachings. Maciej was the translator of the popular Polish translation of the Psalter (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2019, no. 78–86; see also Juszyński: 1820, 140; Gmiterek: 1991–1992a; 1991–1992c). Sources and studies confirm the knowledge of the original language of the Old Testament by Maciej Rybiński’s son, Jan (1595–1638). Łukaszewicz (1835, 375f)

134

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

claimed that “he was a scholar, fluent in his mother tongue, German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and French (był to mąż uczony, biegły w języku ojczystym, niemieckim, łacińskim, greckim, hebrajskim i francuskim).” After receiving basic education in schools run by the Bohemian Brethren in the Commonwealth (Leszno, Bytom, Toruń) he was sent by the Unity to study abroad (1616–1623). He studied in Marburg, Heidelberg and above all in Geneva. After graduating in Geneva, he travelled to the university centres of France, Flanders, the Netherlands and England. In 1625 he became a minister and rector of the school in Leszno. In 1633 he was elected an elder of the Great Poland churches (cf. Barycz: 1969, 325ff; Gmiterek: 1991–1992b; Danysz: 1922).

2.2.3 Radicals While presenting the Reformed milieu of biblical philologists connected with Pińczów and Radziwiłł the Black’s court, we mentioned many times that Hebraists and men of letters employed in the work on the Brest Bible around the mid-sixties of the sixteenth century were abandoning the Reformed Church of Little Poland and Lithuania, siding with antitrinitarian heresy. A similar choice was also made by one of the most eminent Polish Hebraists, Szymon Budny (c. 1533–c. 1595), who translated the entire Scripture from the original for the Polish Brethren (fig. 11). The problem of Budny’s descent and nationality has not yet been clearly resolved. It is most often assumed that he came from Mazovia, although he spent most of his life in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (cf. Kamieniecki: 2002, 11–14). The sources mention him for the first time in January 1558, when Szymon Zacjusz, on the recommendation of Jan Łaski, appointed him to the post of Protestant catechist of a Vilnius congregation, which means that he must have had some theological education (cf. Frick: 1994, 310). However, it is not known where he received it, as there is no certain information in the sources about his studies either abroad or in the Commonwealth. However, his philological proficiency – a good knowledge of Hebrew and Greek – allows us to assume that he had some studies, as some assume, e. g., in Cracow or Königsberg. Others think he was self-taught (Kot: 1937, 99; Frick: 1994, 309f; Kamieniecki: 2002, 14f). Budny’s education in Cracow is supported by his matriculation entry of 19 October 1544 (Chmiel: 1892, 318): “Simon Alberti de Budy dioc. Plocensis”, although when we juxtapose this date with his alleged date of birth (1533), it turns out that Budny should have been 11 years old in 1544. However, the date of birth given by his biographers is not certain. If the person in question can be identified as Szymon Budny, the later translator of the Bible into Polish, he must have come into contact with outstanding experts in biblical philology during his studies: Jan Nicz Leopolita (1523–1572), Piotr Illicino (c. 1504–1582), a professor of Greek and

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

135

Fig. 11: The Budny’s Bible (Nesvitz Bible), Nesvizh or Zasław or Uzda, 1572 (ZNiO XVI. Qu.2339.

Latin, Fran­cesco Stancaro, who in the late 1540s was brought to Cracow to teach Hebrew, and key figures in the later radical Reformation trends: Grzegorz Paweł of Brzeziny (c. 1525–1591), Piotr of Goniądz (c. 1520/1530–1573), Jerzy Schomann (cf. Frick: 1994, 310; Kamieniecki: 2002, 11f). Budny’s initial relationship with the Calvinist camp and with Jan Łaski himself (1558) and his philological education prompted some researchers to speculate

136

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

about the heresiarch’s participation in the Brest Bible. Frick (1994, 310, 321) claims that he may have belonged to a wider group of translators who, by the authors of the preface to the 1563 Bible (BB, *5r) were accused of refusing to help with the translation, despite their philological qualifications, and what is more, they became enemies of this work by disparaging it and discouraging others. There is a clear echo of the disputes and divisions that accompanied the final stages of work on the Bible. Indeed, Budny was one of the most active opponents of the Brest translation; with his criticism he pointed to the need of a new translation, but whether the above accusations apply to him cannot be stated with certainty. Budny’s stay in Vilnius did not last long, as Mikołaj Radziwiłł entrusted him with the office of minister in Kleck in 1562. At that time Budny started his writing, translating and publishing activity. Contact with the Ruthenian people gave rise to the idea of spreading Protestantism in the Eastern Borderlands using appropriate books in the local language, which were printed in the 1560s in a printing house established for this purpose in Nesvizh. Already at that time, the young minister betrayed certain inclinations to the radical Reformation trends that were in opposition to the teaching of the Holy Trinity. In this spirit, he helped Wawrzyniec Krzyszkowski (c. 1535–a. 1597) in a Greek translation of the work of St Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, which was published in 1564. The Antitrinitarians saw in this work the oldest testimony against the traditional understanding of the Holy Trinity. From 1565 he was an active participant of the Polish Brethren synods, entangled in dogmatic and social disputes. For the participants of the antitrinitarian synods, the basis of argumentation was the Bible, but due to a critical evaluation of the Pińczów translation by the Polish Brethren, Budny undertook to produce his own translation (cf. Frick: 1994, 311, 313f; Kamieniecki: 2002, 16). In the late sixties and early seventies of the sixteenth century – while working on his own translations of the Holy Scripture – Budny held the office of minister in Chołchło near Łosk, in Zasław, until finally he became the court preacher to Jan Kiszka (c. 1552–1592) in Łosk, where the magnate organized a printing house to print Budny’s writings. Budny was familiar with polemical writing, and not only within the borders of the Commonwealth. He wrote to Heinrich Bullinger on dogmatic matters (1563) and John Foxe (1574). Zurich theologian Josias Simmler (1574) responded to his charges (cf. Frick: 1994, 312f). Budny’s views on Christology (undermining the truth about the eternity of Christ; claiming that Jesus was St Joseph’s natural son; nonadorantism) and criticism of the Bible text have provoked strong opposition not only from the Catholic and Protestant side, but even from Antitrinitarians. Opponents of the heresiarch accused him of joining the sect of Judaizers (cf. Frick: 1994, 311f, 315). These allegations, though not entirely correct, were not completely unfounded. The denial of Christ’s divine worship and the great emphasis on the authority of the Old Testament really brought Budny closer to the theology of Ferenc Dávid and Jacob

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

137

Paleologus, which is inclined towards Judaism. Budny was criticized by his brethren for standing up for Paleologus and Dávid. In 1573 and 1580 he published the treatise by Paleologus and Grzegorz Paweł Defensio verae sententiae de magistratu publico (E 24, 33), which, however, dealt with social matters (state power, just war and the death penalty). After the heresiarch’s death his opponents spread the negative image of Budny as “Judaized apostate (apostata zżydziały)”, claiming that he “died a Jew (żydem zdechł)” (Marcin Łaszcz, after: Kot: 1937, 98; Frick: 1994, 315f). At the end of the seventies and in the eighties Budny was heavily criticized and fought by the more conservative Polish Brethren from the Crown, including Marcin Czechowic (1532–1613) and Jan Niemojewski (d. 1598). The Synods of the Polish Brethren considered him a heretic. Perhaps at the end of his life he reconciled himself to his brothers in the faith. Budny’s step towards reconciliation with other Antitrinitarians was to be the New Testament dated 1589 (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2016, 412–417), in which the translator mitigated somewhat his controversial claims (cf. Kot: 1937, 96–99; Zalewski: 1946, 4–10; Frick: 1994, 315). It is worth noting that Budny’s knowledge of the Bible languages was such that he was able to translate the text by ear. In a letter of 20 April 1572 addressed to Łabęcki of Zasław Budny complained about an eye disease which made his work on the translation considerably difficult. He used the help of a young man reading aloud a Hebrew text which Budny translated into Polish by ear.22 And while he himself evaluated his proficiency in the Scripture Hebrew quite modestly (BSzB, b1v), it must have been quite high if he managed to complete such a great undertaking as the translation of the entire Scriptures from the original. It is worth adding that Budny’s philological erudition was not limited only to biblical languages. He spoke modern, western and eastern languages (Old Church Slavonic, Ruthenian) and spoke Polish literary language freely. He was interested in Polish dialects and local parlance and used their lexical resources during the translation of the Bible (cf. Kot: 1937, 99). Budny must also have maintained contacts with Jews speaking Hebrew. Herman Rosenthal (1901–1906, 421) wrote about him: “Budny associated much with Jewish scholars, and was a great friend of the Jews. He was somewhat familiar with the Hebrew language and literature.” Most probably the young man who read to him the original text of the Old Testament was a baptized Jew so that he was able to translate it by ear. Hezekiah David Abulafia (eighteenth century), one of the Jewish scholars living in the Commonwealth, praised Budny for his appreciation of the importance of the Talmud: “There is another wise man, by the name 22 This is a handwritten letter in which Budny informs Łabęcki about the completion of the text of the Bible and about the preparation of the dedication. Estreicher (E 13, 18) states that the letter was attached to the Nesvitz Bible copy, located in the Czartoryski Library in Cracow (cf. Merczyng: 1913, 42).

138

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

of Simon Budny, who praises the Talmud very much and considers it to be the best work of all literatures” (cf. Rosenthal: 1901–1906, 421). The translator himself indirectly admits to having the help of local Jews in translating the Bible when he writes in his preface about the transcription of Hebrew proper names: “And so I did my best to follow the custom in preserving these names which are familiar and more significant, whereas those less familiar are rendered in the manner that the local Jews write and read them (A tak tego przystrzegałem, żeby oto te imiona znajome a znaczniejsze tak jako zwyczaj niesie były zachowane, zaś nie tak znajome tak są położone jako je Zidowie tuteczni piszą i czytają).” (BSzB, c1r; cf. Frick: 1994, 312). From Budny’s preface to the Bible it seems that at least in the first phase of the work on its translation Maciej Kawieczyński (d. c. 1572) took part, who compared the Brest Bible text with the German translation (probably that by Luther) and perhaps the Old Testament text with the Hebrew original.23 Apart from this information, it is not known whether he further contributed to the translation and when he withdrew from the cooperation with Budny. Maciej Kawieczyński came from a wealthy noble family from Pomerania, which moved to Lithuania in the sixteenth century. After completing his studies in Wittenberg, where he probably, like most of the students there, learned the Bible languages, he followed to the Reformed Church. Upon his return to Lithuania, Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black appointed him governor of his Nesvizh estate. There, Kawieczyński organized a printing house where books promoting Protestantism in the Eastern Borderlands were published, mainly Budny’s works in Ruthenian. After Radziwiłł the Black’s death, his son, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1549– 1616), nicknamed “the Orphan”, converted to Catholicism and closed the Nesvizh printing house as a heretical one, which is why Budny’s Bible was published in Zasław or Uzda. Kawieczynski’s cooperation with Budny was not without conflicts. Kawieczyński did not share Budny’s extremely radical (even for Antitrinitarians) Christology and his approach to text criticism, in the name of which the heresiarch made attempts at tampering with the biblical text, especially in the New Testament passages important for the teaching of the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Changes made by Kawieczyński on his own in the Nesvizh Bible at the printing stage caused Budny to renounce this translation and two years later he

23 It is not clear from Budny’s statement whether Kawieczyński only compared the text of the New Testament with the German translation, or the text of the Old Testament with the Hebrew original: “But when I began to review the translation with him, me comparing the New Testament with Greek, and him comparing it with the German text (because he was almost proficient in the language) and the Old Testament with the Hebrew text (Lecz gdym przepatrować on to przekład i z nim samym począł, ja z Greckim Nowy Testament znosząc, a on z Niemieckiem (bo w tem języku był prawie biegły) a Stary Testament z Ebrejskiem)” (BSzB, b1v).

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

139

published another edition of the New Testament (NTSzB 1574),24 this time containing all his amendments and comments (cf. Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1967–1968; Frick: 1994, 311). Also Marcin Czechowic (1532–1613) knew Hebrew although he mainly translated the New Testament (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 19f). Czechowic’s biographer, Stanisław Kot (1938, 307; cf. Barycz: 1957, 129), summarizes his philological education in the following way: We do not know where and how he studied for a few years, but he received a thorough education in the humanities, which he completed in 1554 at the University of Leipzig […]; hence his good knowledge of Greek and his average knowledge of Hebrew. (Gdzie i jak przez kilka lat się kształcił, nie wiemy, odebrał jednakże gruntowne wykształcenie humanistyczne, które uwieńczył rocznym studium w uniwersytecie w Lipsku w r. 1554 […]; stąd wyniósł dobrą znajomość języka greckiego i średnią hebrajskiego.)

Like other Polish Antitrinitarians, Czechowic underwent an evolution of religious views from Catholicism to Lutheranism and Calvinism, then to ditheism (with shades of Subordinationism) to finally opt for unitarianism and anabaptism. On Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black’s order he went in 1561 to Switzerland, where he fervently defended Biandrata against Calvin and Bullinger. In his polemical writings, he argued with Budny, Fausto Sozzini (1539–1604) and the Jesuits, mainly with Jakub Wujek, and fiercely opposed the Judaizers (cf. Kot: 1938). One of Czechowic’s closest associates was Jan Niemojewski (d. 1598). He studied in Königsberg (matriculation in 1545), where Hebrew was one of the obligatory subjects of the curriculum, so he had to learn it. Niemojewski and Czechowic led the Lublin antitrinitarian congregation, which in the 1570s and 1580s played a fundamental role in the life of Polish unitarianism, and even clearly aspired to take the lead over all the communes of the Polish Brethren in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which caused a conflict between the Lublin and Lithuanian communities, resulting in the exclusion of Budny from the congregation (cf. Płokarz: 1922; Szczucki/Tazbir: 1978, 13–15). 24 Budny in the preface to NTSzB 1574 wrote of the New Testament from the Nesvizh Bible: “For though it was translated by me, it was by some of my friends in many places against my will altered. I would have pointed it out at that time, but the printing house wasn’t in my hands, so I wasn’t allowed. Thus, please, regard this translation as anybody’s, but not mine. The one that I submit here is mine, for not only have I removed someone’s changes, but I have also introduced my own alterations. (Bo acz był przez mię przełożon, ale od niektórych przyjaciół mych na wielu miejscach, nad moję wolą przetworzon. Co aczbym był na on czas barzo rad dał znać, ale iż drukarnia nie w moich ręku była, przeto mi i to było nie wolno. A tak proszę, on to przekład miej, za czyj chcesz, jednoby nie za mój. Ten, któryć tu oto podawam, za mój znam, bo nie jednom one cudze odmiany z miego wyrzucił, alem też i swego onego przekładu pociosał.)” (NTSzB 1574/1589, c8v–d1r).

140

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The 1590s saw fundamental changes in the Polish antitrinitarian movement, in which the Italian heretic Fausto Sozzini, known in Poland as Faust Socyn, was becoming increasingly important. He argued with Niemojewski and Czechowic, mainly on doctrinal issues (the nature and meaning of original sin, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s death on the cross and justification). The recognition at the 1593 synod in Lublin of the theses proclaimed by Socyn meant a defeat for Niemojewski and Czechowic and the assumption of spiritual leadership among the Polish Brethren by their opponents. After Niemojewski’s death, the leadership of the Lublin congregation was officially taken over by the pupils of Socyn: Krzysztof Lubieniecki (1561–1624) and Walenty Szmalc (1572–1622) (cf. Szczucki/ Tazbir: 1978, 15f; Szczucki: 1999–2000, 635). Also Stanisław Franowski, a ditheist, knew oriental languages – Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldaic. He took up oriental studies in Zurich under the tutelage of famous philologist Theodore Bibliander (1509–1564). For forty years he was active in Nowy Sącz as the minister of the congregation of the Polish Brethren and rector of the school (Krasiński: 1983–1984, 68 [n. 70]). When discussing the links between the radical trends of the Polish Reformation with Hebraism and Judaism, we should also mention the cases of Christians in the Commonwealth abandoning their faith and joining Judaism. Most often such apostasy began with questioning Trinitarian dogmas. The case of Katarzyna Weiglowa is well known, who was burned at the stake in the Cracow market square in 1539 for judaizing. Such deviations from the Christian faith also occurred in other Polish cities, but they were not frequent (cf. Bałaban: 1931b, 125–131, 522). Szymon Budny was also accused of judaizing, as we mentioned above.

2.2.4 Catholics As a result of the failure of the humanistic reform of the Cracow Academy, already in the first half of the sixteenth century there was a need to create a higher education institution in Poland, which would undertake a humanistic upbringing and education programme in line with the spirit of the times, following the example of Western universities. Attempts to establish a school of this type were made on both the Catholic and Protestant sides. The creator of the first project of the humanistic university in Poland was a foreigner, Bishop of Valencia, Jean de Montluc (d. 1579), a representative of the French delegation seeking the election of Henry III of France as the king of Poland (he reigned in Poland from 1573 to 1574). He proposed the establishment of a college in Cracow next to the Academy, following the example of the Parisian Collège des Lectures Royaux. The necessary funds were to be provided for this purpose by the newly elected king. After Henry’s escape from Poland, this idea was supported by King Stephan Báthory (1576–1586) and Jan Zamojski (1542–1605),

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

141

who even started to try to bring professors from the West. However, the project was not realized (cf. Łempicki: 1921, 11–53). The Protestants Pierre Statorius, Franciszek Lismanin and Jan Łaski were also thinking about a humanist school educating young people in the spirit of the Reformation. Their idea was taken up in 1567 by Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Red (1512–1584), who was thinking about setting up a new school in Vilnius, and even entrusted the task of organizing a new institution to Giorgio Biandrata, a former professor at the University of Pavia. Due to the small financial generosity of the Protestant magnates and nobility and the difficulties with the teaching staff, these plans failed (cf. Barycz: 1957, 41; Piechnik: 1984, 27–30). Jesuits came up with the intention of opening a humanistic school in Poland already in 1558. The first college led by the Society of Jesus was founded in Braniewo in 1564, and there were even plans to transform it into a university, but this did not happen (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 30f; 1994, 142–150). These intentions were realized in another place. In 1570, the Jesuits established a college in Vilnius, which was supposed to be a humanities school, thus also devoting a lot of attention to ancient languages. In his Latin letter announcing the opening of the school, the bishop of Vilnius, Walerian Protaszewicz Szuszkowski (1505–1579), promised the parents that their sons would learn Greek and Hebrew at the college, which, together with the knowledge of Latin, represented the ideal of humanistic education. The bishop’s letter announced: “Praeterea Rhetorices ac linguarum tam Graecae, quam Hebraicae (In addition, rhetoric and both Greek and Hebrew [will be lectured – RP])” (Piechnik: 1984, 201ff; see also Piechnik: 1983, 140; 1984, 79). The Jesuits promised the same in a leaflet distributed in Vilnius, encouraging enrolment in the school, that its program would also include teaching Hebrew: “Diebus vero Mercurii et sabbati hora IX matutina principia hebraicae linguae tradentur (Whereas on Wednesdays and Saturdays at 9 a.m. the rules of the Hebrew language must be taught)” (Piechnik: 1984, 208; see also Piechnik: 1983, 140f). The third part of this leaflet was the poem Ad studiosum in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, in which the author addressed the “boy”, encouraging him to work on his character.25 The Hebrew language was spoken during the Bishop’s welcoming ceremony at the College (10 July 1570) when poems in Latin, Greek and Hebrew were recited (Piechnik: 1984, 45). Similar trilingual oratorical performances were organized during the school opening ceremony (October 1570) and on other occasions (ibid., 48f, 100). Hebrew also entered the College’s curriculum (ibid., 46). In 1579 Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) elevated the college to the rank of university, for which the model was to become Collegium Romanum (cf. ibid., 59, 64). Its subsequent rectors were outstanding humanists who also knew the Hebrew language. The first of these (until 1578) was Stanisław Warszewicki (1527–1591), 25 A photograph of the poem in three languages Piechnik included in his monograph (1984, photo 14, a. page 94; see also Piechnik: 1984, 47, 208).

142

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

a humanist educated in Wittenberg under the tutelage of Melanchthon, in Padua and at the Collegium Romanum. He was succeeded by Jakub Wujek (1541–1597), who managed the school for thirteen months (from spring 1578). The following rectors prided themselves on their thorough philosophical and theological education, gained at foreign universities, mostly at Collegium Romanum, where biblical languages, including Hebrew, were taught (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 65–77, 135). Jesuit schools dedicated a lot of space to the study of Scripture, which in the age of the Reformation was of great importance in common disputes and polemics. Teaching the Bible required at least elementary knowledge of the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. The list of lectures and exercises (Index lectionum of 1 October 1583) for the Vilnius Academy includes Hebrew lessons: In hebraicis Hora septima: Diebus hebdomadariae remissionis studiorum ac festis et Dominicis liber sacrae Geneseos hebraice et grammatica eiusdem linguae explicabitur (Piechnik: 1984, 213).

Thus, on weekdays free of study, that is, on Thursdays throughout the year, and on Sundays and holidays, a lecture on Hebrew grammar was given and Genesis was read. In the 1580s, the Jesuits of Vilnius used the Nicolaus Clenardus Hebrew grammar (see 1.2.1), and at the end of the century they used the Robert Bellarmine grammar, which was recommended by the Ratio studiorum project from 1586 (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 142; 1983, 141; see 1.3.3.3). The matter of lectures on Sacred Scripture at the Vilnius Academy was also regulated by a 1600 memorial, left to the Rector by inspector Hieronim Dandini (1552–1634). Ratio studiorum envisaged two years of lectures on the Bible, entrusting the professors with the special care of teaching the literal meaning of the Bible text read according to the Vulgate. Difficult places were to be explained on the basis of Greek and Hebrew texts, which assumed the knowledge of these languages by the lecturers and students. Moreover, Ratio warned the professors against using Jewish commentaries in their teaching work (cf. Piechnik: 1983, 137f). Initially, Hebrew was taught as a third classical language as part of the humanities. Later, however, as in Rome, the Jesuits combined Hebrew lectures with the teaching of theology. Before the opening of the Faculty of Theology (1578), theology was dealt with by only two professors, one of whom taught Hebrew. After 1578, the number of professors of theology, and thus of the chairs, increased to four: two professors taught scholastic theology, one the Scripture and one – Hebrew (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 65, 146). Ludwik Piechnik (1984, 142) characterizes the aims of the Jesuits in teaching Hebrew to young people in the following way:

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

143

Polish Jesuits attached great importance to learning Hebrew. They followed a different premise than their Roman counterparts, for whom the Hebrew language was needed as much as it helped to get to know the Scriptures. Professors from Polish colleges knew that the Hebrew language was one of the factors that attracted young people in the schools of religious dissenters. Therefore, at the beginning of the college’s operation, before the lectures of Scripture even began, lessons of this language had already been introduced and the Memorial demanded that Ratio studiorum leave the freedom to teach it in the northern countries, so that it would be taught not only to theologians but to all, as was the case in other schools of religious dissenters. (Jezuici polscy wielką wagę przywiązy�wali do nauki języka hebrajskiego. Wychodzili oni z innego założenia niż ich towarzysze rzymscy, dla których język hebrajski o tyle był potrzebny, o ile pomagał do poznania Pisma św. Profesorowie z kolegiów polskich wiedzieli, że język hebrajski w szkołach innowierców był jednym z czynników, które przyciągały młodzież. Dlatego w początkach kolegium, zanim jeszcze rozpoczęto wykłady Pisma św., już wprowadzono lekcje tego języka i w Memoriale domagano się, by Ratio studiorum zostawiło swobodę w nauczaniu go w krajach północnych, aby był wykładany nie tylko teologom, lecz wszystkim, jak dzieje się to w szkołach innowierczych).

The assessment of Piechnik is confirmed by the words of Alfons Pisanus (1528– 1598), a Jesuit, professor of theology in Poznań, who, by submitting his comments on the project Ratio studiorum of 1586, characterized the enthusiasm of Poles for the study of Hebrew and its need in the following way: Poles have great ease in learning languages and feel a great need for the Hebrew language so as to be able respond to the Antitrinitarians who all the Old Testament writings refer to the Hebrew text that they teach in Jewish. A scholarly theologian cannot debate them without prejudice to the honour of the Society if he is not proficient in Hebrew. Theologians should not deal with minor grammar issues, but with the most important questions. (Polacy mają wielką łatwość w uczeniu się języków i czują wielką potrzebę języka hebrajskiego, by mogli odpowiadać antytrynitarzom, którzy wszystkie pisma Starego Testamentu odnoszą do tekstu hebrajskiego, który wykładają po żydowsku. Uczony teolog nie może rozprawiać z nimi bez uszczerbku czci Towarzystwa, jeśli nie jest biegły w języku hebrajskim. Teologowie zajmować się powinni nie drobnostkami gramatyki, lecz najbardziej ważkimi zagadnieniami.) (as cited in: Piechnik: 2003, 67).

During the discussion on Ratio studiorum (1586), Polish Jesuits demanded that the Hebrew language be taught more and that the age of students beginning to learn it be lowered: We have found that in paragraph 1 on page 169 there is a rather unfortunate idea that theologians should not be allowed to study this subject before the third year: there are so few students at some universities that in the future almost no one will study Hebrew if this subject is put off for such a long time. So this must be prevented by moving it

144

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

to an earlier time. […] We decided that two semesters for the whole Hebrew grammar was not enough. This should therefore be extended. (Uznaliśmy, że w paragrafie 1 na stronie 169 znajduje się raczej nieszczęśliwy pomysł, by teologów przed trzecim rokiem nie dopuszczać do tego studium: na niektórych uczelniach jest tak mało uczniów, że w przyszłości niemal nikt nie będzie się uczył hebrajskiego, jeżeli się ten przedmiot na tak długi czas odłoży. Trzeba zatem temu zapobiec przez przeniesienie tego na wcześniejszy czas. […] Uznaliśmy, że dwa semestry na całą gramatykę hebrajską to zbyt mało czasu. Trzeba to zatem przedłużyć.) (Uwagi: 2003, 217).

The need to strengthen the position of Hebrew studies was justified by Polish Jesuits on apologetic grounds: It has also been recognized in the north that since heretics here and there teach Hebrew to various people, and thus attract many, our people should be free to allow the language to be taught – according to place and time – not only to theologians but also to others so that the same studies that draw them to the heretics can draw them away from them. (Uznano też na północy, że ponieważ heretycy tu i ówdzie rozmaitym ludziom wykładają język hebrajski i dzięki temu wielu przyciągają do siebie, nasi powinni mieć swobodę w dopuszczaniu do tego języka – odpowiednio do miejsca i czasu – oprócz teologów także innych po to, żeby tymi samymi studiami, które ich ciągną do heretyków, można ich było odciągnąć.) (ibid).

The fact that the Jesuits were very keen on a high level of teaching at the Academy, including the Hebrew language, is attested to by the fact that the Provincial Francisco Sunyer (c. 1532–1580) asked in Rome to send top-class specialists in Hebrew and Arabic, e. g. Giovanni Battista Romano – teacher of Jakub Wujek from the time of his Roman studies – and famous theologian, Biblicist and philologist Juan Maldonat (1533–1583),26 master and spiritual father of Justus Rab (1543–1612). Giovanni Baptist was to arrive in Vilnius, but eventually he did not come to the Commonwealth for health reasons (Piechnik: 1984, 145f, see also n. 420). The first lecturer of Hebrew at the College of Vilnius in the years 1572–1576 was a Slovene, Michał Tolmainer from Carniola (c. 1540–1596), who taught Hebrew as part of the humanistic studies. He was a polyglot who received his philological education in Vienna, homo trium linguarum also having a command of German, Czech and Polish. However, because of his poor health, he was sent back to Austria and Hebrew teaching was interrupted for two years (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 156f; EWJ, 695). The second lecturer of Hebrew in Vilnius was Jakub Wujek, who began teaching in 1578, a few weeks after the creation of the Chair of the Holy Scripture 26 Juan Maldonata (1533–1583), an outstanding Jesuit philosopher, theologian, Biblicist and philologist, educated in Salamanca. After joining the Jesuit order (1562), he lectured, among others, at Collegium Romanum and in Paris. Upon his return to Rome (1581), he was employed by Pope Gregory XIII to revise the Vulgate (Venturi: 1934, 4).

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

145

(cf. Piechnik: 1984, 142, 157). In the field of biblical philology, Wujek received a very thorough education during his studies. He began his humanistic education in the years 1555–1558 in Lower Silesia, probably at the St Elizabeth Gymnasium in Wrocław, run by the Wittenberg master Andreas Winkler, in the humanistic and reformational spirit (cf. Terlaga: 1933, 7ff; Poplatek: 1950, 29; Smereka: 1966, XVI). It is likely that it was here that Wujek began to learn biblical languages and Scripture because these subjects were taught in Wrocław, at least at certain times. In the same school a few years earlier (1549–1550) Hebrew and Greek were taught by Friedrich Staphylus, former rector of Albertina. In the same school he also taught Psalms (cf. Biedrzycka/Szorc: 2003–2004, 261). It is also known that from 1547 Ambrosius Moibanus (1494–1554), educated in Wittenberg, taught Hebrew in Wrocław (cf. Article “Ambrosius Moibanus”; Thon: 2012). After studying in Lower Silesia, Wujek moved to the Cracow Academy, but due to the plague he studied in the capital city for a short time (April 1558 – June 1559) and probably did not have many opportunities to take official lectures on Hebrew there because at that time such classes in the Cracow University did not take place (see below 2.1).27 Perhaps he learned on his own, using privately the knowledge of humanists who knew the original language of the Old Testament. At the Academy he became acquainted with Jan Nicz Leopolita, who worked on the Polish translation of the Holy Scriptures. He could have encouraged the young man from Great Poland to learn biblical languages, including Hebrew.28 He continued his studies in Vienna at the Jesuit Collegium Nobilium and at the university (c. 1562–1564). In order to obtain a master’s degree in liberal arts, each student had to attend classes at the university for two years (this also applied to students of Collegium Nobilium), where the obligatory courses, besides Latin and Greek classics, included Hebrew grammar and Old Testament exegesis. Wujek must have completed these courses because in 1564 he received his master’s degree (cf. Terlaga: 1933, 16–24)29. In 1565, 27 Terlaga (1933, 15), drawing on Morawski’s work (1900, 257) was of a different opinion: “[Wujek – RP] had also the opportunity to become acquainted with the Hebrew language because already in the first half of the sixteenth century lectures of the same language were held at the university. ([Wujek – RP] miał nadto możność zapoznania się i z językiem hebrajskim, bo już w pierwszej połowie XVI w. odbywały się na uniwersytecie wykłady tegoż języka.)” 28 Drzymała (1950, 24) says, but without indicating the source of this information, that Leopolita encouraged Wujek to learn Hebrew. Smereka (1966, XVII, XXII) repeats the same. For more about Wujek’s relationship with Leopolita and his stay in Cracow, see Terlaga: 1933, 9–16; Smereka: 1966, XXIf. 29 Smereka (1966, XXII), citing Terlaga (1933, 17), gives the wrong information that Wujek studied in Vienna under the tutelage of famous orientalist Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (1506–1557). However, Terlaga does not provide this information. Such studies would have been impossible, as Widmannstetter died in 1557 and Wujek came to Vienna around 1562. At that time, Filip, Johann Albrecht’s brother, was the master of the Viennese college. Relevant reliable information is provided by Poplatek (1950, 33) and Drzymała (1950, 25). As for Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter’s activities see Ksoll-Marcon: 1999, 1548 ff.

146

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Wujek joined the Society of Jesus in Rome, and from December 1566 he moved to Collegium Romanum and dedicated himself to studying theology and exegesis. Here too, in accordance with the current course of study, he studied Biblical languages, including, of course, Semitic languages, which Giovanni Battista Eliano Romano taught from 1565 onwards.30 Wujek graduated from his Roman studies in the autumn of 1567, and went to Poland to assume his first appointment in Pułtusk and then in Vilnius. He finished teaching Hebrew in Vilnius already after a year because in September 1579 he was transferred to Transylvania (cf. Barycz: 1938, 126f; Poplatek: 1950, 29–51; Piechnik: 1984, 157; Grzebień: 1998, 8–19). A good summary of Wujek’s philological abilities and achievements can be found in the words of Marcin Laterna (1552–1598), who recommending “Father Wągrowiecki” (one who came from Wągrowiec) as a translator of the Bible, wrote to a Jesuit general (29 September 1583): Father Wągrowiecki learned Hebrew, knows Greek well, and is a Polish half-Cicero – Polonus Semi-Cicero. As for his knowledge of Greek and Polish, Warszewicki could compete with him, and as for the Polish language – Skarga could compete with both (Ojciec Wągrowiecki nauczył się po hebrajsku, zna dobrze język grecki, jest polskim pół-­ Cyceronem – Polonus Semi-Cicero. Co do znajomości greckiego i polskiego mógłby z nim ubiegać się o palmę pierwszeństwa Warszewicki, a co do języka polskiego z o ­ bydwoma Skarga) (after: Klawek: 1950, 16; cf. Chmiel: 1975, 357).

The evaluation of the philological qualifications gained by Wujek during his studies and within the framework of religious formation was also included by the Jesuits in the foreword to the first edition of the Bible in his translation: Even as a child, always engaged in useful studies, and in order to remain impeccable in this evil world from a very young age, he dedicated himself to the Lord God and the Order of Societatis Jesu. And having made great progress in his studies, having mastered the Latin, Greek and Jewish languages, he came to Poland, almost when the Order was brought to Poland (Ten z dzieciństwa swego bawiąc się zawżdy naukami uczciwemi, aby się z młodości zachował niepomazanym od tego świata złośliwego, oddał się Panu Bogu i zakonowi Societatis Jesu. Gdzie wielki w naukach postępek uczyniwszy, w łacińskim, greckim i żydowskim języku wyćwiczony, przyjechał do Polski, prawie na onych początkach, kiedy ten zakon jest do Polski wprowadzon) (BWj, ***4v).

In the 1580s, another rector of the Academy (until 1587), Paweł Boksza (1552– 1627), who learned Hebrew during Roman theological studies (cf. Bednarski: 1936, 245; Piechnik: 1983, 13ff), served as professor of Hebrew. In the 1590s, lectures 30 Zorattini (1993) states that Romano taught Hebrew and Arabic in Rome in the years 1565, 1567, 1568–1570 and 1577.

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

147

on Hebrew were part of the responsibility of a professor of the Holy Scripture, but it seems that the Jesuits had difficulties filling this chair because in 1592 Ludwik Masalli wrote to the general in a post-inspection report: “For there is neither Scripture nor Hebrew at the university (W szkole wyższej bowiem nie ma ani Pisma św., ani języka hebrajskiego)”. (after: Piechnik: 1984, 156). Sources rarely give the names of Hebrew lecturers, so we do not know them all. In the lists of the Academy’s teachers, the names of the following Hebraists can be found, apart from those mentioned above: Jan Liesiewski (he taught in 1601 and 1602), Jan Kom­ parski (1605), Jan Gogolewski (1614), Wawrzyniec Bartilius (1618), Szymon B ­ erent (1620), Szymon Ugniewski (1623), Jan Rywocki (1638), Oswald Krüger (1632, 1636, 1641, 1642). In the 1640s and early 1650s Hebrew was taught at the Academy by Jan Chądzyński (1643, 1644, 1645), Jerzy Buda (1646), Paweł Laskowski (1648) and Walenty Skowid (1647, 1649, 1652, 1653) (cf. Piechnik: 1983, 141). In the period of intensified Counter-Reformation activities, there were cases of the conversion to Catholicism of young Polish humanists educated in the Protestant spirit. An example (besides Wujek and Warszewicki) can be Justus Rab, who studied first in Cracow, then in the Reformed school in Pińczów (1552–1555) and in the Strasburg Gymnasium (1555–1560). He intended to attend Melanchthon’s lectures in Wittenberg (1560), but the death of the reformer thwarted his plans. He studied briefly in Wittenberg. He continued his studies in Jena, Leipzig (1562), Geneva (1564) and Collège des Lectures Royaux in Paris (1564–1568). During his stay in Paris, influenced by Jesuit Juan Maldonat’s lectures, he abandoned Protestantism and joined the Jesuits. He continued his studies at Collegium Romanum. He was a confessor to King Sigismund III Vasa (1587–1632) and a professor of the Vilnius Academy, where he taught Scripture. His humanistic education also included biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew, which he studied at, among others, in Paris. Rab is considered, along with Wujek, to be the most prominent expert in the Hebrew language among the Jesuits of that period. He was a censor of the Bible in Wujek’s translation (cf. Barycz: 1938, 131; 1969, 275; Piechnik: 1984, 142, 155f; Bednarz: 1968).31 There were also many well-educated humanists at the Academy, who studied in Vienna, Wittenberg, Leuven, Rome and Cracow, among others. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to find in the sources detailed information about their Hebrew education, although the institutions where they studied allow us to

31 Wiszniowski (Wiszn. 6, 608), quoted after Alegambe (1643, 293) that even: “The second Catholic translation of the whole Bible was still to come out in 1617 by Justus Rabe, Jesuit, court confessor to Sigismund III, but no bibliographer has ever seen it. (Miało jeszcze wyjść w 1617 r. drugie tłumaczenie katolickie całej Biblii przez Justusa Rabe, Jezuitę, spowiednika nadwornego Zygmunta III, ale dotąd go żaden Bibliograf nie widział.)” However, this is probably a misunderstanding (cf. Bentk. 2, 535).

148

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

suppose that they at least became familiar with the basics of Hebrew.32 However, from the sources studied by Piechnik, it is possible to gather some information on this subject. Among the Academy professors, the knowledge of Hebrew was not uncommon. Hebrew was familiar to Adrian Junga from Płońsk (1550–1607), a native of Masuria, who received a thorough humanistic education and studied Hebrew in Vilnius (1573), already after his accession to the Society of Jesus. Junga then taught rhetoric, Greek authors, mathematics and philosophy at the Vilnius Academy (1575–1578), he also lectured in Poznań (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 110f). He was one of the most eminent Jesuit polemicists of the era, and in his writings he “gave proof of his good knowledge of Greek and Hebrew (dał dowód dobrej znajomości języka greckiego i hebrajskiego)” (Natoński: 1964–1965, 325). His biographer, Bronisław Natoński, supposes that also Wujek used his help when translating Psalms (ibid.). Piechnik (1984, 111) states that Hebrew was also known to another of the Vilnius professors, Andrzej Wargocki (1557–a. 1620), although he adds that his command of Hebrew was less complete than that of Greek. Wargocki studied in Cracow in the years 1577–1591. He also knew other Semitic languages: Syriac, Chaldaic (Aramaic) and Arabic. Foreigners belonging to the Society of Jesus also taught at the Vilnius Academy. Among them there are several people who knew Hebrew. This group included Spaniard Michał Ortiz (1560–1638), who taught rhetoric, philosophy and theology. His successor was Jacob Ortiz (c. 1564–1625). He received a thorough humanistic, philosophical and theological education on the Iberian Peninsula. He also taught in Lublin and Poznań. In Vilnius he taught philosophy and theology in the years 1594–1598 (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 130f, 154f). Homo trilinguis was also Portuguese Emanuel de Vega (1553–1640), educated by Jesuits in Coimbra and Rome, where he also learned three classical languages. In Vilnius he taught polemic theology (until 1587) (Piechnik: 1984, 157f). The Vilnius Academy became a model for other Jesuit schools that were established in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the second half of the sixteenth century and in the first half of the seventeenth century. It was the first to introduce new curricula and teaching methods, and by providing high level lectures and a staff of well-prepared professors, it became a centre for educating future teachers for other Jesuit colleges; these teachers were made by the Vilnius University not only proficient in philosophy and theology, but also in the original languages of 32 This is how Piechnik (1984, 108) evaluates the state of research on the humanist teaching staff in Vilnius: “The professors of the humanities at the Vilnius Academy would change very often. The current state of research does not enable a compilation of a complete list and years of teaching. (Profesorowie nauk humanistycznych w Akademii Wileńskiej zmieniali się bardzo często. Przy obecnym stanie badań nie jest łatwo zestawić ich pełną listę oraz lata nauczania.)” More about the academy’s humanists see Piechnik: 1984, 104–112.

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

149

the Bible, and so they spread this knowledge in other centres in Poland (cf. Piechnik: 1984, 189ff). In the second half of the sixteenth century, besides the Academy in Vilnius, the Jesuits opened a whole network of schools. As already mentioned, the first outpost of this type was established in Braniewo, and others in Pułtusk, Poznań, Jarosław, Lublin, Połock, Riga, Kamieniec Podolski, Toruń, Gdańsk, Kalisz and many other places (cf. Natoński: 1994, 41–45). These schools educated Catholics, but they also attracted a great number of religious dissenters. At the end of the sixteenth century, there were about 3,300 students in Jesuit colleges, and by 1620, there were already about 10,000. In these institutions, special emphasis was placed on the knowledge of three ancient languages: Latin and Greek were taught as compulsory subjects, and Hebrew was taught as an optional or private subject (cf. Natoński: 1994, 55; Pniewski: 1919, 9). These schools maintained a high level of humanistic education until the third decade of the seventeenth century (cf. Grzebień: 1997, 1282f). Hebrew was also taught by the Jesuits in their clerical seminars, e. g. in Braniewo, where in the second half of the seventeenth century the language was taught by Mateusz Kalinowski (in 1647–1648), Wojciech Murzynowski (1649–1650), Wojciech Graben (1653–1655, 1665–1669, 1675–1676, 1680–1692), Wojciech Mękalski (1652–1653), Jan Rynsocki (1660) (see EWJ, 191f, 418, 446; Piechnik: 2001, 34; Burnett: 2012b). *** At the end of the presentation of the circles of the Renaissance Commonwealth which dealt with Christian Hebraism, it is worthwhile to summarize the personal aspect of these interests. Below is a table (Table 1) featuring the names of people who were involved in various ways in the study of the Hebrew language, its teaching, popularization and practical use, mainly in translations of the Bible. Table 1: Knowledge of the Hebrew language among Christians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in the years 1507–1638)

Cracow Academy Hebrew lecturers

Others who knew Hebrew

People who may have known Hebrew

Dawid Leonard (t. c. 1528)

Michael of Wieluń (d. 1487)

Mateusz of Kościan (d. 1545)

Jan van den Campen/Campensis (t. 1534; d. 1538)

Wacław Koler/Antraceus (d. 1546)

Walerian Pernus (t. 1536–1537; d. 1569)

Jerzy Liban (d. 1546)

Jan of Trzciana (t. 1548; d. 1567)

Wojciech Nowopolczyk (d. 1559)

150

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Hebrew lecturers

Others who knew Hebrew

Francesco Stancaro (t. 1549; d. 1574)

Stanisław Grzepski (d. 1570)

Andrzej Troperus (t. 1556/1557)

Stanisław Mereniusz (d. 1580)

Wojciech Buszowski (t. 1564–1569; d. 1606)

Jan Kłobucki (d. 1609)

Jan Porębny (t. 1590)

Błażej Bazyli Goliniusz (d. 1625)

four anonymous bachelors (end of 16th century)

Jakub Vitelius/Vitellius (d. 1648)

Szymon Gołkowic (t. 1637; d. 1667)

Marcin Słonkowic (d. 1658)

Tomasz Rerus (no data)

Wojciech Gryglicki (d. 1670)

People who may have known Hebrew

Mikołaj Żórawski (born 1595) 14 people

12 people

1 person

t. – he taught

Collegium Albertinum in Königsberg Hebrew lecturers

Others who knew Hebrew

Abraham Culvensis/Kulvietis/Kulwa (t. 1544–1545; d. 1545)

Stanisław Murzynowski/ Suszycki (d. 1553)

Stanisław Rafajłowicz/Rapagelanus (t. 1544–1545; d. 1545) Friedich Staphylus (t. c. 1546; d. 1564) Andreas Wesseling/Wessling (t. 1546–1551, 1553–1570; d. 1570) Andreas Osiander (t. 1549–1552; d. 1552) Francesco Stancaro (t. 1551–1552; d. 1574) Johann Sciurus/Eichhorn (t. 1554–1558; d. 1564) Johann Campinge (t. 1568; d. 1590) Henning Adendorp (t. c. 1570) Johann Olearius/Coppermann/Kupfermann (t. 1577; d. 1623) Christoph Gruner (t. 1593–1598; d. 1606) Georg Mylius (t. 1598–1614; d. 1626) Georg Radike/Radicius (t. 1614–1620)

151

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Hebrew lecturers

Others who knew Hebrew

Coelestin Myslenta (t. 1619–1626; d. 1653) Levin Pouchenius (t. 1626–1635; 1648) 15 people

1 person

Reformed (until 1563) Hebraists involved in the work on BB

People from BB translators’ list who may have known Hebrew

Others who knew Hebrew

Andrzej Trzecieski the Elder (d. 1547)

Jakub Lubelczyk (d. 1563)

Jan Mączyński (d. a. 1584)

Bernard Wojewódka (d. 1554)

Jerzy Schomann (d. 1591)

Andrzej Trzecieski the Younger (d. c. 1584)

Marcin Krowicki (d. 1573)

Grzegorz Orszak (d. 1567)

Aleksander Vitrelin (d. 1586)

Francesco Stancaro (d. 1574)

Grzegorz Paweł of Brzeziny (d. 1591)

Pierre Statorius/Stojeński (d. 1591)

Franciszek Lismanin (d. 1566)

Jean Thénaud (d. 1582) Giorgio Biandrata (d. 1588) Szymon Zacjusz (d. 1591) Jan Łaski (d. 1560) Jan Utenhove (d. 1566) 11 people

6 people

1 person

Reformed and Bohemian Brethren (after 1563) Hebraists involved in the work on BG

Persons involved in the work on BG who may have known Hebrew

Others who knew Hebrew

Others who may have known Hebrew

Krzysztof Trecy (e.; d. 1591)

Andrzej of Łuków (e.)

Łukasz Helicz (b.)

Jan Rybiński (b.; d. 1621)

Marcin Janicki (e.)

Józef of S ­ zczekociny (e.)

Jan Rybiński, ­Maciej’s son (b.; d. 1638)

Maciej Rybiński, Jan’s brother (b.; d. 1612)

152

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Hebraists involved in the work on BG

Persons involved in the work on BG who may have known Hebrew

Daniel Mikołajewski (e.; d. 1633)

Andrzej Strażnicki (e.)

Franciszek Stankar the Younger (e.; d. 1621)

Paweł Paliur (b.; d. 1632)

Bartłomiej Bythner (e.; d. 1629)

Tomasz Węgierski (b.; d. 1653)

Others who knew Hebrew

Others who may have known Hebrew

Baltazar Krośniewicz (e.; d. 1624) Szymon Teofil Tur­ nowski (b.; d. 1608) Jan Turnowski (b.; d. 1629) Gracjan Gertich (b.; d. 1629) Stanisław Lauren­ cius (b.) 10 people

5 people

2 people

2 people

e. – Reformed; b. – Bohemian Brethren

Antitrinitarians Hebraists involved in the Nesvizh Bible

Others who knew Hebrew

People who may have known Hebrew

Szymon Budny (d. 1593)

Marcin Czechowic (d. 1613)

Jan Niemojewski (d. 1589)

Maciej Kawieczyński (d. 1572)

Stanisław Franowski (d. a. 1607)

2 people

2 person

1 person

Jesuits Hebrew lecturers at the Vilnius Academy

Other lecturers who knew Hebrew

Michał Tolmainer of Carniola (t. 1572–1576; d. 1596)

Stanisław Warszewicki (d. 1591)

Jakub Wujek (t. 1578–1579; d. 1597)

Justus Rab (d. 1612)

Paweł Boksza (t. 1579–1587; d. 1627)

Adrian Junga (d. 1607)

153

Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Hebrew lecturers at the Vilnius Academy

Other lecturers who knew Hebrew

Jan Liesiewski (t. 1601–1602)

Andrzej Wargocki (d. 1620)

Jan Komparski (t. 1605; d. 1622)

Michał Ortiz (d. 1638)

Szymon Ugniewski (t. 1623; d. 1648)

Jakub Ortiz (d. 1625)

Jan Rywocki (t. 1638; d. 1666)

Emanuel de Vega (d. 1640)

Oswald Krüger (t. 1632, 1636, 1641, 1642; d. 1655) 8 people

7 people

The collected data on people with the knowledge of Hebrew in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth can be expressed in numerical tables. Of course, due to the lack of complete sources, the data are approximate. However, the numbers below give some idea of the personal aspect of Christian Hebraism studies in various centres of the Commonwealth during the Renaissance. The largest number of names of people with a knowledge of Hebrew was established for the Cracow Academy. In the years 1507–1638 there were at least 27 Christian Hebraists teaching various subjects, including ten Hebrew lecturers and four anonymous bachelors who tried their hand at teaching. For Königsberg’s Albertina the list is shorter and consists of sixteen people, including fifteen Hebrew language teachers. Another university, the Vilnius Academy, had at least fifteen professors with a knowledge of Hebrew, including eight lecturers. For the churches reformed up to 1563, the list includes eighteen names of people mainly involved in the translation of the Brest Bible. In the case of six people of this list, the sources say nothing about their Hebrew qualifications, but the presence of these names on the extended lists of Bible translators may testify to their good philological background. The community of the Reformed and the Bohemian Brethren after 1563 also boasted a large number of Hebraists: nineteen people. These Christian Hebraists also focused their efforts on a new translation of Scripture (Gdańsk Bible). The list of Hebraists is the shortest for the Polish Brethren (5 people), which is probably due to a lack of source material. This group, led by Szymon Budny, also worked on the translation of the Bible (Nesvitz Bible). Two types of organization of Hebrew studies are very clearly visible here. The first are the lectures and chairs of the Hebrew language within the university structures (Cracow Academy, Albertina, Vilnius Academy), the second are the circles of philological scholars gathered around the religious translation projects of the Holy Scripture. A total of 98 names feature in Table 1 (Francesco Stancaro appears in three milieus), including 37 lecturers teaching within university structures. In an attempt to estimate the spread of knowledge of the Hebrew language among Christians, it

154

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

can be assumed that each lecturer educated between ten and twenty people who mastered at least the basics of the language. To this number should be added those who studied privately and independently, and a certain number of secondary school students who were also taught Hebrew (albeit irregularly and not everywhere, and this issue has not been researched so far), the alumni of the clerical seminars established after the Council of Trent, especially those run by the Jesuits, and a certain number of people who learned the language abroad and whose names could not be found. Ultimately, it can be assumed that in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance there were at least a few hundred people who knew the basics of the Hebrew language and at least several dozen people who mastered that language to such an extent as to undertake teaching tasks and translation work.

2.3 Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland According to the German bibliographer Johann Christoph Wolf (1683–1739) (1715, 154f), the first print featuring the use of the Hebrew font on Polish soil was the grammar of Elias Levita ‫( ספר הבחור‬Sefer ha-Bachur). It is supposed to have been published in 1517 in Cracow.33 Neither Estreicher (E) nor Pilarczyk (2004; 2011) record this position, and Wolf himself does not point to any particular Cracow publishing house. His information is very doubtful, since the first edition of this work was published in Venice in 1518, in Hebrew, and its Latin translation by Sebastian Münster – in Basel in 1525 (see 1.2.1). The oldest Polish print in which Hebrew fonts were used was the work of Erasmus (1523) published in Cracow by Hieronim Wietor, entitled Opus de conscribendis epistolis (fig. 7). I use three copies: that of The Silesian Library in Katowice, shelf mark: 65201 I (fig. 12a); that of The Jagiellonian Library in Cracow, shelf mark: Cim. 92 and that of The National Ossoliński Institute in Wrocław, shelf mark: XVI.O.672 (fig. 12b). The inscriptions in Hebrew are located, next to the Greek and Latin ones, on the title page and on the last page containing the printer’s mark (cf. Kilańczyk-Zięba: 2018, 317f). On the title page, under the Latin title there is one sentence in Hebrew: ‫עֹולם ָא ֶמן‬ ָ ‫ּברּוְך יְ ה ָו ֺה ִל‬:ָ “Blessed be Jahwe forever! Amen!” (Ps 89:53). The spelling itself, although legible and understandable, is not entirely correct, since the last two words should be written as: ‫עֹולם ָא ֵמן‬ ָ ‫ל‬.ְ Of similar quality are the Hebrew phrases embossed around the printer’s mark “Terminus”. This

33 Wolf ’s note was not based on a copy available to him, but rather on his conjecture. He writes: “Cracoviae an. 277. C. 1517. si credimus Bartoloccio, et quem is secutus est, Plantavitio, qui eum se possedisse ait, quamvis ceteroquin y” (cf. Pilarczyk: 2009, 127).

Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland

Fig.12a: Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, page 352 with the printer’s mark “Terminus” (Silesian Library in Katowice 65201 I).

155

Fig 12b: Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, page 352 with the printer’s mark “Terminus” (ZNiO XVI.O.672).

is the verse of Job 14:5 split in two.34 At the very bottom of the page, under the printer’s mark and the Latin and Greek verses is written:35 ‫אּתְך‬.‫יו‬ ַ ‫ה ַד ָש‬.‫ר‬ ָ ‫ָס ָּכ‬ ‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫רּוצים‬ ִ ‫ִעם ֲה‬ On the right side of the printer’s mark is the further part of this verse printed from the bottom up:

34 In a literal translation from Hebrew: “Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months is with thee, And thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” 35 The Hebrew typeser used by Wietor is quite clumsy and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish some vowel points, especially patach and qametz, so my print reproduction may be a bit inaccurate.

156

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

‫ית וְ לֹא יַ ֶע ִבֹר‬ ָ ‫ִח ָּקו ָע ִׂש‬ Of course, many elementary mistakes were made in this print. First of all, the order of lines in the notation under the printer’s mark was reversed, and also many times vowel points were placed incorrectly, the letters ‫א‬ – ‫ ע‬and ‫כ‬ – ‫ פ‬were mistaken, and even the initial ‫ מ‬was left out completely. A correctly printed quote should look like this: i

i

‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫רּוצים‬ ִ ‫ִאם ֲח‬ ‫ִמ ְס ַּפר ֳח ָד ָׁשיו ִא ָּתְך‬ ‫ית וְ לֹא יַ ֲעבֹר‬ ָ ‫ֻח ָּקו ֺ ָע ִׂש‬ The errors made here should not happen if the typesetter, proofreaders or printer himself had even a basic knowledge of the Hebrew language. It seems that the text was typeset by a person who did not know the language and simply tried to arrange the appropriate signs mechanically, guided by their external appearance. Confusing similar consonants and vowels by the way. This is what Hebrew printing looks like on copies from Katowice and Cracow. It turns out, however, that over time the printer realized that he had made at least some mistakes and reprinted the last card with the printer’s mark, on which he corrected some mistakes. The Wrocław copy has the newly printed last card. The text there reads: ‫א ַּתְך‬.‫יו‬ ִ ‫ִמ ֳס ָּפר ֳה ָד ָׁש‬ ‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫רּוצים‬ ִ ‫ִאם ֲה‬ Additionally, someone made corrections with a pen in this copy, correcting some of the remaining errors, e. g. in the word ‫ ִמ ֳס ָּפר‬he crossed out qametz under samekh, leaving shewa alone according to the rules. The remaining part of the verse from the Wrocław copy placed on the right margin was also corrected and took on the following wording: ‫ית וְ לֹא יַ ֶע ִבֹר‬ ָ ‫ֻח ָּקו ָע ִׂש‬ It is difficult to determine the source from which Wietor quoted this verse. For example, in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible this text has a slightly different vocalisation of the word ‫ה ֻר ִצים‬,ֲ which was written using scriptio defectiva. What was the purpose of these Hebrew additions in Erasmus’ work? It seems that the printer wanted to present himself as a person following the spirit of the times, knowledgeable in new trends, while his printing house as one richly equipped with trilingual fonts, and thus capable of meeting the challenges of the era and

Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland

157

having the potential to meet the needs of the Academy. It is difficult to determine from where the printer could have brought the Hebrew font. It is known that he sourced necessary items from the Apennine Peninsula and German countries (cf. DDP 1/1, 343f). So possibly that is where his Hebrew fonts came from. However, the awkwardness of consonant and vowel points may lead to the conclusion that the Wietor’s Hebrew fonts were produced in Cracow. It is also possible that he used woodcuts to print the texts. The next documented use of Hebrew letters by Cracow printing houses dates back to the 1530s. The item in which the Hebrew script is believed to have appeared was Novenian’s lost Hebrew grammar, prepared by Dawid Leonard and printed in 1530 by Maciej Szarfenberg. It is not known whether the printer used a movable metal font or special woodcuts for printing this work (cf. Teter/Fram: 2006, 32 [n. 5]). Another preserved printed text containing Hebrew letters, is the Latin paraphrase of the Psalms translated by Jan van den Campen (Psalmorum omnium: 1532; cf. Teter/Fram: 2006, 32; fig. 5). In this work, before the three psalms, fragments of titles containing notes on the literary genres, melody and purpose of individual pieces were printed in Hebrew: before Ps 4: ‫ל־הּנְ ִחילֹות‬ ַ ‫“( ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח ֶא‬For the leader; with flute”); before Ps 5: ‫“( ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח ִּבנְ גִ ינֹות‬For the leader; with stringed instruments”); before Ps 7: ‫“( ִׁשּגָ יו ֺן‬A plaintive song”). In Ps 3:2 there is also a Hebrew word ‫ֶס ָלה‬ as well. Hebrew letters were also used to denote individual stanzas of the alphabetical Ps 119. However, the Hebrew words and letters are very imperfect here: in the word ‫ ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬the letter ‫ צ‬is not doubled, similarly ‫ נ‬in the word ‫הּנְ ִחילו ֺת‬.ַ In ‫ִׁשּגָ יו ֺן‬ there is no final ‫ן‬. The word ‫ ֶס ָלה‬was printed as ‫ּסּלה‬ ָ with the first vowel unreadable. In Ps 119, the Jod stanza begins with ‫ּי‬, and in Kaph a ‫ ּב‬is printed instead of ‫כ‬. In addition, titles of Ps 4 and 5 were changed. All these errors may indicate that Ungler’s printing house was at that time poorly equipped with Hebrew fonts, and that the typesetters and proofreaders had insufficient knowledge of Hebrew. Anyway, the use of Hebrew print here was probably only experimental, as it appeared only in the psalms quoted above. The Hebrew script appeared in Ungler’s prints earlier, but in the form of inscriptions engraved on woodcut blocks. The first one was already used around 1527/1528 in the Ungler’s Evangeliary (fig. 13). It was a woodcut depicting the scene of rejection of the sacrifice of St Joachim, the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the background of the scene there is a board with an illegible Hebrew text, printed in a mirror image (PT 5, 27 and plate 221, woodcut no. 197). Another block containing the Hebrew text is a woodcut described as “Samuel rabbi Maroccanus”: beneath the Samuel half-figure there is a trilingual inscription in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (PT 7, 55f and plate 342, woodcut no. 1053). It was used in a 1536 print: An epistle or a letter sent to the dear Rabbi Isaac (Epistoła albo list ku drogiemu rabbi Izaakowi posłany) by Rabbi Samuel Maroccanus (cf. PT 7, 71 [no. 158]).

158

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Fig. 13: Ungler’s Evangeliary, Cracow 1527–1528, filio 15v (ZNiO XVI.O.863).

Larger parts of texts in Hebrew were printed in the Latin grammar of Jan Cervus of Tuchola (d. 1557) (Cervus: 1533; cf. E 14, 130; PT 7, 64 [no. 112]; cf. Teter/Fram: 2006, 32). The typeface no. 27 was used here (PT 7, 47 and plate 364). Whole pages printed in Hebrew are included in the grammar by Jan van den Campen (1534a; fig. 3), where the typeface no. 27 and 28 (PT 7, 56 [no. 124] and plates 364f) were used. Similar typeface must have been used in the Szarfenberg’s edition of this work, which did not survive. In Maciej Szarfenberg’s house the work by Jerzy Liban (1539) De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione was also published, where words printed using heading and text Hebrew font appeared on the title page and the G3r–v card (fig. 8). The printing of Psalmorum omnium proves that in 1532 Officina Ungleriana had two sets of Hebrew typeface: a 4 mm heading font (without extensions), which was used to print the titles of psalms (font no. 27) and a text typeface (10 verses = 65 mm), by means of which the word ‫( ֶס ָלה‬no. 28) was printed. Between 1532 and 1535, the printer used the Hebrew typeface in at least four publications: in addition to the above mentioned, font no. 28 was used in 1535 for Carmina Sibillae Erythreae by Jerzy Liban (PT 7, 68 [no. 140], 26). From the 1520s, Polish Christian printing houses had Hebrew fonts, although they were used sporadically, usually for printing single words in the Latin theo-

Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland

159

logical and philological works. Apart from Hieronim Wietor, Florian Ungler and Maciej Szarfenberg, other printers had Hebrew fonts in their type cases: Mateusz Siebeneicher (d. 1582), Aleksy Rodecki (d. c. 1605). The latter used the Hebrew font, operating both in Cracow in the years 1574–1593/1600(?) and in Racov for the Polish Brethren from 1600(?) to 1605/1606. The printing house was taken over by his son-in-law, Sebastian Sternacki (d. c. 1635) (cf. DDP 1/1, 184, 211, 243, 247, 310, 322, 344; Kawecka-Gryczowa: 1974, 47). This small publishing production should be placed in the context of humanistic influences at the Cracow Academy, where both Greek and Hebrew were taught since the 1528. The trilingualism of printing houses had to be perceived as a determinant of modernity and keeping up with the times (cf.  DDP 1/1, 242f, 334, 337f). The above mentioned books were Latin books intended for Christians, which contained only Hebrew fragments. At the same time, near Cracow, in Kazimierz, a printing house was established that published whole books using Hebrew fonts for the thriving Jewish community in the Commonwealth. This community reached a very high level of Talmudic and Biblical studies in the sixteenth century, which in turn gave rise to a demand for Hebrew prints, especially the Talmud (cf. Pilarczyk: 1998b, 61–68). This was the printing house run by Helicz brothers, Samuel (born c. 1515), Asher (c. 1517–1560) and Elyakim (born c. 1519). They opened their printing house in 1534.36 Their first publications, met with high demand, included ritual codes, prayer books, rabbinical works, songs and the German-Yiddish dictionary to the Torah.37 Probably after the first two publications were published, Helicz brothers had an argument, which resulted in Sa­muel leaving the company; he moved to Lower Silesia, to Oleśnica near Wrocław, where in 1535 he started printing the prayer book and the Torah (cf. Dyl: 1987, 5). During a violent hurricane, which caused significant losses in the city, the wind scattered over Oleśnica sheets prepared for publication with texts in Hebrew, which was considered to be an indication of the cause of the disaster. As a result of these accidents, Jews were expelled from the town, and with them Helicz as well. After this failure, he returned to Cracow, where he once again began working with his brothers (1536–1540) (cf. Teter/Fram: 2006, 61; Pilarczyk: 2004, 69, 136). In February 1537, the brothers were baptized, taking their names: Paweł (Sa­muel), Andrzej (Asher) and Jan (Elyakim).38 Bałaban (1931a, paragraph I) believes that this 36 DDP 1/1, 380 gave information about the alleged printing in Cracow of the Torah and Haggadah already in the years 1530–1531, but immediately indicated that this information was uncertain. It is not confirmed by Pilarczyk (2004, 586) or Teter and Fram (2006, 31f) who dated the oldest Hebrew print in Poland back to 1534. 37 From the years 1534–1541, fourteen items from the Helicz printing house are known (cf. Pilarczyk: 2004, no. 67, 71, 204, 376, 586, 666, 667, 978, 1233, 1261, 1284, 1403, 1677, 1820). 38 As for the baptismal names of the Helich brothers, there is some confusion in literature. It seems that the problem of identification of the three brothers and their names was satifactiorily re-

160

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

happened “under the influence, or maybe under pressure (pod wpływem, a może pod przymusem)” exerted by Bishop Piotr Gamrat (1487–1545) “in whom they then found a ardent supporter (w którym następnie znaleźli gorącego opiekuna).” However, this does not seem justified, since Gamrat was not appointed Bishop of Cracow until 24 July 1538, and the ingress took place on 29 October, i. e. more than a year and a half after the baptism of the Helicz family (cf. Hartleb: 1948– 1958, 264). More recent studies by Teter and Fram lead to the following conclusions (2006, 32; cf. 37–40): The Helicz brothers’ conversion has been attributed to Christian persecution of Jews in contemporary Cracow, but a reexamination of the existing evidence and newly uncovered archival sources suggest that the story of their conversion may not be a reflection of Christian pressures on Jews but rather of personal beliefs and the vicissitudes of the sixteenth-century publishing business.

The conversion of the Helicz brothers to Christianity led to the boycott of their printing house by the Jews, to whom King Sigismund I, after the intervention of the bishop, ordered the purchase of the books that were in the printing house (cf. Bałaban: 1931b, 131f; Pilarczyk: 2004, 68f; Teter/Fram: 2006, 47–53). After the company broke up, Jan ran a Latin printing house (1539–1540). It was probably owned by Helena Ungler, where Jan Helicz was the manager. In 1548, at Bishop Maciejowski’s expense, he printed Francesco Stancaro’s Hebrew grammar (cf. Pilarczyk: 2004, 60, 69; Teter/Fram: 2006, 53f). After his baptism, Paweł went to Great Poland for a while, where he carried out missionary activities among Jews. It was probably here that he came into contact with Lutheranism and probably with time he changed his religion again (this could also happen in the second half of the 1540s, in Lower Silesia). He returned to Cracow, where he took the initiative of printing the Luther’s translation of New Testament into German, but using Hebrew font (it was the first printing of the New Testament on Polish soil). This item was printed in Cracow in the years 1540–1541 and was dedicated to and financed by Bishop Gamrat (he probably did not know that it was Luther’s translation).39 It was not a successful initiative solved by Teter and Fram (2006, 64); therefore, the names of the brothers are used in accordance with their findings. 39 Bałaban (1931b, 528) summarises the dedication of the work as follows: “Paweł expresses his regret that his former fellow worshippers are wading in the dark, especially he pities those who pretend to be wise, but are in fact fools who seem to see well, but are blind in fact […]. Paweł knows that rabbis have copies of the New Testament in their libraries, but they hide them from the simpletons, and then he takes up the challenge and publishes this book in Hebrew letters to make it more accessible to the wide Jewish masses. He dedicates this work to Gamrat because he holds two of the highest priestly dignities in the country: that of the Bishop of Cracow and

Hebrew and Christian Hebraism printing in Renaissance Poland

161

and the printed copies were stored in the bishop’s cellars (cf. Teter/Fram: 2006, 58ff; Pilarczyk: 2009). Then Paweł went to Lower Silesia, to Hundsfeld (today’s Psie Pole, a district of Wrocław), where he was active between 1543 and 1547. He intended to teach Yiddish to Christians. “Halicz [sic] had a practical goal in mind, he wanted to ‘reveal Jewish secrets’, i. e. to make it easier for Christians to explore the secrets contained in Jewish letters and books (Halicz [sic] miał na oku cel praktyczny, chciał on ‘odkryć tajemnice żydowskie’, tj. ułatwić chrześcijanom zbadanie tajników, zawartych w listach i księgach żydowskich)” (Bałaban: 1931, paragraph I). In Hundsfeld he published Elemental oder Lesebüchlein, a textbook for learning how to read German texts written in the Hebrew alphabet. He also opened a printing house in Liegnitz (1548–1550), but no publications from this period are known today. Religious activities with the Reformation’s tone attracted repressions to Helicz, who he fled from Lower Silesia. He reached Constantinople in 1551, as a Jewish printer who returned to the faith of his fathers. The third of the Helicz family, Andrzej, after the conflict and legal proceedings against Paweł in 1540, withdrew from printing and started trading (cf.  DDP 1/1, 380–385; Bałaban: 1931b, 131–134, 526–532; Kocowski: 1960–1961a; 1960–1961b; 1960–1961c; Article “Heliczowie”: 1971; Dyl: 1983; Rothkegel: 2002; Pilarczyk: 2004, 33, 60, 67–70, 136; Teter/Fram: 2006). Another Jewish printing house was established around 1547 in Lublin. It was founded by partners, Isaac ben Chayyim (d. a. 1554) and Joseph ben Jacob Jakar. The house was granted several royal privileges for printing, importing and selling Hebrew books. After the death of Isaac and Joseph, Chayyim ben Isaac (c. 1556– c. 1568), Eliezer ben Isaac (1566–1573), Kalonymos ben Mordechaj Jafe (1573– 1603) and Cwi (Cwija) ben Abraham Kalonymos Jafe, and their descendants were in charge of the house. It operated intermittently in Lublin and its vicinity until 1862 and published over 100 works. The printing house provided books to synagogues and Talmudic academies in the Commonwealth and in areas east of Poland (Moscow). The publishing offer included the Torah (1558), eleven Talmudic treaties (1559–1576) printed according to Daniel Bomberg and Marco Antonio Giustiniani’s prototype, except for fragments crossed out by the papal censorship, Haggadah (1593), prayer books, rabbinical works, commentaries and collections of psalms (cf. DDP 1/1, 377–380, 388–392; Bałaban: 1931a, paragraph II; Pilarczyk: 1998b, 69–175; Pilarczyk: 2004, 37, 39–46, 60–64, 83, 87–91, 112f). The printing house, which successfully competed with the Lublin one, was the printing house of Isaac ben Aaron from Prościejów (d. 1613). His family came to Moravia from Italy, where Isaac learned the printer’s profession. In 1562, he settled in Kazimierz near Cracow and ran a Jewish printing house in the years 1568– the Archbishop of Gniezno, and because thanks to his work many Jews were baptized.” (cf. Dyl: 1987, 14).

162

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

1602?/1612. Isaac was a very well educated man, fluent in Hebrew. He took care of the high quality of his prints both in terms of graphics and text. He brought from Venice to Kazimierz an excellent Hebrew proofreader, Samuel ben Isaac Fihn, who ensured the text quality. The house published Biblical commentaries, prayer books, rabbinical works, ritual and didactic books, Talmudic treatises, Cabalistic books and Yiddish literature. In 1599 Isaac gave the printing house to his sons and left for his hometown, Prościejów. The new owners printed twice the Babylonian Talmud (1602–1605 and 1616–1620). The printing house was closed in 1626 (cf. DDP 1/1, 385–388; Bałaban: 1931a, paragraph III; Pilarczyk: 1998, 177–240; 2004, 70–83). Christian publishing houses in Poland during the period under investigation only released a few items for those interested in learning the Hebrew language; they did not play such an important role in the development of Christian Hebraism as Western European printing houses. So Polish Hebraists had to rely on books imported from Western Europe. An idea of the Hebrew assortment, which Polish booksellers had at their disposal in the middle of the sixteenth century, is given by the preserved inventory of the Cracow printers, who were also involved in selling books: Maciej Szarfenberg’s of 1547 and Helena Ungler’s of 1551 (Benis: 1892; cf. DDP 1/1, 237, 251). The inventories contain several Hebrew publications that are difficult to identify due to their enigmatic and rather popular description: Dictionarius hebraeus – 1 item (no. 345), Alphabetum hebraice – 2 items (no. 605), Grammatica Artopay hebrea – 1 item (no. 630), Grammatica Clenardi hebrea – 1 item (no. 665), Elementarium Hebreorum – 2 items (no. 715). Perhaps the items described as Psalterium trium linguarum – 2 items (no. 365 and 1035) and Psalterium quattuor interpretum – 1 item (no. 390), Psalterium quattuor linguarum – 1 item (no. 910) contained Hebrew text of Psalms. A paraphrase of the Latin Psalter was the already mentioned work by Jan van den Campen, referred to in the inventory as Psalterium Campense – 1 item (no. 815) and 37 items (no. 1295). There are also several editions of the Bible that are difficult to identify. Rather, it is a Latin translation of all or part of Scripture: Biblia in 8 ° – 1 item” (no. 200), Bibliorum liber in 2 °  – 2 items (no. 943), Biblia Tigurina in 4 ° – 1 item (no. 965), Biblia carmine exemplar in 8 ° – 1 item (no. 485). As can be seen from the inventory presented above, there were Hebrew and Biblical works in circulation in Cracow in the middle of the sixteenth century, which indicates interest in the original language of the Old Testament, although the limited number of copies suggests that it was not very common. Hebraist literature was also held by university and private libraries (see 2.1).

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

163

2.4 Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland In the sixteenth century, three grammars of the Hebrew language were published in Cracow, in four editions in total: Philipp Michael Novenianus’s Elementale hebraicum (1530); two editions of Jan van den Campen’s grammar (1534a; 1534b): Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium and Libellus, De natura litterarum et punctorum hebraicorum; a popular work by Francesco Stancaro entitled Grammatica institutio linguae hebreae (1548). About 1539 in his work De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione, Jerzy Liban published a short lecture on Hebrew accents at Maciej Szarfenberg’s, pointing to the possibility of their use in church singing. The Treatise on Accents was one of the materials contained in popular grammars of the Hebrew language, hence we will describe this publication as well.

2.4.1 Elementale hebraicum by Philipp Michael Novenianus The first documented publication in Hebrew printed in Poland was the grammar of Novenianus, Elementale Hebraicum, edited by Dawid Leonard. This item was published in Cracow under Maciej Szarfenberg in 1530. Unfortunately, not a single copy of the Cracow edition of this work has survived to this day, so here we will present the contents of the first edition, which was published in Leipzig in 1520 at Valentius Schumannus’s (Novenianus: 1520; fig. 14). This work is a brochure in 4º consisting of seven folds signed A–G4. The whole totals 32 cards (eight printed sheets). The Polish edition was also printed in 4º. The full title of the textbook is Elementale hebraicum in quo praeter caetera eius linguae rudimenta, declinationes et verborum coniugationes habentur, omnibus hebraicarum literarum studiosis non tam utile, quam necessarium. Philippo Noveniano Haffurtino authore (ibid., A1r). Polish bibliographies quote the title of the Cracow edition in a slightly different form: Philippi Noveniani Hasfurtini, Elementale Hebraicum: in quo praeter caetera eius linguae rudimenta, declinationes et verborum coniugationes habentur. Cracoviae per Mathiam Scharffenberg Anno Nativitatis Christi Jesu Servatoris M. D. XXX (E 23, 188; Jocher 1, 68 [no. 607]; Łukaszewicz: 1849, 110). At the bottom of the main title page, the Leipzig edition also has a Latin invitation Librarii ad Lectorem to learn the holy language: Optime Lector, haec sunt sanctae lingue inicia, quibus divus ille Hieronimus magnum mysteriorum dei sacramentum inesse censet, nihilque his divinius neqam aliquid dulcius arbitrarum, haec ergo lege, eme, Atque his fruere, futurus et doctus, et foelix.

164

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The reference was placed by the printer at the end of the book (G4r): Lipsiae excussit diligentissimus stanniscribarum Valentius Schumannus, cuius opera fit ut hic graeca et latina (ac brevi, ut speramus, hebraica) cultissime imprimatur. Anno a virgineo partu. M. D. XX. VI kalen, Februarijs.

On the back of the title page the usual Ad Lectorem verses are placed encouraging the reader to read the book. Their author is Johannes Cellarius Gnostopolitanus, “publici Hebraicarum literarum Lipsiae professor.” The first edition of Elementale was dedicated to two people: Domino Mauritio ex nobili Bibrachensium sanguine prognato, praeclarissimae Herbipolensis ecclesiae canonico et c. Ac Domino Aegidio Moergio Philosophiae et atrium Magistro gravissimi Senatus Lipsici a secretis et c. (A2r).

The Cracow edition of the book was dedicated to the Bishop of Cracow, Piotr Tomicki (cf. E 23, 188). The letter of dedication (A2r–3r) is followed by Praefatio ad Lectorem Hebraicarum literarum studiosum (A3r–4r). The grammar lecture begins with card A4r. First, the author described Hebrew consonants, giving their names, phonetic value and graphic symbol (De numero literarum Hebraicarum – A4r–v). A very large typeface is worth presenting (fig. 14): four lines of Hebrew characters occupy the entire page. Then Novenianus presents Hebrew italics (Notula currens – B1r). In the chapter De pronunciatione et potestate literarum (B1v–C1v), he discussed consonant characters in turn, paying attention to their pronunciation and phonetic value. The description comprises the type of consonant (labial, palatal, guttural, etc.), its Greek counterpart (e. g. “‫ ג‬Gimel tertia Hebraeorum litera, quam graeci γαμμα vocant palati est”). In more detail he described the consonants of the BeGaDKePaT group, indicating the difference in their pronunciation when they occur with dagesh forte and lene. He drew attention to the different graphic characters for some consonants standing at the end of words. For example: ‫ כ‬Caph, quam graeci καππα vocitant, litera est palati, quae duplicem prolationis modum exigit. Siquidem quando in eius ventre punctus dagges ponitur ‫ ּכ‬proferenda ut k cum omnibus vocibus, id est punctus vocalibus. At quando linea raphe in eius capite iacuerit, ut ch effert. Et quia biformis est, ideo prior principio et medio dictionum, posterior vero tantum fini convenit.

When describing consonants, Novenianus also paid attention to their morphological functions. For example, when presenting the letter ‫ת‬, he added that in futu-

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

165

Fig. 14: Philip Michael Novenianus, ­Elementale Hebraicum […], Leipzig 1520, folio E2v (BJ Gram. 3194 II).

rum tempus verb from it acts as a prefix for some persons, while in praeteritum tempus it acts as the ending of the second person in singular. The letter ‫ ת‬is also present in the prefix of the fourth conjugation (or hitpael). It often appears in the forms in regimine (status constructus), in the plural endings of the female genre, etc. A special place in Elementale in the lecture on the alphabet is devoted to consonants used to create vowels (matres lectionis). In summary, the description of the alphabet Novenianus illustrated with a well arranged diagram of consonants into different groups and subgroups (C2r). Then he went to vowels, summarizing the lecture with two diagrams (C2v–4r). In the former vowels were divided into simple and complex (chateph patach type) and in the latter they were divided into long and short. The following chapters of Elementale contain a lecture on syllables (D1r–v) and shewa (D 2r). After the presentation of the alphabet, the author explained the declination of the noun (De declinationibus), using, like other Hebraists of that period, a category of case borrowed from Latin grammar (‫ל‬ – ְ dativi articulus; ‫את־‬ – ֶ accusativi articulus, etc. – D2r–v). Then he illustrated his lecture on cases with a few examples. Furthermore, he paid close attention to the plural, giving examples of how it is created in status absolutus and status constructus. At that point he also pro-

166

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

vided a description of accents. Novenianus distinguished two declination: masculine and feminine (D2v–4r). Subsequently, the author of Elementale explained pronominal suffixes, which he called affixa (E1r–3r) according to the customs of the era. A large part of the textbook is devoted to the explanations of Hebrew conjugations (E3r–G1v). Using the root ‫פקד‬, Novenianus first listed the forms of tempus praeteritum, then showed how the present tense (De praesenti tempore) is created by means of participles and, by the way, briefly how the forms of participium activum and passivum are created and inflected. The following pages include the description of the forms tempus futurum and imperativus to move on to the creation of verb forms in the passive (De verbo passivo), which in Elementale is equivalent to conjugation niphal. The last part of the grammar is devoted to Hebrew numerals (G1v–2r). Novenianus’ rudiments were not original. It was an abbreviation of the basic information from the grammar of the Hebrew language collected from the gramars written by his predecessors: Reuchlin, Capito, Cellarius (cf. e. g. A3r–v, E3v, G2r–v). Similar publications were also published earlier, e. g. in 1516, also in Leipzig, Bartholomeus Caesar published his Elementale hebraicum.

2.4.2 Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium by Jan van den Campen Of the two Cracow editions of Van den Campen’s work, several copies of the 1534 edition at Florin Ungler’s have survived (Campen: 1534a). As the basis for the description we choose very well preserved copies stored in the National Ossoliński Institute in Wrocław, shelf mark: XVI.O.974 (cf.  KSD 16 ZNiO, 90 [no. 288]; KP 16 BJ, 355 [no. 1228] – fig. 3 and 4) and a copy from the National Library of Poland in Warsaw (shelf mark: SD XVI.O.71; fig. 2). Van den Campen’s grammar only comprises 44 cards in 8º (5.5 sheets). It is a small, pocket-sized booklet (the book block is 150 mm×100 mm×6 mm). The cards are signed: a8, B4, C8, D–I4. Campen’s work was preceded by a dedication and a preface in Latin and Hebrew (to a2v). Folio a3r presents the title of the work in the version that Estreicher attributed to the lost edition of Maciej Szarfenberg. The dedications are followed by a lecture on the Hebrew alphabet (De literis – a3r–5r). First, the author presented the graphics of letters, giving their Hebrew names together with their Latin equivalents. He then drew attention to the different shape of some end letters and introduced a division into root letters (radicales) and auxiliary letters (servientes), describing in more detail the functions of the latter. He also focused on guttural consonants and their pronunciation to go to vowels, i. e. the so-called vowel points, distinguishing between long and short and reduced vowels. Then he explained the principles of cre-

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

167

ating syllables, paying attention to matres lectionis. On several pages, he discussed the issues related to dagesh and shewa and reduced vowels accompanying guttural consonants (De puncto dages; De seva; De literis et tribus semipunctis – a5r–8r). The following chapters are devoted to Hebrew verbs. First, the author gave the most important information about this part of speech (grammatical gender, number of conjugations, persons, modes, voices, tenses, etc.), provided the basic forms in tempus praeteritum, using the root ‫פקד‬, and described the way particular forms are created, listing the conjugation endings (De verbis – a8r–B1v). Then he explained the principles of creation and conjugation of participles (De participio – B1v–2r), infinitives (De infinitivo – B2r–v), imperative mode (De imperativo – B2v–3r) and future tense (De futuro – b3r–v). Campen distinguished seven Hebrew conjugations: “tres activae, et tres passivae activis illis respondentes. Septima est partim activa et partim passiva” (a8r). He numbered them differently than Reuchlin: the first is qal, the second is niphal, the third is piel, the fourth is pual, the fifth is hiphil, the sixth is hophal, the seventh is hitpael. The description of subsequent conjugations took a large part of the grammar. First, the author gave the forms in tempus praeteritum, then infinitivus and conjugation in tempus futurum (B3r–C5v). Subsequent part of grammatical material included verbs, which the author described as his contemporaries did as imperfecta, i. e., those that do not retain three root consonants in conjugation as opposed to perfecta, i. e., those that retain them (cf. a8v, C5v). The irregular types of roots include: I-nun, roots containing ‫י‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ה‬, ‫ ה( א‬only for III-he). Campen explained the phenomena occurring in these roots for subsequent conjugations (C5v–E2r). The explanations of verbs ended with a description of the four-letter roots (Verba quatuor literarum – E2r–v), i. e. those whose conjugation pattern, according to modern knowledge of Hebrew grammar, is that of pilpel, hitpalpel, pealal. The next part of the work was devoted pronominal suffixes to verbs (De pronominibus affixis – E2v–F1v). The description of the verb was followed by the Hebrew nomina (De nominibus – F1v–3v). First, in the general introduction, as his predecessors did, he enumerated the genders and numbers of nomina and drew attention to the endings. He then listed and explained in more detail four cases with changes in punctuation: regimen (i. e. status constructus – RP), mutatio numeri, mutatio generis, et affixio pronominum (F1v). In a separate chapter he presented the feminine nomina (De foeminis – F3v–4v). The next part of the grammar contains the rules of creating words from Hebrew roots; the author described the rules of word formation, pointing to six letters used for it: ‫י‬, ‫ת‬, ‫נ‬, ‫מ‬, ‫א‬, ‫ה‬, and also explained the application of these rules for different types of roots (F4v–H1r). The next card is devoted to Hebrew numerals, whose both masculine and feminine forms are presented (H1r–v). i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

168

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

At the end of his work, Campen described a group of seven letters, which with verbs and nouns function as prefixes. These are: ‫ב‬, ‫ל‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ה‬, ‫ׁש‬, ‫מ‬. Letters ‫ב‬, ‫ל‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ מ‬are prepositions, ‫ ׁש‬is an abbreviated form of a relative pronoun ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר‬, ‫ ה‬is the definite article or the question mark, ‫ ו‬is a the conjunct. The author explained in detail the rules of combining letters from this group with nouns and verbs, taking into account different cases of vocalisation (H2r–4r). Grammar ends with a short treatise on accents (De accentibus – H4r–I3r). In this section the author also discussed the rules of using the meteg and maqqeph marks. On the last pages, a sample text Ps 45 was printed as an exercise for translation (I3v–4r). What deserves a special praise is the extraordinary conciseness, clarity and simplicity of the publication under investigation. The author chose from the vast grammatical material contained in Elias Levita’s works what is most important for a beginner student of the Hebrew language. Campen’s pocket-sized grammar was indeed a wonderful “farewell” gift for the academic community of Cracow, interested in Biblical languages. Even today this work could serve as an aid to those taking their first steps in the Biblical Hebrew. i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

2.4.3 De accentuum ecclesiasticum exquisita ratione by Jerzy Liban Jerzy Liban’s work (c. 1539) is a small booklet in 8 ° measuring 142 mm×100 mm×8 mm (book block, copy ZNiO XVI.O.756; fig. 8). It consists of 54 unnumbered folio, marked as A–C8, D4, E–F8, G4, H6. The work is dedicated to accents of sacred texts used in the liturgy. Liban discussed the rules of Greek accents, aspiration and vowel length and showed the application of these rules in liturgical singing, illustrating the explanations with numerous examples of melodies with musical notation. The author also devoted five pages of his work to Hebrew accents, in the section entitled Pauca de accentibus hebraicis (G2r–4r). At first, he distinguished three types of Hebrew accents: “Habent hebraei in sua lingua triplicem accentum, videlicet grammaticum, quem ‫ ַט ַעם‬rhetoricam, quem ‫ ֶמ ֶתג‬et musicum, quem ‫ְבגִ ינָ ה‬ vocant.” Then he explained their nature: Grammaticus est, quo dictio simplici pronunctiatur voce, et hunc cuius habet dictionis prolatio requirit, quo vox resonet eminentior. Rhetoricus est quo dictio ornate pronunctiat. Musicus quo modulatione quadam et harmonia dictiones proferuntur (G2r–v).

Then he pointed out that no special characters are used to mark the grammatical accent in the Bible, but it corresponds to the musical accent. The rhetorical accent (meteg) indicates the length of the vowels:

169

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

Versatur accentus rhetoricus circa dictiones, ornatus et suavitatis gratia, conducens ad id, ut sciatur, quae syllabae breves vel longae veniant pronuctiandae. Unde ab hebraeis meteg vocatur, id est retinaculum, est enim artificiosa spiritus retentio, debet nunquam distincte et ornate, sive loquendo, sive legendo, syllaba longa produci, et vox ipsa aliquanto retineri (G2v).

The musical accent adds a tone to the sentence: “Musicum accentum hebraei vocant begina, hoc est sonum, vel graeco vocabulo tropum, utuntur enim eo pro notis cantionum suarum, surrogantque in locum grammatici accentus” (G2v). Next, Liban divided accents into two types: reges (i. e. accents called today distinctivi or domini) and minstri (i. e. accents called today conjunctivi or servi), giving in tables eighteen accents of the first type and ten of the second type (G3r–v). Here are some examples: Sequuntur nunc nomina et signa sive characteres regum Primus. ֓

supra literam

‫ַׁש ְל ֶׁש ֶלת‬

Secund. ֒

supram literam

‫ִסגֻ ָלה‬

Tertius. ֠

supra literam

‫יׁשא גְ דו ָֺלה‬ ָ ‫ְּת ִל‬

Nomina et signa ministrorum Primus. ֙

supra literam

‫ַאזְ ָלא‬

Secund. ֥

infra literam

‫ֵמ ְר ָּכא‬

Quint. ֪

infra literam

‫ּגַ ְלגַ ל‬

Under the tables, the author presented the notation for several accents (G3v–4r).

2.4.4 Ebreae grammaticae institutio by Francesco Stancaro The Cracow edition of Francesco Stancaro’s work has not survived, so we base our description on two editions printed in Basel by Jakob Kündig. The first appeared in 1547 and the second in 1555. Copies of both editions are kept at the National Ossoliński Institute in Wrocław (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.730; 988; cf. KSD 16 ZNiO, 656 [no. 2410f] – fig. 6). Ebreae grammaticae institutio is a pocket-size book, published in 8º, measuring 158 mm × 100 mm × 18 mm (book block, copy ZNiO XVI.O.988).

170

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The content of the Basel editions is identical, but the two books differ in typography. The 1547 edition, although written in Latin (with numerous texts in Hebrew, of course), is printed “back to front”, as books in Hebrew, for example Reuchlin’s pioneering work described above (1.3.3.1). At the end (or at the beginning in the Hebrew order) it contains an appendix entitled: Francisci Stancari Mantuani, suae ebreae grammaticae compendium. It is printed normally and it has sixteen cards. In the 1555 edition, this addition was included at the end without a separate title page (1555, 292–319). The 1547 edition is signed a–s8 (pages are numbered only from fold b, 1–27240), F4 (Exercitatio with unnumbered pages), A–B8 (Ebreae grammaticae compendium, 1–32) –19.5 sheets in total. The 1555 edition is marked continuously A–V8 (where V = U), the pages are numbered except for the title page (1–319; an error in the page numbering: instead of 63 is 93) – 20 sheets in total. Stancaro’s work is divided into several major parts, the beginning of which is marked by ornamental initials or titles printed in capital letters, although their use is not consistent. The contents are as follows: De modo seu ratione legendi; De affixis; De partibus orationis: De pronomine; De verbo; De nominibus; De numeris; De millah; De praepositionibus; De adverbiis; De coniunctionibus; De interiectionibus; De vav conversivo; De modo inveniendi ‫ׁש ֶֹרׁש‬, id est radicem, et thema tam verborum quam nominum.

For practical reasons (uniform printing direction, continuous page numbering, fewer mistakes in page signatures) we take the 1555 edition as the basis for further description.

40 Page numbering errors: instead of 80 is 90, instead of 131 is 129, 227 was repeated twice, instead of 229 is 228, no 229, 240 was repeated twice, no 241.

171

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

After title paged and a dedication letter to Johann Jakob Fugger (1516–1575), a German banker and patron of the arts and science, signed in April 1555 (1555, 1–8), there is Index capitum (ibid., 9–13). The Stancaro grammar explanations begin with a presentation of the alphabet (De modo seu ratione legendi – 14ff), then go the letters (figurae) and their names (nomina) in Hebrew and in Latin translation. At this point, the author mentioned the different graphics of some final letters. He then presented vowels (De punctis vocalibus; Voces; De pronuntiatione vocalium – 16–19) in a similar way. Quoting Moses Kimchi, he provides then the rules of shewa (De lectione vel prolatione sceva a principio dictionis tantum – 19–23). The next paragraphs are devoted to the issue of dagesh and consequently to aspirated and unaspirated consonants (De dagesc et raphe – 23–24). Sunsequently, he describes the specificity of BeGaDKePaT consonants, silent consonants (matres lectionis) and ‫א‬. Both of these consonantal groups are denoted by the author using Hebrew mnemonic terminology (De literis ‫ ֶא ֱהוִ י‬et ‫ ְבגַ ד ְכ ַפת‬ – 24f). The following pages contain the chapter De potestate literarum (25–33), in which Stancaro discussed in turn all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, paying attention to their pronunciation with and without dagesh and other properties. In De lectione sceva (33–36), he returned to the issue of shewa pronunciation, explained the appropriate rules in five points; then he described the pronunciation of consonants from the group ‫( ֶא ֱהוִ י‬De lectione literarum ‫אהוי‬ – 36ff). In De literis et syllabis coniungendis, quod Iudaei dicunt Punctare (38ff), using the example of Isa 11:1, he showed practically how syllables are created and read in Hebrew. Here is an example: i

i

Sic incipe, ‫ וְ יָ ָצא‬Vav sceva, ve; iod camez, ia; iunge simul has syllabas semper repetendo, ut sit etiam latino more, veia; zadi aleph camez, za: veiaza (nota, ubi unam ex quatuor literis ‫ אהוי‬inveneris sive in medio, sive in fine dictionis, si non legitur iuxta regulam superius annotatam, semper coniungitur cum praecedenti litera, deinde profertur vocalis) (38).

Having mastered the given material, the reader was already able to read the Hebrew texts at this point, which is why Stancaro proposed to read an excerpt from Isa 11:1–5, giving the Hebrew text as well as its Latin transcription (Exemplum legendi – 41). At the end of the section devoted to letters, the author listed various categories of Hebrew letters (e. g. by place and organ of articulation: guttural, palatal, alveolar, dental, labial; and due to their functions: radicales and serviles – 42–60). Pronominal suffixes, so-called affixa, are given for particular persons and grammatical genders (60–64). The description De partibus orationis begins with the division of parts of speech into three groups: nomen (‫)ׁשם‬, ֵ verbum (‫ )ּפו ַֺעל‬and dictio (‫)מ ָּלה‬. ִ The gropu dictio includes: pronomina, praepositiones, coniunctiones, adverbia and interiectione. The author pointed out that some people classified pronouns as nomina because

172

Hebrew studies in the Renaissance Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

they have gender and number, and that the participles are derived from verbs. He then provided a plan for the description of the Hebrew grammar structure, declaring that he would discuss pronomina, verba, nomina, and then the other parts of speech. Personal pronouns are divided into pronomina composita (compound with prepositions) and separata. He then discussed particular forms, comparing them with Latin grammatical cases (66–70). The verb is explained by Stancaro very broadly. At first, he provides two basic groups of Hebrew verbs: verba stantia, also known as neutra (‫ )ּפו ַֺעל עו ֵֺמד‬and verba egredientia called transitiva (‫)ּפו ַֺעל יו ֵֺצא‬. The second essential division is the division into verba perfecta (‫)ׁש ַל ִּמים‬, ְ i. e., preserving in the conjugation all three root consonants that are pronounced, and verba defectiva (‫)ח ֵס ִרים‬ ֲ that lose their root consonants during the conjugation or having silent consonants. Next, Stancaro divided verba defectiva into quiescentia (‫ )נָ ִחים‬and duplicata (‫פּולים‬ ִ ‫)ּכ‬, ֵ and then separated even smaller classes (71f). This is a similar division as in the works of Elias Levita and Sebastian Münster (1.3.3.2). The division of Hebrew verbs presented here will serve Stancaro as a plan for further explanations. First, he described verbum perfectum in all its forms in the qal conjugation (72–93). Then he began a whole series of observationses to particular forms (85–93), but after observationes in ‫בינו ֺנִ י‬ – ֵ or participium praesens activum (‫)ׁשם ַהּפו ֵֺעל‬, ֵ he interrupted the explanations about the verb and probably due to some similarities in conjugating participles and nomina he inserted a short chapter De nominibus (93–97) to return again to observationes (97–101) from page 97. Stancaro’s lecture is not limited to morphology alone, but also addresses certain problems of Hebrew syntax, referring to specific examples from the Bible: De usu imperativi (101ff), De optativo, et subiunctivo (103f), De subiunctivo (104f). From pages 105 to 112 he continued his observationes for qal conjugation. Next, he went to explain the other six conjugations in a similar way: niphal (or secunda – 113–120), piel (or tertia – 120–127), pual (quarta – 127–130), hiphil (quinta – 130–136), hophal (sexta – 136–139), hitpael (septima – 140–146). A large part of the grammar is devoted to weak verbs, called verba defectiva, divided into different types of root and conjugation: I–nun (146–158), De verbis quiescentibus (159–207; with letters ‫א ֱהוִ י‬: ֶ I-alef and I-jod – 161–175; II-waw – 175– 191; III-alef and III-he – 192–207), De sexto ordine, qui est verborum duplicatorum (207–221). Stancaro then presented mixed root types: De verbis defectivis in pe nun, et quiescentibus in lamed aleph et lamed he (222–229), De verbis quiescentibus in extermitatibus (I-alef and III-he, I-jod and III-alef, I-jod and III-he – 230– 235). Then in De defectuis in extermitatibus he described the verb ‫( נָ ַתן‬235ff). At the end of the presentation on the Hebrew verbs, he explained the conjugations of quadruple roots (the so-called verba quadrata – 237–240) and five-consonant roots (De verbis quinque literarum – 240–244). i

Christian Hebrew grammars printed in Poland

173

Stancaro then returned to the issues related to the creation of nomina from the different types of roots (which he discussed in the lecture on the verb). First he explained the properties of the letters, called heemantis (‫)ה ֱא ַמנְ ִּתי‬, ֶ used to create nomina (244–248), and then he provided the rules of Hebrew word formation (249–256). Accents are described very briefly, mainly soph pasuq, atnach, revia and zaqeph qaton (257f). Pages 258 to 263 are devoted to Hebrew numerals. The author’s consistent use of Hebrew equivalents of Latin grammatical terms is noteworthy. The conjugation is ‫ ִ;ּבנְ יַ ן‬the form called in sixteenth century praeteritum tempus (now perfectum) is ‫ע ַבר‬, ָ participium activum – ‫ּבינו ֺנִ י‬,ֵ participium passivum – ‫ּפעּול‬, ָ infinitivus absolutus – ‫מקו ֺר‬, ָ imperativus – ‫צּוּוי‬,ִ futurum tempus – ‫ע ִתיד‬, ָ etc. (e. g. 84). In De millah (264–276), he discussed in turn: prepositions, recalling the principles of combining them with personal pronouns; complex and simple adverbs, dividing them into different groups (of times, of places, etc.; adverbia also include, among other things, particles, negation, demonstratives and question pronouns); interjections (interiections). At the very end there is a short chapter on De vav conversivo (276–280) and a collection of tips on how to separate the root in Hebrew verbs and nouns (280–284). After the lecture on grammar, Stancaro placed a selection of texts from various places in the Hebrew Bible for practice (285–291). As already mentioned, in both described editions, there is Ebreae grammaticae compendium, an annex which contains a 28-page summary of the entire Stancaro’s book. As we could see above, Stancaro’s work gave the reader a comprehensive lecture on Hebrew grammar. The work of the Mantua heresiarch was obviously not his original work, but a selection and compilation of other rabbis’ works. The author repeatedly referred to their opinions in general (e. g. 2–3, 65), but also quoted Moses Kimchi (19), Michlol by David Kimchi (47, 190, 256), Abraham ibn Ezra (44) and Elias Levita (244). *** In conclusion, it should be stated that the contribution of Polish Christian printing houses to the development of native Hebraism, although useful and necessary, was rather insignificant. During the Renaissance, the Polish printing houses only released three grammars of Hebrew in four editions, with a total volume of about 38.5 sheets41 and several pages (0.25 sheet) devoted to accents in Jerzy Liban’s work. 41 We estimate the reprint of Novenianus’ work comprises 8 sheets; each edition of Van den ­Campen’s grammar comprises 5.5 sheets and Stancaro’s works 19.5 sheets (as in Stancaro: 1547).

3. Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible as a result of the reception of Renaissance Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

As presented heretofore, Polish Biblical philology, which comprises Christian Hebraism, was mainly of a practical nature and focused on translations of Scripture. The forewords to the Renaissance editions of the Bible in Polish and the notes and commentaries accompanying the sacred text are bursting with polemics and discussions concerning not only dogmatic issues, but also the source text and concept of translation that would ensure the most faithful, understandable and beautiful version in the national language. This search for the “genuine word of God (szczyrego słowa Bożego)” reflected, of course, the different religious currents that clashed in a Europe torn apart by the Reformation. Before we summarise the discussions around the source text (3.2) and the concept of translation (3.3) and explore the sources used by Polish Bible translators during the Renaissance and Reformation period (3.4), for the sake of completeness we will first give a brief outline of the origins and history of Polish translations of Scripture during the period in question (3.1). We will then use the examples to verify how the translators’ initial assumptions about the source text and concept of the translation were implemented (3.5).

3.1 The history of the translations of Scripture into Polish The first translations of Biblical texts into Polish were based on the Latin Vulgate. The oldest known Biblical text in Polish is the so-called Saint Florian Psalter (Psałterz floriański) from the end of the fourteenth century. From the mid-fifteenth century comes the Bible of Queen Sophia (Biblia królowej Zofii), which could even contain the entire Holy Scripture (Pietkiewicz: 2016, 149–174). The medieval tradition found its continuation in the first printed editions of the New Testament and the entire Bible: in 1556 the so-called Szarfenbergers’ New Testament (Piet­ kiewicz: 2019b, no. 11) was published in Cracow, and in 1561 the Leopolita’s Bible (BL; fig. 15). The genesis of the text present in the Leopolita’s Bible is lost in the depths of the Middle Ages, and its translator was considered anonymous even by the sixteenth century researchers. However, Mikołaj Szarfenberg, the printer and

176

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

publisher of this Bible, betrayed the identity of its reviser, who prepared the old translation for reedition. It was Jan Nicz Leopolita, “master of Cracow scholarship (mistrz nauki krakowskiej)” (BL, *A2v; cf. Pietkiewicz: 2016, 363ff). The turn to the original texts was influenced by the Reformation. In 1551–1555 the Lutheran Königsberg New Testament translated by Stanislaw Murzynowski was published (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 7–10). It was a text translated or amended on the basis of the Greek version. The same environment also planned to translate and edit the entire Bible, but these plans were not fulfilled (Pietkiewicz: 2016, 332–350; see also 2.2.1). The first translation of the entire Bible into Polish, commonly regarded as a translation from the original languages, was the so-called Brest Bible (BB; fig. 9), also known as the Pińczów Bible or Radziwiłł Bible, because it was translated in Pińczów (Little Poland), and was published by Mikołaj Radziwiłł the Black in Brest-Litovsk. The aim of this edition was not only to provide the Polish Reformed Churches with the text of the entire Holy Scripture, but also to promote in the Commonwealth the idea of the Reformation in the Geneva spirit. The full text of the Brest Bible was published only once in the period of the Renaissance, in 1563. A year later, at Radziwiłł’s request, only the Psalter was reprinted (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 43; Piet­ kiewicz: 2016, 262–266). The text of the New Testament in Pińczów translation was published at least several times (Pietkiewicz: 2019b, no. 14–17; cf. 2016, 382–387). Some representatives of radical Reformation currents were dissatisfied with the Brest Bible and they took up Biblical philology and text criticism in search of new ways to justify their views. They believed that amendments were introduced to the Bible to legitimize the forcefully imposed Christological dogmas and Trinitarian doctrine of the ancient councils. Therefore, using philological tools and text criticism, it was necessary to first clean the original versions from these additions, and then to consider the text prepared in this way as the basis for translation into modern languages (Frick: 2001, 1692, 1693). One of the declared representatives of this trend was the eminent Polish Hebraist and Greekist, Szymon Budny, who, using widely and very radically the text criticism, so “persistently undermined the basis (wytrwale podkopywał byt)” of the Brest Bible “until he led to an official demand for a new translation of Scripture (aż doprowadził do oficjalnego zapotrzebowania na nowy przekład)” (Kossowska: 1968, 251; cf. Kwilecka: 2001, 1489–1496). Budny himself, in his introduction to his translation of the Bible, mentioned the reasons why, a few years after the Brest Bible, a new translation of the whole Scripture was necessary. He mainly strived to remove the flaws in the Brest Bible, which had a inconvenient format (folio) and was expensive and hardly accessible and, according to Antitrinitarians, contained many errors in the translation itself. Budny also disagreed with the very concept of translation, which, while taking care of the beauty of the language, turned out to be unfaithful to the original (BSzB, b1r–v [first pressmark]; cf. Merczyng: 1913, 48). The initiative was taken over by Maciej

The history of the translations of Scripture into Polish

Fig. 15: The Leopolita’s Bible, Cracow 1561, title page (BJ Cim. 8307).

177

178

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Kawieczyński, the Radziwiłł governor in Nesvizh and owner of the local printing house. Probably around 1568 he asked Budny to prepare a new translation, which would appear in his Nesvizh printing house (cf. BSzB, b1r [first pressmark]). Initially, Budny worked in a team that also included Maciej Kawieczyński, but with time Budny was gradually abandoned by his collaborators. After comparing the text from the Brest Bible with the original, the members of the team came to the conclusion that the Pińczów translators, contrary to the expectations “failed to fulfil their promise (swej obietnicy dość nie czynili)” (BSzB, b1v) and translated from Latin and French rather than Hebrew and Greek. So it turned out that it would be more practical to translate the whole Bible anew than to correct the Pińczów translation. After the break-up of Budny’s team, he took on the whole burden of the translation work (BSzB, b1v–3r, c2r–3r; cf. Merczyng: 1913, 48f; Frick: 2001, 1692). The work appeared in 1572 (cf. Kwilecka: 2001, 1515–1522; fig. 11). As presented above (2.2.2), the work on the translation and printing of the Brest Bible was carried out in the spirit of acute doctrinal disputes around Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, which caused some people involved in the creation of the Brest Bible to abandon Calvinism in favour of various antitrinitarian communities. This fact became the reason for distrust (although, as recent studies have shown, unjustified – see 2.2.2) towards this translation also on the side of Protestant orthodoxy. The deviations of the Pińczów translation from the Greek and Hebrew originals caused concern. In this way, also in the Protestant camp, immediately after the publication of the Brest Bible, discussions began on the need for a new edition and even a new translation of the whole Bible. Opinions were divided on this issue: The Lithuanians, attached to the Brest text, reported a need to print a revised version of 1563, while the Protestants from the Polish Crown postulated that work on revising the translation be undertaken to a greater extent (cf. Frick: 2001, 1694f). Apart from the reservations concerning the translation and the notes, there were complaints in the Protestant camp, like among the Polish brethren, about the excessive format of the Radziwiłł Bible, its high price and very limited availability (NTG, ):( 2r; BG, ):( 1r, ):( 3r). At the end of the sixteenth century, the need for a new translation of the Bible by the Protestants became even more pressing due to the appearance of further translations of Scripture translated and commented on by Jakub Wujek. In 1593 the Jesuit from Wągrowiec published the New Testament (NTWj 1593), a year later the David’s Psalter (Psałterz Dawidów; PsWj; fig. 16) and the second edition of the New Testament (NTWj 1594), revised on the basis of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. The entire Bible, as revised by the Review Board, was already published after Wujek’s death in 1599 (BWj; fig. 17). It was a translation made from the Latin Vulgate, but carefully confronted with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek original, as well as with the Septuagint, and richly supplemented with polemical commentaries and notes (Pietkiewicz: 2016, 452–479).

The history of the translations of Scripture into Polish

179

Fig. 16: Psałterz Dawidow (David’s Psalter), translated by Jakub Wujek, Cracow 1594, folio 7r with the commentary to Ps 3 (ZNiO XVI.Qu.2659).

180

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Fig. 17: The Wujek’s Bible, Cracow 1599, title page (ZNiO XVI.F.4289).

Vulgate or Hebraica veritas?

181

After Krzysztof Trecy’s unsuccessful attempt to translate Scripture again, this work was undertaken by Marcin Janicki, who around 1600 presented a complete translation to the elders of the church. In order to revise this translation, several commissions were set up to finally entrust the entire work to Daniel Mikołajewski (cf. Sipayłłówna: 1934, 144ff; Nowak: 1968, 38–50; Tworek: 1971, 119ff, 128; Wojak: 1985, 18–25; Szeruda: 1985, 12ff; Frick: 2001, 1695ff; Kwilecka: 2001, 1522ff), who completed the work in 1632, publishing the so-called Gdańsk Bible (BG; fig. 10).

3.2 Vulgate or Hebraica veritas? Dispute over the source text of translation In search of the “genuine word of God”, the Renaissance Biblical scholars and Polish philologists discussed the choice of the source text for the translation of Scripture: Vulgate or Hebraica veritas? maybe both? Presenting the dispute over the source text for the translation of the Holy Scriptures, we will present the assumptions of individual translators and translators’ teams placed by them on the title pages and in the foreword to translations into Polish. The title page of the Leopolita’s Bible of 1561 (BL), the first printed translation of the entire Scripture into Polish, reads: “The Bible, that is, the books of the Old and New Covenants, into the Polish language with diligence translated anew from the Latin Bible by the universal Christian Church accepted. (Biblia, to jest księgi Starego i Nowego Zakonu, na polski język z pilnością według łacińskiej Bibliej od Kościoła krześciańskiego powszechnego przyjętej nowo wyłożona.)” (fig. 15). Of course, this “Latin Bible” was St Jerome’s translation, called the Vulgate. In his Foreword to the Reader (Przedmowa do Czytelnika) (BL, *A3v–4r), Leopolita revealed some details of his work and, above all, attempted to justify the choice of the Vulgate as a reference point for the revision. His words revealed the polemical spirit of the era and the mistrust of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, which was characteristic of many Catholics. Leopolita gave the following arguments for rejecting the Hebrew version and choosing the Vulgate: 1) his contemporary translations made on the basis of the Hebrew Bible were incompatible: “among those who allegedly translated from the Hebrew text, there are no two that would agree: one contradicts another (którzy rzekomo wedle żydowskiego tekstu tłumaczyli, tedy się jeszcze nigdy dwa nie zgodzili, ale jeden tak, drugi inak)”; 2) the Hebrew text used in the sixteenth century was “falsified (pofałszowany)” by the Jews – here Leopolita made an allusion to the Masoretic vocalisation of the Hebrew Bible; 3) the translation of St Jerome was done in the first centuries of the Church, when, because of “the shortness of time that elapsed the Jews could not falsify the Bible to a great extent (krótkości czasu Żydowie tak dalece Bibliej pofałszować nie

182

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

mogli)”, 4) the translator believed that St Jerome had extraordinary proficiency in Hebrew that “if he were a born Jew, he could not be more proficient (żeby też był Żydem urodzonym, tedyby bieglejszym być nie mógł).” As one can see, at that time the Vulgate definitely triumphed in the Catholic camp. Not only did Hebraica veritas not find recognition in the eyes of Leopolita, but it was also denied credibility and considered (contrary to the aspirations for this veritas) falsified. Jan Nicz Leopolita upheld the tradition of the past and consistently kept to the “old track (starego toru)”. The approach to the problem of credibility of the original Old Testament text was completely different in the Calvinist communities. The title page of the Brest Bible states that it is “The Holy Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Covenant, properly from the Jewish, Greek and Latin to the Polish language with diligence and faithfully translated anew. (Biblia Święta, to jest księgi Starego i Nowego Zakonu, własnie z żydowskiego, greckiego i łacińskiego nowo na polski język z pilnością i wiernie wyłożone.)” (fig. 9). For Pińczów translators, the primeval texts, Greek and Hebrew, in accordance with the spirit of humanism and the Reformation, were given priority, though they by no means broke with the previous tradition and used St Jerome’s Latin version. They justified their choice in the foreword On the benefits of Holy Scripture (O pożytku Pisma Świętego). Its authors were very critical of the work of Jan Leopolita who only followed the one old translator [i. e. St Jerome – RP]; no wonder that this translation is insufficient, lacking in many places what the Jewish and Greek scriptures had, which may be easily noticed by those who will only want from true sources draw (jed� negoż samego starego wykładacza w tym naśladował; nie dziw tedy, iż to przełożenie jego jest niedostateczne, zatrudnione, a ktemu na wielu miejsc od pism żydowskich i greckich daleko się odstrzelawa, co snadnie pobaczą ci, którzy się jedno do prawych źrzódł będą uciec chcieli) (BB, *4v).

They do not apparently neglect the Vulgate, although they consider limiting themselves to this one version as the source text for the translation to be definitely insufficient. According to them, the Catholic tradition of translating the Bible on the basis of the authority of the Vulgate alone is a misguided one, resulting from ignorance and even bad will (cf. BB, *4v). The authors of the foreword considered the inclusion of the original versions as a clear advancement in the Biblical teaching and as one of the results of the Reformation. They claimed that in their times “the ability to use languages considerably flourished with learning the truth (umiejęt�ność języków z poznaniem prawdy zacnie rozkwitnęła)” (ibid.). Translators and publishers of the Radziwiłł Bible, seeking the “genuine truth (szczyrej prawdy)” gave priority to the Hebrew original. They respected and, as we have seen, used St Jerome’s version, although they were aware of its imperfections:

Vulgate or Hebraica veritas?

183

But this ancient translator, whoever he is, has not always come to the genuine truth, as can be seen in numerous places, therefore we were trying harder to convey the genuine truth as soon as possible (Ale iż ten stary wykładacz, ktożkolwiek jest, nie wszędy doszedł samej szczyrej prawdy, jako się z wiela miejsc pokazać może. Tedychmy z pilnością się starali jakobychmy szczyrość prawdy im nałacwiej wyprawić mogli) (ibid.).

Eventually the translators “apart from that of the old translator’s and other new Latin translations of the Old Testament […] made and left their genuine Jewish text (oprócz wykładacza starego i inych nowych rozmaitych wykładów łacińskich w Starym Testamencie […] położyli i zostawili własny tekst żydowski)” (ibid.). In summary, therefore, it can be concluded that, according to the declarations of the Pińczów translators, the main source text for their translation was the Hebrew Bible. The Vulgate and other Latin translations of the Hebrew original served as auxiliary versions, which were compared with the original text. While preparing the Polish version, they also confronted it with other Renaissance versions in national languages (cf. ibid.). Another translation of the Bible into Polish, the so-called Nesvizh Bible in Szymon Budny’s translation – as presented above (3.1) – was somehow done in opposition to the work of his predecessors, especially the Brest Bible. The title page of the Nesvizh Bible reads: “The Bible. This is the Books of the Old and New Covenant from Hebrew, Greek and Latin to Polish anew translated. (Biblia. To jest księgi Starego i Nowego Przymierza znowu z języka ebrejskiego, greckiego i łacińskiego na polski przełożone.)” (fig. 11). So Budny also supported himself with the Vulgate when translating the Scripture from the original. How does he then justify such a choice of the source text for translation? Budny, like the translators of the Brest Bible, criticised Jan Nicz Leopolita, who used only the Vulgate; however, he believed that St Jerome “translated the Old Covenant not from the source of the Hebrew language, but from the Greek translation (nie ze zrżódła języka ebrejskiego, ale z przekładu greckiego księgi Starego Przymierza przetłumaczył).” (BSzB, b2r).1 In conclusion, the heresiarch called the reader: “now, judge for yourself, whether it may or may not be such a perfect translation? (rozsądźże teraz sobie, możeli to być takowy przekład doskonały, albo nie?)” (ibid.). At this point Budny invoked St Jerome, who also criticized translating from a translation:

1 This conviction of Budny is surprising because during the Renaissance it was commonly accepted that St Jerome translated the Old Testeman from Hebrew (with the exception of Psalter, which also existed in the Septuagint version). Perhaps this is an allusion to the original attempts of St Jerome to correct the old Latin translation, which was indeed based on Septuagint. Budny in general doubts that St Jerome was the translator of the Vulgate (cf. BSzB, b2r).

184

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Indeed, Jerome himself writes that as a drink loses its taste, be it the best when poured from one vessel to another, from the second to the third and to the fourth. Also the translation, when it is not translated from the same language as the one in which the books were written, but through a second language, cannot be genuine or perfect. (Zaiste sam Jeronim pisze, iż jako picie utraca smak, by nalepsze było, gdy je z jednego naczynia do drugiego, z a drugiego do trzeciego i do czwartego przelewają. Także i przekład, gdy ji niezarazem z onego języka czynią, w którem one księgi napisano, ale przez drugi język bywa przepuszczan, nie może być szczery, ani doskonały.) (ibid.).

Budny was also very critical of the choice of the source text for translation by the Pińczów translators. He insisted that he and Kawieczynski discovered that despite their assertions the translators did the translation “from Latin, and additionally from French (z łacińskiego, a ktemu z francuskiego przekładali)” (BSzB, b1v). As for the source text of the translation, Budny introduced a different working method than his predecessors. He placed great emphasis on the critical reading of the Biblical text. He did not use one version, but compared texts and chose the best variants, and only then did he start translating (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2016, 418ff). It should be noted that as a result, Budny put more emphasis on Hebraica veritas than the Pińczów translators. He respected the Latin version, accepted the need to use it, but attached much less importance to it than his predecessors. The title page of Wujek’s Bible reads (fig. 17): The Bible that is the Books of the Old and New Testaments, according to the old Latin translation by the universal church accepted, into the Polish language with diligence anew translated. With the addition of the Jewish and Greek texts, and with the Catholic interpretation of more difficult places to defend the universal sacred faith against the heretics of those times. By D. Jakub Wujek of Wągrowiec, theologian from the Societatis Iesu. With the permission of the Holy See. (Biblia to jest księgi Starego i Nowego Testa�mentu, według łacińskiego przekładu starego, w kościele powszechnym przyjętego, na polski język z nowu z pilnością przełożone. Z dokładaniem tekstu żydowskiego i greckiego, i z wykładem katolickim, trudniejszych miejsc, do obrony wiary świętej powszechnej przeciw kacerztwom tych czasów należących. Przez D. Jakuba Wujka z Wągrowca, Theologa Societatis Iesu. Z dozwoleniem Stolice Apostolskiej.)

A similar source text was also adopted by Wujek in the translation of the Psalter, which was published in 1594 (PsWj): “The Psalter of David. Now anew from Latin, from Greek and from Hebrew into Polish with diligence translated and explained with arguments and annotations. (Psałterz Dawidów. Teraz znowu z łacińskiego, z greckiego i z żydowskiego na polski język z pilnością przełożony i argumentami i annotacyjami objaśniony.)” The title of Wujek’s Bible has a strongly polemical overtone and it is in this spirit that a strong emphasis should be placed here on the authority of the Vulgate. The title pages include also the information that the translation was consulted with

Vulgate or Hebraica veritas?

185

the Hebrew and Greek original. Although Wujek took St Jerome’s version as the basis for his translation, he realised that when translating the Old Testament it was impossible to avoid a confrontation between the Latin text and the original (cf. PsWj, 1f). Because of the complexity behind the proper source for the translation of the Old Testament, Wujek decided to provide his readers with marginal notes and commentaries on various versions of a given text (cf. PsWj, 14; fig. 16 and 18). An extensive justification for this choice of the source for the translation can be found in the foreword to Psalter of 1594 (PsWj, 2–16) and in the introduction by Stanisław Karnkowski (1520–1603), Archbishop of Gniezno and Primate of Poland (BWj, *3v–**1r), and in Apparatus sacer – an introduction preparing the reader for a “beneficial reading of Holy Scripture (pożytecznego czytania Pisma Ś[więtego])” (BWj, **1v–***5r), which precede the text of Wujek translation.

Fig. 18: The Wujek’s Bible, Cracow 1599, page 553 with Ps 2 (BN SD.XVI.F.738).

At the beginning, in the foreword To the reader (Do czytelnika), Archbishop Karnkowski presented a short outline of the history of the new post-conciliar edition of the Vulgate (the so-called Sixto-Clementine Vulgate [VlgSC 1592; 1593]). He started with a negative assessment of the claims of the Protestants who bragged about the knowledge of Scripture, and moreover of Hebrew and Greek. The Holy Books of the Old and New Testaments allegedly translated from the Hebrew and Greek languages, but rather from their own fevered imagination, following their own opinions, by numerous and unbefitting translations into Latin, changes, additions, subtrac-

186

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

tions, commentaries, adaptations to their heresies, by strange censorship to their own advantage significantly spoiled and ruined, and led into disrespect of ordinary people. (umiejętnością Pisma Świętego, a nawięcej języków hebrajskiego i greckiego. Księgi święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu wrzkomo z żydowskiego i greckiego języka, a ono raczej z mózgu swego wichrowatego według zdania własnego częstemi a rozmaitemi i niezgodnemi na łaciński język i insze przekładami, odmienianiem, przydawaniem, ujmowaniem, glosowaniem, do swych kacerstw naciąganiem, dziwnemi cenzurami i szacunkami swemi srodze psowali, szpecili i w lekkie poważanie od pospolitego człowieka przywodzili) (BWj, *4v).

These words cannot lead to the conclusion that Karnkowski rejected the authority of the original versions or underestimated the benefits of the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek; on the contrary, the Archbishop boasted of the achievements of the Catholic Biblical philologists, whose efforts have resulted in two great polyglots: Complutensian Polyglot Bible and Antwerp Polyglot Bible. However, more attention he devoted to the post-Tridentine editions of the Septuagint and Vulgate, whose revised and unified official edition published by the Catholic Church was necessary because of the mistakes that had crept into the text over the centuries (cf. BWj, *4v). It should be emphasized that the primate, when mentioning the Vulgate, always referred to it in relation to the Hebrew text. Thus, telling the story of the work on the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, he pointed out that the basis for the critical translation of the text was “the oldest texts that were closest to the source of the Hebrew language (egzemplarze między sobą nastarsze, które nabliżej do źrzódła języka żydowskiego przystępowały)” (BWj, *4v). According to the provisions of the Council of Trent, the Vulgate is to be “between all Scripture translations treated with the most sacred esteem (między wszystkimi Pisma Świętego translacjami w najświętszym u wszystkich poważaniu).” The reason why the Holy See assigned such an authority to St Jerome’s version in its post-Tridentine edition is that “this Latin translation with great work and diligence, according to the Jewish and Greek language, could be more than cleared and restored to its first genuineness and completeness (tenże przekład łaciński z wielką pracą i pilnością, według żydowskiego i greckiego języka, jako mogło być nalepiej przeczyściony i do pierwszej szczyrości i zupełności swej przywrócony)” (BWj, *5r). As far as the Psalter is concerned, Wujek considered St Jerome’s Psalterium Gallicanum, a version based on Septuagint to be the best basis for the translation, because according to him it most faithfully reflects the original Hebrew text (cf. PsWj, 4ff).2 2 St Jerome prepared two versions of Psalterium Gallicanum based on Septuagint and Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos – a translation from a Hebrew text. Due to the widespread acceptance in the Church, Psalterium Gallicanum was incorporated into the Vulgate, which was adopted by ­Wujek as the basic source text for the translation (cf. Fabris: 2006, 461).

Vulgate or Hebraica veritas?

187

The issues related to the basic source text of the translation of Wujek’s Bible return in Apparatus sacer. The author of this introduction to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, most probably Marcin Łaszcz (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2020, 281–284), mentioned the Hebrew language with great respect. He reiterated the opinion sanctified by the Judeo-Christian tradition that this language “was spoken by our forefathers from the beginning of the world, and God Himself spoke to them in it and it was worthy that many Scripture books were written in it, for which is it called holy (mówili pierwszy ojcowie naszy od początku świata i sam Bóg tymże do nich mówił i jescze godzien był, aby wiele Pisma Ś[więtego] ksiąg nimże były napisane, dla czego i świętym jest nazwany)” (BWj, **2r).3 Furthermore, he claimed that in antiquity (until the time of the Masoretes) the Hebrew text remained intact for many centuries, even passing unscathed the alphabet change introduced by Ezra after the Babylonian captivity (cf. BWj, **2r). However, he appreciated the Latin Vulgate more: Though the Jewish and Greek Bible was the first to be written by reliable writers, and then translated into Latin, it was right that one Latin should be more certain and true. For there is no fear of any corruption in these Latin Bibles, which, in such numbers, so consistently and in all the churches were used for a thousand years ago. The Hebrew ones to the contrary were neither used by Catholics to such an extent, nor kept under guards by the mighty. (Chocia tedy żydowska i grecka Biblia pierwsze były i od pewnych pisarzów spisane, z których potym w łaciński język przetłumaczono, wszakże słusznie ta jedna łacińska za pewniejszą i prawdziwszą ma być miana. Bo się w tych łacińskich Bibliach żadnego zepsowania nie możem obawiać, które w takiej liczbie, tak zgodnie i po wszytkich kościołach jescze przed tysiącem lat były chowane. Żydowskie lepak, ani w takim używaniu u katolików były, ani też u barzo pewnych pod strażą chowane.) (BWj, **4r).

He justified his thesis in three points: First, behind the use of St Jerome’s translation is a thousand years of tradition of its universal use in the Church. Secondly, St Jerome’s perfect fluency in Hebrew and the time of his life not far from the time when the original Biblical languages were in common use are another guarantee of the credibility of the Vulgate and of the fact that it faithfully reproduces the Hebrew text of the first centuries (**4r; cf. **4v). Thirdly, the Masoretes who, five hundred years after Christ, added vowels and accents to the consonantal text, did so in opposition to the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, depriving it of its Christological meaning (cf. **2r, **4r; cf. PsWj, 6ff). Thus Łaszcz, sharing Elias Levita’s opinion on the vowel points in the Hebrew Bible (see 1.2.1), came to the conclusion that the ancient St Jerome’s translation preserved the pre-Masoretic, free from any anti-Christian forgery, original version of the Old Testament. 3 Wujek shared the view of St Augustine, who believed that from creation to the confusion of tongues under the tower of Babel, all mankind spoke only Hebrew (BWj, com. on Gen 11).

188

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Therefore, “this is a reminder for today’s heretics who want to correct the Latin edition using the Hebrew text with these points, because the Hebrew texts are not that genuine to be held in higher esteem than the old Latin ones (to się przypo� mina dla dzisiejszych heretyków, którzy chcą łacińskiego wydania poprawiać z tekstu żydowskiego z temi punktami, gdyż i te żydowskie nie są tak szczere zrzódła, żeby miały być nad stare łacińskie przekładane)” (BWj, **2r–v; cf. **3v–4r). An additional argument in favor of the Vulgate is the divergent voices of the rabbis themselves questioning the Masoretic vocalization (**4r–v; cf. PsWj, 8). The foreword also critically appraised the Protestant fascination with the teaching of rabbis, which found its practical expression in sixteenth-century Bible translations (cf. BWj, **5r–v). As can be inferred, the problem of the basic source text for the translation is also complex in Wujek’s Bible, except that priority is given here to the Latin Vulgate, confronting it constantly with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals. Technically, the difficulties of such a basic source were solved by means of numerous notes n the margins (fig. 18) and continuous commentaries under the inspired text (fig. 16), which provided information on the differences between the versions (cf. ibid., ***4r). Thus also the editions with Wujek’s translations from Latin with numerous commentaries became the tool for the reception of the achievements of Western European Christian Hebraism in Poland. One only needs to browse through a few pages of the first edition of Wujek’s Bible or his translations of the Psalter, to see that they are full of Hebrew and Greek words written in the original alphabet. In this way the Jesuits were able to boast to their readers that “our Bible and according to the Greek and Hebrew text is well translated (nasza Biblia i według greckiego i żydowskiego tekstu jest dobrze przełożona)” (***1v). The title page of the Gdańsk Bible of 1632 (fig. 10), where the reference to the Latin version was completely omitted, is presented in a much different way compared to its predecessors: “The Holy Bible. That is the Books of the Old and New Covenant from Hebrew and Greek into Polish translated diligently and faithfully. (Biblia Święta. To jest księgi Starego i Nowego Przymierza z żydowskiego i greckiego języka na polski pilnie i wiernie przetłumaczone.)” Thus, as far as the basi source text for the translation is concerned, the information contained herein demonstrates a more radical reliance on the original versions than in the case of the Brest Bible. It is true that the dedication to Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1585–1640) shows that similar translation rules were applied here as in the Bible of 1563 (BG, ):(3v), which was translated from “oriental languages (orientalnych języków)” (ibid., ):(3r), but the lack of any mention of the Vulgate on the title page is meaningful.

Translate “sense by sense” or “word by word”?

189

3.3 Translate “sense by sense” or “word by word”? The dispute over the translation concept The forewords to the editions of successive Renaissance Bible translations into Polish also presents the translators’ assumptions regarding the concept of translation. The Pińczów team placed great emphasis on the beauty of the Polish language and on objectivity in rendering sense, which must have resulted in a departure from literal fidelity to the original: “with regard to odd habits of the Hebrew language, we were very diligent in making sure that the language we use in translation was easier to digest (w trudnych zwyczajoch mów żydowskich wielkąchmy pilność czynili, żeby wżdy troszkę smaczniej w naszym języku przychodzić mogły)” (BB, *5r). The practice of adding words or short phrases absent from the original, which were necessary to understand the meaning of difficult places, described in the foreword, testifies to some freedom of translation. The translators in no way highlighted these words and expressions in print, claiming that there are few and far between, and that anyone who compares their work with other versions of the Bible would be able to recognize them easily (ibid., *5v). The authors of the foreword also revealed the background of the organization of translation works: foreigners, as more proficient in Biblical languages, “have undertaken some part of this work (niejaką część pracy tej podjęli).” They requested that: [the foreigners – RP] explained the strength and properties of words and utterances typical of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin to those most skilled in their mother tongue; and then what could not be done by foreigners, they [i. e. the Poles – RP] diligently and properly translated in these sacred scriptures, taking the explanations into consideration. (słów a mów zwyczajnych żydowskich, greckich i łacińskich mocy i własności tym podawali, którzy w języku swym przyrodzonym pierwsze miejsce między nimi trzymali, a to, co od cudzoziemców wyprawiono być nie mogło, to oni z pilnością własnie w tych piśmiech świętych za podaniem ich przekładali.) (*5r).

In the language of modern Biblical typology, this type of translation can be described as a literary translation (cf. Chmiel: 2003). Szymon Budny adopted a completely different concept of translation for his work. Providing a justification for starting a new translation just a few years after the publication of the Brest Bible, Budny criticized the method of translation adopted by the Pińczów group, who “were trying hard to render the text in good Polish, neglecting the properties of Greek in the New Testament […] and dropping Hebrew in the Old Testament (o ochędożną polszczyznę nawięcej się starali zaniedbawszy własności rzeczy greckiej w Nowem Testamencie […]. Zaniechawszy też i ebrejskiej w Starem Testamencie)” (BSzB, b1v). This statement at the outset shows that the translator of the Nesvizh Bible would attach more importance to literal fidelity of his translation to the original than to the beauty of his mother tongue.

190

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

In the following parts of his justification for undertaking the translation and publication of the new Bible he referred to the words of the author of the foreword to the Brest Bible, who was aware of the work’s imperfections, mainly in terms of the Polish rendition of the Hebrew language (BSzB, b3r; cf. BB, *5r–v). Budny believed that every translation is useful, because “different translators contribute to the greater glory of God glory in different ways; one is better at one thing, and the other is better at another (różni tłumacze różny pożytek chwale Bożej czynią, gdy jeden to lepiej, a drugi ono obaczył i wypisał)” (BSzB, b3r). His version translated according to a different translation concept is therefore very reasonable. Budny decided to translate the holy text literally, showing an almost slavish adherence to the original. As he wrote himself, he translated “word by word (słowo słowem)” and only out of necessity provided “matter by matter (rzecz rzeczą)” (i. e. sense by sense). He justified the choice of such a concept of translation by quoting Scripture-based and theological arguments: At first remember that we have tried not to contribute or diminish anything, but cared to render word by word. Such a translation is commonly regarded as superstition or too much attachment to words, but after all, God Himself teaches us this superstition in such a way, where He says: thou shalt not add nor take away from it.4 Solomon warns us, too, saying: every God’s word is tested; a shield to those who trust in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and make you imprisoned.5 Christ the Lord wants ye not to lose a letter or tiniest sign from His Law.6 Otherwise, if I had anything else to translate, not the word of God himself, I would be able to render not word by word, but matter by matter; since we translate such a terrifying word, it would be a dangerous thing to seek ornaments. We are, like the apostles in their letters, to quote Scripture honestly and faithfully. (Naprzód wiedz o tem, żeśmy o to usiłowali, abychmy nic nie przyczyniali, ani umniejszali, ale żebychmy słowo słowem wyrazili. Bo acz takie tłumaczenie pospolicie superstycją lub zbytnim do słów przywięzowaniem zową, wszakże nas sam Bóg tak owej superstycyji uczy, gdzie tak mówi: nie przyczynisz kniemu ani ubawisz od niego. Także i Salomon przestrzega nas mówiąc: wszelka powieść Boża (jest) wypławiona, tarcza ufającym w Niem. Nie przyczynisz ku słowom Jego, aby nie przewiódł na cię, a byłbyś pojman. Pan też Christus nie chce, aby i kryska i namniejszy buksztab z zakonu miał zginąć. A tak, gdyby mi co innego przyszło się tłumaczyć, nie samego Boga słowo, tedybym mógł nie słowo słowem, ale rzecz rzeczą wyrażać, ale tak straszne powieści tłumacząc ochędostwa mowy szukać niebezpieczna rzecz jest. Mamy na wzór apostoły święte, jako oni uczciwie a wiernie Pismo Ś[więte] przywodzili w swoich liściech.) (BSzB, b3v).

4 Deut 13:1. Budny was wrong: “1 Moi. 13” (i. e. Gen 13). According to the division into verses adopted in BSzB, it is the Fifth Book of Moses 12:32, or Deut 12:32. 5 Prov 30:5–6. 6 Matt 5:18.

Translate “sense by sense” or “word by word”?

191

It was necessary to abandon the slavish adherence in translation only for some Hebrew expressions that would be otherwise incomprehensible. Where Budny sometimes had to translate “matter by matter”, he additionally gave a literal translation of the Hebrew text in the margin. If, because of the meaning and principles of the Polish language, he added some words, he placed them in brackets, which allowed to distinguish the words added from those that were actually in the original (cf. BSzB, b3v). He kept the word order, took care of the exact meaning of words. He did not avoid creating neologisms, as long as they better reflected Hebrew terms, but he tried to translate one Hebrew word everywhere with the same Polish term. He left the names of people and places in their original form, transcribing them from Hebrew and changing them according to Polish inflection. Only popular names are left with their traditional Polish wording. He gave priority to the native language, avoiding words of foreign origin, creating rather his own, especially where Polish terminology was lacking. He also used vocabulary characteristic of dialects from different parts of Poland, and even the Ruthenian language. The result of such a method and concept of translation was a Polish text that was clumsy in terms of language, of which the translator himself was aware and which was also his conscious choice (cf. BSzB, b3v–c1v). This concept of translation resembles the new Renaissance translations of the Bible into Latin, which included the version of Santes Pagnini, widely used by translators (see 1.2.1). Budny’s work was also similar in purpose: Therefore, everyone can consider that even if there is no other use for this translation of ours, it should not be despised. That is, from this translation, everyone can learn reliably about the order of words in the Hebrew Bible. (Przeto każdy stąd baczyć może, iż choćby inszego pożytku z tego naszego przekładu nie było, tedyby przedsię i tym jednym nie trzeba gardzić. To jest, iż z niego prawie a dostatecznie może każdy wiedzieć, którym porządkiem słowa w hywrejskich Bibliach idą.) (BSzB, b4r).

Today we would call this type of translation literal (cf. Chmiel: 2003, 73f). The holy text in the main columns of Wujek’s Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate and not from Hebrew and Greek. But if there were differences between the versions, Wujek consistently marked it on the margins and in the commentaries (cf. BWj, ***4r; fig. 18). The basis of translation thus defined required of the translator and later reviewers to face the problem of rendering the Hebrew and Greek text in Polish, which was in the margins and for annotations. Therefore, in the foreword to Wujek’s Bible the accepted concept of translating semitisms and Greek expressions typical of the Biblical language are explained. The author of the foreword advocated a literal translation of these texts to the detriment of the beauty and correctness of the Polish language:

192

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

In the very translation of Scripture into Polish, it was accepted that translating word by word was more proper, without adding anything or taking away, without changing Scripture, but preserving the properties of Jewish, Greek and Latin words rather than ensuring smoothness or beauty of Polish words. If, therefore, anyone regards the Polish harsh or awkward let him know that in Scriptures there are no fine words to look at, but the proprieties of the language used by the Holy Spirit through his writers. For there are many such things in the Scriptures which, if we would like to render them in fine and ornamental language, we would never express the sense and meaning given by the Holy Spirit. As it happens to heretics who often exchange the true sense for smooth and beautiful words. But in Scripture no word is given for nothing. […] That is why, no one is surprised when one looks at the fact that each language has its own properties, which in another language cannot be rendered in a beautiful way. […] We simply preferred to speak with the Holy Spirit rather than with courtly people, and especially we wanted to avoid using new words the way heretics do. (W samym lepak Pisma Ś[więtego] na pol�skie przekładaniu, tak się zachowało, że słowo od słowa przełożono im nawłasniej być mogło, nic nie przydawając, ani ujmując, ani odmieniając z Pisma Ś[więtego], a więcej własności słów żydowskich, greckich i łacińskich, a niżeli gładkości abo ozdobności słów polskich folgując. Przeto jeśliby się tu komu zdała polszczyzna gruba abo niegładka, niechajże wie, iż w Piśmie Ś[więtym] nie ma słówek pięknych patrzyć, ale samej własności mowy, jako Duch Ś[więty] przez swoje pisarze pisał. Bo jest wiele takowych rzeczy w piśmie, które kiedybyśmy chcieli słowy gładkimi i dworskimi wymówić, nigdybyśmy sensu i wyrozumienia Ducha Ś. nie wyrazili. Jako się to trafia heretykom często, którzy dla gładkich i pięknych słów, prawdziwego sensu pisma odstępują. A ono w Piśmie Ś[więtym] żadne słowo nie jest darmo położone. […] Czemu się żaden nie będzie dziwował, kiedy się przypatrzy, iż każdy język ma swoje własności, które w inszym języku nie barzo się piękne zdadzą. […] Woleliśmy tedy po prostu z Duchem Ś. mówić, niż z dworskimi ludźmi, a zwłaszcza z heretikami nowych słów używać.) (ibid., ***4r–v).

Wujek himself had a slightly different opinion on the concept of translation; he tried to translate “word by word”, but always gave priority to fidelity to the meaning and linguistic correctness. In his search for Polish expressions that best reflect the meaning of the Latin original, Wujek also consulted directly the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible: I tried to translate most faithfully, properly, and clearly word by word from Latin to Polish as well as I could. For I know that St Augustine and others generally praise such a translation of Scripture: quae sit verborum tenacior, cum perspicuitate sententiae – that is, this one that more faithfully sticks to the words, however, with clarity of meaning or sentence. For where a word has been translated by a word, you have no clear sense, there the translator must resign a bit from the adherence to words and give priority to sense instead. And therefore, not all Latin words are expressed with the Polish word, but sometimes a more difficult word is replaced with a more comprehensible, from the original languages, Greek or Hebrew. (Starałem się co nawierniej i nawłasniej i najaśniej, a ile być mogło, słowo od słowa z łacińskiego na polskie przełożyć. Bo wiem, iż Augus�-

Translate “sense by sense” or “word by word”?

193

tin Ś[więty] i inni pospolicie, taki przekład Pisma Ś[więtego] chwalą: quae sit verborum tenacior, cum perspicuitate sententiae – to jest, który się słów więcej trzyma; jednak z jasnością sensu, abo sentencjej. Bo gdzie słowo od słowa przełożywszy, nie masz jasnego sensu, tam się z potrzeby nieco od własności słów odstąpić musi folgując sensowi. A przetoż nie wszędy słowo łacińskie słowem polskim jest wyrażone, ale czasem słowo jaśniejsze miasto trudniejszego, z originanych języków, greckiego, abo żydowskiego jest położone.) (PsWj, 12).

Wujek claimed that this is how St Paul translated the texts of the Old Testament when he quoted them in his letters: But in both places [i. e., Hebr 1:7 and Eph 4:8 – RP] the meaning only, or the essence of the Scriptures was rendered by the Apostle, who taught us that this is the better way of translating the Scriptures – not always word by word, not to persistently adhere to words and their properties, but sometimes especially in more difficult places, having left the properties of the words, the translator should only care for the meaning and clarity of things and how to render the sense in the best way. (Lecz na obu miejscach sens tylko, abo umysł pisma wyraził Apostoł i nauczył nas, że to jest nalepszy sposób przekładania Pisma Ś[więtego] – nie zawsze słowo słowem wyrażać, nie nazbyt się na słowach zasadzać i nie wszędy własności słów upornie się trzymać, ale czasem zwłaszcza na trudniejszych miejscach, własność słów opuściwszy, samej własności i jasności rzeczy służyć i sens jako nalepiej wyrazić.) (PsWj, 11).

The Apparatus sacer also sets out general principles for the Catholic translation and explanation of the Bible. According to the author of The Preparation for the Reading of Scripture (Przygotowanie do czytania Pisma Ś[więtego]) it is not enough just to refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts; what is needed is the authority of the Church, which interprets the true meaning of Scripture and interprets it in the spirit in which it was written (cf. BWj, **6v). Likewise, it is insufficient to have and read the Bible or a translation of it in an intelligible language, because such reading can be both useful and harmful if it is deprived of adequate commentary on understanding the truths of the faith (cf. ibid., **6v–***1r, ***1v–3v, 4r). The author illustrates his lecture with contemporary examples, the background of which is the problem of the reception of Western European Christian Hebraism in Renaissance Poland: What then is a faithful Christian to do to ensure that he understands Scripture well without falsehood or error? Is it enough to know the letters and syllables and read well? Such is the pride of the Heretics, who, having read a few words in the Bible, having also learned how to quote several chapters of Scripture, think they understand everything in Scripture; and if they know some Hebrew or Greek words they regard themselves above all the Doctors. But this is another thing to read, and another to understand what you

194

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

read. The court official of the Candace queen also read, and he coud read in Hebrew with ease, but he did not understand what he was reading, and he testified: how I can understand there is nobody to explain […]. The Lord’s disciples knew the Hebrew language well, and Christ interpreted Scripture for them, and until he opened their eyes they did not understand. Even today the Jews read, and they do not know what they are reading, nor can they see the Christian faith in Scriptures. All the heretics, Lutherans as well as Calvinists, and even more Anabaptists, they cannot find one faith when reading, and what they do find is little more than the Jews can. And by this reading, they convert from the Christian faith to the Jews, clinging to their interpretation. Why is that? As one St Doctor once said: Scripturae non in legendo sunt sed in intelligendo. Scriptures are not to read, he asserted, but to understand. (Jakóż tedy ma sobie wierny chrześcijanin postąpić, aby Pismo Ś[więte] dobrze bez fałszu i błędu rozumiał? Izali dosyć na tym, kiedy zna litery i syllaby i umie dobrze czytać? Takać jest duma hereticka, którzy przeczytawszy kilka słów w Biblijej, nauczywszy się też mianować kilka rozdziałów Pisma Ś[więteg], tak o sobie mniemają, że już wszytko pismo nalepiej rozumieją, a jeśli jeszcze które słowo żydowskie abo greckie umieją, już się nad wszytkie Doktory wynoszą. Aleć insza jest czytać, a insza to, co czytasz rozumieć. Czytałci i on dworzanin królowej kandackiej, a czytał po żydowsku dobrze, a przedsię nie rozumiał, co czytał, i owszem zeznał: A jako, powiada, mogę zrozumieć jeśli mi kto nie ukaże […]. Umieli i uczniowie Pańscy dobrze po żydowsku, a przedsię Pan Christus wykładał im pisma, i aż im otworzył zmysły, nie rozumieli. Czytają i dzisia Żydowie, a wżdy nie wiedzą, co czytają, ani się wiary chrześcijańskiej doczytać mogą. Czytają i teraz hereticy wszyscy, tak luteranowie, jako i kalwinistowie, a jeszcze więcej nowochrzczeńcy, a przedsię się jednej wiary doczytać nie mogą, i mało się coś więcej niż Żydowie doczytają. I owszem przez to czytanie, od wiary chrześcijańskiej do Żydów przystają, ich się wykładu trzymając. Czemuż to? Dobrze jeden Doktor ś[więty] powiedział: Scripturae non in legendo sunt sed in intelligendo. Pisma, powiada, nie w czytaniu należą, ale w wyrozumieniu) (BWj, ***2r). Who should we consult to interpret Scripture because man may not trust himself? Supposedly to Jews or Jewish Rabbis? That is what heretics do, especially Anabaptists. However, if God’s Spirit is needed for the understanding of the Scriptures, consider if we are to believe how the Jews interpret. Can those who are Christ’s enemies have Christ’s spirit? […] God forbid that Christian people should follow such blind teachers. I know that heretics learn the interpretation from them and they relish more Jewish dreams and fairy tales than St Doctors’ writings. But it is not surprising that they look for masters among the likes of themselves. (Do kogóż już pójdziem po wykład pisma, ponieważ sam sobie człowiek dufać nie ma? Podobno do Żydów abo Rabinów żydowskich? Takci czynią hereticy, a zwłaszcza nowochrzczeńcy. Wszakże jeśli Ducha Bożego do wyrozumienia Pisma Ś[więtego] potrzeba, patrz jeśliż Żydom w tym wierzyć mamy. Bo azaż ci Ducha Christusowego mogą mieć, którzy są głównemi nieprzyjaciółmi Christusowymi? […] Nie daj tego Boże, aby takich ślepych wodzów, ludzie chrześcijańscy naśladować mieli. Wiem, że heretycy od nich się swych wykładów uczą i więcej się im sny i bajki żydowskie, niż pisma Doktorów ś[więtych] podobają. Ale nie dziw temu, jakowi sami są, takich też mistrzów szukają.) (BWj, ***2v).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

195

Dedication letters in the Gdańsk Bible do not include the translator’s initial assumptions about the concept of translation.

3.4 Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible In order to examine the sources used by Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible, we will analyse the forewords and dedications to particular editions of the Bible, as well as the content of selected marginal notes and continuous commentaries to the Bible text. Specific examples, including comparative material from all the Polish editions of the Bible that we are interested in, will be provided separately in paragraph 3.5.

3.4.1 The Hebrew Bible Today it is difficult to determine exactly which editions of the Hebrew Bible were used by Polish translators of the Old Testament, because only Wujek clearly indicated the Antwerp Polyglot containing the Hebrew text (cf. BWj, ***5v; cf.  NTWj 1593, 16f, 30 [of the first pagination]). However, as we have said above (1.3.1), the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible distributed in the sixteenth century were rather uniform in terms of the text that came from the second edition of the Rabbinic Bible (BR2). Moreover, the translators did not have to stick strictly to the original. In accordance with the principles of criticism of the text at the time, they sometimes changed the Hebrew text (mainly in difficult places) on the basis of other available ancient versions. As an example Szymon Budny can be given, who translated the Hebrew text, confronting it with other versions (see 3.2). To establish the basic source text of the translation, he juxtaposed different variants (using different printed editions), and drew on Biblical quotations from the Fathers of the Church and other Christian writers and commentators of the past and present. He also did not slavishly adhered to the Masoretic vocalisation.7 The margins of the Polish translations of the Holy Scriptures are fraught with notes referring the reader to the original text, especially in those places where idioms or other syntactic and lexical phenomena difficult to render in modern languages appeared. In this way, Polish Bible readers were given the opportunity to learn the specifics of the original text.

7 Cf. NTSzB 1574, d1v; 1589, d1v–2r. Cf. also examples: BSzB, n. to Gen 12:6, 45:19. Budny sometimes marked in his notes the places where he thought an error in the translation of the text may have occurred: see, BSzB, n. to Num 13:26, 21:24.

196

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

The Pińczów translators repeatedly referred to the original. E.g. in Gen 2:23: “a dlategoż ona będzie nazwana mężatką, bo jest z męża wzięta (and therefore she will be called wo-man because she was taken from the man)”, explaining the use of the word “mężatka (wo-man)”8 they explained: “Słowo żydowskie żonę mężowę znamionuje. (The Hebrew word means a husband’s wife.)”9 By rendering the Hebrew words with Polish expressions, the translators provided in the margins the literal translation of the original. E.g. in Gen 7:1: “Abowiemem cię widział sprawiedliwym przed sobą czasu tego. (For I have seen thee righteous before me at this time.)” the phrase ‫ ַּבּדו ֺר ַהּזֶ ה‬was translate as “czasu tego (at this time)”, they explain: “W żydowskim jest: W tym pokoleniu, to jest między ludźmi tego wieku. (In Hebrew is: In this generation, this is between people of this age.)”10 The notes also explain the meaning of proper names. For instance, in Gen 11:9: “A dlategoż wezwane jest Babel, abowiem tam Pan pomieszał języki wszej ziemie. (Therefore the name of Babel is used, for the Lord hath confused the tongues of all the earth there.)” there is a brief comment for the word “Babel”: “To jest pomieszanie. (This is confusion.)”11 Many notes and remarks on the Hebrew text can be found in Budny’s Bible, who gladly referred to the original of the Old Testament, transliterating Semitic words in the Latin alphabet. Commenting on Gen 3:5 (“otworzą się oczy wasze i będziecie jako Bogowie [your eyes will open and you will be as gods]”), he added in the margin: “Tu tesz w iwrejskim piśmie onosz słowo Elohim stoi, przeto mogłoby się tak przełożyć: będziecie jako Bóg, albo jako Elohim, albo Anieli. (Here in the Hebrew scriptures the word Elohim is used, so it could be translated: you will be as God, either Elohim or Angels.)” Similar notes also appear where Budny explained the meaning of God’s names: “w początku stworzył Bóg, albo Elohim. Ale to obyczaj mowy ewrejskiej. 8 The translator used here the Polish terms “mężatka”/“mąż”, which render the pun on Hebrew words: ‫( ִאיׁש‬man) – ‫( ִא ָּשה‬woman). The word “mąż” means both “man” and “husband”, while “mężatka” only means “married woman”. Other Polish translations also reveal an attempt to render the Hebrew word ‫( ִא ָּשה‬woman) in such a way as to retain the Hebrew word play: “mężysta (husbandess)” (BL), “mężata (married to a man)” (BSzB), “mężyna (manness)” (BWj), “mężatka (married woman)” (BG). 9 Similar examples, cf. BB, n. to: Lev 14:10, Num 11:7, 15:15, 16:22.28.38, 21:6.8, 23:10, 27:14; Deut 7:10, 9:1.14, 17:8, 20:5, 25:7, 32:30. 10 Others translate literally: “in generatione hac” (Vlg); “w rodzaju tym (of this generation)” (BSzB); “w narodzie tym (in this nation)” (BG; BWj). The translators from Pińczów followed probably BGen 1559 in which the phrase “en ce temps” is used with a commentary: “Heb. en ceste generation: C. entre les hommes de cest aage.” Othe examples of commentaries on the Hebrew words: cf. BB, n. to: Gen 12:5 (cf. BSt and BCa); Exod 6:8 (cf. BCa and BGen 1559), 8:19 (cf. BSt and BGen 1559), Num 11:7 (cf. BSt – a similar note and identical sigla to parallel texts; about sigla, see also BCa). 11 Similar notes are to be found in BSt; however, to Gen 11:8 (“Confusio linguarum”) and BWj (“Babel ‫ בבל‬Confusion”). Other examples of etymologies of names: see BB, n. to: Gen 21:31, 26:20 ff.32, 32:2, 35:8.

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

197

(in the beginning God created, or Elohim. But it is the custom of the Hebrew language.)” (BSzB, n. to Gen 1:1). “Wiedz czytelniku, iż to imię Boże Jehowa w piśmie iwrejskim pisze się tylko czterzmi literami, przeto je niektórzy naszy tesz cztermi literami piszą: Jowa; rozumie się to imię, jakobyś rzekł: to jest, który zawżdy jest. (Know, Reader, that the name of God Jehovah in Hebrew is only written with four letters, so if some of us write it in four letters: Jowa; that name is understood as you would say, this is the one who always is.)” (BSzB, n. to Gen 3:13). Commenting on the use of Hebrew phrase ‫‘( מו ֺת ָּתמּות‬dying thou shalt die’) in Gen 2:17, he made a note in the margin: “Tak mówią powtarzając Hiwrejanie, gdy pewność znaczą. (That is what the Hebrew repeat when emphasise the certainty.)”12 Budny also drew attention to the specificity of the use of ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, in the narrative that introduces temporal clauses and phrases and is usually omitted in the translation. An example can be found in the commentary to Gen 4:8 (“A gdy byli na polu, powstał Kain na Habela brata swego i zabił go. [And when they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Habel and killed him.])”: “I było (albo i stało się). Częsta to w piśmie Iwrejskim. (And it was, or it happened – it is often used in Hebrew texts.)” Budny’s frequent practice was to explain in the margins the etymology of proper names13 and common Hebrew words which have theological significance or are difficult to render in Polish.14 For example, explaining the Hebrew word in Gen 1:2 (“a duch Boży powiewał po obliczu wód (and the spirit of God was blowing over the waters)”, he added: “albo wiatr Boży ruszał się (or the wind of God was moving).” Similarly, in Gen 8:1 (“I napuścił Bóg wiatr na ziemię [And God directed the wind to the earth]”): “Abo duch, bo tu jednym słowem Iwreanie zowią Ruach, i wiatr i Duch. (Or the spirit, for in Hebrew they use one word for Ruah, and wind and spirit.)”15 Budny marked in his text the Jewish division of the Torah into 54 parashot,16 giving the paragraph number and its Hebrew title. For example, in Gen 6:9, where the second parash begins (Gen 6:8–11:32), titled ‫נ ַֹח‬: “Rozdział wtóry wedle Żydów, Noach. (Chapter Two according to the Jews, Noah.)”17 12 Other examples of notes explaining Hebrew words: BSzB, n. to: Gen 1:6.20, 18:8.25, 24:1, 25:32, 29:1.2, 31:27.29.35, 34:26, 38:14, Exod 9:21, 10:28, 12:5, 16:15, 25:30, 28:41, Num 6:8.12. 13 E.g. BSzB, n. to: Gen 4:25, 5:29, 7:13, 16:11, 17:15.19, 21:31, 23:9, 25:30, 26:20 ff.33, 28:19, 31:47f, 33:17, 35:7.9.16.18, Exod 17:15, 18:3 f. 14 E.g. BSzB, n. to: Gen 17:1, 21:22, 24:22, 25:6, 30:14, 33:19, 37:26, 41:42f, Exod 3:2, 13:16, 25:17f, 33:7, Lev 23:10.13, 27:28, Num 24:1. 15 See also BSzB, n. to: Gen 6:5.12.14. 16 This was a division characteristic of the Rabbinic Bible and the Christian editions did not always include it. For example, there is no such division in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible and in the Latin Bible, translated by Sebastian Münster. It is given in the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, but only in live pagination, so no exact boundaries between paragraphs are marked. This division is included in Stephanus Bible (1556–1557). 17 See also BSzB, n. to: Gen 12:1, 18:1, 23:1 etc.

198

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Wujek, when translating the Old Testament from the Vulgate, used the Hebrew Bible very extensively. He repeatedly – even several times per page – pointed out to the differences between St Jerome version and the Hebrew original and explained the Hebrew words (fig. 18).18 For example, when commenting on Ps 2, consisting of only thirteen verses, he referred to the Hebrew Bible eleven times. Wujek’s notes and commentaries at the end of chapters include numerous terms, written using the Hebrew square script, that the Biblical scholar from Wągrowiec explained in detail (fig. 16). Moreover, he frequently gave the meaning of the Hebrew names of people and proper names of places.19 Commenting on Ps 1:1 (“Błogosławiony to mąż, który nie chodził w radzie niezbożnych [Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked])”, he explaied at length the word ‫איׁש‬: ִ Though the Greek and Latin books have: Blessed is the man, but here, as well as in many other places, the Hebrew word ‫ ִאיׁש‬Ish means not only the man, but every human, both man, woman, husband, adolescent and child. (Acz greckie i łacińskie księgi mają: Błogosławiony mąż, ale tu, jako i na wielu innych miejscach słowo żydowskie ‫ איׁש‬Isz, nie tylko męża, ale wszelkiego człowieka, tak mężczyznę, jako i białągłowę, tak męża, jako i młodzieńca, i pacholę znamionuje) (PsWj).

In Ps 2:1 (“Czemu się wzburzyli pogani, a ludzie rozmyślali próżne rzeczy? [Why did the Gentiles become angry and the people ponder on vain things?]”) the translator explains the meaning of the word ‫ּגו ֺיִ ם‬: “Słowo żydowskie ‫ גוים‬Goim, pogany pospolicie, a ‫ לאמים‬leummim, na tym miejscu lud wierny żydowski znaczy. (The Hebrew word ‫ גוים‬Goim is generally translated as heathens, and ‫ לאמים‬leummim means the faithful Jewish nation.)” (PsWj and BWj). Similarly, in Ps 2:12, he comments the phrase “przyjmicie naukę christusową (accept the teaching of Christ)”: In the Jewish text it is: ‫ נׁשקו בר‬Naszku bar. This is interpreted in different ways, but generally as: Kiss the Son, that is: Accept him as your Lord; bow down by kissing his hand, as a sign of submission and obedience. (W żydowskim tekście stoi: ‫נׁשקו בר‬ Naszku bar. Co acz różni różnie wykładają, ale pospolicie: Pocałujcie Syna, to jest: Przyjmicie go za Pana; Czyńcie mu pokłon całowaniem ręki jego, na znak poddaństwa i posłuszeństwa.)”20

18 E.g. BWj, n. to: Gen 6:12, 12:5, 14:21f, 20:7, 24:33, 30:31, 34:3, 38:29, com. to Gen 25:8, 31:42, 32:30, 38:17. 19 E.g. BWj, n. to: Gen 3:20, 4:25, 6:29, 10:25, 11:9, 16:11, 17:5.15.19, 19:38, 30:6.8.11.13. 19 f.24, 32:28.30, 37:35, Exod 2:22, Josh 5:9, com. to Gen 4:1 and 24:43. 20 Other examples: BWj, com. to Gen 1:2.6.

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

199

In the Gdańsk Bible there are also marginal notes explaining Hebrew words. They are marked with the letter “H.” For example, commenting on Gen 3:16 (“a wola twa g poddana będzie mężowi twemu [and thy will g shall be subjected to thy husband]”), Mikołajewski added the note g: “H. Do niego będzie chuć twoja. (H. Thy desire will be directed at him.)”21 Sometimes the translator did the opposite, i. e. he placed a literal translation in the main text and explained the meaning of the idiom in the margin.22 For example, in Gen 6:9 (“z Bogiem d chodził Noe [Noah walked with God d]”), note d explains: “T[o jest]. Żył według woli Bożej, jego się bojąc. (T[hat is]. He lived according to God’s will, fearing him.)”23 By means of notes marked with “T.” Mikołajewski also explained the meaning of difficult Hebrew words, proper names and alternative translations. E.g. in Gen 14:5 (“i poraził a Rafaimy w Astarot Karnaimie [and he defeated a the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim]”) he added note a: “T. Obrzymy. (T. Giants.)”24

3.4.2 Ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible All Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible used the Vulgate, which in case of Hebrew translations served as an aid.25 Leopolita and Wujek used it as the main source text of the translation. The translators from Pińczów use the “starego a pospolitego wykładu (old and well known interpretation)”, i. e. the Latin Vulgate, in the version printed in the so-called Stephanus Bible of 1556–1557 (BSt).26 As far as the source text for the translation of Wujek’s Bible is concerned, its translator initially used the Lueven Vulgate, revised by Benito Arias Montano, which came out in Antwerp at Plantinius’ in 1574 (Biblia Sacra: 1574; cf. NickoStępień: 2017), but when the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (VlgSC 1592) was published in 1592, he obtained this version and on its basis translated the Psalter (cf. PsWj, 2, 5, 12), revised the New Testament, publishing it for the second time in octavo in 1594 (cf. NTWj 1594, )( 2r), and translated the entire Bible (cf. BWj, *4v–5r).

21 Other examples: BG, n. to Gen 3:8, 26:12 (cf. BSzB and BWj), 26:35 (cf. BSzB), 27:34.46 (cf. BSzB), 31:26, 32:19, 33:11 (cf. BB, BSzB, BWj), 40:15 (cf. BSzB, BWj), 41:36, Job 40:10 (cf. BB, BSzB, BWj), 40:20 (cf. BB, BSzB, BWj), 40:21 (cf. BB), 40:26 (cf. BSzB, BWj), 41:2 (cf. BB, BSzB). 22 E.g. BG, n. to: Gen 25:17, 27:41 (cf. BSzB and n. in BWj), 36:24 (cf. BB, BSzB and n. to BWj). 23 Cf. BB: “chodząc w bojaźni Bożej (walking in God’s fear)”. 24 Other examples: BG, n. to Gen 19:15, 22:21 (cf. n. in BSzB), 24:10 (cf. n. in BB and BSzB), 26:33 (n. g and f, cf. n. in BB, BSzB amd BWj), 28:19 (cf. n. in BB, BSzB and BWj), 35:8 (cf. n. in BB, BSzB, BWj), 25:18 (cf. n. in BB, BSzB, BWj), 35:21 (cf. BWj), 41:45 (cf. n. in BB and BSzB). 25 Cf. e. g. BB, *4v, n. to Gen 41:45; BSzB, n. is Gen 24:22, 45:19. 26 Cf. BB, 25r (Gen 41:45); Kwilecka: 2001a, 1544 f.

200

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

He also used a version of the Vulgate revised on the basis of the Hebrew Bible by a Benedictine, Isidoro Chiari (cf. PsWj, 14; see 1.3.2.3).27 St Jerome’s version was also included in the Antwerp Polyglot, elaborated by Arias Montano. The translators confronted the Hebrew and Aramaic texts also with the “Greek seventy interpreters”, i. e. the Septuagint, and pointed out the differences.28 Some of these notes have their equivalents in the Calvinist Bible in French published in 1559 (BGen 1559)29 and in other sixteenth-century national versions (e. g. in the Luther’s Bible; Kwilecka: 2001a, 1540–1544). Wujek also referred to the Greek versions of Symmachus and Aquila. For example, commenting on the idiom of “śmiercią umrzesz (thou shalt die the death)” in Gen 2:17: “Symmachus przełożył: śmiertelnym będziesz, który wykład Hieronim ś[więty] i Theodoretus, i Augustyn chwalą. (Symmachus translated: thou shalt be mortal, which interretation Jerome and Theodoretus, and Augustine praise.)” In his commentary to Gen 2:23 (“tę będą zwać mężyną, bo z męża wzięta jest [this one will be called wo-man, for from man she was taken]”) he quoted this version in Greek: “Co i Symmachus na greckie nadobnie przełożył: Ta będzie zwana ἀνδρίς, że ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός wzięta jest [jakoby od Andrysa, Andrysowa] – Hieronim. (What also Symmachus beautifully translated into Greek: this one will be called ἀνδρίς, because from ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός she is taken [supposedly Mrs Andrys [i. e. in Polish Andrysova – RP] from Mr Andrys] – Jerome.)” He also refered to the old Greek versions when he explained the phrase “synowie Boży (sons of God)” in Gen 6:2: “Przez te syny Boże jedni rozumieją syny książąt abo zacnych ludzi […], drudzy syny Mocarzów jako Symmachus, inni syny bogów, to jest sędziów abo przełożonych jako Aquila. (By these sons of God some understand the sons of the princes or noble men […], others the sons of the Mighty as Symmachus, others the sons of the gods, that is, judges or superiors as Aquila.)” In quoting versions of Symmachus and Aquila, Wujek clearly used the works of the Church Fathers. As far as Genesis is concerned, this was the work Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesim.30 The Biblicist from Wągrowiec took the Latin translation from the Septuagint (Psalterium Gallicanum) as the source text for translating his Psalter. Wujek highly appreciated the Septuagint, which was indicated on the title pages 27 After the publication of the work (Venice 1542) Chiari was accused of drawing on the Latin in Sebastian Münster’s translation, and as a result the introduction to his edition and the notes to the text were included in the index of the forbidden books established by Paul IV in 1559 (Index: 1559, I1r). Therefore, Chiari published a revised version in Venice in 1557 and 1564 (BI, no. 885, 896; cf. Roussel: 1989, 145, 166; Wicks: 2008, 633 and n. 91f). 28 E.g. BB, n. to: Gen 46:27, Exod 2:22, 12:40, Lev 11:5, 18:21, Num 11:7, 25:8, Job 2:11, Dan 3:1; BSzB, n. do: Gen 45:19, Job 1:21; BWj, n. to: Gen 1:2, 3:20, 5:29, 14:20.23, 15:4, com. to: Gen 1:6, 2:8, 3:15, 8:4.7, 24:65, 37:28.35, 46:27, Exod 12:40, Isa 7:14. 29 E.g. BB, n. to: Exod 2:22, Job 1:21, Dan 3:1. 30 Cf. BWj com. to Gen 2:17 and PL 23, 989; com. to Gen 2:23 and PL 23, 990; com. to Gen 6:2 and PL 23, 996; com. to Gen 31:19, 41:16 and PL 23, 1037, 1048.

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

201

of the edition of his translations (see 3.2). Wujek claimed he used the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, which included the text of the Septuagint. Perhaps, as a Catholic, he also referred to the Roman Septuagint (Sixtine), which was published in 1586 (see 1.3.2.2). Budny (BSzB, c2r) in the foreword to his translation stated that he took the Melanchthon edition of Septuagint (Divine Scripture: 1545) as the source text for the translation of the Old Testament deuterocanonical books (by Budny they were called “Apokryfa, to jest kryjome księgi. [Apocrypha, i. e. secret books.])”,31 the text of which was available in Greek. Polish translators also referred in their notes and commentaries to the Chaldaic interpretation, or Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, called Targumim. That is what the Pińczów translators do. However, their notes sometimes overlap with those of other editions of the Bible, especially the Calvinist Bible in French (BGen 1559) and the Stephanus Bible (BSt).32 The Aramaic version was also used by Budny (e. g. BSzB, n. to Gen 45:19). Wujek also reached for the Targumim.33 In some cases, he seems to have used the commentaries that were in the Pińczów and Nesvizh Bibles.34 If Polish translators used the printed editions of the Targumim directly, they had at their disposal the Rabbinic Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot (with the Onkelos Targum to the Pentateuch) and the Antwerp Polyglot (used by Wujek). In the Complutensian Polyglot and the Antwerp Polyglot, the Aramaic text is accompanied by its Latin translation. A separate Latin translation of the Targumim was also published by Paul Fagius (see 1.3.2.1).35

3.4.3 Sixteenth-century translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin New translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin were very popular in the sixteenth century. They were usually literal, and even – as in the case of Pagnini’s version – they were suitable for interlinear translation. These new translations were widely used by translators of the Hebrew Bible into national languages, including Poles.

31 BSzB, 1 (Apocrypha in BSzB are placed at the end of the Old Testament and have its own pagination). 32 E.g. BB, n. to: Gen 41:45 (cf. BSt, BGen 1559, BCa), 49:3 (cf. BSt), Num 13:23, 25:8, Josh 6:5, 1 Sam 26:25, 28:13, 2 Sam 10:12, 2 Sam 8:18, 2 Kings 3:13, Ps 55:14, Ezek 21:10, Hos 1:2, Zech 3,8 (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1545ff). 33 E.g. BWj, com. to: Gen 2:6, 5:29, 6:2.14, 8:4.7, 49:10, 2 Sam 8:18 (in BWj it is 2 Kings 8:17), Isa 7:14. 34 Cf. e. g. BWj, com. to: 2 Sam 8:18 (in BWj it is 2 Kings 8:17), Zech 3:8 (cf. with appropriate places in BB). 35 Cf. also examples 1, 2, 7, 8, 12 (3.5).

202

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

The Brest group, “apart from the old interpreter (oprócz wykładacza starego)”, that is St Jerome, additionally made use of “other new Latin translations in the Old Testament (inych nowych rozmaitych wykładów łacińskich w Starym Testamencie)” (BB, *4v), like the work of Pagnini, which was in the second column of the Stephanus Bible (BSt; fig. 1) and that of Sébastien Castellion. The most thorough research so far on the Pińczów translators methods and sources was conducted by Irena Kwilecka (2001a, 1526–1563), who confirmed (2006, 115) they used a wide range of new, Latin translations, made directly from the original. Such a primary auxiliary source in this regard was the Latin edition of the Bible of the famous French publisher, Robert Stephanus (Estienne), from 1557, containing the Old Testament in a faithful translation of S. Pagnini with commentaries by the eminent Parisian Hebraist, François Vatable, and a translation of New Testament by Théodore de Bèze, based on the best Greek codes, with his own commentary. (w szerokim zakresie z nowych, łacińskich przekładów, dokonanych wprost z oryginału. Takim podstawowym źródłem pomocniczym w tym względzie było łacińskie wydanie Biblii słynnego francuskiego wydawcy, Roberta Stephanusa [Estienne], z 1557 roku, zawierające Stary Testament w wiernym przekładzie S. Pagniniego z komentarzami wybitnego paryskiego hebraisty Franciszka Vatable’a oraz oparty na najlepszych kodeksach greckich przekład Nowego Testamentu Teodora Bezy z jego własnym komentarzem.)

The Stephanus Bible and the Castellion translation were also used by Budny (BSzB, b4r, c2r; cf. Kamieniecki: 1995, 152). There are some traces of the use of these two versions in Wujek’s Bible, but it is not certain that he took these publications into consideration in his work. Perhaps Wujek drew on Vatable’s and Castellion’s notes through previous Polish translations. But he certainly used the literal translation of Pagnini, whose interlinear text was in the Antwerp Polyglot (cf. PsWj, 14; BWj, com. to: Gen 2:6.8, 4:23, 6:2, 9:4). When translating Psalter, Wujek utilised many contemporary translations and editions of this book into Latin (see 3.4.9).36

3.4.4 Translations of the Bible into Polish It is standard practice to use the work of predecessors when translating Scripture. Polish translators, who knew the previous translations, did the same. They often engaged in polemics over the source texts and concept of translation adopted by others, as well as with the way the text was commented on; however, they drew on good and generally accepted translation solutions accepted by their predecessors.

36 Cf. also examples 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 23–28 (3.5).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

203

One of the reasons for publishing the Brest Bible were the imperfections of the Leopolita’s Bible outdated in terms of its basic source text and concept of translation. The Nesvizh Bible originated in opposition to the Brest Bible. One of the goals of Wujek’s Bible was to diminish the importance of the Brest Bible and the Nesvizh Bible. The Gdańsk Bible is in a way a daughter of the Brest Bible. Pińczów translators (BB, *4v) openly admitted their knowledge of previous translations of Scripture into Polish: And although there are already the books of the Bible translated and published in Polish, whoever is their author, initiator and interpreter, if done well, he has won the glory and fame of all, that according to his proficiency and wit, but more thanks to the gift of God, he has given the scriptures to his people, having translated them into the vernacular, and thus making them read and eagerly try to learn God’s will. (I chociaż już są pierwej księgi Bibliej po polsku przełożone i na jaśnią podane, których któżkolwiek jest autorem i powodem, a wykładaczem, tedy ile jest rzecz przystojna zjednał sobie u każdego chwałę i sławną pamięć, iż wedle biegłości i dowcipu swego, ale snadź więcej z daru od Boga wziętego, podał ty pisma narodowi swemu, przełożywszy je przyrodzonym językiem ku czytaniu, chcąc je tym sposobem przywieść ku temu, żeby się wżdy tym pilniej wywiadowali wolej Bożej.)

The authors of the foreword probably made an allusion here to the Polish version of the Bible, which in the manuscripts, like the Bible of Queen Sofia, circulated in Poland. One such copy was published in 1561 after a revision by Jan Nicz Leopolita. Certainly, the Leopolita’s Bible belonged to the Pińczów translators’ sources, although it was very critically evaluated by them (see 3.2). They may have used other manuscripts that have not survived to our times. Among previous translations into Polish, Budny knew the Leopolita’s Bible and the Brest Bible. Although he criticized his predecessors for the adopted basic source text and concept of translation (see 3.2 and 3.3), he sometimes repeated the commentary notes that first appeared in the Bible of 1563.37 But he by no means did it mechanically or uncritically. In his notes, Budny sometimes argued with the Pińczów translators. As an example the discussion on the translation of Lev 1:2 can be given. The Pińczów group translated the Hebrew sequence of nouns that describe animals to be sacrificed (‫ן־הּצֹאן‬ ַ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‫ן־ה ָּב ָקר‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ְּב ֵה ָמה ִמ‬ ַ ‫)מ‬ ִ as “z bydła, z wołów i z owiec (of cattle, of oxen and of sheep).” Budny however translated “z bydła, z byków i z drobu (of cattle, bulls and poultry)”, adding a note clearly polemicizing against the Brest translation of the word ‫ּב ָקר‬:ָ

37 Cf. e. g. n. in BB and BSzB to: Lev 10:9, 11:5, 14:10, 16:8, 25:9, Num 6:2, 25:4. Cf. also from BGen 1559, n. to: Lev 14:10, Num 6:2, and BSt, n. to: Lev 16:8, Num 6:2.

204

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

The used the common ox in translation, but they are mistaken; for oxen and bullocks and any castrated bovine could not be sacrificed or used for other purposes as we read about it in these books, chapter 22 verse 24. (Pospolicie wołem przekładają, ale się mylą, bo wołów i skopów i wszelkiego bydła rzezanego nie tylko ofiarować, ale ani na inne pożytki nie godziło się takim czynić; czytamy o tim w tychże księgach rozdział 22 wirsz 24).

Another interesting instance of Budny’s polemic with the Pińczów translators can be found in the notes to Lev 11, where inspired authors gave a list of pure and unclean animals. Budny explained in his own way the often incomprehensible names of animals, and in the margin he provided examples others’ translations, referring mainly to the Brest version.38 Wujek also utilised the work of his predecessors. For example, he borrowed from Budny some of the terms still functioning today, such as ‘chapter’, ‘foreskin’. Sometimes he quoted the views of his predecessors, and even their translations, in his commentaries, especially those of Budny, engaging in a polemic with them.39 In some cases it is possible to notice the relationship between Wujek’s commentariess and the notes of Budny or Pińczów translators, which, however, for religious reasons, was not marked in any way. According to the demands of the synods of Polish Reformed and Bohemian Brethren, the Gdańsk Bible was to be a revised version of the Brest Bible, which assumed some kind of relationship between the two texts. Mikołajewski used the Brest text, but in the end the amendments he made were so extensive that some researchers recognise the Gdańsk Bible as a new translation of the entire Scripture from the original into Polish (cf. Sipayłło: 1934, 151; Wojak: 1985, 44f). In the margins of the Gdańsk Bible one can find notes with the abbreviation “I.” (i. e. “Others translate in this way. (Inni tak tłumaczą.)”, often giving variants from translations (or notes) of the predecessors: the Brest Bible,40 Budny’s Bible41 and Wujek’s Bible.42 For example, at Gen 2:1 (“Dokończone tedy są niebiosa i ziemia, i wszystko a wojsko ich [The heavens and the earth are completed, and all a their armies]”), we read in the note a: “I. ochędostwo (Others: ornaments)” – as in the Brest Bible. Notes marked in the Gdańsk Bible with the letter “A.” (i. e. “Albo [Or]”) have a reverse function: the main text usually includes the Brest variant and in the margin – an alternative translation proposal. For example, in Gen 4:1: “Otrzymałam mężczyznę od Pana a. (I have received a man from the Lord a.)”, note a reads: “A. z Panem. (Or with the Lord.)” (see also n. to Gen 37:35). Below is another note

38 Another example: n. to Deut 21:12. 39 Cf. e. g. BWj, com. to Gen 48:16 with a translation of this text in BSzB. 40 Cf. e. g. BG, n. to: Gen 6:13, 20:16, 22:14, 24:10, 26:12, 28:2, 32:25, 38:18.29, Neh 5:7, Job 41:2. 41 Cf. e. g. BG, n. to: Gen 32:25, 33:19, 34:2, 37:25 (in BSzB this is Gen 37:26), Job 40:26. 42 Cf. e. g. BG, n. to: Gen 22:14 (cf. n. in BWj), 24:10, 32:25, 33:19, 38:18.38 (cf. n. in BWj).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

205

marked with “T.” (“To jest. [That is.]”), explaining the meaning of the phrase: “T. za łaską i pomocą Bożą. (That is with God’s grace and help.)” The Brest version is also referred to in other explanatory notes, marked as “T.” which provide alternative translations of single words and phrases (e. g. n. to Gen 19:15).43

3.4.5 Translations of the Bible into other modern languages The translators of Scripture use not only the work of their predecessors in their own language. Very often they look for ready-made solutions in their contemporary translations into other national languages. This was also the case with Polish translators of the Renaissance era. The Pińczów group in the introduction to the Bible (BB, *4v) admit to this practice themselves: The interpretations of scholars from neighbouring nations translated into their vernacular, on which before they were published, noble and learned people worked with great diligence, for which help we give great thanks to the Lord God. (Przy tym wykłady postronnych narodów języki przyrodzonemi przełożone, około których niż są na jaśnią podane, zacni a uczeni ludzie z wielką pilnością pracowali, za którą my pomoc naprzód Panu Bogu wielce dziękujemy).

The authors of the foreword in another place (BB, *5v) gave some more information about the publications they used: Nevertheless, the places that would turn out too difficult to those less skilled, we explained in in the margins with short notes, which learned people with great diligence from all the old as well as the new Scripture translations honestly and faithfully gathered and provided us with […]. And those peculiarly diligent and pious readers will be obliged for the explanatory notes and commentaries taken from the French Bible, which we added to these books of ours, and many others that were of great help to us in our work in difficult and less intelligible places. (Mimo to miejsca któreby się mniej umiejętnym przytrudniejszym zdały, objaśnialichmy po krajoch wykłady króciuchnymi, które przed nami ludzie uczeni z wielką pilnością ze wszytkich tak starych jako i nowych Pisma Świętego wykładaczów szczyrze a wiernie zebrawszy znieśli […]. A osobliwie pilni a pobożni czytelnicy za ty przydatki i wykłady francuskiej Bibliej powinni będą, z których tu znieślichmy je do tych ksiąg naszych i wiele inych, które nam przy tej naszej pracy w trudnych a cięszkich miejscach ku niemałej pomocy były.)

43 Cf. also examples 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 (3.5).

206

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

The use of the French Bible – a version in the mother tongue of Pierre Statorius and Jean Thénaud – by the Brest translators is not surprising. Szymon Budny (BSzB, b1v) accused the Pińczów translators of drawing on the French Bible to an excessive extent. However, even if he noticed these dependencies, he himself most probably also had a translation of the Bible prepared by Calvin and his associates among his sources. In the foreword to the Brest Bible it is impossible to find other clues that would allow for a more accurate identification of the publication used by the Pińczów team. Janina Czerniatowicz (1969, 35–42) believed that it could have been a version in Olivétan’s translation and Calvin’s revision (BGen 1546; cf. BB, *4v, 5v). Konrad Górski claimed (cf. Kwilecka: 2006, 114) that the Pińczów Bible was dependent on the French Bible by Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples of 1530 (La Saincte Bible: 1530). However, Irena Kwilecka (1992, 284f; 1999; 2001a, 1533; 2006, 117) showed that it was the Calvinist Bible published by Robert Estienne in 1553 (BGen 1553). These opinions are also repeated by other researchers (Półćwiartek-Dremierre: 2016, 231). But are they right? The introduction to the Brest Bible states that from the Bible in French mainly commentary notes were taken. A brief comparison of the notes from the aforementioned editions with those from the Brest Bible challenges these propositions. The editions of 1530, 1546 and 1553 contain very modest notes, usually references to parallel places, and they definitely do not correspond to those from the Brest Bible. The author’s own research indicates unambiguously that the notes from the Brest Bible originate from the Geneva Bible published by Nicolas Barbier and Thomas Courteau in 1559 (BGen 1559; see 3.5; cf. 1.3.2.5). The authors of the foreword did not leave more clues about the role of modern translations in the preparation of the Brest Bible, but knowing that German speakers (Jerzy Schomann) were also part of the close team, it is easy to guess that the translators also used the then popular Luther translation. Another Polish translator of the Old Testament, Szymon Budny, together with Maciej Kawieczyński, used the German Bible, probably Martin Luther’s (cf. BSzB, b4v, c2r; n. to Gen 24:22, 30:14). Both translators at an early stage of work on the Polish version, while still forming a team, compared the text of the Brest Bible with the German translation and with the Hebrew and Greek original: But when I started analysing this very translation with him [i. e. Kawieczyński – RP], me comparing the text with the Greek New Testament, and he with the German (because he was almost fluent in the language), and the Old Testemaent with the Hebrew version, it soon became clear that the Brest translators failed to fulfil their promise. (Lecz gdym przepatrować on to przekład i z nim samym począł, ja z greckim Nowy Testament znosząc, a on z niemieckiem (bo w tem języku był prawie biegły), a Stary Testemaent z ebrejskiem, tedy się wnet znacznie pokazało, iż brzescy tłumacze swej obietnicy dosyć nie czynili) (BSzB, b1v).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

207

By dividing the Polish text of Scripture into chapters, Budny introduced certain changes, as suggested by eminent philologists and translators: Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Castellion, De Bèze and others (BSzB, c2r). The heresiarch did not point to any specific aids with which he supported himself, although it is not difficult to guess that among them there must have been versions of Scripture elaborated and translated at least by some of the above mentioned people. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, it was probably the aforementioned popular translation of Luther, the French Calvinistic Bible and probably also the French version of the Castellion’s translation (La Bible: 1555), alongside the Latin one (BCa 1554). When translating the Holy Scriptures, the Poles used the Bible in the Czech language, which was closest to them in terms of language and helped them to find the right terminology. The Czech Kralice Bible translated by the Bohemian Brethren played an important role in the translation of the Gdańsk Bible (see 2.2.2; cf. Sipayłłówna: 1934, 151; Szeruda: 1985; Patalon: 2000, 26, 43ff; Kwilecka: 2006, 117). Mikołajewski probably used other national versions as well. Some of the notes marked with symbol “I.” (see 3.4.4), contain variants that cannot be found in Polish translations.44 They probably came from translations into national languages, which today are difficult to identify accurately.45

3.4.6 Grammars, dictionaries and other philological aids When translating the original Scripture texts, appropriate grammar and dictionaries are necessary. They were also used by Polish Renaissance translators. Some of them left traces of their translation methods and Hebraistic sources in their notes and commentaries. Budny had to learn Hebrew from the then popular grammars for Christians. Therefore, he used grammatical terminology taken from textbooks. For example, criticizing the Brest translation of Exod 18:2–3 he wrote: “But the Hebrew language differentiates between affixa (as they are called) masculina and affixa foeminina. Here indeed is affixum foeminum. (Lecz w piśmie hywrejskiem znaczne są affixa [jako je zową] masculina, znaczne też affixa foeminina. Tu zaiste jest affixum foemininum.)” (BSzB, c2v; see also n. to Gen 2:8). Also, when the heresiarch proposed to the reader to pronounce the name of Patriarch Abram (‫)א ְב ָרם‬ ַ as “Avram”, he justified this choice by means of professional terminology: “It should be pronounced Avram not Abram, because there is no Dagesz here. (Tak ma być czytano Awram nie Abram, ponieważ Dagesz nie masz.)” (BSzB, n. to Gen 11:26). 44 E.g. BG, n. to: Gen 30:11, 35:18, Neh 5:8.13, 8:9. 45 Cf. also examples 3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13 (3.5).

208

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Wujek often took advantage of his Hebrew skills. He drew on grammars, which he sometimes quoted in Latin, but he did not always give accurate bibliographic data. He analyzed the meaning of Hebrew words (e. g., BWj., n. to Exod 2:22; com. to Gen 6:14 and Exod 2:21), which implies that he also looked into the dictionaries of that time. As part of his grammatical aid, Wujek surely used the Institutiones linguae hebraicae, a grammar by Robert Bellarmine, which he quoted with bibliographic notes (e. g. PsWj, 25). In his commentaries he referred to Elias Levita’s lexicographic work Tishbi published by Paul Fagius (Levita: 1541b; cf.  NTWj 1593, com. to Matt 16:18). In Wujek’s commentaries one can sometimes discover traces of the use of other Hebrew aids, such as the popular sixteenth century HebrewLatin dictionaries, which can be seen in the commentary to Gen 30:33: So [Gen – RP] 31. ver. 9. reads: God took away all your father’s possessions and gave me; where the Jewish word ‫[ נאצל‬sic, should be ‫נצל‬ – RP] Natsal means that we take away what another unjustly grabbed. (Przetóż [Gen – RP] 31. ver. 9. tak mówi: Odjął Bóg wszytek dobytek ojca waszego i dał mi; gdzie słowo żydowskie ‫ נאצל‬Natsal, własnie znaczy kiedy to odbieramy, co drugi niesprawiedliwie zatrzymał.)

This note is very similar to point 4 to the entry ‫ נצל‬from the then Hebrew-Latin dictionaries: Significat etiam aufferre [sic] vel spoliare, seu diripere. Geñ. 31[:9 – RP]. Tulitque deus substantiam patris vestri et debit mihi. Et in eodem [Gen 31:16 – RP]. Sed deus tulit opes patris nostris et eas tradidit nobis (Vocabolarium 1515, CIIr; cf. Reuchlin: 1506, 333).

Also in Mikołajewski there are traces of using philological aids. For example, to Job 42:11 (“i dał mu każdy z nich a upominek jeden [and each of them gave him a one gift]”) he added note a: “I. Iagnię. I. Pieniądz. (Others: Lamb. Others: Money.)”. The difference in translation comes from the fact that the meaning of word ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ְק ִׂש‬ is uncertain (cf. WSHP 2, 208 [no. 8349]). According to the Hebrew-Latin dictionary from the Complutensian Poliglot (Vocabolarium 1515, CXLIVv), it means agnes (‘lamb’) or ovis (‘sheep’), but Reuchin (1506, 479f) prefers the meaning of nummus, obulus (a monetary unit). Sepher ha-Shorashim (Münster: 1535, Y4v) gives both meanings. The Septuagint translates the word as ἀμνάδα (‘lamb’) and the Vulgate as ovem (‘sheep’). The Brest Bible has here: “upominki (souvenirs)” (with n.: “W greckim stoi owce. [It means sheep in Greek.]”); Budny’s Bible has “złoty” (Polish monetary unit); Wujek’s Bible – “owcę (sheep)” (with n.: “złoty”).46

46 Cf. also examples 1, 2, 4, 19 (3.5).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

209

3.4.7 Jewish sources Polish Bible translators also referred to rabbinical literature in their commentaries, but they did so in a very general way. A reference to Jewish exegesis can be found in the Brest Bible already in the first note commenting on Gen 1:1: “Pierwsza ta kapituła ma w sobie trudności nie mało. A przetoż między Żydy zakazano było, aby jej nikt nie czytał, ani wykładał przed tym niż mu trzydzieści lat było. (This first chapter suffered numerous difficulties. And so among the Jews it was forbidden for anyone to read it or interpret it before he was thirty years old.)”47 The Pińczów translators also introduced the readers to other Jewish customs. For example, in the commentary to Gen 1:5: “Stąd to Żydowie biorą, iż dzień przyro�dzony od wieczornego zmierzkania poczynają. (It is from here that the Jews count the day from the evening dusk.)”48 In a note “A” to Hos 1:2 (“Idź, a A weźmi sobie żonę nierządnicę. [Go, and A take a prostitute for a wife.]”) the translators use the interpretations of Jewish scholars: the Jewish learned scholars teach that this happened in a prophetic vision and sleep, and not really or effectively. And by this vision, as if by a sign the Lord God had declared to the prophet the condition of his people, having the prostitute embody the Jewish synagogue, and by her sons He meant those whom she had taught the wicked sin of idolatry, after which they followed. (nauczeńszy doktorowie żydowscy wykładają, iż się to stało w widzeniu prorockim i przez sen, a nie istotnie abo skutecznie. A tym widzeniem, jakoby niejakim znakiem Pan Bóg oznajmił prorokowi stan ludu swego, dawając znać przez nierządnicę o bożnicy żydowskiej, a przez syny rozumie ty, których ona nauczyła przemierżtego grzechu bałwochwalstwa, za którym oni się udali.)49

However, it is not known to what extent the Pińczów group used Jewish writings directly, and to what extent they used publications printed in Western Europe. Some of their notes containing references to rabbis are repeated in the Stephanus Bible and the Calvinist Bible (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1547).50 They very rarely quote Jewish scholars by name, such as Ibn Ezra (in BB: Aben Ezra).51 Budny (BSzB, b4r) also drew on the works of rabbis in his translation, marking on their margins the way they interpreted difficult texts: “Nevertheless, know that where any word or verse are translated differently by Jewish rabbis or whoever else did the translation, we marked such disagreement in the margins. (Mimo to 47 Other general references to Jewish exegesis: BB, n. to: Lev 11:22, 12:2. 48 Similar n. to Gen 1:8 in BSzB. 49 This commentary on Hos 1:2 was known to Wujek, who argued with the conviction of the Jewish scholars expressed here. He believed that the scene described here did not take place in a vision or sleep, but in reality. Cf. BGen 1559. 50 Cf. e. g. n. to Judg 16:1 in BB and BSt. 51 Cf. e. g. n. to Exod 13:19 in BB and BGen 1559.

210

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

wiedz, iż gdzie które słowo, albo wirsz różno tłumacze, bądź żydowscy rabinowie, bądź którzy inni tłumaczą, tedy takową niezgodę po stronach znaczyliśmy.)” The translator referred to the rabbis most often collectively, in general terms, such as “co piszą żydowscy rabinowie (what the Jewish rabbis write)” (BSzB, n. to Gen 2:19). He very rarely quoted their names. Budny utilised the writings of the rabbis when he solved problems related to the Hebrew text. E.g., in 2 Kings 8:15 (“A nazajutrz wziął kołdrę i namoczył w wodzie i rozpostarł na obliczu jego, a [tak] umarł, a Chazahel królował miasto jego. [And the next day he took the quilt and soaked it in water and spread it on his face, and thus died, and Hazahel reigned instead of him]”) in the Hebrew text the expression ‫ל־פנָ יו‬ ָ ‫ ַע‬can be interpret as both ‘on his own (King Ben-Hadadad’s) face’, and ‘on his (Hazahel’s) face’. Budny noted these two possibilities and resolved his doubts, resorting to the commentary of Joseph Flavius (Ant. 9:92) and Rabbi Kimchi (probably David): “Abo na obliczu swoim, acz Kimchi i Józef historyk o Chazahelu rozumieją. (Or on his face, which Kimchi and Joseph interpret as that of Hazahel’s.)”52 Sometimes he argued with the Jews on a grammatical and theological level. For example, he explained why the word ‫( ָה ָא ָדם‬with an article) in Gen 2:19 is twice translated as “Adam” and not as ‘man’: “albo człowiek, bo to jedno: Adam po hiwrejsku, a po naszemu człowiek. Acz wiem, co piszą żydowscy rabinowie, iż własnym imionom nie bywają przydane artykuły, ale się inaczej w Piśmie Ś[więtym]. (or man, because it is one thing: Adam in Hebrew, and man in our own language. But I know what the Jewish rabbis write, that articles are not used with proper names, but the Scriptures prove otherwise.)”53 When commenting on the pronunciation of some Hebrew words, he also referred to oral sources: “Żydowie polscy dzisiejszy czytają. (Polish Jews read it today.)”, “Jewrejczycy dzisjeszy wymowiają (the Jews pronounce it today)” (BSzB, n. to Gen 3:20, 4:2). Wujek often referred to various Jewish interpretations, usually in a collective manner referring to “doktorowie żydowscy (Jewish doctors)”, “rabini żydowscy (Jewish rabbis)” or simply “Żydzi (Jews).”54 He also very often reached for Jewish exegesis through St Jerome, who in his works provided the opinions of his contemporary inhabitants of the Palestine.55 In other places, the Biblicist from Wągrowiec also quoted the views of the “nowotni (new)”, i. e. his contemporary Jews.56 Sometimes he quoted rabbinical works more accurately, e. g. in the commentary to Gen 14:18 he referred to the Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Wujek used the teachings of rabbis when he encouraged to read the Psalter:

52 For other examples of referring to rabbis, see e. g. BSzB, n. to Gen 4:26, Exod 13:16. 53 Another example of Budny’s polemic with the Jews: BSzB, n. to Exod 16:15. 54 E.g. BWj, com. to: Gen 4:23, 5:29, 14:18, 49:10, Isa 7:14. 55 E.g. cf. BWj, com. to Gen 24:43, n. to Gen 36:33 and PL 23, 1024, 1045. 56 E.g. BWj, com. to: Gen 36:14, 37:35, Exod 6:3 (first com.), Josh 2:1.

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

211

And not only our scholars, but also the old and learned Jewish rabbis praise psalms for the abundance of the prominent and divine things, with which, as the meadow with all sorts of most beautiful and scented flowers, they are almost filled ‫( תלים‬sic) ‫ ספר‬Sepher Thillim, that is, the books of barns, because they store an opulence of pious and spiritual things in them. (A nie tylko naszy doktorowie, ale i oni starzy a uczeni żydowscy rabbinowie tak psalmy wysławiają, że je dla obfitości znamienitych a Boskich rzeczy, którymi jako naweselsza łąka wszelakimi napiękniejszymi i nawonniejszymi kwiatami ozdobiona, są prawie napełnione, ‫( תלים‬sic) ‫ ספר‬Sepher Thillim, to jest księgi słogów, abo brogów nazywają, iż wielką moc wszech rzeczy pobożnych i duchowych w sobie zamykają.) (PsWj, 20; cf. 24).

In his translations, Wujek used the Jewish practice of replacing the tetragram (‫)יהוה‬ with the word the Lord (‫)אדוני‬: And know this too, beloved Reader, that wherever in the psalms the ineffable and own name of God ‫ יהוה‬occures, which is now commonly read Iehovah, they replace it with the LORD, of the LORD, for the LORD, the LORD’s, etc. […]. Because and seventy translators everywhere translated with κύριος, and into Latin with Dominus, and St Jerome and Origen and all the other older doctors translated this very name of God ‫ יהוה‬by the name of ‫ אדוני‬Adonai, which also means the Lord, the way the Jews did, and writing about God’s names and translating them, on purpose never mentioned Jehovah. Moreover, those who placed points under the Hebrew letters, not knowing the pronunciation of this name, other points, that is, taken from the other name (Adonai) used so that it could be read Adonai. (Jeszcze i to wiedz, Czytelniku miły, że kędykol�wiek jest w psalmiech ono niewymowne a własne imię Boże ‫יהוה‬, które teraz pospoli�cie Iehovah czytają, tamem je wyraził tym słowem PAN, PANA, PANU, PAŃSKI etc. […]. Ponieważ i LXX. tłumaczów wszędy je κύριος, a nasz łaciński, Dominus, to jest Pan, przełożyli. I Hieronim ś[więty] i Origenes i inni wszytcy nastarszy doktorowie, toż imię Boże ‫ יהוה‬przez imię ‫ אדוני‬Adonai, co także Pana znaczy, z żydowskiego wszędy wyrazili, i namyślnie pisząc o imionach Bożych, i wykładając je, nigdy tego Jehowy nie wspominali. Nad to i ci sami, którzy punkty pod litery żydowskie naprzód podłożyli, niewiedząc własnej pronuncjacjej abo wysłowienia imienia tego, cudze punkty, to jest inego imienia (Adonai) pod nie podpisali, aby je czytano Adonai.) (PsWj, 24; cf. BWj, com. to Gen 2:4).

Polish translators did not accept the opinions of Jewish rabbis uncritically. Sometimes they followed the interpretation proposed by the Jews, but in many cases they were also critical of them. Wujek was most critical of the Hebrew teachings. For example, commenting on the use of the plural in Gen 1:26 (“Uczyńmy człow�ieka na wyobrażenie i podobieństwo nasze. [Let us make man in our image and likeness.]”), after the teaching of the Fathers of the Church he saw here a revelation of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and not, like the Jews, a mere application of the so-called pluralis maiestiaticus:

212

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

And far less probable is the Jewish interpretation that God when spoke of Himself, used the royal plural for the sake of His majesty. Should it be the truth, then he would have spoken in this way everywhere or often, especially where he showed his magnificence and majesty to the people. (A daleko mniej tu miejsce mieć może on wykręt żydowski, żeby to Bóg sam o sobie, jako o wielu, dla powagi po królewsku mówił. Bo by to była prawda, tedy był miał tymże sposobem abo wszędy, abo często mówić, a zwłaszcza tam, gdzie powagę i majestat swój ludziom pokazował.) (BWj, com. to Gen 1:26; cf. com. to Isa 7:14).57

3.4.8 Josephus Flavius A special place among Jewish sources used by Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible was occupied by the historical works of Josephus Flavius (mainly Antiquitates Judaicae).58 His works contain explanations of the realities of the Biblical world, give the etymology of proper names of places and people, provide topographic clues and comment on the described historical events in greater detail (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1549). The works of this Jewish historian were eagerly utilised by translators from Pińczów.59 Some of their notes referring to Antiquitates have their equivalents in the Calvinistic French Bible, the Stephanus Bible and the Castellion Bible.60 Similar notes referring to Josephus Flavius, sometimes in the same places as in the Brest Bible, can be found in the Nesvizh Bible61 and in Wujek’s Bible.62 They are provided with general reference such as: “Józef historyk (Joseph the Historian)”,63 “Iosephus”.64 Sometimes the translators quote Flavius very precisely, with the title of the work, book and chapter.65

57 Cf. also example 2, 7, 8, 11, 20 (3.5). 58 The first edition of the printed work of Josephus Flavius in the Greek original is the work of Arnoldus Peraxylus Arenius. It was published in Basel in 1544. The next edition, the work of Petrus Rouerian, was published in 1611 in Cologne. Flavius’s works were often published in Latin translations (e. g. between 1460 and 1524 – seventeen editions) and were also available in translations into national languages. They were also popular in Poland (cf. Dąbrowski: 1993, 65–89). 59 E.g. BB, n. to: Gen 2:12, 23:15, Exod 1:15, 2:15, 25:18, Deut 28:53, Judg 6:3, 14:12, Ruth 1:1, 2 Sam 5:6, 8:18, 1 Kings 7:26, 2 Kings 4:1, 8:15, 17:24, Ezek 38:2, Dan 3:1; cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1547–1552. 60 For example: in BGen 1559 there are n. to: Gen 2:12, 23:15, 1 Kings 7:26, Dan 3:1 (even the chapter numbers are copied here); in BSt there are n. to: Gen 23:15, Ezek 38:2; in BCa is n. to: Jude 6:3; cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1549–1552. 61 E.g. n. to: Judg 6:3, 2 Sam 5:6, 2 Kings 8:15, Ezek 38:2. 62 E.g. BWj, com. to Ezek 38:2. 63 BSzB, n. to Judg 6:3, Ezek 38:2. 64 BWj, com. to Gen 49:10, Ezek 38:2. 65 E.g. BWj, com. to Gen 20:12. Cf. also examples 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 (3.5)

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

213

3.4.9 Other aids Most of the traces of what was used in the translation work were left by Wujek, who used very rich sources to translate and comment on psalms. He drew on Protestant and Catholic translations and commentaries, comparing them with the Vulgate, Septuagint and original texts (cf. PsWj, 2f). He made use of the Latin translation of Psalms by Felix Prato, published in 1515 by Bomberg, of Psalterium octaplum by Agostino Giustiniani (Genoa 1516), of the Basel edition of Quadruplex Psalterium with a foreword by Bruno Amorbachus (1485–1565), and of the commentary on the Psalms by Gilbert Génébrard.66 Wujek also utilised the work of Franciscus Titelmans (1498–1537), In omnes Psalmos Davidicos exactissima enarratio (Cologne 1544 – VD 16, no. T1386), the Latin Psalter elaborated by Cornelius Jansen the Elder (1510–1576), which was first published in Leuven in 1569 as Paraphrases in omnes Psalmos Davidicos,67 Psalterium Davidis ad Hebraicam Veritatem interpretatum in Conrad Pellican’s68 Latin translation and a paraphrase of psalms by Jan van den Campen (cf. PsWj, 8, 14). He drew on the works of the eminent Italian Hebraist, exegete and text critic Agostino Eugubinus (Steuco) (1497–1548),69 and on the paraphrases of psalms by another Italian humanist, Marcantonio Flaminio (1498–1550).70 Commenting on Ps 69, he utilised Matthias Bredenbach’s study (1499–1559).71 Among Polish translations of the Psalms he used the Brest Bible, Budny’s Bible and the rhymed translation of Jan Kochanowski (cf. PsWj, 6). 66 Cf. PsWj, 8, 14f; com. to Ps 2:6; BWj, com. to Ps 2:6. 67 K. Jansen, Bishop of Hulst (Flanders), Biblicist, participant of the Council of Trent, author of numerous exegetic works, educated in Ghent and Leuven, where he taught exegesis (cf. Koza: 1997, 988f; PsWj, 8, 14). 68 Wujek (PsWj, 11) quoted an excerpt from Pellican’s foreword to the Psalter, described as: “ad veritatem Hebraicam, translated by him according to Hebrew truth (ad veritatem Hebraicam, według hebrajskiej prawdy od niego przełożony).” The edition was not established. Perhaps this is vol. 4 of the Bible, which appeared in Zurich in 1534 and which also contained Ps (VD 16, no. B2601). Pellican released several editions of the Psalter: Strasbourg 1527 (VD 16, no. B3144) and Zurich 1532 (VD 16, no. B3152), 1540 (VD 16, no. B2615). 69 An Augustinian, Italian humanist and polemicist, counter-reformation activist, outstanding expert in Biblical languages, educated in Bologna. Author of commentaries on Psalms. Wujek could use his work: Recognitio Veteris Testamenti ad Hebraicam veritatem, collata etiam editione Septuaginta interprete cum ipsa veritate Hebraica, nostra que translatione, cum expositione Hebraeorum, ac Graecorum, qui passim toto opere citantur: ubi quantum fieri potest, monstrantur loci, qui in editione Latina et Graeca discrepant a codicibus Hebraeorum, Venetiis 1529; or his commentaries on Psalms, e. g.: In Psalmum XVIII et CXXXVIII interpretatio, Lugduni 1533. 70 An eminent Italian humanist and author of 32 paraphrases of the Psalms, which were published between 1536 and 1538. He was inclined to the Reformation, but never openly joined it. Before his death he made a confession of the Catholic faith (cf. Gleason: 1996, 112f; Moss: 1991, 105f; PsWj, 14). 71 In LXIX. Psalmos seu Hymnos Prophetae Davidis priores, et in Sanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, erudita, catholica et pia Commentaria. Secundum Hebraicam Veritatem Orthodoxorum patrum monumenta […] elucubrata, Coloniae 1560 (VD 16, no. B3451; cf. PsWj, 14).

214

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

The Biblicist of Wągrowiec also took into account the theological works popular in his times. For example, when explaining the origin of God’s name Iehova, he relied on De S. Trinitate by Gilbert Génébrard.72 He also referred to St Thomas of Aquinas (e. g. BWj, com. to Gen 6:2). In Wujek’s commentaries there are references to the documents of the councils and synods of the Catholic Church, as far as ancient times are concerned, sometimes repeated after the fathers of the Church (e. g. BWj, com. to: Gen 1:26, 11:7, 19:24). In his polemics with the “nowowierniki (new believers)”, Wujek also drew on their works, which he sometimes quoted, giving bibliographical references. For example, he quoted Calvin’s commentary to Gen (BWj, com. to Gen 3:15). Wujek very often referred to the fathers of the Church, Christian writers, ancient historians, other ancient writers (also pagan) and Christian medieval writers and his contemporaries. The list of these authors is very long: Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE; e. g. PsWj, 4), St Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), St Clement I Pope (88–99), St Justin Martyr (100–165), St Irenaeus (d. 202), Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265–339/340), St Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), St Jerome, St Augustine (354–430), Dionysius the Areopagite (first century CE) (Pseudo–Dionysius the Areopagite), St Basil the Great (329/330–379), St Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090–1153), St Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735), Alcuin of York (c. 735–804) and many others. In fact, under every wider and more important interpretation of the text, Wujek placed many quotations from the works of the fathers and other writers.73 He also used classical works, such as Naturalis historiae by Pliny the Elder (d. 79).74 However, the question must be asked here: Did Wujek draw directly from these works or did he borrow relevant texts from the studies? So far, no one has conducted systematic research in this area on Wujek’s commentaries to the Old Testament, but there is such research on the New Testament (Nicko-Stępień: 2017a; 2017b; 2018). They have shown that the commentaries in Wujek’s Bible are largely a compilation of various elaborations. As for the concordances and notes on criticism of the text, Wujek transferred them from the Leuven Vulgate (Biblia Sacra: 1574) and the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, and he often translated the comments from the English New Testament issued by Jean I de Foigny in Reims in 1582 (BI, no. 3930) and from Disputationes by Robert Bellarmine. Research has shown that Wujek copied from these studies quotations from the Church Fathers together with 72 De S. Trinitate libri tres contra hujus aevi trinitarios, antitrinitarios et autotheanos, G. Genebrardo, […] auctore. His praeposita est summa sessionum Synodi quam triennio superiore ministri Poloni cum trinitariis Petricoviae habuerunt, ex alicujus amici Poloni epistola. Tertio libro Symbolum s. Athanasii exponitur et a contumeliis Valentini Gentilis vindicatur…, Parisiis 1569, 1585. Génébrard and Bellarmine derived the name Iehova from the name of the Greek god Jupiter (cf. PsWj, 25). 73 E.g. PsWj, 3f, 19f, 22ff; BWj, com. to: Gen 1–11; 41:45; Exod 12:40. 74 BWj, com. to Gen 30:14; a. Gen 50 (BWj, 61).

Sources of Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

215

their bibliographical notes. There is a high probability that the same was true for the notes and comments to the Old Testament. Drawing on the writings of the Church Fathers was not limited to theological knowledge of dogma and morality. Wujek also benefited from the Hebraist knowledge of old Christian writers, especially St Hieronymus.75 After the Fathers he also quoted ancient Greek versions of Symmachus and Aquila (see 3.4.2). Other Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible also quote the Church Fathers, although much less frequently than Wujek. For example, in the Brest Bible we find notes referring to St Augustine (e. g. BB, n. to Gen 6:15).76 Daniel Mikołajewski has left the least information about the aids used in translation and commentary works in his Bible edition. In The Explanation of the letters and signs (Objaśnienie liter i znaków) with which he marked the various kinds of notes, he only pointed out very generally at his methodology: “G. in the Greek language; H. in the Hebrew or in the Jewish language; I. – others translate it thus; K. in Chaldaic; L. in Latin. (G. w greckim języku; H. w hebrajskim, albo w żydowskim języku; I. – inni tak tłumaczą; K. w chaldejskim języku; L. w łacińskim języku.)” (BG, ):( 5v). “K.” are Aramaic passages in the Hebrew Bible,77 rather than Targumim. “G.” notes appear where the translator translates directly from the Greek Septuagint, that is, in the apocrypha and the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.78 Notes marked as “L.” appear in the Old Testament very rarely, e. g. in 4 Ezra, where the translation was based on a Latin text.79 Jan Szeruda (1985, 14; cf. Patalon: 2000, 26, 43ff; Kwilecka: 2006, 117) gave a very long list of aids supposedly used by Mikołajewski. These are, among others, Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, Leuven Bible, Targumim, Vulgate, Pagnini’s translation, previous Polish translations especially with the Brest Bible of course, Luther’s and Olivétan’s translations and the Czech Bible of Kralice and many others. However, despite this researcher’s assurances, it is not possible to reconstruct in more detail the list of items used by Mikołajewski on the basis of marginal notes alone, which, as we have seen, are very modest. This does not mean, however, that Szeruda’s predictions should be denied because even knowing briefly the methodology of earlier translators, we are able to reconstruct, at least in general outlines, the contents of the library of the last of the Polish Renaissance Hebraists who left behind a translation of the entire Old Testament from the original languages.

75 Cf. BWj, com. to Gen 31:19; 31:46f; 32:28; 37:28 and PL 23, 1037ff, 1045. 76 Cf. also examples 2, 11, 12, 13 (3.5). 77 E. g. BG, n. to: Ezra 4:14, 7:22.25, Dan 2:28.30, 4:16, 7:9. 78 E.g. BG, n. to: Esther 14:5, Wis 3:18, Sir 15:14, 17:31, 3 Ezra 5:41, 3 Macc 2:16. 79 E.g. BG, n. to: 4 Ezra 8:2.19.53, 9:1, 10:23, 13:51, 14:18, 15:13.25, 16:37.

216

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Summing up the study on the translation methods and sources of Polish translators of the Hebrew Bible, it should be stated that they drew to a large extent on the work of Western European Hebraists and Biblicists. A huge role in the creation of Polish versions of the Holy Scriptures was played by the aids from Reformed and Lutheran circles: the Latin Bible of Stephanus, the French Calvinist Bible, the translation by Castellion and Luther. From the source texts, the works of Catholic circles come to the fore, especially Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots. The information from rabbinical sources were used rather indirectly. Dictionaries and grammars were important aids. In this way, through translations and notes and comments in the Scriptures, the results of the work of outstanding Western European Hebraists, who, in turn, drew on previous Jewish works, were made available to the Polish reader. Richly elaborated and commented upon bibles in Polish were also a source of information about Jewish culture and customs, and their knowledge helped to understand the sacred texts.

3.5 Examples The title pages and prefaces to subsequent editions of the Bible in Polish contain the translators’ initial assumptions as to the basis and concept of the translation. We will verify the extent to which these assumptions have been achieved, using examples. We will, if needed, also take into account the texts from Leopolita’s Bible to highlight the progress that was made in Renaissance Poland in the field of Bible translations thanks to the return to the original versions of Scripture. While juxtaposing the texts of all five translations, we will pay close attention to their relationship to the Hebrew text, to the Vulgate and to the Septuagint and the Targumim, to verify how the initial assumptions regarding the choice of the basis for the translation were fulfilled. As part of the verification of the translation concept, we will deal with the way selected Hebrew idioms are rendered in Polish, and we will devote some space to the study of the translation of Hebrew syntactic constructions (the narrative sequences of verb forms, conditional and final clauses, etc.). A correct rendering of the Hebrew syntax in the national languages requires a good knowledge of the original language. Such a study will better assess the qualitative reception of the achievements of Western European Christian Hebraism in Poland and show the level of the knowledge of the Hebrew language that Polish Bible translators had. A comparative study of several biblical translations entails a kind of unification of the basis of the translation. The translators used different editions of the original text or took variants from several editions of the same version. The study on the methodology of the Polish translators of the Old Testament suggests the choice of the following editions: for the Hebrew Bible – the second edition of the Rabbinic

Examples

217

Bible (BR2) and the Complutensian (PCo) and Antwerp (PAn) Polyglot; for the Septuagint – also the two polyglots; for the Vulgate – the two polyglots, as well as the so called Stephanus’ Bible (BSt) and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (VlgSC 1592; 1593); for the French Bible: the Lefèvre d’Etaples’s version (La Saincte Bible: 1530), the Olivétan’s Bible (La Bible: 1535) and the Calvinist editions (BGen 1546; 1553; 1559; 1561; 1562); for Targumim – the Rabbinic Bible (BR2), both polyglots and an auxiliary Latin translation of Targum Onkelos by Paul Fagius (Thargum: 1546); for the Bible translated by Castellion – Basel editions (BCa 1554; 1556); for the Santes Pagnini translation – the first edition of his Bible (Pag) and reprints in the Stephanus Bible (PagSt) and in the Antwerp Polyglot (PagAn). In the examples we quote the texts according to the Antwerp Polyglot (for the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and Targumim) and the Stephanus Bible (for the Vulgate and Pagnini translation). We will compare the text variants, highlighting significant differences in footnotes.

Example 1: Gen 12:6 BH: ‫מֹורה וְ ַה ְּכנַ ֲענִ י ָאז ָּב ָא ֶרץ׃‬ ֑ ֶ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר ַא ְב ָרם ָּב ָא ֶרץ ַעד ְמקֹום ְׁש ֶכם ַעד ֵאלֹון‬ TgOnk: 80 ‫ּוכנַ ֲענָ ָאה ְּב ֵכין ָׁש ֵרי ְּב ַא ְר ָעא׃‬ ְ ‫מֹורה‬ ֶ ‫ישר‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲע ַבר ַא ְב ָרם ְּב ַא ְר ָעא ַעד ֲא ַתר ְׁש ֶכם ַעד ֵמ‬

LXX: καὶ διώδευσεν ἅβραμ τὴν γῆν ἕως τοῦ τόπου συχέμ, ἐπὶ τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν. οἱ δὲ χαναναῖοι τότε κατῴκουν τὴν γῆν. Vlg: Pertransivit Abram terram usque ad locum Sichem, et81 usque ad Convallem illustrem. Chananaeus autem tunc erat in terra. PagSt: Et transivit Abram in terram illam82 usque ad locum ‫ׁש‬Sechém, usque ad quercum moréh. Porro Chena‫ע‬anaeus83 tunc erat in terra.

80 BR2 has in this place ‫ּב ֵכן ְּב ַא ְר ָעא‬.ְ In BR2 and PCo slight differences in vocalisation can be noticed. Latin translations: “Et pertransivit Abram per terram usque ad locum Sichem, usque ad planiciem More. Chananaeus autem tunc morabatur in terra” (PCo; PAn); “Et transivit Abram in terram usque ad locum Schechem, usque ad planiciem Moreh: et Chenanaeus tunc erat in terra” (TgF). 81 VlgSC has no “et”. 82 Pag has no “illam”. 83 Pag has “Et Chenahanaeus”. In BSt the Hebrew names with guttural consonants were difficult to transkript; Robert Estienne used the square script even in the middle of a word (e. g. “­Chena‫ע‬anaeus” and “‫ׁש‬Sechém”).

218

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BL: A gdy przyszli do niej, przeszedł Abram ziemię aż do miejsca Sychem, i aż do padołu jasnego. A Chananejski lud na ten czas był w ziemi. (And when they came to it, Abram walked the land to the place of Sichem, and to the bright vale. And the Canaanite people were in the land at the time.) BB: Tedy Abram przeszedł przez ziemię onę aż do Sychem, a aż w równiny More; gdzie na ten czas w onej ziemi byli Chananejczycy. (Then Abram passed through the land up to Sichem, and into the plains of Moreh; where in that time the Canaanites were in that land). BSzB: I przeszedł Abram przez ziemię aż do miejsca Szechem n do równiny Moreha, a Kenahan tedy (już był) w ziemi. (And Abram walked through the land to a place called Shechem n to the plain of Moreh, and Kenahan was [already] in the land). n.: Albo do dębu, jeślibyś czytał Allon, a nie Elon. (Or to the oak if you read Allon and not Elon).

BWj: Przeszedł Abram ziemię aż do miejsca Sichem, aż ″ do Jasnej doliny, a Chananejczyk tedy był w ziemi. (Abram walked the land to the place of Sichem, until ″ to the Bright Valley, and the Canaanite were in the land then.) n.: do dębu More H. do dębu wysokiego. G. (to the oak More H. to a tall oak. G).

BG: Tedy przeszedł Abram ziemię onę aż do miejsca Sychem, i aż do równiny Morech; a Chananejczyk na ten czas był w onej ziemi. (Then Abram walked through the land up to the place of Sichem, and to the plain of Moreh; and the Canaanite was in the land at that time.) The Hebrew phrase ‫מֹורה‬ ֶ ‫‘( ֵאלֹון‬oak/terebinth Moreh’) is difficult to translate and it was translated differently in ancient versions. Targum Onkelos has here ‫מֹורה‬ ֶ ‫ישר‬ ַ ‫‘ ֵמ‬Plain Moreh’), Septuagint – τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν (‘high oak’), the Vulgate – “convallem illustrem”. Targum translated the word ‫ ֵאלֹון‬as ‫יׁשר‬ ַ ‫מ‬, ֵ certainly to avoid the idolatrous associations (‫ ֵאלֹון‬also meant a cult tree; cf.  WSHP 1, 52 [no. 483]; Speiser: 1964, 86). Maybe that is where the Vulgate version comes from. The Hebrew-Latin dictionary Sepher ha-Shorashim (Münster: 1535, c7v–8r; cf. Reuchlin: 1506, 56; Vocabolarium 1515, VIr) in the first place gave the meaning of the word ‫ ֵאלֹון‬as ‘convallis’, ‘planicies’ (‘valley’, ‘plain’), pointing to Gen 12:6, among other things, and then added: Item ‫ ַאלֹון‬84 Rabi David Kimhi ubique interpretatur castaneam […]. In radicibus tamen dicit esse arborem vulgo ‫ פין‬pinum vocatam. Transaltio autem nostra quandoque habet arbor, quandoque quercus. 84 Correctly ‫אּלו ֺן‬. ַ

219

Examples

Of course, in this case both vocalisations are possible, as Budny, who must have had contemporary dictionaries, remarked in his note. The version of the Vulgate defining a valley with the word “illustris” has the translation into Polish: “padół jasny (bright vale)” (BL) and “jasna dolina (bright valley)” (BWj). The translation of the word ‫מֹורה‬ ֶ (literally: ‘instruction’; root ‫ )ירה‬as “illustris” probably comes from the root of the name, which in hiphil means ‘teach’ – hence the word could be interpreted as ‘instruct’, ‘enlighten’ (someone).

Example 2: Gen 24:43 and Isa 7:14 BH: Gen 24:43: ‫ל־עין ַה ָ ּ֑מיִ ם וְ ָהיָ ה ָ ֽה ַע ְל ָמה ַהּי ֵֹצאת ִל ְׁשאֹב‬ ֵ ‫ִהּנֵ ה ָאנ ִֹכי נִ ָּצב ַע‬ ‫ט־מיִ ם ִמ ַּכ ֵ ּֽדְך׃‬ ַ ‫יה ַה �ׁש ִ ְֽקינִ י־נָ א ְמ ַע‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ֵא ֶל‬ Isa 7:14: ‫נּואל׃‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ָל ֵכן יִ ֵּתן ֲאד ֹנָ י הּוא ָל ֶכם ֑אֹות ִהּנֵ ה ָה ַע ְל ָמה ָה ָרה וְ י ֶֹל ֶדת ֵּבן וְ ָק ָראת ְׁשמֹו ִע ָּמ‬ TgOnk: Gen 24:43:

]…[ ‫ימ ָתא ְד ִתּפֹוק ְל ִמ ְמ ֵלי‬ ְ ‫ּות ֵהי ֻע ֵל‬ ְ ]…[

85

Isa 7:14:

]…[ ‫ּות ִלד ַבר‬ ֵ ‫[…] ָהא ֻע ָל ְמ ָתא ְמ ַע ְדיָ א‬

86

LXX: Gen 24:43: […] καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῆς πόλεως ἐκπορεύονται ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ […] Isa 7:14: […] ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται […] Vlg: Gen 24:43: Ecce sto iuxta fontem aquae, et virgo, quae egredietur ad hauriendam aquam audierit a me, Da mihi pauxillum aquae ad bibendum de hydria87 tua […]

85 In BR2 and PCo there are differences in vocalisation: ‫עּול ְמ ָּתא‬ ֶ (BR2) and ‫ימ ָּתא‬ ְ ‫עּול‬ ֵ (PCo), however, they do not affect the meaning of the word. Latin examples: “et erit puella quae egressa fuerit ad hauriendum” (PCo; PAn); “eritque puella quae egredietur ut hauriat” (TgF – marked as Gen 24:44). 86 In BR2 there are differences in vocalisation: ‫ימ ָתא‬ ְ ‫עּול‬, ֶ however, they do not affect the meaning of the word. Latin examples: “ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium” (PAn). 87 VlgSC has “ex hydria”.

220

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Isa 7:14: Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum: Ecce, virgo concipiet, et pariet filium, et vocabit88 nomen eius Emmanu-el. BB: Gen 24:43: Oto tu stać będę u studniej. A gdzieby wyszła dzieweczka ku czerpa�niu wody, a ja bych jej rzekł: daj mi teraz napić się trochę wody z wiadra twego. (Here I will stand at the well. And where a maiden would go out to draw water, and I would say unto her: Give me now some water from thy bucket.) Isa 7:14: A dlategoż Pan da wam znamię. Oto Panna pocznie a porodzi syna a wzowiesz imię jego Emmanuel. (And therefore the Lord will give you a sign. Behold, a Maiden will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Emmanuel.) BSzB: Gen 24:43: Oto ja stoję u studniej, a będzie (isz) dziewica, która wyjdzie czerpać (wody) i rzekę do niej: daj mi proszę trochę wody z wiadra twego, że się napiję. (Behold, I am standing at the well, and there will be that a virgin who will come out to draw [water], and I will say to her: please give me some water from your bucket that I will drink.) Isa 7:14: Przeto da wam Pan sam znamię: Oto ″panna zacznie i urodzi syna i wzowiesz imię jego Himmanu-elem. (So the Lord will give you a sign: ″a maiden will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Himmanu-El.) n.: Pewną białą głowę ukazuje obiecując, iż miała urodzić syna, a nie córkę. Dlatego i to do onejże mówi: nazwiesz imię jego. To jest, ty dziewko. (He indicates a woman, promising she will give birth to a son, not a daughter. That is why he says to her: You will give him this name. That is, you, maid.)

BWj: Gen 24:43: Oto stoję u studniej wody, a panna, która wynidzie czerpać wody, usłyszy odemnie: Daj mi trochę wody pić z wiadra twego […] (Behold, I am standing at the well of water, and the maiden who comes out to draw water will hear from me: Give me some water to drink from your bucket […]) com.: Panna po hebrejsku na tym miejscu ‫[ האלמה‬sic] Alma, które słowo znaczy dziewicę nienaruszoną. I powiada Hieronim ś[więty], iż we wszystkim piśmie Alma zawżdy znaczy Pannę całej czystości. Jest też insze słowo żydowskie ‫ בתולה‬Betula, które może znaczyć tak pannę jako i nie pannę. I przetóż Mojżesz wysszej ver. 16, gdy nazwał Rebekę Betulą, przydał: i nieznająca męża. (A maid in Hebrew in this

88 Text according to BSt. VlgSC has “vocabitur”.

Examples

221

place ‫[ האלמה‬sic, correctly ‫העלמה‬ – RP] Alma, which means an intact virgin. And St Jerome claims that in the whole Scripture Alma always means a pure maiden. There is another Hebrew word ‫ בתולה‬Betula, which not necessarily means a maiden. Hence Moses added above in ver. 16, when he claimed that Rebecca was a Betula, that she knows not man.)

Isa 7:14: Przetoż da wam sam Pan znamię. Oto Panna pocznie i porodzi syna, i nazową imię jego Emanuel. (So the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a Maiden will conceive and give birth to a son, and the name of his will be Emmanuel.) n.: Mat. 1.d 23. Luc. 1.c 31. com.: […] dowodzi tego przeciw Żydom Hieronim ś[więty] in Tradi. Hebr. in Genesim, i lib. 1. contra Iovinieanum, et in Comment. in 7. cap. Isai., iż żydowskie słowo ‫ עלמה‬Alma, nie tylko Pannę, ale więcej jeszcze niż Pannę, to jest Pannę w pilnej straży chowaną i od ludzi niewidaną znaczy. Bo wzięte jest to imię od słowa ‫ עלם‬Alam, to jest skryć, przetóż znaczy jakoby Pannę zamknioną i skrytą. Ani w Piśmie Ś[więtym] inaczej tego słowa używają tylko za Pannę. Gen. 24. Rebeka Panna piękna i nie uznana od męża, także Maria siostra Mojżeszowa Exo. 2. v.8., która na ten czas miała ośm abo dziewięć lat, nazwana jest Alma. Także i Pro. 30. v. 19. A nad to do tego słowa Alma przydana tu jest litera ‫ ה‬He, Halma, co znaczy naczystszą Pannę. Na ostatek i 70. tłumacze i chaldejska parafrasis tak przełożyli: Panna. […] Heretycy pomagając Żydom powiadają, iż tu prorok pokazuje pewną białogłowę, która będąc przed tym Panną, po tym poczęła i porodziła nie córkę, ale syna. Aleć ci jawnie fałszują słowa prorockie. Bo cóżby to za znak był, kiedyby ta, która była Panną, a po tym z męża poczęła i porodziła. (St Jerome claims it against the Jews in Tradi. Hebr. in Genesim, and lib. 1. contra Iovinieanum, et in Comment. in 7. cap. Isai. that the Jewish word ‫ עלמה‬Alma, not merely a Maiden, but more than Maiden, that is a Maiden kept under guard and not seen by people. This name is taken from the word ‫ עלם‬Alam, meaning to hide. It refers to a maiden as if closed and hidden. They never use this word in the Scriptures but to describe a Maiden. Gen. 24. Rebecca was a beautiful Maiden, not knowing a man, also Maria, Moses’a sister Exo. 2 v.8., who was eight or nine years old at the time, is called Alma. And Pro. 30. v. 19. And moreover, to this word Alma, a letter ‫ ה‬He, is added, Halma, which means the purest Maiden. Finally, the 70 translators and the Chaldaic paraphrasis have translated it: Maiden. […] Heretics helping Jews say that here the prophet shows a certain woman, who, being before a Maiden, afterwards conceived and gave birth not to a daughter, but to a son. But they are openly falsifying prophetic words. For what a sign it would be if she who was a Maiden, and after conceived from her husband and gave birth.)

BG: Gen 24:43:Oto ja stoję u studnie wody: niechajże panienka, która wynidzie czerpać wodę, a gdybym jej rzekł: Daj mi proszę napić się trochę wody z w ­ iadra

222

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

twego. (Behold, I am standing at the well of water: let the maid who will come to draw water, and if I tell her: Give me some water from your bucket.) Isa 7:14: Przetoż wam sam PAN znak da. Oto panna pocznie i porodzi syna, a nazowie imię jego Immanuel. (And the LORD himself will give you a sign. A maid will conceive and give birth to a son, and name him Immanuel.) In both examples, translating the word ‫ ָה ַע ְל ָמה‬and explaining its meaning, Wujek uses several Hebrew sources that can be identified. First of all, he drew on the works of St Jerome. Here are two examples of texts that were the primary source for Wujek’s commentary: I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin (virginem), but a young woman (adolescentulam). And, to speak truth, a virgin (virgo) is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin (absconditam virginem), that is, not merely virgin (virginem), but a virgin and something more (non solum virginem, seu cum ἐπιτάσει virginem), because not every virgin (virgo) is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: “And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded (virgo secreta), and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance (St Jerome, Adversus Jovianum I, 32, PL 23, 266; English translation: A Select Library: 1890–1900, 6, 370). Instead of the Latin word adolescentula [i. e., young maiden], and in Greek neani,j, there [Gen 24:43] we read ALMA (‫)עלמה‬, this term is also used by prophet Isaiah. Because that is where our codes read: Behold, a virgin (virgo) will conceive and give birth (Isa 7:14), there Aquila translated: Behold a young girl (adolescentula) will conceive and give birth. But in the Hebrew text it is: Behold alma will conceive and give birth. You should know that the word alma can only refer to a virgin (virgine) and means as much as ἀπόκρυφος, or hidden (abscondita). […] ALMA, which translates as hidden (abscondita) means a girl (virgo) who is protected with excessive care and seems to me to be worthy of more glory than a maiden (virgo). […] According to the characteristics of the Hebrew language, a woman who has the title of hidden (abscondita) is also a virgin (virgo). The one who is a young woman (virgo) need not be hidden (abscondita). In Exodus we read the same word about Maria, Sister of Moses (Exod 2:8) (St Jerome, Quaestiones Hebra-

Examples

223

icae in Genesim, com. to 24:43, PL 23, 1023f; cf. St Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam libri duodeviginti III, com. to 7:14, PL 24, 108).

However, not all the information in the commentary to Gen 24:43 and Isa 7:14 comes from St Jerome. Wujek also claims that “70. tłumacze i chaldejska parafrasis tak przełożyli: Panna. (”70 translators and the Chaldaic paraphrasis have translated it: a Maiden.”). These remarks may be the result of an independent study of ancient versions, which Wujek had in the Anwerp Polyglot, but could also be inspired by the dictionaries of the time. For example, Vocabularium hebraicum from the Complutensian Polyglot places the word ‫ ַע ְל ָמה‬in the entry ‫‘( ָע ַלם‬occultare’, ‘celare’, ‘abscondere’, ‘latere’, ‘despicere’, ‘negligere’) and points to the following meanings of the word: ‘adolescentia’, ‘virgo’, ‘puella’, and adds after St Jerome: “Et inde ‫ ַע ְל ָמה‬Aalma id est virgo abscondita, adolescentula, puella.” The dictionary then gives examples, to which Wujek also referred: Gen 24:43, Exod 2:8, Isa 7:14. The authors of the dictionary, in turn, return to the interpretation of St Jerome (Vocabolarium 1515, CXVIIIv): Alma apud Hebreos verbum ambiguum est: dicitur enim et adolescentula et abscondita, unde et in titulo psalmi noni [Ps 9:1 – RP], ubi in hebreo positum est ‫ ַע ְלמּות‬Aalmuth: ceteri interpretes transtulerunt pro adolescentula: quod LXX. interpretati sunt pro absconditis. Et in Genesi legimus ubi Rebeca dicitur Alma: Aquilam non adolescentulam nec puellam sed absconditam transtulisse.

Other dictionaries popular in the sixteenth century contain further information used by Wujek. For example, in De rudimentis hebraicis (Reuchlin: 1506, 394) one can find information on the translation of the word ‫ ַע ְל ָמה‬in Targumim: ‫ ַע ְל ָמה‬Puella, iuvencula, adulescentula, virgo. Geñ. xxiiij. […], ubi Onkelus chaldaice traduxit puella vel adulescentula. Et Exodi. ij. […] et Isaiae vij. Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, ubi Ionathas chaldaeus eodem ut item vocabulo quo superius Onkelus de Rebecca usus est et Prover. xxx.

In the end, Wujek also reveals his knowledge of the translations and commen­ taries of his predecessors. When writing about “heretics”, he clearly refers to the note to Isa 7:14 from the Nesvitz Bible (BSzB).

Example 3: Exod 2:15 PagST: Audivitque Par‫ע‬oh rem hanc, et quaesivit occidere Mo‫ׁש‬seh: fugit autem Mo‫ׁש‬seh a facie Par‫ע‬oh, et habitavit in terra Midian, ″seditque iuxta puteum. n.: Seditque iuxta puteum […]

224

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BGen 1559: Et Pharao entendant ce cas, cerchoit d’occir Moyse: * mais Moyse s’enfuit de devant Pharao, et habita en la terre de b Madian, et s’assit aupres d’un puits. * Heb. 11.27. n: b: Selon Iosephe, c’est une ville situee pres la mer rouge nommee de Madian, fils d’Abraham et Cetura.

BB: Co usłyszawszy farao chciał go dać stracić, ale Mojżesz uciekł przed faraonem i mieszkał w ziemi B Madjan. A gdy nad studnią siedział […] (Having heard that the Pharaoh wanted to kill him, but Moses escaped from the Pharaoh and lived in the land B Madjan. And when he was sitting at the well […]) n. B: Jako Jozefus pisze: Madian jest miasto nad Czerwonem Morzem, tak nazwane od Madiana syna Abrahamowego z Cetury. (As Josephus writes: Madian is a town by the Red Sea, so named after Madian, the son of Abraham of Keturah.)

BWj: I usłyszał tę mowę Pharaon, i szukał zabić Mojżesza, który uciekszy od oblicza jego mieszkał w ziemi Madijańskiej […] (And Pharaoh heard this speech, and sought to kill Moses, who fleeing from his face, lived in the land of Madian […]) com.: Madijańska ziemia nazwana jest od miasta Madjan, tak rzeczonego, od jednego syna Abrahamowego z Cetury urodzonego. A leżało to miasto nad brzegiem Morza Czerwonego. (The land of Madian is named after the city of Madjan, so named, after one son of Abraham of Keturah. And it was a town on the coast of the Red Sea.)

There is no commentary here in the Nesvizh Bible. The note in the Brest Bible was borrowed from the Geneva Bible (BGen 1559). In the French edition of 1562 (BGen 1562) the same note can be found. The relationship between the notes is obvious. Wujek borrowed the note from the Brest Bible.

Example 4: Lev 1:8 BH:

‫ת־ה ָ ּ֑פ ֶדר‬ ַ ‫ת־הרֹאׁש וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָע ְרכּו ְּבנֵ י ַא ֲהר ֹן ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ֵאת ַהּנְ ָת ִחים ֶא‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵ ּֽב ַח׃‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ֵאׁש ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ֵע ִצים ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ָ ‫ַע‬

Vlg: Et membra quae sunt caesa, desuper ordinantes, caput videlicet, et cuncta quae adhaerent iecori BCa 1556: ex frustis caput et sebum super ligna igni imposita congerunto.

Examples

225

PagSt: Post haec disponent filii Aharon sacerdotes frusta illa, caput, ″et adipem super ligna superposita igniqui est super altare89. com.: Et adipem ‫ ואת־הפדר‬Vocem istam bifariam exponunt Hebraei. Veteres enim illorum per ‫ נוף‬quod corpus seu truncum corporis significat, interpretantur. Atque haec interpretatio magis congruere videtur, eo quod quum Scriptura postea de adipibus loquitur, alio utitur vacabulo: et quod in holocausto, non adeps tantum, aut reticulum hepatis, sed totum corpus vituli una cum capite impositum fuit igni super ligna: cui etiam imponebantur crura prius a corpore.

BGen 1561: Si ordonneront les fils d’Aaron sacrificateurs les pieces, la teste, et r la taye sur le bois qui sera au feu feu sur l’autel. n. r: c.[’est] Ceest graisse qui covure la fressure de la beste. On l’a nommé communément coiffe.

BB: Potym Synowie Aaronowi kapłani składą rządnie ony sztuki, głowę i E tłustość, na drwa składzione na ogniu, który jest na ołtarzu. (Then the Sons of Aaron, the priests, will lay in order those pieces, the head, and E the fat, on the wood laid down on the fire that is on the altar.) n. E: Drudzy wykładają: Wszytko mięso, abo całego cielca oprócz głowy. A drudzy: odziedzę90, która okrywa wszytki wnętrzności. (Some interpret it: All the meat, or the whole calf except the head. And others: the membrane [peritoneus] that covers all the intestines.)

BSzB: Potym ułożą synowie Aharonowi ofiarnicy członki (i) głowę i ″tułów na drwiech, które na ogniu, który na ołtarzu. (Then Aharon’s sons, the sacrificers, will lay down the limbs (and) head and ″body on the wood, which is on the fire, which is on the altar.) n.: Abo tłustość [Or fat].

BWj: […] a członki, które są zrąbane na wierzchu porządnie położywszy, to jest głowę i wszytko, co jest przy wątrobie […] ([…] and having laid down in order the limbs that are chopped on top of it, that is the head and everything that is at the liver […]) The Hebrew word ‫ּפ ֶדר‬, ֶ which only appears three times in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 1:8.12, 8:20), was difficult for the translators. The discrepancy in the translation of this noun probably stemmed from its meanings, which were not uniformly 89 Pag has a slightly different variant: “Et ordinabunt filij Aharon sacerdotes frusta, caput, et reticulum quae sunt super ignem, qui est super altare.” 90 The membrane covering the internal organs, especially the liver, fibra (cf. SPXVI 20, 555).

226

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

given in Renaissance dictionaries. Reuchlin (1506, 419) reported that it means ‘truncus mutilus’ (‘body/trunk with amputated limbs/boughs’), indicating the use of this word only in Lev 1 and improving the translation of St Jerome: “Caput et cuncta quae adhaerent; hebraice sic: Caput et truncum suggests ligna.” However, the dictionary in the Complutensian Polyglot gives a completely different meaning: ‘adeps’ (‘fat’) and explains it: “Caput et cuncta quae adherent iecori; p[ro] quo hebrei legunt: Caput et adipem i[d est] adipem quae adheret iecori; p[ro] quo hebrei legunt: Caput et adipem i[d est] adipem quae adheret iecori.” (Vocabolarium 1515, CXXVIr).91 Both meanings can be traced in the Stephanus Bible and in the above mentioned translations and notes, in the Brest Bible and Nesvizh Bible. The translators of the Brest Bible chose the meaning ‘adeps’ (‘fat’), but they also know the second possibility. In the note in the 1561 Geneva Bible the word is rendered as “graisse”. The 1559 and 1562 editions have no notes in this place. Budny, on the other hand, followed Reuchlin’s suggestion (‘truncus’ – ‘torso/trunk’), giving the meaning of (‘fat’) in the note.

Example 5: Lev 10:9 BH: ‫מֹועד וְ לֹא ָת ֻ ֑מתּו‬ ֵ ‫ּובנֶ יָך ִא ָּתְך ְּבב ֲֹא ֶכם ֶאל־א ֶֹהל‬ ָ ‫ל־ּת ְׁש ְּת ַא ָּתה‬ ֵ ‫יַ יִ ן וְ ֵׁש ָכר ַא‬ ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫עֹולם ְלדֹר ֵֹת‬ ָ ‫ֻח ַּקת‬ Vlg: Vinum et omne quod inebriare potest, non bibetis tu et filii tui, quando intrabitis92 in tabernaculum testimonii, ne moriamini: quia praeceptum sempiternum est in generationes vestras. BGen 1559;1562: Toy et tes fils ne boirez point de vin ne de f cervoise, quand vous deurez venir au tabernacle de convenance, afin que vous ne mouriez. C’est ordonnance perpetuelle en vos aages. n. f: Heb. Sechar. C[’est] toute liqueur qui peut enyvrer. Il enseigne combien est requis au Sacrificateur d’estre fobre et prudent.

BGen 1561: Toy et tes fils ne bevuez point de vin ne de p cervoise, quand vous deurez venir au tabernacle de convenance, à fin que vous ne mouriez. C’est ordonnande perpetuelle en vos aages. n. p: Le mot Hebrieu signifie toute forte de bruvage hors le vin, qui peut enyvrer.

BB: Ty i synowie twoi nie będziecie pić wina ani E Sechár, gdy będziecie mieli przychodzić do przybytku zgromadzenia, byście snadź nie pomarli, a to będzie 91 Modern Hebrew dictionaries only give the meaning “kidney fat” (see WSHP 2, 8 [no. 7311]). 92 VlgSC has “intratis”.

Examples

227

wieczna ustawa i w potomstwie waszem. (Thou and thy sons shall not drink wine, nor E Sechár, when ye shall come to the tabernacle of the congregation, that ye may not die, and it shall be an everlasting law, and for your descendants.) n. E: Sechár po żydowsku znamionuje każde picie, którem się człowiek upić może. A tu jest nauka kapłanowi, aby był trzeźwy i roztropny. (Sechár in Hebrew means every drink with which one can get drunk. And here is the priests’ teaching to be sober and prudent.)

BSzB: Wina i ″Szekara pić nie będziesz ty i synowie twoi z tobą, gdy wnidziecie do namiotu zgromadzenia, abyście nie pomarli; ustawa wieczna potomkom waszym. (Wine and ″Shekar you and your sons with you will not drink when you enter the tent of the congregation, lest you die; an eternal law to your descendants.) n.: Szekar wszelkie picie co upaja, jako miód, piwo. (Shekar means all the drinks that make drunk, as honey, beer.)

BWj: Wina i wszelkiego, co ″upoić może pić nie będziecie ty i synowie twoi, gdy wchodzicie do przybytku świadectwa, abyście nie pomarli: bo przykazanie wieczne jest w rodzaje wasze. (The wine and ″all that can make drunk you and your sons will not drink when you enter the tabernacle of testimony, lest you die: for the eternal commandment it is for your kind.) n.: Sycerę, H. (Shekar, H.)

BG: Wina i napoju mocnego nie będziesz pił ty i synowie twoji z tobą, gdy będziecie mieli wchodzić do Namiotu zgromadzenia, abyście nie pomarli: ustawa to wieczna będzie w narodziech waszych. (The wine and the strong drink shall not be drunk by you and your sons with you, when ye shall enter the Tent of the congregation, lest ye die: this law shall be eternal in your nations.) In this example, the translators encountered a difficulty in rendering the Hebrew word ‫ׁש ָכר‬, ֵ which has no precise equivalent in Polish. Therefore, the Pińczów group and Budny kept them in their original form, adding the corresponding note borrowed from the Geneva Bible 1559 (the same note in BGen 1562). Perhaps Budny was inspired by the Brest Bible. Wujek consistently adheres to the Vulgate, but in the margins he places the Hebrew word “Sycera (Shekar)”, which he translates descriptively into Latin. Mikołajewski resigned from using the original name and translated it descriptively.

228

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Example 6: Lev 11:16 ff.22 v. 16 BB: Strusa, sowy, ożarki i każdego rodzaju krogulców. (Ostrich, owl, finch and all kinds of sparrow hawk.) BSzB: Zaś ″strusa, ″ślepowrona, ″ożarki i ″puchacza wedle rodzaju jego. (And ostrich, night heron, finch and eagle owl after their kind.) n.: Własnie córka strusowa. (Female hatchling of ostrich.) n.: Wedle niektórych sowa. (Some claim the owl.) n.: Inszy: wodna kania. (Others: the water kite [bird].) n.: Niektórzy krogulcem wykładają. (Some translate as sparrow hawk.)

BG: Także strusa, i sowy i wodnej kanie i jastrzęba, według rodzaju ich. (And ostrich, owl, water kite, hawk after their kind.) w. 17 BB: Puchacza, norka, lelka. (Eagle owl, loon, nightjar.) BSzB: ″Sokoła, ″czaple i ″sowy. (Falcon, heron, owl.)

n.: Wedle innych puchacz. (According to others: eagle owl.) n.: Abo norka. (Or loon). n.: Niektórz lelkiem. (Some call it nightjar.)

BG: I puchacza, i norka i lelka. (And eagle owl, and loon, and nightjar.) w. 18 BB: Łabęcia, bąka i bociana. (Swan, eagle owl, stork.) BSzB: ″Bąka, dudka i sroki. (Eagle owl, hoopoe, magpie.)

n.: Niektórzy łabędziem przełożyli, ale się podobno omylili, poniewasz łabęć jest ptak czysty. (Some translated as swan, but they are said to have been mistaken, because the swan is a clean bird.)

BG: I łabęcia, i bąka, i bociana. (And swan, and eagle owl, and stork.) w. 22 BB: Jako są ty, których wy pożywać możecie, każdego rodzaju C kobyłek i koniczków wedle ich rodzaju. Skoczków i chrząszczów, wedle ich rodzaju. (As there are those you cannot eat, every kind of C locust and cricket after their kind. Grasshopper and beetles after their kind.)

229

Examples

n. C: Ty robaczki i między Żydy i między nami są nieznajome czasów dzisiejszych. A gdyż jest wielka różnica między wykładaczmi, tedychmy my woleli tego się trzymać, coby się wżdy z ich słowy stosowało. Bo choć żydowskie słowa ty są: Selaham, H ­ argol i Hagab. A wszakoż są to rozmaite rodzaje robaczków polnych, którychby używać możno, ale iż nie są znajome, tedy nam też i mało potrzebne. (The worms between the Jews and between us are unfamiliar to the present day. And since there is a big difference between the interpreters, we prefer to stick to what they say. Because in Hebrew the following words are used: Selaham, Hargol and Hagab. And after all, these are various kinds of field worms, which we may use, but they are not familiar, so we do not need them much either.)

BSzB: Z których te będziecie jeść: ″arbę wedle rodzaju jej, i ″saleama wedle rodzaju jego, i chargola wedle rodzaju jego. I chagawa wedle rodzaju jego. (From which you will eat these: ″arbeh after its kind, and ″solean after its kind, and hargol after its kind. And hagab after its kind.) n.: Saleam, Chargol i Chagow jako i arba, nieznajome są robaczki. (Solean, hargol, hagab and arbeh are unknown worms.)

BG: C Te z nich jeść będziecie: szarańczą według rodzaju jej, i koniki według rodzaju ich, i skoczki według rodzaju ich, i chrząszcze według rodzaju ich. (These of them ye shall eat: locusts after their kind, and crickets after their kind, and grasshoppers after their kind, and beetles after their kind.) n. C: H. Arbe, Soleam, Hargol, Hagab.

The example shows how Szymon Budny confronted his translation with the Brest Bible when translating difficult Hebrew terminology. Mikołajewski almost always repeats the terminology adopted by the Brest Bible, but corrects the translation of ‫ל ִמ ָינּֽה‬,ְ ֺ ‫ל ִמינו‬/‫הּו‬ ְ ֵ‫( ְל ִמינ‬literally: “według rodzaju jej [after her kind]”, “według rodzaju jego [after his kind]”). i

Example 7: Josh 2:1 BH:

‫ם־אנָ ִׁשים ְמ ַרּגְ ִלים ֶח ֶרׁש ֵלאמֹר‬ ֲ ִ‫ן־ה ִּׁש ִּטים ְׁש ַנ�ֽי‬ ַ ‫־ּבן־נּון ִ ֽמ‬ ִ ‫הֹוׁש ַע‬ ֻ ְ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח י‬ ‫יחֹו‬ ֑ ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ וְ ֶאת־יְ ִר‬ ָ ‫ְלכּו ְראּו ֶא‬ ‫בּו־ׁש ָּמה׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ּוׁש ָמּה ָר ָחב וַ ּיִ ְׁש ְּכ‬ ְ ‫ית־א ָּׁשה זֹונָ ה‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיֵ ְלכּו וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ֵּב‬

Vlg: Misit igitur Iosue filius Nun de Setim duos viros exploratores in abscondito: et dixit eis, Ite, et considerate terram, urbemque Iericho. Qui pergentes ingressi sunt domum mulieris meretricis, nomine Rahab, et quieverunt apud eam.

230

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

PagSt: Misit autem Ieho‫ׁש‬sua‫ ע‬filius Nun e ‫ׁש‬Sittim duos viros exploratores clam, dicendo, Ite, considerate terram, et Ieri‫ח‬ho. Profecti sunt igitur, et ingressi sunt domum mulieris ″hospitae, cuius nomen erat Ra‫ח‬hab, et dormierunt illic93.

n.: Hospitae ‫ זונה‬cauponariae. quae cauponariam artem exercet: sic dicta quod escas praeparet ac vendat, a ‫זון‬. Doctus inter Hebraeos exponit ‫ מוכרת זון‬vendentis escam. Quidam a ‫ זנה‬fornicari deducentes, vertunt, meretricis: quod (ut ait doctus inter Hebraeos) hospitae aliquando corpus suum prostituere soleant.

BGen 1559: Iosue donc fils de Nun envoya de Setim deux hommes qui secrettement espiassent, disant, Allez, et confiderez la terre de Iericho: lesquels se mirent a cheminer, * et vinrent en la maison d’une femme a paillarde, laquelle avoit nom Rahab, et logerent là. * Heb. 11.31. iaq. 2.25. n. a: Selon le Grec et Transl. commune, aucuns, Taverniere. De ceste Rahab pecheresse, Iesus Christ est descedu selon la chair, ne desdaignant point les pecheurs pour le salut desquels il est venu.

BGen 1561: Iosué donc fils de Nun envoya de Setim deux hommes, qui secrettement espiassent, disant, Allez, et confiderez la terre, et Iericho: lesquels se mirent à cheminer, *et veindrent en la maison d’une femme e paillarde, laquelle avoit nom Rahab, et logerent là. * Iaq. 2. [illegible]. heb. 11 [illegible]. n. e: Selon le Grec et translation commune. Aucuns, taverniere, et hosteliere.

BB: A tak Jozue, syn Nunów, posłał z Setym dwa męże tajemne szpiegi, rozka� zując im, aby szli a wypatrowali ziemię i Jerycho. A tak oni poszli i przyszli w dom niektórej *niewiasty A wszetecznej, którą zwano Rahab i tamże gospodą stali. (And so Joshua, the son of Nun, sent two men as secret spies from Shittim, ordering them to go and search the land and Jericho. And so they went and came into the home of some A harlot, who was called Rahab, and there they stayed.) * Zyd. 11. v. 31. Jak. 2 v. 25 (Heb 11. v. 31. Jas 2 v. 25). n. A: Drudzy wykładają do karczmarki, abo do gospodyniej, a z narodu tej Rahaby wszetecznice poszedł Kristus wedle ciała, nie gardząc i grzeszniki, dla których tu on zbawienia przyszedł. (Others translate to an innkeeper, or a housekeeper, and from the tribe of Rahab the harlot Christ came according to flesh, not despising the sinners for whose salvation he is come.)

93 Pag: “Misitque Iehosúah filius Nun e Sittim duos viros exploratores clam dicendo. Ite, videte terram, et Ierichó. Et inverunt, et ingressi sunt domum mulieris cauponae, et nomen eius Racháb, et dormietunt ibi.”

Examples

231

BSzB: Tedy posłał Jehoszua syn Nunów [z] Szittyma dwa męże spiegi tajemne rzekąc: idźcie wypatrzajcie ziemię i Jerycho. I (szedszy) poszli do domu niewiasty ″wszetecznej, a imię jej Rachaw. I leżeli tam. (Then Jehoshua, the son of Nun [of] Shittim sent two men spying secretly, saying: go and see the earth and Jericho. And (having walked) they went to the harlot’s house, and her name was Rachaw. And they were staying there.) n.: Inszy szynkarka przekładają. (Others translate as an innkeeper.)

BWj: Posłał tedy Jozue syn Nun z Setim dwu mężów szpiegów potajemnie, i rzekł im: Idźcie a wypatrujcie ziemię i miasto Jerycho. Którzy wyszedszy weszli w dom niewiasty wszetecznej, imieniem Rahab, i stanęli u niej. (Then Joshua, the son of Nun of Shittim sent two spies secretly, and said unto them: Go and look for the land and the city of Jericho. Who went out into the house of a harlot, named Rahab, and stood at hers.) com.: Żydowskie słowo ‫ זונה‬zona, nowotni Żydowie przekładają gospodynią, która goście stawia, po naszemu kaczmarka, świadcząc chaldejskim tłumaczem. Ale się mylą na tym, bo ten chaldejski tłumacz chroniąc się słów nieuczciwych, podczas insze słowa podkłada. Wszakże słowo żydowskie zona, od drugiego słowa zana wzięte, znaczy wszeteczna. I tak pismo o tym świadczy, iż Rachab była niewiastą wszeteczną. (The Jewish word ‫ זונה‬zona, nowadays Jews translate as the housekeeper, who has guests, in our language an innkeeper, after a Chaldaic translator. But they are wrong about it, because this Chaldaic translator, shunning offensive words, replaces them with other words. After all, the Jewish word zona, taken from the second word zana, means fornicating. And so the scripture proves that Rachab was a harlot.)

BG: A tak posłał Jozue, syn Nunów, z Sittim dwu szpiegów potajemnie, mówiąc: Idźcie, wypatrujcie ziemię i Jerycho. Szli tedy i weszli w dom niektórej niewiasty b wszetecznej, której imię Rachab, i odpoczynęli tam. (And so Joshua, the son of Nun, from Shittim, sent two spies secretly, saying: Go, look out for the earth and Jericho. They walked and entered the house of b a harlot, whose name is Rachab, and rested there.) n. b: I. Szynkarkej. (Innkeeper.)

Problems with the translation of the word ‫ זו ֺנָ ה‬has its origin in Targum Jonathan, where the Hebrew text from Josh 2:1 (‫ית־א ָּׁשה זֹונָ ה‬ ִ ‫ )וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ֵּב‬was translated into Ara94 maic as ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָעלּו ְל ֵבית ִא ְּת ָתא פו ֺנְ ָּד ִק‬. The author of the commentary in the Stephanus Bible believed that the word could come from the root ‫זון‬ – ‘feed’, ‘nourish’ (cf. WSHP 1, 254 [no. 2397]; Jastrow: 2005, 387), so he chose the translation 94 BR2 has a different vocalisation: ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫“( וְ ָעלּו ְל ֵבית ִא ְּת ָתא פּונְ ְד ִק‬ingressi sunt in domum mulieris cauponariae”).

232

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

of “mulieris hospitae” (‘innkeeper’), which was reflected in the notes in the Geneva, Brest, Nesvizh and Gdańsk Bible. The Pińczów translators borrowed this note from the 1559 Geneva Bible. The note in the 1562 Geneva Bible is the same, but it was marked as “b”, since it is preceded by the explanation of the name “Setim” (note “a”), which is missing from both the 1559 Bible and from the Brest Bible. Wujek disagrees with this suggestion, arguing with his contemporary Jewish interpretation and Targum. He derived this word traditionally from the root ‫זנה‬ – ‘do fornication’ (in qal) (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1551f).

Example 8: Judg 16:1 BGen 1559: Apres, Samson s’en alla en Gaza, et vid là une femme a paillarde, et entra a elle. n. a: Le mot Hebrieu signific paillarde et hostelerie. Il n’est point dit que Samson ait aimé ceste femme: pourtant on entendra qu’il s’est retire en la maison d’icelle pour loger. Iaçoit qu’aucuns l’interpretent de paillardise. Les Hebrieux et Iosephe l’exposent de l’hostelerie.

BGen 1561: Apres, Samson s’en alla en Gaza, et veit là une femme b paillarde, et c entra a elle. n. b: Aucuns, hosteliere, ou teverniere. n. c.[’est] Logea chez elle.

BGen 1562: Apres, Samson s’en alla en Gaza, et vid là une femme a paillarde, b et entra a elle. n. a: Ce mot Heb. signific paillarde et hostelerie. Il n’est point dit que Samson ait aimé ceste femme pourtant on entendra qu’il s’est retire en la maison d’icelle pour loger, Iaçoit qu’aucuns l’interpretent de paillardise. Les Hebrieus et Iosephe l’exposent de l’hostelerie. n. b: Ce mot est pour l’opinion de ceux qui disent que ceste femme estoit paillarde. Car cest une forme de parley Hebraique usitee en l’escriture pour signifier Habitation charnelle les autres exposent de loger et non point de paillarder.

BB: Po tym Samson szedł do Gazy, A a ujzrawszy tam karczmarkę, wstąpił do niej. (After that Samson went to Gaza, A and having seen the innkeeper there, he entered it.) n. A: Słowo żydowskie znamieniuje niewiastę pospolitą i karczmarkę, a wszakoż tu nie masz żadnej wzmianki około tego, aby ją Samson miał miłować. A chociaż to miejsce niektórzy rozumieją, żeby Samson wszetecznie z nią mieszkać miał, wszakoż Żydowie i Jozefus tak o tym piszą, iż on tam wszedł jako do domu gościnnego. (The Jewish word means a common woman and an innkeeper, and there is no mention of Samson loving her. And though some people understand that Samson was supposed to live with her sinfully, the Jews and Josephus write about it in such a way that he entered there as a guest house.)

Examples

233

BSzB: A (po tym) szedł Samson do Hazatha i ujrzał tam niewiastę ″wszeteczną i wszedł kniej. (And [after that] Samson went to Hazath and saw a ″harlot there and came to her.) n.: Albo kaczmarkę. (Or an innkeeper.)

BWj: Szedł też do Gazy i ujźrzał tam niewiastę ″nierządnicę i wszedł do niej. (He also went to Gaza and saw a woman ″a harlot and went in.) n.: Abo kaczmarkę. H. (Or an innkeeper. H.)

BG: Po tym szedł Samson do Gazy, a ujrzawszy tam niewiastę nierządną wszedł do niej. (After that, Samson went to Gaza, and when he saw a woman who was a harlot there, he entered her.) Polish translators probably noticed this place because of a commentary in the Stephanus Bible: “Cauponariam. Nulla enim fit mentio quod Samson hanc amarit (sic) [amaverit], ob id vertendum potius cauponariam, ut vertunt nonnulli.”95 The Pińczów translators were the first to use this note and the note from the 1559 Geneva Bible, which explicitly quotes Josephus Flavius (Ant. 5:304) who, summarizing Judg 16:1, wrote about Samson: καὶ ἔν τινι τῶν καταγωγίων διέτριβε (‘and he stayed in a certain inn’). It seems that the creators of the Brest Bible did not know note “b”, which only occurred in the 1562 Geneva Bible. Other translators follow the Brest Bible. Wujek translated the Latin “et vidit ibi mulierem meretricem” as “i ujźrzał tam niewiastę nierządnicę (and he saw a harlot)”, noting in the margin that according to the Hebrew Bible, a translation as an ‘innkeeper’ is also possible – which is surprising in the light of his commentary to Josh 2:1 (cf. example 7; cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1551).

Example 9: 2 Sam 5:6 (in BWj 2 Kings 5:6) BGen 1559: Alors le roy s’en alla et ses hommes en Ierusalem au Iebusien habi­ tant de ceste terre. Lequel parla a David, disant, Tu n’entreras point ici, si tu n’ostes f les aveugles, et les boiteux: pourtant, qu’il pensoit que David n’entre­ roit point là. n. f: Iosephe recite que les Iebusiens pour se mocquer de David auoyent colloqué sur les murailles de la ville les aveugles, boiteux, et manchots, signifians par cela, le lieu estre si fort qu’il estoit imprenable, et qu’il n’y failloit autre defense pour le garder. Or renoyent-­ ils, non pas tout Ierusalem: mais bien la partie plus forte.

95 Targum Jonathan, not mentioned this time by the translators, similarly as Josh 2:1, has here: ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫( ִא ְּת ָתא פּונְ ְּד ִק‬BR2); ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫א ְּת ָתא פּונְ ְד ִק‬ – ִ “mulierem tabernariam” (PAn).

234

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BGen 1561: Alors le Roy s’en alla et ses hommes en Ierusalem au Iebusien habitant de ceste terre. Laquel parla à David, disant, Tu f n’entreras point ici, si tu n’ostes les aveugles et les boiteux: pourtant qu’il pensoit que David n’entreroit point là. n. f: Ils difent ceci comme par moquerie, comme s’ils disoyent, La place est si forte, qu’il ne faut que les boiteux et aveugles pour le garder d’y entrer.

BB: A tak król i z ludem swem pociągnął do Jeruzalem, ku Jebuzejczykowi miesz�kającemu w onej ziemi, który tak rzekł ku Dawidowi: Nie drzewiej [tzn. wcześniej] hajw [tzn. tutaj] wnidziesz, aż pierwej odejmiesz C ślepe i chrome. Abowiem mnimali, żeby tam Dawid nigdy wnidź nie miał. (And so the king and his people went slowly to Jerusalem, to the Jebusites living in the land, who said unto David: Thou shalt enter earlier hither until thou shalt first take away C the blind and lame. Because they had thought David would not get in there.) n. C: Jozefus pisze, iż Jebuzejczycy naśmiewając się z Dawida nastawiali na murzech ślepych, chromych, jednorękich, dawając mu to znać, iż ono miejsce tak było mocne i obronne, żeby go on nigdy nie mógł dobyć, a iż mu było wielkiej obrony nie potrzeba. Acz oni nie mieli w mocy wszytkiego Jeruzalem, jedno tylko miejsce niektóre, co tam było nabronniejsze. (Josephus writes that the Jebusites, mocking David, placed the blind, lame, men with one arm on the walls, letting him know that the place was so strong and defensive that he could never get it, and that it did not need much defense. But they did not have all of Jerusalem in mind, only one place, which was the strongest.)

BSzB: Po tym poszedł król i mężowie jego do Jeruszalima do Jewusego miesz� kającego w ziemi i rzekł Dawidowi rzekąc: nie wnidziesz sam, jeśli nie odejmiesz ″ślepych i chromych, (jakoby) rzekąc: nie wnidzie sam Dawid. (After this the king and his men went to Jerusalem to Yevusi living in the land, who said to David, saying: thou shalt not enter alone if thou shalt not take away the blind and lame and [supposedly] saying: David shalt not enter alone.) n.: Ci ślepi i chromi podobno były owy obrazy, co na szczyciech stawiają, jako się to niżej znaczy. (These blind and lame people are said to have been these images, which they put on top, as explained below.)

BWj: I poszedł Król i wszyscy mężowie, którzy byli z nim do Jeruzalem, do Jebuze� jczyka mieszkającego w ziemi: I rzeczono jest Dawidowi od nich: ‶Nie ­wnidziesz sam aż zniesiesz ślepe i chrome, mówiące: Nie wnidzie tu Dawid. (And the King and all the men who were with him went to Jerusalem, to the Jebusite dwelling in the land: And David was told by them: ‶You will not come in alone until you can eliminate the blind and lame, saying: David will not come in here.) n.: Szydząc mówią, wżdy snać chromi i ślepi będą zamku bronić. (Mockingly speaking, the lame and the blind will defend the castle.)

235

Examples

In this example, the translators used the sources in different ways. The Pińczów group after the 1559 Geneva Bible (the same note in BGen 1562) quoted the full information given by Josephus Flavius (Ant. 7:61), while Budny and Wujek shortened it, focusing on an important element of derision in relation to David.96

Example 10: 2 Kings 6:33 BH:

‫עֹודּנּו ְמ ַד ֵּבר ִע ָּמם וְ ִהּנֵ ה ַה ַּמ ְל ָאְך י ֵֹרד ֵא ָל֑יו‬ ֶ ‫ה־אֹוחיל ַליהוָ ה ֽעֹוד׃‬ ִ ‫אמר ִה ֵּנֽה־זֹאת ָ ֽה ָר ָעה ֵמ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ָ ֽמ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

LXX: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κατέβη πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ αὕτη ἡ κακία παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, τί δεηθῶ τοῦ κυρίου ἔτι; Vlg: Adhuc illo loquente eis, apparuit nuntius, qui veniebat ad eum. Et ait, Ecce, tantum malum a Domino est: quid amplius expectabo a Domino? BCa 1554; 1556: Eo adhuc cum illis loquente, ecce descendit ad eum nuncius, quem subsecutus rex, ita loquitur: Cum hoc a Jova malum sit, quid amplius a Jova expectem?97 Annotationes (BCa 1556, 1641): Quem subsecutus rex.) Hunc locum ex Iosepho complevi, additis his verbis, Quem subsecutus rex. Nam Iosephus ita scribit: Sed vos (inquit Elisaeus) cum venerit is cui hoc mandatum est, observate ut ingressurum in ianua prematis, atque retieneatis: etenim sequetur eum ad me veniens rex, mutato consilio. Atque illi quidem, ubi venit qui a rege ad perimendum Elisaeum missus erat, iussa fecerunt. Ioramus autem suae contra vatem iracundiae poenitens, veritusque ne eum iam occidisset, qui ad hoc missus erat, properavit caedem fieri prohibere, vatemque conservare. Atque ubi ad eum venit, conqueri de eo caepit, qui eis praesentium malorum remedium a Deo non postularet, sed eos malis illis confici spectaret.

BB: A gdy jeszcze z nimi mówił, oto poseł przybieżał do niego, za którym tuż król przyszedł mówiąc: Oto nieszczęście to jest od Pana. A czegoż już mam czekać dalej od niego? (And while he was still speaking with them, behold, the messenger came to him, after whom the king just came saying, Behold, the misfortune is from the Lord. What am I supposed to wait for?) BSzB: Jeszcze on mówił z nimi, a oto posłaniec zstępował kniemu, ″(lecz dognał go król) i rzekł: oto kaźń ta od Jehowy; czego oczekiwać Jehowy więcej. (He 96 Other examples of notes repeated in several Polish translations: Judg 16:1, 2 Kings 8:15. 97 In BCa it is 4 Kings 6:34.

236

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

yet spoke with them, and, behold, the messenger descended to him, ″(but the king caught up with him) and said, behold, this punishment is from Jehovah; what to expect of Jehovah more.) n.: Te słowa (lecz dognał go król) z Józefa historyka Kastalion przyłożył. (These words [but the king caught up with him] were translated from Joseph, the historian, by Castellion.)

BWj: A gdy jeszcze mówił do nich, ukazał się posłaniec, który szedł do niego. I ″rzekł: Oto tak wielkie złe od PANA jest: Czegóż mam więcej czekać od PANA? (And while he was still talking to them, a messenger appeared, who went to him. And ″said: This great eveil is from the Lord: What more can I expect from the LORD?) n.: Rozumiej: król, który wszedł przed posłańcem swoim, odmieniwszy umysł o zabiciu proroka. (Understand it: the king who entered before his messenger, having changed his mind about killing the prophet.)

BG: A gdy to jeszcze mówił z nimi, oto poseł przychodził ku niemu i rzekł: Oto to złe jest od PANA; czegóż mam więcej oczekiwać od PANA? (And while he was still speaking with them, a messenger came to him and said: This evil is from the LORD; what more can I expect from the LORD?) The translators of this text draw attention to certain shortcomings in the plot. Joram, King of Israel, sent a messenger to Elisha to kill him. Elisha, knowing this, warned the elders with whom he was staying at home not to let the messenger in. The prophet immediately added that the king follows his envoy (2 Kings 6:31f). According to the Hebrew Bible, the messenger upon arrival did not attempt to kill the prophet, and speaking, he uttered words that seem to be the words of Joram himself (2 Kings 6:33). The text then states that the king was present in the house of Elisha, whose arrival is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or in Septuagint (2 Kings 7:1f).98 The gaps in the plot are filled by Josephus Flavius (Ant. 9:68ff), who paraphrases 2 Kings 6:32f as follows: […] but Elisha was not unacquainted with the wrath of the king against him; for as he sat in his house by himself, with none but his disciples around him, he told them that Joram, who was the son of a murderer, had sent one to take away his head; but, said he, when he that is commanded to do this comes, take care that you do not let him come

98 This difficulty is also noticed by the translators of the Millennium Bible in Polish (Pismo Święte: 2003), who interpret the word ‫‘( ַה ַּמ ְל ָאְך‬envoy’, ‘messenger’) as ‫‘( ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬king’): “Gdy jeszcze roz�mawiał z nimi, oto król przystąpił do niego i powiedział [While he was still talking to them, the king came to him and said]” (cf. criticism in BHS).

Examples

237

in, but press the door against him, and hold him fast there, for the king himself will follow him, and come to me, having changed his mind. Accordingly, they did as they were bidden, when he that was sent by the king to kill Elisha came: but Joram repented of his wrath against the prophet; and for fear he who was commanded to kill him should have done it before he came, he made haste to hinder his slaughter, and to save the prophet: and when he came to him, he accused him that he did not pray to God for their deliverance from the miseries they now lay under, but saw them so sadly destroyed by them.

Castellion followed the Flavius paraphrase, adding the words “quem subsecutus rex” in his translation. In a similar way, the author of the notes in the Stephanus Bible understands the text and provides a commentary on the verse: Sub[audi], Rex qui antevertit nuntio quem miserat. Hic locus ostendit, Regem Israel protinus mutasse sententiam, illumque nuntio quem miserat, antevertisse, ita ut illi non licuerit Eliseo praecidere cervices.

The interpretation chosen by the Pińczów translators adds the clause to the text that reads: “za którym tuż król przyszedł (after whom the king came)”, but they failed to mention in the margin that it was an addition. The Geneva Bible lacks this addition in the text; it only, without resorting to Josephus, explains in a note that the speaking king is meant who came before the messanger: “le roy d’Israel, lequel estoit là venu plustost que le messanger” (BGen 1561); “Asc. le roy” (BGen 1562). Budny also used the paraphrase of Flavius, and clearly indicated the source of the addition inserted into the text in brackets. Wujek did not change the text, but added a note interpreting it in the same way as the previous ones. Similarly, the Castellion Bible is used by the Polish Renaissance translators of the Hebrew Bible, commenting on Judge 17:1 (cf. Kwilecka: 2001a, 1552). The lack of a clear indication of Castellion’s translation as a source of information is probably a result of his sympathy for Servet’s views and doctrinal conflicts with Calvin. Szymon Budny, who openly professed antitrinitarianism, had no similar objections.

Example 11: Ez 38:2 BCa 1554; 1556: Homo, compone faciem tuam ad Gog terram Magog, summum Moschorum Iberorumque ductorem, et in eum ita vaticinare. Annotationes (BCa 1556, 1675): Compone faciem tuam ad Gog, terram Magog.) Iosephus Antiquitatum lib. 1. cap. 7. tradit, a Magoge conditos esse Magogas, quos Graeci Scythas appellent: a Mescho Meschinios, qui Cappadoces appellentur: a Thobelo Thobelos, qui Iberi: a Phute Phutos, qui Libyes: a Gomaro Gomarenses, qui Galatae: a Thygramma Thygrammanos, qui Phryges a Graecis nominentur. Addit alios: sed ego eos tantum pono, qui

238

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

ad hunc locum faciant, et de quibus dubitari possit. Iam quae nomina ponit, ea sunt ad Graecam deflexa linguam. Sic enim in Hebraeo leguntur: Magog, Mesech, Thubal, Phut, Gomer, Thogorma. Et in caeteris quidem eum sequor, nisi quod nomine Magog, propter huius oraculi nobilitatem, Hebraeo utor: tantum Meschum aliter interpretor. Nam cum Cappadoces Genefis 2. Caphthorim appellentur, et quod hic legitur Mesech, Graecus et Latinus interpretes Mosoch dixerint: probabilius eft, Moschos significari, cum et nomen conveniat, et id cum Iberis, tum hic, tum cap. 27. coniungatur, quae utraque gens est in regione Themiscyra. Nam hos Iberos, non Hispanos, hoc loco intelligi volo: sunt enim alij Iberi in Hispania. Sed quale sit hoc de Gog et Magog oraculum, ego nescio: haec quidem nondum euenisse suspicor: Qua de re lege diligenter Esa. 17.26.56. et 57. et Ezech. 37. et c. et Apocal. 20. Adde, si placet, Sibyllae librum tertium, in quo haec omnia abunde tractantur.

BGen 1559: Fils de l’homme, mets ta face a contre * Gog, et la terre de Magog, prince et chef de Mosoch, et de Thubal: et prophetize contre luy. n. a: Magog fut fils de Iaphet, du nom duquel a este appellee la region de Scythie selon Iosephe. Gog est nom de peuple descendu de Magog. Par Gog sont entendus les ennemis ouvres, par Magog, ceux qui sont couvers: a cause de la signification en leur langue. * Apoc. 20.8.

BGen 1561: Fils de l’homme, a mets ta face contre b Gog, et la terre de Magog, prince et chef de Mosoch, et de Thubal, et prophetize contre luy. n. a: Comme suis 25. v. 2; Apoc. 20. v. 8. n. b: Aucuns entendent par Gog et Magog les Turcs: les autres, l’Antechrist: mais le sens le plus naturel est, qu’il est ici parlé des successeurs de Alexandre le grand: c’est à sçavoir, des rois d’Egypte et de Syrie, par lesquels les Iuifs ont esse grievement asfligez apres le setour de Babylone: et les (sic) nomme Magog, pource qu’ils estoyent descendus de Magog fils de Iapheth, troisieme fils de Noe: les successeurs duquel peuplerent l’Europe et les regions de par deçà apres le deluge.

BGen 1562: Fils de l’homme, mets ta face a contre * Gog, et la terre de Magog, prince et chef de Mosoch, et de Thubal, et prophetize contre luy. n. a: Magog fut fils de Iaphet, du nom duquel a este appellee la region de Scythie selon Iosephe. Gog est nom de peuple descendu de Magog. Par Gog, sont entendus les ennemis ouvres: par Magog, ceux qui sont couvers a cause de la signification en leur langue. Aucuns specifient ces ennemis, et entendent par Gog et Magog, les ennemis de l’Eglise d’Israel qui l’ont affligee durant la troisie me monarchie: asc. les rois de Syrie, et d’Egypte, qui sont descendus de Magog fils de Iaphet. * Apoc. 20.18 (sic).

BB: * Synu człowieczy, obróć twarz swą przeciw Gog i przeciw ziemi A Magog, książęciu i głowie Mesech i Tubal, a prorokuj przeciw jemu [Son of man, turn

Examples

239

your face against Gog and against the land of Magog, the prince and head of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him]. * Zjaw. 20. v. 8. (Rev 20. v. 8.) n. A: Magog był syn Jafetów, od którego Magoga poszli Tatarowie jako pisze Jozefus, a Gog jest przezwisko ludu, który poszedł z Magoga. Przytym przez to słowo Gog rozumieją się nieprzyjaciele jawni, a przez Magog nieprzyjaciele skryci wedle jęyka żydowskiego a pod tymi przezwiski rozumie się moc Antykrystowa. (Magog was the son of the Japhet, from Magog the Tartars are as Josephus writes, and Gog is the name of the people who are from Magog. In Hebrew through the word Gog overt, whereas through the word Magog covert enemies are meant, under these names the Antichrist power is understood.)

BSzB: Synu człowieczy, postaw oblicze swoje przeciw ″Gogowi ziemi Magogowej, książęciu głownemu Meszecha i Tuwala, a prorokuj nań. (Son of Man, set your face against the Gog of the land of Magog, the head prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy on him.) n.: Gog wedle Żydów król w ziemi Magogowej. Magog lepak wedle Józefa historyka jest tatarska ziemia. To pewna, iż Magog, Meszech i Thuwal byli synowie Jafeta syna Noachowego. 1 Mosz: 10. wirsz 2. (Gog according to the Jews, the king in the land of Magog. According to Josephus, the historian, Magog is a Tartar land. It is certain that Magog, Meshech and Tubal were the sons of Japhet, the son of Noah. 1 Mos: 10, verse 2.)

BWj: Synu człowieczy, postaw oblicze swe przeciw Gog, ziemi Magog, książęciu głowy Mosoch i Tubal, a prorokuj o nim. (Son of man, set your face against Gog, the land of Magog, prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy about him.) com.: Postaw oblicze swe przeciw Gog, ziemi Magog.) Iż przez wszytkie księgi swe Ezechiel prorokował o Christusie i królestwie jego, teraz też wspomina przeciwnego Antychrista i okrócieństwa jego. I aczkolwiek, o tym Gog i Magog rozmaite są mniemania, ponieważ ich Pismo ś[więte] nie wspomina tylko tu Ezechiel, a Jan ś[więty] Apoc. 20. Wszakże tak się zda niektórym, iż ci dwaj będą przednieszy królowie z onych dziesiąci królów, którzy Antichristowi hołdować i służyć będą, a tych dwu tu nawięcej mianuje, iż możnością i okrucieństwy inszych przechodzić będą. Pisze też Gen. 10, iż Magog był jeden z synów Jafeta. I od tego Scithia, gdzie panował Magog nazwana jest ziemią Magog jako pisze Iozephus. Stądże rozumieją Theodoretus i Hieronim ś[więty], iż Gog i Magog są narodowie Scytów abo Tatarów. Z tychże będą ci królowie, którzy Antychristowi z wojskami swoimi służyć będą przeciw chrześcijanom. (com.: Son of man, set your face against Gog, the land of Magog.) In all the book Ezechiel prophesied about Christ and His kingdom, and now he mentions the inimical Antichrist and his cruelties. And although opinion varies about Gog and Magog, because the Holy Scripture makes no mention about them not only in Ezechiel, but also in St John’s Apoc. 20. However, some believe that those two will be more important kings than the

240

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

other ten who will worship and serve the Antichrist, and those two are emphasized because their power and cruelty overpasses that of the others. Gen. 10 also writes that Magog was one of the sons of Japhet. And from this Scithia, where Magog reigned, is called the land of Magog as Jozephus writes. Thus, Theodoretus and Jerome understand that Gog and Magog are Scythian or Tartar nations. From among them those kings will come who will serve the Antichrist with their troops against Christians.)

This example clearly shows the relationship between the notes and commentaries on the Bible text. The notes from the Geneva Bible (1559, 1561 i 1562) could have been based on the Castellione Bible. The note from the Brest Bible was translated from the 1559 Geneva Bible, though the presence of certain motifs can be observed in the Pińczów Bible that were included in the 1561 edition, which are missing from the 1559 Bible (“les Turcs”, “l’Antechrist”). In the 1562 Bible in French the note is longer than in the 1559 edition; the Brest Bible only includes its shorter version. Moreover, the 1562 Geneva Bible contains a mistake in the reference to Revelation of John: “Apoc. 20,18” (Chapter 20 only has fifteen verses) – the Brest Bible has a correct reference as in the 1559 edition. Certainly Budny may have relied on the same sources and the Brest Bible. The note from the 1561 Geneva Bible comprises a mention about Turks, while Polish translations about Tartars. However, probably the same aggressor is meant here, because in the sixteenth century the lands of ancient Scythia were partially occupied by Turks. Wujek shows more independence in commenting on the text because he adds new information from the works of Christian writers.

Example 12: Gen 2:6 BH:

‫ֽי־ה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ל־ּפ ֵנ‬ ְ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ וְ ִה ְׁש ָקה ֶ ֽא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵאד ַי ֲֽע ֶלה ִמ‬

LXX: πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐπότιζε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς. Vlg: Sed fons ascendebat e terra, irrigans universam superficiem terrae. PagSt: Porro vapor ascendebat e terra, irrigabatque universam superficiem terrae99. BCa: exhalavit ex terra vapor, qui universum eius solum irrigavit.

99 Pag ma “Et vapor ascendebat, et irrigabat universam superficiem terrae”.

Examples

241

BGen 1559; 1561; 1562: Mais une vapeur montoit de la terre, qui arrousoit tout dessus de la terre. BL: I wychodziła rzeka z miejsca rozkoszy ku odwilżaniu Raju. (And there was a river coming out of a place of pleasure to water Paradise.) BB: Ale mgła wychodziła z ziemie, która pokrapiała wszystek wierzch ziemie. (But the fog was coming out of the earth, which was sprinkling all over the earth.) BSzB: Lecz para wychodziła z ziemie i pokrapiała wszystko oblicze ziemie. (But the vapour was coming out of the earth and sprinkling the face of the earth.) BWj: Ale ″zdrój wyniknął z ziemie, oblewający wszystek wierzch ziemie. (But the ″source came from the earth, pouring all over the top of the earth.)

n.: ″abo Para. H. (or vapour. H.) com.: Pagninus tak wykłada: A para albo mgła wychodziła z ziemie i pokrapiała wszytko oblicze ziemie. Drudzy tak przekładają: Ani jeszcze żadna para nie wychodziła z ziemie, któraby pokrapiała wszytek wierzch ziemie. Bo mówią, że słowko ‫ אד‬Ed, nie zdrój, ale parę znaczy, non fontem sed vaporem, abo obłok, jako chaldejski tłumacz przełożył. Lecz nie tylko Hieronim ś[więty], ale i LXX. tłumacze, którzy żydowski język lepiej niż ci nowi rozumieli, πηγή, to jest zdrój, przełożyli. (Pagninus interprets it as follows: And steam or fog was coming out of the earth and sprinkling all the face of the earth. The others translate as follows: No vapour has ever come out of the earth to sprinkle all the surface of the earth. Because they say that the word ‫ אד‬Ed, does not mean source but vapour, non fontem sed vaporem, or cloud, as a Chaldaic translator translated100. Not only St Jerome, but also LXX. translators who understood the Jewish language better than the new ones, πηγή translated this as source.)

BG: Ale para wychodziła z ziemi, która odwilżała wszystek wierzch ziemi. (But the vapour came out of the earth, which watered all the surface of the earth.) The Hebrew text of Gen 2:6 has two basic translation difficulties: the sequence of imperfective forms of ‫( יַ ֲע ֶלה […] וְ ִה ְׁש ָקה‬literally: ‘was going up […] and watering’) and the words ‫‘ ֵאד‬vapour’, ‘source’, ‘cloud’).101 If the sequence is translated literally as ‘was flowing out/was gushing out […] and was watering’, and ‫ ֵאד‬as ‘source’, then a logical contradiction arises with v. 5, which speaks of the original drought on 100 Cf. PCo and PAn:‫ׁשקי יָת ָכל ַא ֵפי ַא ְר ָעא‬ ֵ ‫ּומ‬ ַ ‫רעא‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲענָ נָ א ֲהוָ ה ָס ֵליק ִמן ַא‬, with translation: et “nube ascendebat de terra, et irrigabat universam faciem terrae”. So does TgF. 101 The sixteenth-century Hebrew-Latin dictionaries translated as: ‘fons’, ‘nubes’, ‘vapor’ (cf. Müns­ ter: 1535, b1r).

242

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

earth. Hence, some prefer to translate the sequence by means of perfective verbs (‘flowed out’, ‘gushed out’), which is a deviation from the principles of Hebrew syntax, or to translate the word ‫ ֵאד‬as ‘vapour’, which mitigates the contrast between v. 5 and 6. The Septuagint and Vulgate literally render the Hebrew text (πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν, “sed fons ascendebat” – “the source was gushing out”) ignoring the contradiction with v. 5. Wujek accepts the translation ‫ ֵאד‬as “zdrój” (‘source’) and explains it extensively in his commentary. The Brest, Nesvizh and Gdańsk Bibles, following the Hebrew text, express the sequence of verbs in the imperfective past tense (“wychodziła […] i pokrapiała/odwilżała [it was coming out […] and sprinkling/watering]”), except that the word ‫אד‬, ֵ like Pagnini, Castellion and the Geneva Bible, translates as ‘fog/vapour’. Only Castellion puts the verbs in the past perfect (“exhalavit, irrigavit”).102

Example 13: Gen 3:15 BH:

‫ּובין זַ ְר ָ ֑עּה‬ ֵ ‫ּובין זַ ְר ֲעָך‬ ֵ ‫ּובין ָ ֽה ִא ָּׁשה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵא ָיבה ָא ִׁשית ֵ ּֽבינְ ָך‬ ‫ׁשּופּנּו ע ֵ ֽ�ָקב׃‬ ֶ ‫ׁשּופָך רֹאׁש וְ ַא ָּתה ְּת‬ ְ ְ‫ י‬103‫הּוא‬

LXX: καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς. αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν. Vlg: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipse104 conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. PagSt: Praeterea inimicitias ponam inter te et ipsam mulierem, et inter semen tuum et semen eius: ″ipsum conteret tibi caput, et tu conteres ei calcaneum105.

n.: Ipsum conteret. tibi cap. ‫ הוא ישעפך ראש‬ipsum conteret te in capite. vel percutiet. aut vulnerabit. Ipsum, subaudi semen, qui est Christus. LXX verterunt αὐτός, Christum intelligentes. aut αὐτός referet non σπέρμα, sed τ″ σπόρον, quod sit eiusdem cum dictione σπέρμα significationis: idque Hebraico more.

102 Today this solution is often adopted (cf. Synowiec: 2001, 96f). 103 It seems that BR2 leaves the word ‫ הוא‬without vowel points, similarly to PAn. PCo renders this word as ‫הּוא‬, though the Vlg text has “Ipsa”. The problem with the interpretation of vocalisation may result from technical problems with printing points inside Hebrew letters. 104 PCo, PAn and VlgSC have “ipsa”. 105 Pag has: “Et inimicitias ponam inter te, et inter mulierem, et inter semen tuum, et inter semen eius, ipsum conteret tibi caput, et tu conteres ei calcaneum”.

Examples

243

BGen 1559: Ie mettray aussi inimitie entre toy et la femme, entre ta lz semence et la semence d’icelle, ceste semence te brisera l la teste, et tu luy briseras le talon. n. lz: Il est ici mention de deux semences, l’une du le serpent appelee en l’Escriture lignee de viperes. L’autre est la semence de la femme, asc. Christ et ses membres. Il y a inimitie entre ces deux semences: mais celle de la femme surmontera et brisera la reste du serpent. n. l: La teste du serpent est la puissance du peché et de la mort. Le talon, qui est au bas, est l’infirmite de la chair, et ce reste qui n’est point encore renouvelé du tout en nous.

BGen 1561: o Si mettray inimitié entre toy et la femme, entre ta semence et la semence d’icelle: p ceste semence te brisera la teste, et tu luy briseras le talon. n. o: En parlant au serpent il ad dresse proprement sa parole a Satan, à l’instigation du quel la femme a ceste seduit. n. p: Il promet aux fideles victoire contre le serpent, laquelle ils obtienment par le moyen de leur chef Iesus Christ.

BL: Nieprzyjaźni uczynię miedzi tobą i niewiastą, i nasieniem twoim, i miedzy nasieniem jej. To * zetrze głowę twoję, a ty będziesz ulegał na zdradzie (abo tarł) na piętę jego. (I will make enmity with you and the woman, and with your seed, and with her seed. It* will wipe your head out, and you will give in to betrayal [or bruise] his heel.) n.: ta zetrze (she will wipe out)

BB: Położę też nieprzyjaźni miedzy tobą, i miedzy niewiastą, K miedzy nasieniem twym i nasieniem jej. To L potrze głowę twą, a ty potrzesz piętę jego. (I will also lay down enmity between you and the woman,K between your seed and her seed. It L will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.) n. K: Dwoje tu nasienie wspomina: jedno wężowe, co pisma jaszczórczim nasieniem nazywają, a drugie nasienie niewieście, to jest Krystusa i członki jego. Miedzy któremi jest wielkie nieprzyjacielstwo. Ale niewieście zwycięży, a potrze głowę wężowi. (Two kinds of seed is mentioned here: that of the snake, which the scriptures call lizard’s seed, and the other of the woman, that is Christ and his members. Between which is the great enmity. But the woman will win, and she will rub the head of the snake.) n. L: Głowa wężowa jest moc grzechu i śmierci. A pięta, która jest naniższa mdłość znaczy ciała, i wszystko to, co w nas jeszcze nie jest odnowiono. (The snake’s head is the power of sin and death. And the heel that is the lowest point of the body, means the weakness of the body and all that is not yet renewed in us.)

BSzB: A nieprzyjaźń położę miedzy tobą i miedzy niewiastą, i miedzy nasieniem twem, a miedzy nasieniem jej, ono zetrze tobie głowę, a ty zetrzesz mu piętę. (And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed, it will wipe out your head, and you will wipe off his heel.)

244

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BWj: POŁOŻĘ nieprzyjaźń miedzy tobą, a miedzy niewiastą, i miedzy nasieniem twym, a nasieniem jej: ona zetrze głowę twoję, a ty ‶czyhać będziesz na piętę jej. (I will lay down enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: she will wipe out your head, and you will ‶waylay her heel.)

n.: zetrzesz jej piętę. H. (you’ll wipe her heel out. H.) com.: W żydowskim stoi ‫הוא‬, co bez punktów może się rozumieć ono (nasienie) abo ona (niewiasta); w greckim lepak αὐτός – on, choć uprzedził σπέρμα – nasienie, in neutro genere. Biblie łacińskie mało nie wszytkie i nastarsze mają Ipsa, ona, i doktorowie starzy, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, Augustinus, Gregorius, Bernardus, Eucherius, Beda, Rabanus, Alcuinus, Avitus, Marius Victor, i Iozephus Żydowim, i inny barzo wiele tak czytają. I tak wykładają, że nie tylko Pan Christus, który jest nasienie ono niewieście błogosławione (iż sie z samej niewiasty bez męża narodził), ale i ona między wszemi niewiastami błogosławiona Panna matka jego, przez toż nasienie swe starła głowę węża piekielnego, iż tego porodziła, który ją starł, gdy szatana śmiercią swą zwyciężył, a nas z niewolej jego wyswobodził. Lecz jeśli nowowiernicy jeszcze wołają, żebyśmy tym przekładem czci Panu Christusowi ujmowali, kładąc to na pannę Marją, co jemu własnie ma bydź przypisano, tedy je do szkoły Kalwina Mistrza ich odeszlem, który tę cześć i Panu Christusowi i matce jego zgoła odejmuje, gdy przez to nasienie nie rozumie ani Pana Christusa, ani matkę jego, ale wszytki wierne, że ci mają zetrzeć głowę węża piekielnego, Calvin, in Genesim. (In the Jewish text we have ‫הוא‬, which without vowel points can be understood as it [seed] or she [woman]; though in the Greek text we have αὐτός – he, although it precedes σπέρμα – seed, in neutro genere. Almost all and oldest Latin bibles have Ipsa, she, and the old doctors, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, Augustinus, Gregorius, Bernardus, Eucherius, Beda, Rabanus, Alcuinus, Avitus, Marius Victor, and Iozephus the Jews, and many others interpret it alike. And so they teach that not only the Lord Christus, who is the blessed seed of the woman [that he was born of the woman without a man], but also she, among all the women, his blessed Virgin mother, by the same seed of hers, wiped out the head of the serpent of hell, that she gave birth to the one who wiped it out when he conquered Satan with his death, and freed us from his serfdom. But if the new believers still refer to for this translation to make us lessen the worship of the Lord Christus, because they attribute to the Virgin Mary which is his own, and which is to be attributed to him, then I have sent them to the school of Calvin the Master, who is depriving the Lord Christus and his Mother of this worship, when he by this seed does not understand either the Lord Christus or his mother, but all the faithful that they are to wipe out the head of the serpent of hell, Calvin, in Genesim.)

BG: Nieprzyjaźń też położę miedzy tobą i miedzy niewiastą, i miedzy nasieniem twojem, i miedzy nasieniem jej: To potrze tobie głowę, a ty mu potrzesz piętę. (And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed, and her seed: It will rub thy head, and thou shalt rub his heel.)

Examples

245

The difficulty of this text lies in the interpretation of the Hebrew personal pronoun ‫הוא‬, which vocalized as ‫ הוִ א‬means ‘she’ and as ‫ הּוא‬means ‘he’ or ‘it’. The reading of the Septuagint, which reads ‫ הוא‬as ‘he’ (αὐτός), is not quite clear, although if this word is to refer to ‘seed’, it should be of the neuter gender (αὐτό – cf. com. to PagSt). The Vulgate in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglot and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate read ‫ הוא‬as the feminine gender (“Ipsa”), referring the pronoun to the woman. The Vulgate in the Stephanus Bible has, however, “ipse” (“he”). The variant of the masculine (neutral) gender is supported by the masculine gender suffix in the word ‫ׁשּופּנּו‬ ֶ ‫‘( ְּת‬you wipe him out’), which clearly refers to the noun ‫זַ ְר ָעּה‬ – ‘her seed’ (in Hebrew ‫ זֶ ַרע‬is masculine). There is “eius” in the Vulgate here – the same form for all persons. This difficulty is noted by Leopolita, who translated “To” (“It”) in the main text, but he adds the note “ta zetrze (she will wipe out)”. Wujek consistently translates the Latin text, broadly justifying the reading of ‫ הוא‬as feminine. Polish versions based on the Hebrew text, following the Masoretes, interpret the pronoun as ‫הּוא‬, referring it to ‫זַ ְר ָעּה‬. It should be noticed that the notes in the Brest Bible were translated from the 1559 Geneva Bible, which are the same as in the 1562 Geneva Bible.

Example 14: Gen 43:8 BH:

‫קּומה וְ נֵ ֵל ָ֑כה‬ ָ ָ‫הּודה ֶאל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ָא ִביו ִׁש ְל ָחה ַהּנַ ַער ִא ִּתי וְ נ‬ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ם־ט ֵ ּֽפנּו׃‬ ַ ַ‫ם־א ָּתה ּג‬ ַ ַ‫ם־אנַ ְחנּו ג‬ ֲ ַ‫וְ נִ ְחיֶ ה וְ לֹא נָ מּות ּג‬

LXX: εἶπε δὲ Ιουδας πρὸς ἰσραὴλ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, ἀπόστειλον τὸ παιδάριον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀναστάντες πορευσόμεθα, ἵνα ζῶμεν καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν, καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ σὺ καὶ ἡ ἀποσκευὴ ἡμῶν. Vlg: Iudas quoque dixit patri suo, Mitte puerum mecum, ut proficiscamur, et possimus vivere: ne moriamur nos, et parvuli nostri. PagSt: Et dixit Iehudah I‫ׁש‬sra‫א‬li patri suo, Mitte puerum illum mecum, tum surgemus et pergemus, ut vivamus, et non moriamur et nos, et tu, et parvuli nostri. BL: I rzekł Judas ojcu swemu: Poślij to dziecię ze mną, że pojedziemy, a iż bychmy mogli żyć, a nie pomarli my i dzieci nasze. (And Judas said to his father: Send this child with me that we may go, that we may live, and that we and our children will not die.) BB: I rzekł Judas do Izraela ojca swego: Poślij ze mną to pacholę a niech jedziemy, żebyśmy wżdy żywot nasz zachowali, a nie pomarli my i ty i dziateczki nasze.

246

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

(And Judas said to Israel his father: Send this boy with me, and let us go, so that we may preserve our lives, and not die, we and thou and our children.) BSzB: I rzekł Jehudah do Izraela ojca swego: Poślij młodzieńca ze mną i wstaniem a pojdziem i żywi będziem a nie pomrzem i my i ty i dzieci nasze. (And Jehudah said to Israel his father: Send the young man with me and we will get up and we will go and live and not die and we and you and our children.) BWj: Judas też rzekł ojcu swemu: Pośli dziecię ze mną, żebychmy pojechali a żyć mogli: byśmy nie pomarli my i dziatki nasze. (Judas told his father too: Send the child with me so that we can go and live: so that we and our children won’t die.) BG: I rzekł Judas do Izraela, ojca swego: Poślij tego młodzieńca ze mną, a wstawszy pojedziemy, abyśmy żyli a nie pomarli głodem, tak my, jako i ty, i dziateczki nasze. (And Judas said to Israel, his father: Send this young man with me, and having risen, we will go so that we may live and not starve to death, we, and you, and our children.) The Vulgate lacks two expressions that are found in BH: ‫ ֶאל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬and ‫ם־א ָּתה‬ ַ ַ‫ג‬. Furthermore, the sequence of verb forms: ‫קּומה וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה וְ נִ ְחיֶ ה וְ לֹא נָ מּות‬ ָ ָ‫ׁש ְל ָחה […] וְ נ‬, ִ a final meaning (cf. Lambdin: 2000, no. 107c) can cause difficulties in translation: ‘Send […] that we may rise up and go, and that we may live, and not die’. The first two cohortative verbs: ‫קּומה וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ נ‬express a single action in its initial phase and can be expressed by one verb: ‘so that we can go’. The Vulgate renders this sequence by means of a final clause, rendering the two verbs just discussed with one Latin expression: “ut proficiscamur”; the form ‫וְ נִ ְחיֶ ה‬ is interpreted modally (“et possimus vivere”). The Septuagint accepts the Hebrew text. It translates the sequence‫קּומה וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬ ָ ָ‫וְ נ‬ using a participle and the verb in the future tense (καὶ ἀναστάντες πορευσόμεθα – ‘and having risen, we’ll go’), it interprets the expression ‫( וְ נִ ְחיֶ ה וְ לֹא נָ מּות‬ἵνα ζῶμεν καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν – ‘so that we live, and not die’) as a final clause. Leopolita and Wujek follow the Vulgate translation. The Brest Bible clearly takes the Hebrew text as its basis. However, it does not notice the final clause (similarly PagSt), as it translates the verbs literally, in the cohortative mood, using one Polish verb (“a niech jedziemy [let us go]”). It is only the verb ‫וְ נִ ְחיֶ ה‬ – that is rendered in a final clause just like the Septuagint and Pagnini (PagSt). Budny slavishly follows the Hebrew text. He translates the sequence of verbs in the cohortative mood literally without noticing the final clause, and he also translates the verb ‫קּומה‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ נ‬as “i wstaniem a pojdziem i żywi będziem a nie pomrzem (we will get up and we will go and live and not die.)”

247

Examples

Mikołajewski also imitates the original, although when translating the sequence of verbs, he seems to follow LXX: “a wstawszy pojedziemy, abyśmy żyli a nie pomarli głodem (and having risen, we will go so that we may live and not starve to death.)”

Example 15: Gen 44:27 BH:

‫ה־ּלי ִא ְׁש ִ ּֽתי׃‬ ִ ‫אמר ַע ְב ְּדָך ָא ִבי ֵא ֵל֑ינּו ַא ֶּתם יְ ַד ְע ֶּתם ִּכי ְׁשנַ יִ ם ָי ְֽל ָד‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

LXX: εἶπε δὲ ὁ παῖς σου ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε, ὅτι δύο ἔτεκέ μοι ἡ γυνή. Vlg: Ad quae106 ille respondit, Vos scitis quod duos107 genuerit mihi uxor mea. PagSt: Et dixit servus tuus pater meus nobis, Vos nostis quod duos tantum pe­perit mihi uxor mea. BGen 1559; 1562: Et ton serviteur mon pere nous respondit, Vous scavez que ma femme m’a enfanté deux enfans seulement: BGen 1561: Et ton serviteur mon pere nous respondit, Vous sçavez que ma femme m’a enfanté deux enfans, BL: Na to on odpowiedział: Wy wiecie, iż dwa syny porodziła mi żona moja. (To that answered: You know that my wife gave birth to two sons.) BB: Na co powiedział nam służebnik twój a ociec nasz: Wiecie, iż żona moja dwu mi synów porodziła. (To which your servant and our father said to us: You know that my wife gave birth to my two sons.) BSzB: I rzekł niewolnik twój ociec mój do nas: wy wiecie, że dwu urodziła mi żona moja. (And thy slave my father said unto us: Ye know that my wife gave birth to two.) BWj: Na co on odpowiedział: Wy wiecie, iż mi dwu porodziła żona moja. (To which he answered: Ye know, my wife gave birth to two.)

106 W PCo and PAn lack “quae”. 107 Some Vlg versions have “duos filios” (e. g. Biblia: 1545; 1584).

248

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BG: I rzekł sługa twój, Ociec mój, do nas: wy wiecie, że dwu Synów urodziła mi żona moja. (And thy servant, my Father, said unto us: ye know that my wife gave birth to two Sons.) Gen 44:27 is not identical in all versions. The Vulgate lacks the extended subject ‫‘( ַע ְב ְּדָך ָא ִבי‬your servant, my father’), which is replaced by “ille”, and the indirect object ‫‘( ֵא ֵלינּו‬to us’). The Septuagint instead of ‫‘( ָא ִבי‬my father’) has ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν (‘our father’). Some editions of the Vulgate supplement the Hebrew numeral ‫ְׁשנַ יִ ם‬ (‘two’) with the noun “filios”. Pagnini also added the word “tantum” (PagSt), which the 1559 and 1562 Geneva Bibles followed (“seulement”). The expression ‫ ִא ְׁש ִּתי‬in the Hebrew Bible the Vulgate renders strictly as “uxor mea” (‘my wife’), and the Septuagint has only ἡ γυνή (‘wife’). Polish translations reflect different variants of the text. The Leopolita and Wujek Bibles faithfully adhere to the Vulgate, except that Wujek omits the noun “filios”. The Pińczów translators selected a strange variant. Following the Hebrew Bible they translate: “służebnik twój a ociec (your servant and father)”, but the possessive pronoun “nasz (our)” comes from Septuagint. The Brest Bible following the Geneva Bible has: “dwu […] synów (two […] sons)”. Mikołajewski removes variants that are alien to the Hebrew original, while the word “Synów (Sons)” he writes in italics to indicate that it is missing from the Hebrew Bible. Budny slavishly follows the original text.

Example 16: Gen 44:28 BH:

‫ד־הּנָ ה׃‬ ֽ ֵ ‫יתיו ַע‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֵצא ָ ֽה ֶא ָחד ֵ ֽמ ִא ִּתי וָ א ַֹמר ַאְך ָטר ֹף ט ָ ֹ֑רף וְ לֹא ְר ִא‬

LXX: Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ εἷς ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ εἴπατε, ὅτι θηριόβρωτος γέγονεν, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον αὐτὸν ἄχρι νῦν. Vlg: Egressus est unus, et dixistis, Bestia devoravit eum: et hucusque non comparet. PagSt: Et egressus est unus à me, de quo dixi, Profecto rapiendo raptus est: neque vidi eum hactenus. BGen 1559; 1562: Dont l’un s’en est allé de moy: (et ie di, Certainement il a este devoré, et ne l’ay point veu iusques ici.) BGen 1561: Dont l’un s’en est allé de moy, et ie di, Certainement il a esté devoré, et ne l’ay point veu iusques ici:

Examples

249

BL: Wyszedł do (sic) nas jeden, a rzekliście zwierzę go pożarło, a dotychmiast go nie widzieć. (He went out to [sic] one of us, and you said the beast ate him, and not he is nowhere to be seen.) BB: A jeden nie wiem, gdzie mi się podział. I mówiłem: Zaiste go zwierzę rozdarło, a odtądżem go nie widział. (I don’t know where one went away. And I said: Indeed the beast tore him apart, and I haven’t seen him since.) BSzB: I wyszedł jeden ode mnie. I rzekłem: zaiste rozedranim rozedran, i nie wid�ziałem go asz dotąd. (And one left my place. And I said: indeed by a tearer he was torn to pieces, and have not seen him yet.) BWj: Wyszedł jeden, i powiedzieliście: Zwierz go pożarł: i do tychmiast go nie widać. (One went out, and ye said: The beast ate him: and he hasn’t been seen up to now.) BG: I wyszedł jeden ode mnie, i rzekłem: Zaiste od zwierza rozdarty jest, i nie widziałem go do tych miast; (And one left my place, and I said: Indeed he was torn by an animal, and I haven’t seen him since;) In Gen 44:28 there are differences between the ancient versions in three places: the Hebrew Bible has ‫‘( וָ א ַֹמר‬and I said’), and the Septuagint and the Vulgate: καὶ εἴπατε, “et dixistis” (‘and you said’); the idiom ‫‘( ָטר ֹף ט ָֹרף‬ripped apart by ripping apart’) the Septuagint and the Vulgate render: θηριόβρωτος γέγονεν (‘was eaten by a wild animal’) and “Bestia devoravit eum” (‘a wild animal ate him’); the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint have ‫יתיו‬ ִ ‫וְ לֹא ְר ִא‬, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον αὐτὸν (‘and I haven’t seen him’) while the Vulgate has “non comparet” (‘did not appear’). Leopolita and Wujek faithfully reproduce the text of the Vulgate. The Brest Bible translates the Hebrew text, but treats the first part of the line very freely: “A jeden nie wiem, gdzie mi się podział (I don’t know where one went away)” (literally in Hebrew: ‘and one came out of me’). The translation of the idiom (“Zaiste go zwie­ rzę rozdarło [Indeed the beast tore him apart]”) reflects the idea of the original and is linguistically correct. Budny’s translation is slavish and stylistically clumsy, especially the idiom “rozedranim rozedran (by tearing he was torn)”. Mikołajewski corrected the first part of the verse, which was loosely translated by the Pińczów group. Its translation very correctly reflects the Hebrew original, although in terms of Polish it sounds a bit worse than the Brest version.

250

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Example 17: Gen 44:29 BH: ‫א ָלה׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ת־ׂש ָיב ִתי ְּב ָר ָעה ְׁש‬ ֵ ‫ם־את־זֶ ה ֵמ ִעם ָּפנַ י וְ ָק ָרהּו ָא ֑סֹון וְ ֽה ַֹור ְד ֶּתם ֶא‬ ֶ ַ‫ּול ַק ְח ֶּתם ּג‬ ְ

LXX: ἐὰν οὖν λάβητε καὶ τοῦτον ἐκ προσώπου μου, καὶ συμβῇ αὐτῷ μαλακία ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ κατάξετέ μου τὸ γῆρας μετὰ λύπης εἰς ᾅδου. Vlg: Si tuleritis et istum, et aliquid ei in via contigerit, deducetis canos meos cum moerore ad inferos. PagSt: Quod si tuleritis etiam hunc a facie mea, et acciderit ei mors, tunc deducetis canitiem meam cum afflictione ad sepulchrum. BGen 1559; 1562: Que si vous prenez aussi cestuy de devant moy, et la mort luy advient, vous ferez descendre ma vieillesse avec desplaisance en la fosse. BGen 1561: Que si vous prenez aussi cestuy de devant moy, et la mort luy advient, g vous ferez descendre ma vieillesse avec desplaisance en la fosse. n. g: c.[’est] Vous me ferez mourir en douleur et en tristesse.

BL: Jeśli jeszcze i tego drugiego weźmiecie, a przyda mu się co na drodze nietraf�nego, przywiedziecie starość moję z żałością do grobu. (If you take the other one, too, and a mischief befalls him on the way, you will bring my old age to the grave with grief.) BB: Gdzie jeśli jeszcze i tego ode mnie precz weźmiecie, a jemu by sie umrzeć przy� dało, tedy z żałością szedziwość moję odeślecie do grobu. (If you take this one more from me, and he happens to die, then you will send my old age to grave with grief.) BSzB: I bierzecie tesz i tego ode mnie od oblicza, i doprowadzicie szedziwość moję w smutku do dołu. (And you take this one away from my face, too, and you will bring down my old age in sadness.) BWj: Jeśli weźmiecie i tego, a stanie mu się co na drodze, doprowadzicie szedzi�wość moję z żałością do piekła. (If you take and this one and something befalls him on his way, you will bring my old age with grief to hell.) BG: A weźmiecieli i tego od oblicza mego, a przypadnie nań śmierć, tedy doprow�adzicie szedziwość moję z żałością do grobu. (And if you take and this one away from my face, and death will befall him, then you will bring my old age with grief to the grave.)

Examples

251

There is one fundamental difference between the versions: the Hebrew Bible lacks the expression “on the way” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, “in via”). The Pińczów translators correctly rendered the Hebrew original, obtaining a translation that sounds good in Polish. They noticed conditional clauses. Idioms were replaced by Polish equivalents: “ode mnie (away from me)” – in Hebrew literally: “away from my face”; “a jemu by sie umrzeć przydarzyło (it would befall him to die)” – in Hebrew literally: “and he would have a fatal accident”. They loosely follow the original word order. Budny translates slavishly, and his style is not aesthetic. Idioms are rendered literally, he does not notice conditional clauses. He also leaves out a part of the text (‫)וְ ָק ָרהּו ָאסֹון‬. Mikołajewski translates literally. He tries to keep the word order. He preserves the idiom “od oblicza mego (away from my face)”. He marks the conditional sentence with the verb form with the suffix “-li”. His translation is faithful and correct in Polish, but sounds worse than the Pińczów translation.

Example 18: Gen 44:30f BH: ‫ׁשּורה ְבנַ ְפ ֽׁשֹו׃‬ ָ ‫ל־ע ְב ְּדָך ָא ִבי וְ ַהּנַ ַער ֵאינֶ ּנּו ִא ָ ּ֑תנּו וְ נַ ְפׁשֹו ְק‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַע ָּתה ְּכב ִֹאי ֶא‬30 ‫א ָלה׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ת־ׂש ַיבת ַע ְב ְּדָך ָא ִבינּו ְּביָ גֹון ְׁש‬ ֵ ‫הֹורידּו ֲע ָב ֶדיָך ֶא‬ ִ ְ‫י־אין ַהּנַ ַער וָ ֵ ֑מת ו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ִּכ ְראֹותֹו ִּכ‬31 i

i

LXX: 30 νῦν οὖν ἐὰν εἰσπορεύωμαι εἰς τὸν παῖδά σου, πατέρα δὲ ἡμῶν, καὶ τὸ παιδίον μὴ ᾖ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐκκρέμαται ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς τούτου 31 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν μὴ ὂν τὸ παιδίον μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, τελευτήσει καὶ κατάξουσιν οἱ παῖδές σου τὸ γῆρας τοῦ παιδός σου, πατρὸς δὲ ἡμῶν, μετὰ λύπης εἰς ᾅδου. Vlg: 30 Igitur si intravero ad servum tuum patrem nostrum, et puer defuerit: (quum108 anima illius ex huius anima dependeat). 31 Videritque eum non esse nobiscum, morietur: et deducent famuli tui canos eius cum dolore ad inferos. PagSt: 30 Tunc ergo quum venero ad servum tuum patrem meum: et puer non fuerit nobiscum, (et anima eius ligata est cum anima ipsius) 31 Accidet tum, quum viderit ipse quod non aderit puer, morietur: et deducent servi tui canitiem servi tui patris nostri cum dolore ad sepulchrum. BGen 1559: 30 Et maintenant, quand ie seray parvenu a ton serviteur mon pere, et que l’enfant ne sera point avec nous, duquel il a l’ame liee avec la sienne.

108 PCo, PAn and VlgSC have “cum”. PCo does not have parentheses.

252

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Quand donc il ne verra point le enfant, il mourra: ainsi tes serviteurs feront descendre avec douleur la vieillesse de ton serviteur nostre pere au sepulchre. 31 

BGen 1561: 30 Et maintenant quand ie seray parvenu à ton serviteur mon pere, et que l’enfant ne sera point avec nous, h duquel il a l’ame liee avec la sienne. 31 Quand donc il ne verra point l’enfant, il mourra. Ainsi tes serviteurs feront descendre avec douleur la vieillesse de ton serviteur nostre pere au sepulchre. n. h: c.[’est] Lequel est aime singulierement et auquel il porte une affection singuliere.

BGen 1562: 30 Et maintenant, quand ie seray parvenu a ton serviteur mon pere, et que l’enfant ne sera point avec nous, duquel e il a l’ame liee avec la sienne. 31 Quand donc il ne verra point l’enfant, il mourra: ainsi tes serviteurs feront descendre avec douleur la vieillesse de ton serviteur nostre pere au sepulchre. n. e: Lequel il aime d’affection singuliere, et plus ardemment que les autres.

BL: 30 Przeto jeślibym sie wrócił do sługi twojego, ojca naszego, przez dziecięcia (ponieważ żywot jego z żywota tego wisi) a uzrzałby go nie być z nami, umrze, 31 a my słudzy twoi doprowadziem starość jego z żałością do piekłów. (30 Therefore if I return to thy servant our father without the child [because his life hangs from this life] and if he see him be not with us, he shall die, 31 and we, thy servants, shall bring his old age to hell with grief.) BB: 30 Otóż teraz, jeśliżbych przyszedł do sługi twego, ojca mojego, a pacholęcia bychmy nie przywiedli z sobą, którego on serdecznie jako duszę swą miłuje, 31 Tedy się stanie, iż gdy ujzry, że pacholęcia nie będzie, pewnie umrze. A tak my słudzy twoi doprowadziemy szedziwość sługi twego, ojca naszego, z wielką żałością do grobu. (30 Now if I came unto thy servant, my father, and brought not the lad with us, whom he loveth heartily as his soul, 31 Then it shall come to pass that when he shall see that the lad shall not be, he shall surely die. And so we, thy servants, shall bring the old age of thy servant, our father, with great grief to the grave.) BSzB: 30 A teraz, gdy przyjdę do niewolnika twego, ojca mego, a młodzieńca nie będzie z nami, a dusza jego związana z duszą jego. 31 I będzie, gdy ujrzy, że nie masz młodzieńca, umrze, i dowiodą niewolnicy twoi szedziwość niewolnika twego, ojca naszego, w smutku do dołu. (30 And now, when I come to your slave, my father, and the young man shall not be with us, and his soul shall be bound to his soul. 31 And it shall come to pass when he shall see that you have not the young man, he shall die, and your slaves shall lead the old age of your slave, our father, in sadness to the bottom.)

Examples

253

BWj: 30 Przetoż, jeśli wnidę do sługi twego ojca naszego, a dziecięcia nie będzie (ponieważ dusza jego zawisła na duszy tego), 31 A ujrzy, że go niemasz z nami, umrze: i doprowadzą słudzy twoi szedziwość jego z żałością do piekła. (30 Therefore if I enter into thy servant, your father, and there be no child, [because his soul hung on that soul], 31 And he shall see that he is not with us, he shall die: and your servants shall bring his old age to hell with grief.) BG: 30 Przetoż teraz jeślibym przyszedł do sługi twego, ojca mojego, a dziecięcia by z nami nie było (ponieważ dusza jego jest przywiązana do duszy jego), 31 Stanie się, skoro ujrzy, iż dziecięcia nie będzie, że umrze; a odprowadzą słudzy twoji szedziwość sługi twego, ojca naszego, z żałością do grobu. (30 Therefore now if I came unto thy servant, my father, and the child be not with us [because his soul is bound unto his soul], 31 It shall come to pass, when he shall see that the child shall not be there, he shall die; and thy servants shall lead the old age of thy servant, our father, to the grave with grief.) Here too, the ancient versions differ. The Septuagint departs from the Hebrew text twice: in v. 30a instead of ‘my father’ (‫)א ִבי‬, ָ it has ‘our father’ (πατέρα δὲ ἡμῶν); in v. 31a it adds ‘with us’ (μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν). There are greater differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Vulgate: in v. 30a, like in the Septuagint, the Latin version has “pater nostrum”; further in v. 30a the Vulgate simplifies: “et puer defuerit” (instead of Hebrew ‘and the boy, he will not be with us’); in v. 31a St Jerome added “nobiscum”; in v. 31b instead of Hebrew ‘your servant, our father’, the Vulgate has “eius”. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate explain v. 30a as a conditional sentence, treating it as a continuation of the preceding context. The Brest Bible translates the Hebrew text faithfully and nicely in Polish, paying attention to the conditional sentences. It renders the Hebrew expressions thoroughly: “a pacholęcia bychmy nie przywiedli z sobą ([we would] brought not the lad with us)”, “którego on serdecznie jako duszę swą miłuje (whom he loveth heartily as his soul)” (in Hebrew, literally: ‘and his soul is tied to his soul’). It is worth noting that the 1561 and 1562 Geneva Bibles have notes to v. 30, and the 1559 Bible does not. The Brest Bible does not have this note either. Budny slavishly held on to the Hebrew text, faithfully translating every word in their order. He neglects the conditional sentences (which in this case is acceptable). ­Mikołajewski translated faithfully in the conditional mode, obtaining an effect between the Brest and Nesvizh Bible.

254

Example 19: Exod 1:21 BH:

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

‫ֹלהים וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ָל ֶהם ָּב ִ ּֽתים׃‬ ֑ ִ ‫ת־ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫י־י ְ�ֽראּו ַ ֽה ְמיַ ְּלד ֹת ֶא‬ ָ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִ ּֽכ‬

LXX: ἐπειδὴ ἐφοβοῦντο αἱ μαῖαι τὸν θεόν, ἐποίησεν ἑαυταῖς οἰκίας. Vlg: Et quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum, aedificavit eis domos. PagSt: Fuit autem,109 quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum, fecit110 eis domos.111 BGen 1559: Et pourtant que les sages femmes craignirent Dieu, il i leur edifia des familles. n. i: Il augmenta leurs familles en recompense du bien qu’elles auoyent fait aux Hebrieux.

BGen 1561: Et pourtant que les sages femmes craignirent Dieu, d il leur edifia des familles. n. d: c.[’est] Il augmenta leurs familles, il leur donna bon traitement de leurs maris, commodité de viure, et c.

BL: A iż się bały Boga one baby, zbudował im dom. (And because the women were afraid of God, he built them a house.) BB: A iż tak baby ony bały się Boga rozmnażał domy ich. (And since the women were so afraid of God, he was multiplying their homes.) BSzB: A przeto ponieważ bały się baby Boga ″tedy uczynił im domy. (And because the women were afraid of God, he then made them homes.) n.: Uczynił im nie jem domy, to jest nie babam, ale synom izraelskim. (He made houses not for them, that is for the women, but for Israeli sons.)

BWj: A iż się bały Boga baby ‶zbudował im domy. (And because the women were afraid of God he ‶built them houses.)

n.: to jest rozmnożył potomstwo ich [that is he multiplied their offspring]. com.: Domem Pismo Święte zowie familią abo rodzaj jaki ludzi, bo jako dom z wielu kamieni, tak też jedna familia abo rodzaj z wielu ludzi, stąd to, zbudować komu dom, Żydowie mówią, to jest rozmnożyć potomstwo i ubogacić. Inszy tak to wykładają, jakoby to nie o niewiastach onych mówił, ale o rozmnożeniu Żydów; wszakże wiedzieć mają, iż w

109 Pag: “Et fuit”. 110 Pan: “et fecit”. 111 In Pag it is Exod 1:19.

Examples

255

żydowskim często pronomina, masculina, pro foemininis ponuntur, et e contra. (Scripture uses the word home for a family or kind of people, because as a house is made of many stones, so one family or one kind of many people, hence to build a house for somebody, the Jews say is means to multiply offspring and enrich. The others interpret it as if this fragment was not about women, but about the multiplication of the Jews; however, they know that in Hebrew often pronomina, masculin, pro foemininis ponuntur, et e contra.)112

BG: I stało się, przeto że się bały one baby Boga, pobudował e im domy. (And it happened, because the women were afraid of God, he built them houses.) n. e: I. Rozmnażał domy jich. (Others: He was multiplying their houses.)

The difficulty of this text is to use the preposition ‫ל‬,ְ which is combined here with the pronominal suffix of the masculine plural (‫)ל ֶהם‬, ָ although the closest context refers to women, the midwives. Budny noticed this difficulty, but having interpreted the text literally, he refers the preposition to Israel and not to midwives. Wujek clearly argues with Budny and notes, quoting one of the grammars available to him in Latin, that this type of prepositions in masculine are used interchangeably with female forms113 and he applies it to midwives (similarly Septuaginta: ἑαυταῖς). The Latin translations do not facilitate the problem, as the pronoun “eis” is identical for all genders. It is also worth noting the translation of a Hebrew phrase: ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ָל ֶהם ָּב ִּתים‬is translated literally in the Septuagint and by Pagnini (ἐποίησεν ἑαυταῖς οἰκίας; “et fecit eis domos”; Pagnini in the Stephanus version: “fecit eis domos”); similarly Budny (“tedy uczynił im domy [he then made them homes]”). The Vulgate, followed by Leopolita and Wujek, explains the Hebrew ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬as “aedificavit” (‘built’), but Wujek explains the meaning of the Hebrew idiomatic expression in a commentary. Mikołajewski uses a similar solution (“pobudował [he built]”), but this is more of an interpretation of the Hebrew verb ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬than a translation from Latin: in this context it is better to say in Polish that a house is “built” rather than “done”. Only the translators from Pińczów made an attempt to render the meaning of the Semitic expression: “rozmnażał domy ich (he multiplied their homes)”.

112 In the commentary under Exod 1, the verse number to which the interpretation refers was incorrectly printed in the margin: instead of 21 there is 22. 113 This phenomenon is quite common in BH, especially in the case of plural suffixes (cf. Gesenius: 2006, § 135o).

256

Example 20: Exod 3:14 BH:

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

‫ֹלהים ֶאל־מ ֶֹׁשה ֶ ֽא ְהיֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ֶ ֽא ְה ֶי֑ה‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫יכם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫אמר ִל ְבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶ ֽא ְהיֶ ה ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י ֲא ֵל‬ ַ ֹ ‫אמר ּכֹה ת‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

LXX: Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ἰσραηλ. ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Vlg: Dixit Dominus114 ad Moysem, Ego sum qui sum. Ait, Sic dices filiis Israel, qui est misit me ad vos. BCa 1554; 1556: Cui Deus: Ero qui ero, inquit. Dices Israelitis, Ero mittit me ad vos. Sic dices Israelitis, PagSt: Et dixit Deus ad Mo‫ׁש‬seh, Ero qui ero. Dixit praeterea, Sic dices filiis I‫ׂש‬sra‫א‬el, Ero misit me ad vos. BGen 1559; 1562: Et Dieu dit a Moyse, ″Ie seray qui seray. Puis il dit, Tu diras ainsi aux enfans d’Israel, Celuy qui d est, m’a envoyé vers vous. n.: ou, ce suis-ie qui suis. n. d: Estre proprement, est avoir existence inmuable: ce qui est propre a Dieu seul, dont il en prend le nom.

BGen 1561: Et Dieu dit a Moyse, y Ie seray qui seray. Puis il dit, Tu diras ainsi aux enfans d’Israel, Celuy qui z est, m’a envoyé vers vous. n. y: Ou, ce suis-ie qui suis. Aucuns, Ie seray, car ie seray. c.[’est] le seray eternellement. Par ce signe il met difference entre soy et les creatures. n. z: c.[’est] Qui est eternellement, qui a son estre de soy, et non d’ailleurs, et duquel toutes choses ont le leur.

BL: Rzekł Pan do Mojżesza: Jam jest ten, który jest. I rzekł: Także powiesz synom Izraelskim: Który jest, ten mnię posłał do was. (The Lord said to Moses: I am the one who is. And he said: You will also tell the sons of Israel: Who is he who sent me to you.) BB: Rzekł tedy Bóg do Mojżesza: Będę który Będę. A ku temu rzekł: Powiedz też i tak synom Izraelskiem: Ten, który jest posłał mię do was. (And God said unto

114 PCo, PAn, VlgSC use “Deus”.

Examples

257

Moses: I Will Be that I Will Be. And to that, he said: Tell also the sons of Israel: The one who is sent me to you.) BSzB: I rzekł Bóg do Mojżesza: ″Będę, który będę. I rzekł: tak rzeczesz synom Izralowym: Będę posłał mię do was. (And God said unto Moses: ″I will be that I will be. And he said: This is what you will say to the sons of Israel: I Will Be sent me to you.) n.: Abo byłem, który byłem (Or I was that I was.)

BWj: Rzekł Bóg do Mojżesza: ″JAM JEST, KTÓRYM JEST’. Rzekł: Tak powiesz synom Izraelowym: “KTÓRY JEST’ posłał mię do was. (God said to Moses: ″I AM WHO I AM’. He said: That is what you will tell the sons of Israel: “WHO IS’ sent me to you.) n.″: abo Będę, który będę H. (or I Will Be who I will be H.) n.”: Będę H. (In Hebrew: I Will Be.) com.: Może się i tak przełożyć: Byłem, którym był, abo: będę, który będę. Bo wieczność Boska zamyka w sobie wszystkie czasy: który jest, i był, i będzie. I jest naprzedniejsze imię Boże, którym się sam Bóg nazwał, które znaczy, iż Bóg jest wieczny, nie mając początku ani końca, ani od kogo inszego mając bytność i istność, i owszem, jest jako źrzódło wszelkiej istności i bytności, którą wszelkiemu stworzeniu daje. Słowo żydowskie Haiach znaczy być, skąd słowo żydowskie Panu Bogu własnie ‫ יהיה‬urosło, o czterech literach abo Tetragrammaton, które nowi Żydowie zowią Jehową. (It can be trans�lated thus: I was who he was, or: I will be who I will be. For eternity of God closes all times: who is, and was, and will be. And it is the greatest name of God, with which God called himself, which means that God is eternal, having no beginning and no end, having being and nature from no one else, and as the source of all nature and being which he gives to all creation. The Jewish word Haiach means “to be”, from where the Jewish word proper to God ‫ יהיה‬is derived, with four letters or Tetragrammaton, which nowadays Jews call Jehovah).

BG: Tedy rzekł Bóg do Mojżesza: Będę który Będę. I rzekł: Tak powiesz synom Izraelskim: Będę posłał mię do was. (And God said unto Moses: I Will Be that I Will Be. And he said: That is what you will tell the sons of Israel: I Will Be sent me to you.) The text of Exod 3:14 containing God’s self-presentation has created many problems for translators of Scripture. The very phrase ‫ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬is unusual and surprises the reader, because the Biblical Hebrew language uses nominal sentences in such situations (cf. Exod 4:11, 20:2, Deut 5:6, Ps 81:11, Isa 43:11, 44:24; cf. Propp: 1999, 204f). Applying consistently the principles of Renaissance Hebrew grammar, this text should be translated as: ‘I will be who I will be’, because the form of yiqtol was treated by the sixteenth-century Hebraists as tempus futurum.

258

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

In the history of translations of Exod 3:14 there were several proposals. The translators of the Septuagint rendered this phrase with the verb εἰμί and the participle ὤν: ‘I am being’. St Jerome translated it as “Ego sum qui sum”. Aquila and Theodocion rendered the Hebrew construction using verbs in the future tense: ἔσομαι ὃς ἔσομαι (Origenis Hexaplorum: 1875, 85), as did Santes Pagnini and Sébastien Castellion (“Ero qui ero”) and the Geneva Bible (“Ie seray qui seray”), adding the note: “ou, ce suis-ie qui suis”. Leo Jud, Sebastian Münster (“Sum qui sum”) followed the suggestion of St Jerome, but added the following comments to the translation: “Ebraei ad verbum habent: Ero qui ero; et Erit misi me ad vos; vel. Eram qui eram” (Jud; Bible: 1543); “Aut iuxta Grammaticas regulas: ero qui ero; verum Hebraei saepe usurpant futurum loco praesentis” (Münster; Miqdash: 1546). Echoes of different variants are reflected in Polish translations. Leopolita and Wujek, translating from the Vulgate, consistently chose the interpretation “Jam jest ten, który jest (I am the one who is)” and “JAM JEST, KTÓRYM JEST (I AM WHO I AM)”. The Pinczów team, Budny and Mikołajewski hold to the Hebrew Bible literally, translating the phrase in the future and possibly adding a note indicating other translation possibilities.

Example 21: Exod 4:1 BH:

‫אמר וְ ֵהן ֽל ֹא־יַ ֲא ִמינּו ִלי וְ לֹא יִ ְׁש ְמעּו ְּבק ִ ֹ֑לי‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּיַ ַען מ ֶֹׁשה וַ ּי‬ ‫הוה׃‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫אמרּו ֽל ֹא־נִ ְר ָאה ֵא ֶליָך י‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִּכי ֽי‬

LXX: ’Απεκρίθη δὲ μωυσῆς, καὶ εἶπεν, ἐὰν οὖν μὴ πιστεύσωσί μοι, μηδὲ εἰσακούσωσι τῆς φωνῆς μου· ἐροῦσι γὰρ, ὅτι οὐκ ὦπταί σοι ὁ θεός, τί ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτούς; Vlg: Respondens Moyses, ait, Non credent mihi, neque audient vocem meam: sed dicent, Non apparuit tibi Dominus. PagSt: Respondit autem Mo‫ׁש‬seh, et dixit, ″Ecce non credent mihi, neque parebunt voci meae: nam dicent, Non apparvit tibi Iehovah. n.: Ecce, ‫ והן‬Ad verbum, Et ecce. Redundat ‫ו‬.

BGen 1559; 1561; 1562: Puis Moyse respondit, disant, Voici, ils ne me croiront point, et n’obeiront point a ma voix: mais ils diront, Le Seigneur ne t’est point apparu. BL: Odpowiedziawszy Mojżesz rzekł: Nie będą mi wierzyć, ani usłuchają głosu mego, rychlej będą mówić: Nie ukazał sie tobie Pan. (Answering, Moses said: They will not believe me, nor will they listen to my voice, they will sooner say: The Lord has not appeared to thee.)

Examples

259

BB: Potym Mojżesz odpowiedział tymi słowy: A jeśliby mi nie wierzyli, a nie słuchali głosu mego, a mówili, żem nie widział Pana. (Then Moses answered with these words: And if they did not believe me, and did not listen to my voice, and said that I had not seen the Lord.) BSzB: I odpowiedział Mojżesz i rzekł: Oto mi nie uwierzą i nie posłuchają głosu mego, bo rzeką: nie ukazał się tobie Jehowa. (And Moses answered and said: Behold, they will not believe me and will not listen to my voice; for they will say: Jehovah has not appeared to thee.) BWj: Odpowiedając Mojżesz, rzekł: Nie uwierzą mi i nie usłuchają głosu mego, ale rzeką: Nie ukazał sie tobie PAN. (Answering, Moses said: They will not believe me and will not listen to my voice, but they will say: The LORD has not appeared to thee.) BG: Potym odpowiadając Mojżesz, rzekł: ale oto nie uwierzą mi, i nie usłuchają głosu mego, bo rzeką: Nie ukazał się tobie PAN. (Then answering, Moses said: Behold, they will not believe me, nor will they listen to my voice, for they will say: The LORD has not appeared to thee.) In this text, it was difficult for translators to interpret the words ‫הן‬,ֵ which may mean ‘behold’ or function as a conjunction ‘if ’, introducing a conditional sentence. Choosing the second solution, we receive the question: ‘What if they don’t believe me?’ The Septuagint translated this place as a conditional sentence, which corresponds very well to the final question of the verse (the consequent to the conditional sentence), which is missing from the Hebrew Bible: τί ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτούς; (‘what will I tell them?’). The Vulgate omits the conditional sentence, while the verbs are rendered in the future tense. The solutions adopted by Poles also go two ways: Budny and Mikołajewski translate ‫ ֵהן‬by ‘oto’ (‘behold’), and verbs in the affirmative of the future tense, obtaining an effect similar to that of the Vulgate, the Leopolita’s Bible and Wujek’s Bible. Only the Pińczów translators rendered the Hebrew ‫ וְ ֵהן‬as the antecedent of the conditional sentence,115 obtaining a question that is very well integrated into the context (although without the question mark at the end). Consider how freely the Pińczów translators treated the response of the people predicted Moses, which in their translation takes the form of a complementary sentence (“a mówili, żem nie widział Pan [and said that I had not seen the Lord]”).

115 In BH this sentence is not followed by the consequent clause, though Greek τί ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτούς; is probably the proof of its existence (cf. Lemański: 2009, 139).

260

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Example 22: Exod 18:2f BH:

‫יה׃‬ ָ ‫ּלּוח‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ת־צּפ ָֹרה ֵא ֶׁשת מ ֶ ֹׁ֑שה ַא ַחר ִׁש‬ ִ ‫ וַ ּיִ ַּקח יִ ְתרֹו ח ֵֹתן מ ֶֹׁשה ֶא‬2 ‫יתי ְּב ֶא ֶרץ נָ ְכ ִר ָּיֽה׃‬ ִ ִ‫ וְ ֵאת ְׁשנֵ י ָב ֶנ ָ֑יה ֲא ֶׁשר ֵׁשם ָ ֽה ֶא ָחד ֵ �ּג ְֽרׁש ֹם ִּכי ָא ַמר ּגֵ ר ָהי‬3 i

i

Vlg: 2 Tulit Sephoram uxorem Moysi quam remiserat. 3 Et duos filios eius, quorum unus vocabatur Gersam116, dicente patre, Advena fui in terra aliena. PagSt: 2 Tulitque Ithro socer Mo‫ׁש‬seh ‫ס‬Sipporam uxorem Mo‫ׁש‬seh post dimmisi­ onem eius: 3 Et duos ″filios eius: nomen unius, Ger‫ׁש‬som: dixerat enim, Pe­regrinus fui in terra aliena. n.: Filios eius: nempe ‫ בניה‬Sephorae.

BGen 1559; 1562: 2 Lors print Sephora la femme de Moyse, apres qu’il eut117 renvoyee. 3 Et eux des fils d’icelle, desquels le nom de l’un estoit Gersam: car il dit, I’ay este habitant en pays estrange: BL: Wziąwszy sobą Seforę żonę Mojżeszową, którą był odesłał, i dwu synów jego, z których jednemu było imie Gersam (gdy ociec rzekł: Byłem przychodniem w cudzej ziemi). (Having taken with him Zipporah, the wife of Moses, whom he had sent away, and two of his sons, one of whom was named Gershom [when the father said: I was a newcomer in a strange land.]) BB: 2 Wziął z sobą Seforę żonę Mojżeszowę, którą on był odesłał. 3 I dwu synów jego, z których było imię jednemu Gersom, bo powiedał Mojżesz, Iż był przychodniem w ziemi cudzej. (He took with him Zipporah, the wife of Moses, whom he had sent away. And two of his sons, of whom one had the name of Gershom, because Moses said, he was a newcomer in a strange land.) BSzB: 2 I wziął Jtro świekier Mojżeszów Cipporę żonę Mojżeszowę, którą był odesłał. 3 I dwa syny jej, z których jednemu imię ″Gierszom, bo rzekł: przychodniem byłem w ziemi cudzej. (And Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took Tzipporah, the wife of Moses, whom he had sent away. And two of her sons, of whom one was Gershom, for he said, I was a newcomer in a strange land.) n.: Gierszom, przychodzień albo gość. (Gershom, a newcomer or a guest.)

BWj: 2 Wziął Sephorę żonę Mojżeszowę, którą był odesłał, 3 i dwu synów jej, z których jednego zwano ″Gersam, iż rzekł ociec: Byłem przychodniem w ziemi 116 PCo and PAn: “Gersan”. 117 BGen 1561: “l’eut”.

261

Examples

cudzej. (He took Zipporah the wife of Moses, whom he had sent away, and two of her sons, one of whom was called Gershom, for the father said: I was a newcomer in a foreign land.) n.: Gersam: przychodzień, gość. (Gershom, a newcomer, a guest.)

BG: 2 Tedy wziął Jetro świekier Mojżeszów, Zeforę żonę Mojżeszowę, którą był odesłał. 3 I dwu Synów jej, z których imię jednemu Gerson, bo był powiedział Mojżesz: byłem przychodniem w ziemi cudzej. (Then Jethro the father-in-law of Moses, took Zipporah the wife of Moses, whom he had sent away. And two of her sons, the name of one was Gershom, for Moses said: I was a newcomer in a foreign land.) The text of Exod 18:2f has two main problems that make it difficult for translators. The Vulgate dropped the subject in v. 2a (‫ )יִ ְתרֹו ח ֵֹתן מ ֶֹׁשה‬and introduced the word “patre” in v. 3b; the Vulgate translated ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫‘( ָּבנ‬her sons’) as “filios eius”, which can be understood as both ‘her sons’ (Zipporah’s) as well as ‘his sons’ (Moses’s). Leopolita sticks to the Vulgate. Although they declared a translation from the original Hebrew, the Pińczów translators are influenced by the Vulgates: they drop the subject in v. 2a, and add the subject of the subordinate clause in v. 3b (but not the ‘father’, as in the Vulgate, but ‘Moses’), not noticing the suffix of the female gender in ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ּבנ‬,ָ they translate “synów jego (his sons)”, even though there is a note in Stephanus Bible: “Filios eius: nempe ‫ בניה‬Sephorae”. It seems that the Pińczów translators follow the Geneva Bible, which also drops the subject of the main clause. Budny pointed out this error, claiming that it is a translation from Latin and not from the Hebrew text (BSzB, c2v). In addition, the Pińczów group freely translate Moses’s statement, which in both Hebrew and Latin is in the first person singular (‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫הי‬,ָ ‘fui’). Budny is very faithful to the Hebrew text, correcting the errors of the Brest Bible. Wujek, although he translated from Latin, probably under Budny’s influence translated “synów jej (her sons)”. The errors of the Pińczów translators were also corrected by Mikołajewski, who added subject v. 3b: “Moses” after the Pińczów translation.

Example 23: Josh 21:36f BH:

‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶ ֽׁש ָה׃‬ ִ ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶ ׁ֑ש ָה וְ ֶאת־יַ ְה ָצה וְ ֶא‬ ִ ‫ת־ּב ֶצר וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫אּובן ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ַּמ ֵּטה ְר‬ ִ 36 ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶ ׁ֑ש ָה ָע ִרים ַא ְר ַ ּֽבע׃‬ ִ ‫יפ ַעת וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־מ‬ ֵ ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶׁש ָה וְ ֶא‬ ִ ‫ת־ק ֵדמֹות וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬37 i

118

i

118 The division into verses according to BHS. These two verses are in PCo, BHSt 1539, PAn. PCo: three times ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ִמגְ ָר ֶׁש‬instead of ‫מגְ ָר ֶׁש ָה‬. ִ

262

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

VlgSt: 36 De tribu Ruben ultra civitates refugii, Bosor in solitudine, Misor et Iaser: et Iethson et Mephaad, civitates quatuor cum suburbanis suis, 37 [lacking].119 PagSt: 36 De tribu vero Re‫או‬uben, Be‫צ‬ser, et suburbana eius: et Iaha‫צ‬sa, et suburbana eius: 37 Cedemoth, et suburbana eius: Mepha‫ע‬ath, et suburbana eius: civitates quatuor.

VlgSC 1592: 36 De tribu Ruben ultra Iordanem contra Iericho civitates refugij, Bosor in solitudine, Misor et Iaser et Iethson et Mephaath, civitates quatuor cum suburbanis suis. 37 De tribu Gad […]. BGen 1559; 1561: 36 Item, de la lignee de Ruben, Bosor avec ses fauxbourgs, Iaheza avec ses fauxbourgs, 37 Cedmod avec ses fauxbourgs, Mephaath avec ses fauxbourgs: quatre villes. BGen 1562: 36 Item de la lignee de Ruben, p Bosor avec ses fauxbourgs, Iaheza avec ses fauxbourgs, 37 Cedmod avec ses fauxbourgs, Mephaath avec ses fauxbourgs: quatre villes. n. p: Ce qui fut donne aux Levites en la lignee de Ruben.

BL: [lacking]. BB: 36 Z pokolenia Ruben, Bosor, i przedmieścia jego, Jahasa i przedmieścia jego. 37 Kedemoth i przedmieścia jego, Mefaath i przedmieścia jego, cztery miasta. (36 From the generation of Ruben, Bosor, and its outskirts, Jahasa and its outskirts. 37 Kedemoth and its outskirts, Mefaath and its outskirts, four towns.) BSzB: 36 A od pokolenia Rubenowego Becer i wygony jego, tesz Jaheca i wygony jej. 37 Kiedemoth i wypusty jego, tesz Mefahath i wypusty jego, cztery miasta. (And from the generation of Ruben, Becer and its pasturelands, and Jaheca and her pasturelands. Kiedemoth, and its suburbs, and Mefahath, and its suburbs, four towns.) BWj: 36 A z pokolenia Ruben za Jordanem przeciwko Jerychu miasta ucieczki: Bosor w pustyni, Misor, i Jaser, i Jethson, i Mephaat: miasta cztery z przedmieściami swemi, 37 A od pokolenia Gad […] (And from the generation of Ruben behind the Jordan River opposite of Jericho, the towns of escape: Bosor in the

119 These verses are missing from PCo. PAn: “38 De tribu Ruben civitates refugij, Bosor in solitudine Misor et Iazer, 39 Et Ietson, et Mespha, civitates quatuor cum suburbanis suis.”

263

Examples

desert, Misor, and Jaser, and Jethson, and Mephaat: four towns with their outskirts. And from the generation of Gad […]) BG: 36 A z pokolenia Rubenowego: Besor, i przedmieścia jego: i Jahasa, i przedmieścia jego. 37 Kedemot, i przedmieścia jego: i Mefaat, i przedmieścia jego: miast cztery. (And from the generation of Ruben: Besor, and its outskirts: and Jahasa, and its outskirts. Kedemot, and its outskirts: and Mefaat, and its outskirts: four towns.) These two verses appear in the Complutensian Polyglot, Stehpanus’s edition of the Hebrew Bible (BHSt 1539), and in Pagnini’s translation in Stephanus Bible (PagSt). There is no v. 37 in Vulgate (VlgSt and VlgSC). The text does not appear in the secend edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (BR2). After reading the Brest version briefly, it seems that the translators followed the Hebrew text, but the use of proper names rather suggest they translated from the Latin version of Pagnini (PagSt). The Pińczów group copied proper names from Vulgate (VlgSt), except for popular proper names they polonised as the custom was (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 55f; example 28). In the verses under consideration one can see that they borrowed the names of “Ruben” and “Bosor” from the Vulgate. The names of “Jahasa” and “Kedemoth” were not used in Stephanus’s edition of the Vulgate, therefore they borrowed them from Pagnini together with the name of “Mefaath”. This example shows that when translating the verses, the Pińczów translators can’t have used the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (BR2). Most probably they translated on the basis of the Pagnini’s version of Stephanus Bible (cf. Pietkie­wicz: 2015, 53). Budny must have consulted the Hebrew text, because he transcribed the original proper names fairly precisely. Wujek stuck to Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, while Mikołajewski, certainly, to the Hebrew version.

Example 24: Ruth 2:23b BH:

‫מֹותּה׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ת־ח‬ ֲ ‫וַ ֵּת ֶׁשב ֶא‬

Vlg (Ruth 3:1a): Postquam autem reversa est ad socrum suam, […]. PagSt: […] ″et reversa est ad socrum suam.

n.: Et reversa est, et c. ‫ ותׁשב את־חמותה׃‬caeterum apud socrum suam habitavit.

BGen 1559; 1562: […] puis retourna vers sa belle-mere.

264

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BGen 1561: […] puis y retourna vers sa belle-mere. n. y: Grec, demeura.

BL: A gdy sie Ruth wróciła z pola do świekry swojej: […]. (And when Ruth returned from the field to her mother-in-law.) BB: […] potym sie wróciła do świekry swojej. (And that she returned to her ­mother-in-law.) BSzB: […] a mieszkała przy świekrze swej. (and she lived at her mother-in-law’s.) BWj (Ruth 3:1a): A potym gdy sie wróciła do świekry swojej, […]. (And after that when she returned to her mother-in-law.) BG: Potym mieszkała u świekry swojej. (After that she lived with her mother-inlaw.) This text has not been conveyed in a homogeneous way by Hebrew manuscripts. Two of them, codes no. 379 and 495 – the other one comes from the thirteenth century and has been housed in the Vatican Library (Kennicott: 1780, 103 [the first pagination], 112 [the second pagination]; the critical apparatus in BHS and in Biblia Hebraica Quinta: 2004) contain the variant ‫ל־חמו ָֺתּה‬ ֲ ‫‘( וַ ָּת ָׁשב ֶא‬then she returned to her mother-in-law’). The same variant appears in Vulgate (PCo, VlgSt, PAn, VlgSC) and in Pagnini version (PagSt). Stephanus added a note in which instead of the preposition ‫ אל‬he left ‫את‬. The difference between these texts is insignificant graphically (one consonant and two vowels), yet disparate vocalization of the verb points to the fact that the forms stem from two different roots. The printed Hebrew versions (BR2, PCo, BHSt 1539, PAn) indicate root ‫‘( יׁשב‬sit’, ‘live’, ‘reside’, ‘stay’, ‘dwell’), whereas Vulgate and Pagnini read at the same place root ‫‘( ׁשוב‬return’). This variant requires a further change of ‫‘( ֶאת‬with’, ‘together’) to the graphically similar preposition ‫אל‬, ֶ (‘to’), which changes the sense of the phrase completely – hence the Hebrew variant from printed versions should be translated as: ‘and she dwelt with her mother-in-law’. The presence of the variant in Pagnini can be easily explained, because while working on his version, he was working on the manuscripts from the Vatican Library, of which he was a prefect. Before he made a translation he looked at a text critically, choosing what was in his opinion the most reliable variant.120 In Ruth 2:23 he chose the variant ‫ל־חמו ָֺתּה‬ ֲ ‫‘( וַ ָּת ָׁשב ֶא‬et reversa est ad 120 So testifies Sixto da Siena (1586, 301): “[Pagninus – RP] collatis igitur inter se multis, iisdemque probatissimis Hebraeorum exemplaribus, quanta maxime valuit diligentia ac fide, omne vetus testamentum ex Hebraica veritate Latinitati donavit”; cf. Audin: 1850, 363; Gauthier: 1945, 177, 179.

Examples

265

socrum suam’), which seems to correspond to the context in a better way, having been confirmed by St Jerome. As can be seen, the translators from Pińczów clearly follow here both Latin versions, contrary to the printed Hebrew versions, changing the sense of the original completely. The conducted analysis also raises doubts as to whether the translators from Pińczów had seen the Hebrew original of this text at all. Probably the translators were influenced by Stephanus’ note or the 1559 Geneva Bible (cf. Piet­ kiewicz: 2015, 50f). Budny and Mikołajewski follow the printed Hebrew versions, while Leopolita and Wujek consistently stick to the Vulgate.

Example 25: Ruth 3:15b BH:

‫וַ ּיָבֹא ָה ִעיר׃‬

VlgSt: […] ingressa est civitatem. PagSt: […] et ingressa est urbem.

VlgSC: […] ingressa est civitatem […]121 BGen 1559; 1561; 1562: […] puis elle entra en la ville. BL: […] weszła do miasta […] ([…] she went into the town […]) BB: […] także potym odeszła do miasta. ([…] after that she went away to the town.) BSzB: […] i przyszła do miasta. ([…] and she came to the town.) BWj: […] weszła do miasta […] ([…] she went into the town […]) BG: […] a i weszła do miasta. ([…] a and she went into the town.) n. a: I. I szedł do miasta. (Others: And he went into the town.)

The variant with the verb ‫‘( וַ ּיָבֹא‬and he went away’) requires a masculine subject and refers to Boaz. However, over forty Hebrew manuscripts have here the feminine form ‫וַ ָּתבֹא‬: (‘and she went away’), pointing to Ruth as the subject. The transla-

121 The same variant in PCo.

266

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

tors of the BB influenced by a majority of the versions abandoned printed Hebrew editions. Only the translator of the Gdańsk Bible noticed the variant, which he signalled in the margin (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 51).

Example 26: 2 Sam 18:24 BH: ‫חֹומה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה‬ ַ ‫ין־ׁשנֵ י ַה ְּׁש ָע ִ ֑רים וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ַהּצ ֶֹפה ֶאל־ּגַ ג ַה ַּׁש ַער ֶא‬ ְ ‫יֹוׁשב ֵּב‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָדוִ ד‬ ‫ה־איׁש ָרץ ְל ַב ּֽדֹו׃‬ ִ ֵ‫ת־עינָ יו וַ ּיַ ְרא וְ ִהּנ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ּיִ ָּׂשא ֶא‬ Vlg: David autem sedebat inter duas portas: speculator vero qui erat in fastigio portae super murum, elevans oculos, vidit hominem currentem solum. PagSt: David autem sedebat inter duas portas: et ierat speculator super tectum portae, super murum: sublatis autem oculis suis aspexit, et ecce vir currebat solus. BGen 1559: Et David estoit assis entre deux portes: et la guette estoit allé sur le toict de la porte, sur la muraille: lequel esleva122 ses yeux, et vid123 un homme qui couroit tout seul. BL: A Dawid siedział miedzy dwiema branami. Tedy stróż, który był na wierzchu brony na murze, wzniossy oczy, uzrzał człowieka, a on sam bieży. (And David was sitting between the two gates. Then the guard who was on top of the gate on the wall, having raised his eyes, saw a man who ran alone.) BB: A Dawid siedział miedzy dwiema branami. A stróż był na dachu brany na murze, który pilnował. I ujzrał niektórego człowieka, który sam bieżał. (And David was sitting between two gates. And the guard was on the gate on the wall he watched. And he saw a man who was running alone.) BSzB: A Dawid siedział miedzy dwiema bronoma, a poszedł był stróż na dach brony na mur, i podniosł oczy swe i ujrzał, ano mąż bieży sam. (And David was sitting between two gates, and the guard went up to the roof of the gate on the wall, and raised his eyes and saw a man running alone.) BWj: A Dawid siedział między dwiema bramami, a stróż, który był na wierzchu bramy na murze, podniózszy oczy ujźrzał człowieka a on sam bieży. (And David 122 BGen 1562: “eleva”. 123 BGen 1561: “veit”.

267

Examples

was sitting between the two gates, and the watchman who was on top of the gate on the wall, having raised his eyes, saw a man who was running.) BG: A Dawid siedział miedzy dwiema bramami. I wyszedł stróż na dach bramy na mur, a podnióższy oczy swe, ujrzał męża jednego bieżącego. (And David was sitting between two gates. And a guard went up to the roof of the gate to the wall, and, having raised his eyes, he saw one man running.) This example contains one fundamental difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Vulgate. In a literal translation, the original text reads: ‘While David was sitting between the two gates, a guard went up to the roof, on the wall of the city, and raised his eyes and saw, and behold, a man is running alone’. According to the translation of St Jerome, however, the course of events is somewhat different: while David was sitting between two gates, at the same time the guard was at the top of the gate, over the wall, and at one moment, raising his eyes, he saw a man running alone. Among the Polish translators, Leopolita and Wujek stick to Jerome’s version. The Pińczów group was clearly influenced by the Vulgate, which they treated freely, adding the sentence: “który pilnował (who guarded)”. Budny and Mikołajewski very correctly rendered the sequence of verbs.

Example 27: 1 Kings 8:64a BH:

‫ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא ִק ַּדׁש ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֶאת־ּתֹוְך ֶה ָח ֵצר ֲא ֶׁשר ִל ְפנֵ י ֵבית־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ת־ה ִּמנְ ָחה וְ ֵאת ֶח ְל ֵבי ַה ְּׁש ָל ִ ֑מים‬ ַ ‫ת־הע ָֹלה וְ ֶא‬ ֽ ָ ‫י־ע ָׂשה ָׁשם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ִּכ‬

Vlg: In die illa sanctificavit Rex medium atrii quod erat ante domum Domini: fecit quippe holocaustum ibi, et sacrificium, et adipem pacificorum […] PagSt: Eodem die sanctificavit Rex ″medium atrii quod erat ante domum Iehovae: fecit quippe ibi holocaustum, et oblationes, et adipes pacificorum […] n: Medium atrii ‫את־תוך החצר‬. i. internam partem atrii sacerdotum, hoc est pavimentum lapideum.

BGen 1559: Ce iour-la le roy y consacra le dedans du parvis qui estoit devant la maison du Seigneur: car il fit là holocauste, et l’oblation, et les graisses des pacifiques: n. y: C.[’est] Fit consacrer par le souverain Sacrificateur.

BGen 1561: Ce iour-la consacra le Roy le dedans du parvis qui estoit devant la maison du Seigneur: car il fit là l’holocauste, et l’oblatiou (sic), et les graisses des pacifiques:

268

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

BGen 1562: Ce iour-la le roy dd consacra le dedans du parvis qui estoit devant la maison du Seigneur car il fit là holocauste, et l’oblation, les graisses des pacifiques: n. dd: C.[’est] fit consacrer par le souverain Sacrificateur. Voyez du parvis, et qu’il appelle le dedans du parvis sus 6,36.

BL: Tego dnia poświęcił Król połowicę sieni, która była przed domem Pańskim: i ofiarował tu ofiarę zupełną i poświętną i Łój a tłustość Spokojnych […] (On that day the King consecrated a half of the courtyard that was in front of the Lord’s house: and he offered a complete and holy sacrifice here, and the sebum and fatness of the peace Offerings […]) BB: Onegoż dnia Król poświęcił puł (sic) Sieni, która była przed Domem Pańskiem i sprawował tam ofiary palone, ofiary śniedne i tłustości ofiar spokojnych […] (On that day the King consecrated a half of the courtyard, which was in front of the Lord’s House, and made burnt sacrifices, meat sacrifices and fatness of the peace sacrifices […]) BSzB: Dnia onego poświęcił król ″śrzodek sieni, która przed domem Jehowinem. Bo tam czynił całopalenia i obiaty, ″i tłustości dziękownych (ofiar) […] (On that the king consecrated the centre of the courtyard, which was in front of Jehova’s house. Because there he was making holocausts and offerings, and the fatness of thankful (offerings) […]) n.: Tu pierwszy tłumacze przełożyli: puł [sic] sieni, ale się omylili. Bo tu po Ewr[ejsku] toch nie choci. (Here the first translators wrote a half of the courtyard, but they were mistaken. Because in Hebrew is toch not choci.) n.: Albo łoje i niżej. (Or the sebum and lower.)

BWj: Onegoż dnia ″poświęcił król śrzodek sieni, która była przed domem PAŃSKIM: bo tam ofiarował całopalenie i ofiarę, i ″tłustość zapokojnych […] (On that day, ″the king consecrated the centre of the courtyard, which was in front of the Lord’s house: for there he offered a holocaust and offering, and ″the fatness of the peace offerings […] n.: Rozkazał Biskupowi poświęcić. (He ordered the Bishop to consecrate.) n.: abo łoje (or sebum)

BG: Onegoż dnia poświęcił Król pośrzodek sieni, która była przed domem Pańskim: bo tam ofiarował całopalenie i Ofiarę śniedną i tłustości Ofiar spokojnych […] (On that day the King consecrated the middle of the courtyard, which was in front of the Lord’s house: for there he offered a holocaust and a meat sacrifice and fatness of the peace offerings […])

Examples

269

The problem with the translation of this verse results from the confusion of the meaning of the Latin word ‘medium’, which normally means ‘middle’, but in sixteenth century Poland it was used interchangeably with the word ‘dimidium’ (‘half ’).124 Hence the Leopolita’s translation: “poświęcił Król połowicę sieni (the King consecrated a half of the courtyard)”. The Pińczów translators, translating “Król poświęcił puł (sic) Sieni (the King consecrated a half of the courtyard)”, were probably influenced by the Vulgate. They probably confronted the Vulgate with the Hebrew original, but they may have confused two similar words: ‫ָח ֵצר‬ (‘middle’) i ‫‘( ֲח ִצי‬half ’). This mistake is surprising because the Brest Bible translators had the Stephanus and the Geneva Bibles at their disposal, which contain notes with relevant explanations that could be of use. This mistake was pointed out by Budny (BSzB, b2v). The terminological relationship between translations is also noteworthy in this text. Before Budny the Hebrew word ‫‘( ע ָֹלה‬holocaustum’) was translated as ‘ofiara zupełna’ (‘complete sacrifice’) (BL) or ‘ofiary palone’ (‘burnt sacrifice’) (BB). Budny for this type of sacrifice coined a new word ‘całopalenie’ (‘holocaust’, ‘burning of the whole’),125 which was accepted in the Polish biblical tradition (cf. BWj and BG).

Example 28: 1 Chron 4:2 BH: ‫ת־ל ַ֑הד‬ ָ ‫חּומי וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־א‬ ֲ ‫ ֶאת־יַ ַחת וְ יַ ַחת ה ִֹליד ֶא‬126‫הֹוליד‬ ִ ‫ן־ׁשֹובל‬ ָ ‫ְּור ָאיָ ה ֶב‬ ‫ֵא ֶּלה ִמ ְׁש ְּפחֹות ַה ָ ּֽצ ְר ָע ִ ֽתי׃‬ Vlg (PCo, PAn): Rahia vero filius Subal genuit Gaad, de quo nati sunt Ahumai et Laad. Hae generationes Sarathi.

124 “[…] naszy Polacy z dawna tego słowa Medium za dimidium używają, ale barzo omylnie. Bo medium a dimidium różne mają znaczenia. Bo medium znaczy pośrzodek, zaś dimidium połowicę. ([…] our Poles have used this word Medium for dimidium since ages, but mistakenly. Because medium and dimidium have different meanings. Medium means the middle and the dimidium means a half.)” (BSzB, b2v). 125 “Całopalenie inszy tłumacze paloną offiarą (sic) zową, ale nieprawie i to krzeczy, bo każda ­offiara (sic) bywała palona. Jedno w tem różność była, że insze bydle wszytko, okrom tylko skóry, palono, inszego lepak bydlęcia tylko łój palono. To jest, gdy je za grzech, albo za występ, albo, dzięki czyniąc za jakie dobrodziejstwo czynioną. Przeto co po hywrejsku Hola, a po grecku Holokawston zową, tom ja zgadzając się z Greki nazwał po słowieńsku całopaleniem. (Some translators translate holocaustum as a burnt offering, but they are not right because every offering was burned. The only difference was that one type of cattle was burned enirely, but for the skin, and from another only sebum was burned. That is, when they were offered for sin or crime, or in gratitute. So what in Hebrew is called Hola and in Greek Holocaust, I called, following Greek, całopalenie [‘burning of the whole’] in the Slavonic language.)” (BSzB, b4v). 126 PCo, PAn: ‫ה ִֹליד‬.

270

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

VlgSt: Raia vero filius Sobal genuit Iahath, de quo nati sunt Hahumai et Laad.127 hae cognationes Sarathi. PagSt: Reaiah autem filius ‫ׁש‬Sobal genuit Ia‫ח‬hath, Ia‫ח‬hath autem genuit A‫ח‬humai, et Lahad: istae familiae ‫צ‬Sor‫ע‬athi. BGen 1559; 1562: Et Raia fils de Sobal, engendra Iahath, et Iahath engendra Ahumai, et Laad.128 Ce sont les familles des Sarathites. BL: […] a Raia syn Sobalow miał syna Jahatha, z którego sie narodzili, Ahumai, i Laad. Ty rodziny Sarathy. ([…] and Raia, son of Sobal, had a son Jahath, who begat Ahumai and Laad. These are the families of the Sarath.) BB: Ale Reajemu synowi Sobalowemu urodził się Jachat, z którego poszli Achumai i Lahad, a toć jest potomstwo Saratego. (But Reaj, son of Sobal, was the father of Jachat, from whom were Achumai and Lahad, and these are the descendants of the Sarati.) BSzB: A Reaiah syn Szowalow spłodził Jachatha, a Jachat spłodził Achumaia, i Lahada. To plemiona Carehathowe. (And Reaiah, son of Shoval, begat Jachath, and Jachath begat Achumai, and Lahad. These are the tribes of the Carehathi.) BWj: A Raia syn Sobalow zrodził Johatha, z którego poszli Ahumai i Laad. Te rodzaje Sarathi. (And Raia, son of Sobal, begat Johath, from whom were Ahumai and Laad. These are the kind of the Sarathi.) BG: A Rejasz Syn Sobalow zpłodził Jahata, a Jahat zpłodził Achuma, i Laada: teć są rodzaje Zaratego. (And Rejash, son of Sobal, begat Jahat, and Jahat begat Achum, and Laad: these are the kind of the Zarati.) When translating the Bible into Polish, the translators encountered considerable difficulties in rendering proper names. As far as popular names are concerned, they were generally polonized variants (cf. example 23).129 Rare names were copied from Vulgate or transcribed according to accepted rules. Leopolita and Wujek copy them from Vulgate, while Budny transcribes from Hebrew.

127 VlgSC: “Ahumai, et Laad.” 128 BGen 1561: “Ahumai, et Laad.” 129 E.g.: Adam, Ewa (BL, BSzB, BWj: Hewa), Mojżesz, Jozue (BSzB: Jehoszua), Izajasz, Jeremiasz, Ezechiel etc.

271

Examples

The translators of the Brest Bible render popular proper names in a polonised form, whereas rare names they copy from the Vulgate (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 55). This example, however, indicates inconsistencies on the part of the Pińczów translator, which are probably caused by confusing the juxtaposed versions of Pagnini and the Vulgate (cf. fig. 19 and 20). The names “Reaj” and “Lahad” were taken from Pagini’s version (PagSt). In this verse we find names containing the Hebrew letter ‫( ח‬chet), which in turn in the Brest Bible are translated by Polish ch, whereas the Vulgate uses here the letter h – this signifies that the translator followed Pagnini’s version, which in Stephanus’ edition uses some Hebrew letters inside Latin names. Then, in the case of the last name in the verse (‫צ‬Sor‫ע‬athi, Sarathi, Sarati) we may observe clear influence of Vulgate (VlgSt). Moreover, the insertion of a complex clause (“z ktorego poszli Achumai i Lahad [from whom were Achumai and Lahad]”), not present in the Hebrew text and in Pagnini, is also taken from Vulgate (“de quo nati sunt Hahumai et Laad”). This example reveals the working method of a translator who was simultaneously observing two versions printed in the Stephanus Bible – by Pagnini and St Jerome – continuously shifting his eyes from one version to the other. Such a method of working may easily lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. This example casts more light on the role of the Vulgate in the translation process for the Brest Bible: whose role could result from confusing two Latin versions printed in parallel (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 55f).

Fig. 19: Stephanus Bible, Geneva 1557, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (ZNiO XVI.F.13809).

Fig. 20: The Brest Bible, Brest-Litovsk 1563, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (Wr PWT III-701).

272

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

Example 29: Neh 7:68 PCo: ‫אתיִ ם וְ ַא ְר ָּב ִעים וַ ֲח ִמ ָּׁשה׃‬ ַ ‫יהם ַמ‬ ֶ ‫ֹלשים וְ ִׁש ְב ָעה ִּפ ְר ֵּד‬ ִ ‫יהם ְׁש ַבע ֵמאו ֺת ְׁש‬ ֶ ‫סּוס‬ ֵ

BHSt 1539; BR3; PAn: ‫אתיִ ם ַא ְר ָּב ִעים וַ ֲח ִמ ָּׁשה׃‬ ַ ‫יהם ָמ‬ ֶ ‫ֹלשים וְ ִׁש ָּׁשה ִּפ ְר ֵד‬ ִ ‫יהם ְׁש ַבע ֵמאו ֺת ְׁש‬ ֶ ‫סּוס‬ ֵ Vlg (PCo; PAn): Equi eorum sexcenti triginta septem, muli eorum ducenti qua­ draginta quinque […] VlgSt; VlgSC: Equi eorum, septingenti triginta sex: muli eorum, ducenti qua­ draginta quinque […] PagSt: Equi eorum septingenti triginta sex: muli eorum ducenti quadraginta quinque […] BGen 1559; 1561; 1562: Leurs cheuaux estoyent, sept cens trentesix.130 Leurs mulets, deux cens quarantecinq. BL: Koni ich było, siedmset, trzydzieści i sześć. Mułów, dwieście, czterdzieści i pięć. (Their horses numbered seven hundred and thirty-six. Their mules two hundred and forty-five.) BB: Koni ich było siedm set trzydzieści i sześć. A Mułow dwieście czterdzieści i pięć. (Their horses numbered seven hundred and thirty-six. And the mules two hundred and forty-five.) BSzB: Koni ich siedm set trzydzieści i sześć, mułów ich dwie ście czterdzieści i pięć. (Their horses – seven hundred and thirty-six, the mules two hundred and forty-five.) BWj: Koni ich, siedm set trzydzieści sześć i mułów ich, dwie ście czterdzieści pięć. (Their horses – seven hundred and thirty-six and mules two hundred and forty-five.) BG: Koni ich, siedm set, trzydzieści i sześć; mułów ich dwie ście, czterdzieści i pięć. (Their horses – seven hundred and thirty-six; their mules two hundred and forty-five.) 130 BGen 1561: “Leurs cheuaux estoyent, sept cens trentesix.”; BGen 1562: “Leurs cheuaux estoyent sept cens trentesix.”

273

Examples

The verse Neh 7:68 causes numerous problems in terms of text criticism. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible retained the variant ‘their horses were seven hundred, thirty and seven’. There is no such verse in the second edition of the Rabbinic Bible (BR2).131 Neither did the Vulgate versions of the text provide this verse in a uniform form. Two great polyglots (PCo, PAn) have a variant: “Equi eorum sexcenti triginta septem”. Most of the printed ancient versions and translations have a variant “their horses were seven hundred, thirty and six”. Also all Polish translations follow this variant. This example indicates that neither the second edition of the Rabbinic Bible (BR2) nor the Complutensian Polyglot Bible could have been the first basis of the translation of Neh 7:68 into Polish (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 54). *** The examples presented above provided material for an approximate assessment of the level of the knowledge of the Hebrew language and the way of using the Renaissance sources and auxiliary materials by Polish translators of the Old Testament. Their knowledge of Hebrew was good enough to translate the Hebrew Bible in its entirety three times. It is very difficult to evaluate which translators were best acquainted with the biblical Hebrew language because the separate concepts of translation they adopted required the use of slightly different philological skills. The Pińczów team declared that they took the Hebrew Bible as their basis for translation, but treated it quite freely, translating “sense by sense” rather than “word by word” and were influenced by the Vulgate containing different variants of the text (examples 15, 22–27). Sometimes the influence of the Vulgate was accidental, resulting from the use of the Stephanus Bible, in which the Vulgate and Pagnini’s translation were juxtaposed in two parallel columns (example 29). Several of the above examples (examples 14, 23ff, 28f) raise serious doubts as to whether this translation was indeed based on the Hebrew text. It seems that at least in the case of certain passages the Pińczów translators followed directly the Stephanus Bible, using Pagnini’s literal translation. Also from this Bible the division of the text into numbered verses was transferred (the Brest Bible is the first Bible in Polish with the Stephanus division), so the Polish and Latin texts in the Stephanus version had to be compared with each other verse by verse (cf. Pietkiewicz: 2015, 54). The Brest translators encountered problems with difficult Hebrew syntax, which sometimes was challenging (examples 14 and 26), but they were also able to render it correctly in Polish, e. g. by recognising conditional sentences (examples 17f, 21). They avoided literal translations of idiomatic expressions, looking for native equivalents that reflected their meaning (examples 17ff). The beauty of the language of

131 This verse is missing from BHS, too.

274

Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible

this translation deserves special emphasis (cf. Kossowska: 1968, 245–250; K ­ wilecka: 1992, 284f; 1999; 2001a; 2006, 115ff). The dependence of the Brest Bible on the French Geneva Bibles prepared for printing by John Calvin, among others, is very clearly visible, primarily in the borrowed notes. The above mentioned examples (3, 5, 7ff, 11, 13) allow for a revision of the previous hypotheses about the dependence of the Pinczów Bible on the 1530, 1546 or 1553 Bibles in French (see 3.4.5). During his own research the author of this monograph, compared notes from these editions with the Brest Bible. It turned out that in these editions the number of notes is very modest and they by no means correspond to those from the Brest Bible, which resemble the notes from two editions of the Bible in French, that of 1559 and 1562 (BGen 1559; 1562). Very often these are simply translations. Of these two editions, the 1559 edition should be indicated as the basis for the translation of the notes, as shown by some differences between the two editions – the Brest Bible seems to follow the first edition (see examples 11, 18). It is also supported by the fact that the 1559 edition has few notes to the so-called apocrypha (these are only references to parallel places). In the 1562 edition the notes to this part of the Bible were significantly extended. However, the notes to the apocrypha in the Brest Bible correspond to those of 1559. Furthermore, it should be noted that the translation of the Brest Bible was completed in 1562, after which the manuscripts were delivered to the printing house in Brest-Litovsk (see 2.2.2). The Bible was printed in the summer of 1563,132 so the use of the Bible of 1562 is unlikely. During this research some influences of the 1561 edition (BGen 1561) on the notes were detected, although they are scarce and uncertain (see exemples 4, 11). Szymon Budny slavishly clung to the Hebrew version, even trying to keep the same word order. This concept of translation made him translate Hebrew specific idioms very often literally, resulting in clumsy constructions in Polish (examples 16f, 19). He would often translate sequences of verbs literally, omitting conditional and final clauses (examples 14, 17f); still, his version also contains sentences that reflect Hebrew syntax very correctly (examples 26). It was Budny’s merit to develop a number of proposals for the translation of Hebrew terminology accepted to this day (example 27). He also corrected the Brest translation in many places, and the discussions he triggered on variants of this translation made his successors effectively avoid old mistakes (examples 22 and 27). On the other hand, Budny, who was so anxious to render every word of the original in Polish as faithfully as possible, would (probably through inattention) leave certain parts of the Hebrew text (example 17). Mikołajewski produced a translation which is in many respects a version standing between the Brest and the Nesvizh Bible. He translated the Hebrew text lit132 Dedykacja został podpisana przez Mikołaja Radziwiłła the Black 19 września 1563, a na końcy Nowego Testamentu znajduje się data 4 września 1563.

Examples

275

erally, more gracefully than Budny, but not in proficient Polish as the Pińczów team. In general, he would correctly render the sequences of Hebrew verbs, and he would recognise different types of clauses (examples 14, 18, 26), although he was also sometimes troubled by certain syntactic phenomena of the Hebrew language (example 14). The translation of idiomatic expressions in the Gdańsk Bible can also be described as something in between literalism (examples 17ff) and the search for Polish expressions that reflect the meaning of specific Hebrew words (example 16), although the translator is rather closer to Budny’s methodology. Mikołajewski noticed passages in the Brest Bible in which the Pińczów team was influenced by the Vulgate or treated the original text too freely. The variants proposed by the translator of the Gdańsk Bible are very often corrections of the Brest Bible (examples 15f, 22). A comparison of these two translations shows that Mikołajewski mastered Biblical Hebrew to a very high degree. The very fact of entrusting him with the revision of the 1563 Bible was in recognition of his philological proficiency (cf. Sipayłłówna: 1934, 151; Szeruda: 1985, 15f). Also Wujek’s knowledge of the Hebrew language deserves to be appreciated. Although he translated from Latin, the rich and numerous notes and comments he left in his Bible make it possible for the reader to follow the Hebrew text in parallel to the Vulgate translation. Overcoming the difficulties of the original text of the Old Testament, Wujek argued with his predecessors using his philological expertise (examples 13 and 19).

Conclusions

In the sixteenth century, the reception process of Christian Hebraism, which were practised on a grand scale in numerous university centres in Western Europe, took place in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The study of the various aspects of this reception allows for its more detailed description. Polish Christian Hebraism was not creative. It was definitely reproducible and did not match the achievements of Western European Hebraism. Of the few grammars-polonicas of the Hebrew language in the period in question, only one was written by a Polish Jew convert, Dawid Leonard. Unfortunately, this work did not appear in print and was probably lost forever. Other grammars published in Poland (those by Novenianus, Van den Campen and Stancaro) were the result of the work of foreign Christian Hebraists, who published their studies in Cracow, which had already been printed in other European centres. These items were not original either, as they were compilations of works by other Hebraists, mostly those by Elias Levita and Sebastian Münster. The process of reception of Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was essentially carried out in four ways. The first of these were the personal contacts of magnates and church dignitaries with Western European Christian Hebraists. Thanks to these contacts and the developed patronage to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its dependent countries, eminent humanists were invited who promoted Christian Hebraism studies, delivered lectures, and even assumed university chairs dealing with the study and teaching of the Hebrew language. An important role in this process was played by the bishops of Cracow, mainly Piotr Tomicki and Samuel Maciejowski along with Jan Dantyszek. Thanks to patronage and personal contacts, such eminent Hebraists as Jan van den Campen and Francesco Stancaro were invited to Cracow. Prince Albert of Prussia using his contacts with Philip Melanchthon and Andreas Osiander, applied for professors of sacred philology in Wittenberg and Nuremberg. A large group of Hebraists benefited from the patronage and hospitality of magnates, such as the Oleśnicki family from Pińczów and the Radziwiłłs. In the initial stage of the organization of Christian Hebraism studies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, an important role was played by a different

278

Conclusions

way of reception, through Jewish converts, who were involved in teaching Semitic languages. In Poland, Dawid Leonard belonged to this group. Elias Levita’s grandson, Giovanni Battista Romano – who taught, among others, Justus Rab and Jakub Wujek – was among outstanding foreign Hebraists, converts from Judaism, who influenced Polish Christian Hebraism studies. The third and certainly most important way of adopting Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were the studies abroad in Europe’s university centres. Through this channel, Hebraist knowledge reached the Crown, Lithuania and Ducal Prussia from, among others, the Apennine Peninsula, Paris, Leuven, Geneva, Zurich, Basel and Wittenberg. The reception of the study of the Hebrew language was also done through books. The Polish Christian printing industry did not develop its Hebrew branch like its counterpart specialized publishing houses in Basel, Wittenberg or Venice, and thus did not have much influence on the development of native Hebraism studies. Hebrew books belonged to the rare assortment of Cracow publishing house of Maciej Szarfenberg, Florian Ungler and Jan Helicz. Lack of professional literature was made up for by booksellers and people returning from foreign trips. The contacts of the Polish humanists and reformers with the Jews clinging to their faith were of little importance for Polish Christian Hebraism. They were very limited and were only confirmed in the case of Szymon Budny. Jewish communities showed a tendency to emphasize and guard their own ethnic and religious identity, which was not conducive to sharing with Christians the knowledge of the holy language, opening the way to the study of the Talmud and the Hebrew Bible, which the Jews believed Christians appropriated. Moreover, the level of the knowledge of the grammar of the dead Hebrew language among the Jews themselves was not always satisfactory, and their very presence in Poland did not mean that Poles could come into contact with spoken Hebrew, because Jews spoke either Yiddish or modern languages on a daily basis. Hebrew was the language of Bible and Talmud studies, which were held in schools dedicated exclusively to faithful Jews. Because of these difficulties, Poles and Lithuanians who wanted to learn Hebrew chose to study in foreign centers, which in the 1540s had long been acquiring linguistic knowledge directly from Jews. At the time when the citizens of the Commonwealth became interested in the Hebrew language, Christians taught it to other Christians without the mediation of Orthodox Jews. Jewish printing in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth thanks to a great deal of activity – especially when it comes to the printing of the Talmud – played an important role in the process of religious transmission in Judaism, but for Christian Hebraists it did not matter much because they were mainly interested in the Bible. Just like in the West, there was a humanistic current of Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as trends related to various religious orientations (Lutheran, Reformed, Bohemian Brethren, Radical and Catho-

Conclusions

279

lic). The first of these placed emphasis on ancient languages, which made it possible to reach the ancient sources of faith and civilization in the hope of finding in them the inspiration and power to change the society and the Church of that time. Christian Hebraism, which were part of this trend, appeared in Poland as early as in the first decades of the sixteenth century. The centre of Polish humanistic Christian Hebraism at that time was Cracow with its academic community. In the 1540s, under the influence of the Reformation, the native Christian Hebraism began to take on a religious character. During this period, the most important centre of Christian Hebraism in the spirit of the Reformation was Königsberg. In promoting the study of biblical philology, Prince Albert brought Reformation-friendly humanists educated in Cracow, Italy and Leuven, but he also turned to German Lutheran centres – Wittenberg and Nuremberg – which were close to him culturally and religiously. In Königsberg there were also the first attempts – unsuccessful as far as the Old Testament was concerned – to use Hebraism in practice to produce new translations of Scripture from the original languages, which would spread the ideas of the Reformation through the very concept of translation and the relevant comments. In the mid-1550s, the Reformed current of Christian Hebraism began to develop in Pińczów in Little Poland and in Lithuanian centres under the protection of the Radziwiłłs. At the end of the sixteenth century it was strengthened by the Bohemian Brethren. This trend brought Poles two translations of the entire Hebrew Bible: the Brest Bible (1563) and the Gdańsk Bible (1632). After Jan Łaski’s death (d. 1560) and the emergence of the antitrinitarian movement from the Polish and Lithuanian Reformed Churches, an antitrinitarian branch of Christian Hebraism was also set up, which made an effort to translate the Hebrew Bible into Polish (the Nesvizh Bible of 1572). The last twenty-five years of the sixteenth century brought about a lively interest in the Hebrew language among Catholics, especially Jesuits, who used their humanistic (including Hebraist) education as an effective tool of Counter-Reformation. There are two ways of organizing Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Commonwealth: within university structures and within religious movements. During the Renaissance, there were three academic centres teaching Hebrew within the university structures in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its fiefdoms: the Academy of Cracow, the Lutheran Albertina in Königsberg and the Jesuit Academy of Vilnius. As for other religious communities which did not have schools at a university level in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, two teams appointed by synods of religious dissenters to organize the translation and printing of the Holy Scripture in Polish should be mentioned. The first one is the Pińczów-Brest team, which started working on the translation of the Brest Bible. The second one, consisting of the Reformed and the Bohemian Brethren, worked on the revision of the Brest

280

Conclusions

Bible. Ultimately, however, it was probably reduced to one person, Daniel Mikołajewski, who produced a new translation of the Bible from the original languages (the Gdańsk Bible). The organization of work on the antitrinitarian revision of the Brest Bible was similar at first, but due to constant religious disputes and divisions among the Polish Brethren, it ended with a private translation of Szymon Budny. Speaking of the organization of Christian Hebraism in the Renaissance Commonwealth, one should also mention the teaching of Hebrew in some secondary schools. However, this issue has not yet been researched, and only residual information can be found in the literature. We must not forget about non-institutional, privately undertaken forms of learning. Perhaps this is how Simon Budny was educated. The personal aspect of Christian Hebraism is also worth noting. Several dozen people belonged to a close circle of Polish Hebraists who were involved in the teaching and translation of the Bible. Polish Hebraism had primarily a practical purpose. It strived to enable the reader to use the Hebrew text directly, especially in numerous religious polemics based on the original texts of the Holy Scriptures, and to develop a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Polish. The level and the mastery of Christian Hebraism among Polish philologists had to be quite high, as evidenced by three richly commented, complete translations of the Hebrew Bible into Polish and a fourth translation (Wujek’s Bible) made, admittedly, on the basis of the Latin Vulgate, but constantly confronted with the Hebrew original. The texts of these translations and the notes and comments explaining them often reveal the difficulties faced by Polish Hebraists, especially in the syntax of the Hebrew language. This is not surprising, however, because popular Hebrew textbooks intended for Christians devoted little space to syntax. Other characteristics of translations, such as the translation of idiomatic expressions, rendering difficult Hebrew terminology and proper names in Polish, largely depended on the accepted concept of translation. In their translation work our Hebraists certainly drew on Latin and vernacular sources. This is particularly evident in the case of the Brest Bible, in which the Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible by Santes Pagnini and the Geneva Bible played a major role. The knowledge of the Hebrew language gained during specialized university studies (most often theological studies) had necessarily limited personal scope. It was religiously dissenting ministers, Jesuits and a certain group of lay people studying in the West and in various centres in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who learnt Hebrew. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the discussions and disputes, not only dogmatic, but also philological, including Hebrew, were transferred to the pages of the popular editions of Scripture. The margins and comments on the biblical text in the Polish editions of Scripture are full of Hebrew words and phrases written in Latin transliteration or the square script. Their presence

Conclusions

281

in editions of the Bible intended for the average reader shows that knowledge of the Hebrew language at a popular level (alphabet, reading skills, mastery of basic words and possibly simple syntactic constructions) was not uncommon. The group with such knowledge of the language numbered at least several hundred people in the period of our interest. Of course, these are the social groups that enjoyed an adequate level of education. Thus, the Hebraist knowledge would find its way to the magnates’ courts and under the roof of the nobility and the burghers. This was done mainly through the Bible in Polish. It seems that in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance, the knowledge of the Hebrew language could have been more widespread than today. The objectives of the research work are not limited to answering only the questions that were asked at the beginning. The collected and analysed source materials and earlier studies reveal many new problems to be addressed in the future. As part of the issues related to the reception of Christian Hebraism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Renaissance, the research on the knowledge of Hebrew syntax among our biblical philologists deserves to be deepened. The examples studied signalled some aspects of this issue and gave some idea of the level of reception of this section of Hebrew grammar. However, they are necessarily fragmentary in nature. In the future it would be worthwhile to conduct a more detailed comparative philological study of the Polish translations of the Hebrew Bible from this very angle, but on selected parts of the text covering continuously at least several chapters or selected books, which would make it possible to show certain phenomena in the form of numerical juxtapositions. The sources used by Polish translators and commentators of the Bible have not yet been researched. Some observations made in this work about the use by Brest Bible translators of Pagnini’s version and the Geneva Bible promise a lot for the future – if there are researchers who will take on this serious research challenge. Another research field worthy of further study is the teaching of the Hebrew language in secondary schools, where students learned the basics of the language. The collection and ana­ lysis of new source materials would shed more light on the knowledge of Hebrew at a popular level. Some of the readers of translations of the Hebrew Bible into Polish must have had such Hebrew knowledge.

Bibliography

Bible editions (in chronological order) PCo: [Complutensian Polyglot Bible], vol. 1–6, Complutum (Alcalá de Henares): Arnaldo Guillén de Brocar, [1514–1517], 2º (shelf mark: Wr BU 400001/I–III). Online version at: http://www. archive.org/details/Complutensian_Polyglot; http://www.archive.org/details/ComplutensianPolyglotBibleOldTestamentNewTestament. Bomberg Rabbinic Bible, 2nd edn BR2: [‫( מקראות גדולות‬Miqraot gedolot), vol. 1–4, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1524–1525], 2 ° (Jer HU). [The Ungler’s Evangeliary, ed. Jan of Sącz (Malecki), Kraków: Florian Ungler, 1527/1528], 8 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.863). Online version at: https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=3163&dirids=1. Pagninius Bible, 1st edn Pag: Biblia. Habes In Hoc Libro prudens lector utriusque instrumenti novam tranlationem aeditam a reverendo sacrae theologiae doctore Sancte pagnino lucensi concionatore apostolico Praedicatorij ordinis […], [Lugduni]: Antoine du Ry/François Turchi/Dominique Bertus/ Jacques Giunta, 1527/1528 [in colophon: 29.01.1527], 4 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 462347). Online version at: http://archive.thulb.uni-jena.de/hisbest/receive/HisBest_cbu_00006141. Bible translated in French by Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples, 1st edn La Saincte Bible (1530) en françoys, translatée selon la pure et entière traduction de Sainct Hierome, conferée et entièrement revisitée selon les plus anciens et plus correctz exemplaires […], Anvers: Martin Lempereur, 1530, 2 °. Online version at: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ bpt6k54287d/f2.image. Psalmorum omnium (1532) iuxta Hebraicam veritatem paraphrastica interpretatio, autore Ioanne Campensi, publico, cum nascerent primum, et absoleretur, Lovanij Hebraicarum literarum professore, Kraków: Florian Ungler, 1532, 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ Cim 23; ZNiO XVI.O.912). Proverbia Salomonis (1534), Per Ioannem Campensem iuxta Hebraicam veritatem Peraphrasticos latinitate donata, Kraków: Florian Ungler, [1534], 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ Cim. 908; ZNiO XVI.O.978). Pecationes aliquod, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1534, 8 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.604). Bible translated in French by Pierre-Robert Olivétan, 1st edn La Bible (1535): Vol. 1: La Bible qui est toute la saincte escriture. En laquelle sont contenus, le Vieil Testament et le Nouveau, translatez en Francoys. Le Vieil, de Lebrieu: et le Nouveau, du Grec. Avec deux amples tables, une pour linterpretation des propres noms: lautre en forme dindice, pour trouver plusieurs sentences et matieres. Vol. 2: Le volume de tous les livres

284

Bibliography

apocryphes, contenus en la translation commune, lesquelz navons point trouvez en Ebrieu ny en Chaldée. Item, une epistre de lauthorité diceulx, selon Eusebe et sainct Hierosme: avec le registre de leurs noms, en la page suyvante. Vol. 3: Le Nouveau Testament de nostre Seig­ neur et seul Sauveur Jesus Christ. Translaté de grec en francoys. Vol. 4: Table de tous les moltz ebrieux, chaldées, grecz, et latins […], Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1535, 2 °. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-5690.  BHSt 1539: [Biblia Hebraica], vol. 1–4. Parisiis: Robert Stephanus (Estienne), 1539–1543, 4 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 346503/I-IV). Biblia sacra (1542) ex Santis Pagnini translatione, sed ad Hebraicae linguae amussim novissime ita recognita, et scholiis illustrata, ut plane nova editio videri possit, Lugduni: apud Hugonem a Porta, 1542, 2 °. Online version at: https://books.google.de/books?id=9h1fAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Biblia Tigurina, 1st edn Biblia (1543) Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi, e sacra Hebraeorum lingua Graecorumque fontibus, consultis simul orthodoxis interpretibus religiosissime translata in sermonem Latinum, Tiguri: Christoph Froschauer, 1543, 2 °. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-1844. Divinae Scripturae (1545): Της Θειας Γραφης, Παλαιας Δηλαδη και Νεας Διαθηκης, Απαντα. Divinae Scripturae, Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, Omnia, innumeris locis nunc demum, et optionorum librorum collatione, et doctorum virorum opera, multo quam unquam ante emendatiora, in lucem edita, ed. Philip Melanchthon, Basileae: Johann Herwagen, 1545, 2 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 370986; 415069). Vatable Bible, 1545 Biblia (1545). Quid in hac editione praestitum sit, vide in ea quam operi praeposuimus, ad lectorem epistola, Lutetiae: Robert Stephanus (Estienne), 1545, 8º (shelf mark: Wr BU 328601; 418027; 459208; 452516). BR3: [Biblia Rabbinica], vol. 1–4, [Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1546–1548], 8º (shelf mark: Wr BU 362155/1–2). Miqdash (1546), […] ‫( מקדׁש י’’י עׂשרים וארבע ספרי המכתב הקדוׁש‬Miqdash J”J: esrim we-arba siphre ha-mikhtaw ha-qadosh […]). En tibi lector Hebraica Biblia latina planeque nova Sebast. Munsteri translatione, post omneis omnium […] gentium aeditiones evulgata et quoad fieri potuit, hebraice veritate conformata: commentariis annotationibus haud poenitendis, pulchre et voces ambiguas […] elucidantibus: Accesserunt in hac aeditione multae novae annotationes […], vol. 1–2, Basilae: Michael Isengrin/Heinrich Petri, 1546, 2 ° (shelf marks: Wr BU 556533; Wr PWT III-364). Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-2552. BGen 1546: La Bible, Qui est la saincte escriture, En laquelle sont contenuz, le vieil Testament et le nouveau, translatez en François, et reveuz: le vieil selon l’Ebrieu, et nouveau selon Grec, Geneva: Jean Girard, 1546. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-15823. Thargum (1546), Hoc Est, Paraphrasis Onkeli Chaldaica In Sacra Biblia, Ex Chaldaeo In Latinum Fidelissime Versa, additis in singula fere Capita succinctis Annotationibus, Autore Paulo Fagio. Pentateuchus sive Quinque libri Moysi. Tomus Primus, Argentorati: Georg Messerschmidt (Machaeropoeus), 1546, 2 °. Online version at: http://books.google.com/books?id=qBNEEOrX8L0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. Proverbia Salomonis (1547), Per Joannem Campensem iuxta Hebraicam veritatem Peraphrasticos latinitate donata, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 1547, 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ Cim. 910; ZNiO XVI.O.571).

Bible editions

285

Biblia (1551) Interprete Sebastiano Castalione. Una Cum Eiusdem Annotationibus. Totum opus recognouit ipse, et adiecit ex Flauio Josepho historiae supplementum ab Esdrae temporibus usque ad Machabaeos, itemque a Machabaeis usque ad Christum, Basileae: Johann Oporinus, 1551, 2 ° (shelf mark: Wr BK XLIV.34). BGen 1553: La Bible, Qui est toute la Saincte Escripture contenant le Vieil et Nouveau Testament, ou Alliance, [Genevae]: Robert Stephanus (Estienne), 1553, 2 ° (shelf marks: Pa BN Rés. A.312; 15342). Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-5731. BCa 1554: Biblia Interprete Sebastiano Castalione. Una Cum Eiusdem Annotationibus. Totum opus recognouit ipse, et adiecit ex Flauio Josepho historiae supplementum ab Esdrae temporibus usque ad Machabaeos, itemque a Machabaeis usque ad Christum, Basileae: Johann Oporinus, 1554, 2 °. Online version at: http://hardenberg.jalb.de/display_dokument.php?elementId=10742. La Bible (1555). Nouvellement translatée. Avec la suite de l’histoire depuis le tems d’Esdras iusqu’aux Maccabées; e depuis les Maccabées iusqu’a Christ. Item avec des Annotacions sur les passages difficiles. Par Sebastian Chateillon, Bale: Johann Herwagen. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-7524. BCa 1556: Biblia Interprete Sebastiano Castalione. Una Cum Eiusdem Annotationibus. Totum opus recognouit ipse, et adiecit ex Flauio Josepho historiae supplementum ab Esdrae temporibus usque ad Machabaeos, itemque a Machabaeis usque ad Christum, Basileae: Johann Oporinus, 1556, 2 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 371006). Online version at: http://www. bsb-muenchen-digital.de/~web/web1014/bsb10141273/images/index.html?digID=bsb 10141273&pimage=00007&v=100&md=1&l=de. Stephanus Bible, 1556–1557 BSt: Biblia Utriusque Testamenti De Quorum Nova Interpretatione Et Copiosissimis in eam annotationibus lege quam in limine operis habes epistolam, vol. 1–2, Genevae: Robert Stephanus (Estienne), 1556–1557, 2 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.F.13809; 14042; 14117). Online version at: https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/publication/11600/edition/10418; https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/ dlibra/publication/11613/edition/10430. BGen 1559: La Bible, qui est toute la saincte escriture, asçavoir le vieil et nouveau Testament: De novueau reveue, avec argumens sur chacun livre, nouvelles annotations en marge, fort utiles: par lesquelles on peut sans grand labeur, obtenir la vraye intelligence du sens de l’Escriture, avec recueil de grande doctrine. Il y a aussi quelques figures et cartes chorographiques de grande utilité, l’usage desquelles pourrez voir en l’espistre suyvante, [Genève]: Nicolas Barbier/Thomas Courteau, 1559, 8 °. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-12663. Leopolita’s Bible BL: Biblia To iest. Kxięgi Stharego y Nowego Zakonu / na Polski ięzyk / z pilnośćią według Laćińskiey Bibliey od Kośćioła Krześćiańskiego powssechnego przyięthey / nowo wyłożona. Cum Gratia et Priuilegio. S.R.M., Kraków: Dziedzice Marka Szarfenberga (Heirs of Marek Szarfenberger), 2 ° (shelf marks: BJ Cim. 8307; ZNiO XVI.F.4065; 4084; 4087; BK Cim.F.4058; 4059; Wa BU Sd. 612.60). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/biblia-to-iest-xiegi-staregoy-nowego-zakonu-na-polski-iezyk-z-pilnoscia-wedlug,MTE2MzMzOTU/2/#info:metadata. BGen 1561: La Bible, qui est toute la saincte Escriture, contenant le Vieil et le Nouveau Testament, ou, la vieille et nouvelle alliance. Quant est du Nouveau Testament, il a esté reveu et corrigé sur le Grec, par l’avis des Ministres de Geneve. Aussi avec les figures, on a adjousté des Annotations fort amples sur toute la Bible, [Genève]: Antoine Reboul/Conrad Badius/ Conrad Bade, 1561, 2 °. Onile version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-5774.

286

Bibliography

BGen 1562: La Bible, qui est toute la saincte Escriture: ascavoir, le Vieil et Nouveau Testament. Avec argumens sur chacun livre, annotations augmentées, et nouvelles sur les Apocryphes. Quand au Nouveau Testament, il a este reveu et corrigé sur le Grec par les Ministres de ­Geneve, comme on verra en leur Epistre qui est a la fin de l’Apocalypse. Il y a aussi plusieurs figures et cartes, tant chorographiques qu’autres de nouveau adjoustées, desquelles voyez l’Epistre qui s’ensuit en la page prochaine. Plus un indice copieux pour promptement trouver les matieres plus notables de l’Escriture, [Genève]: Nicolas Barbier/Thomas Courteau, 1562, 2 °. Onile version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-5785. Brest Bible (Pińczów Bible/Radziwiłł Bible) BB: BJblia swięta / Tho iest / Księgi Starego y Nowego Zakonu / własnie z Zydowskiego / G ­ reckiego / y Laćińskiego / nowo na Polski ięzyk z pilnośćią y wiernie wyłożone, Brześć Litewski (Brest-Litvosk): [Stanisław Murmelius or Cyprian Bazylik(?)], 1563, 2 ° (shelf marks: Pa BN Rés. 458; Wa BU Sd.612.65; Wr BU 437427; Wr PWT III-701; ZNiO. XVI.F.4013). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/biblia-swieta-tho-iest-ksiegi-starego-y-nowego-zakonu-wlasnie-z-zydowskiego-greckiego-y,MTE2MzgyMDY/6/#info:metadata. La Bible (1563), qui est toute la Saincte Escriture, contenant le Vieil et Nouveau Testament: ou, la vielle et nouvelle alliance […], Genève: François Perrin, 1563, 2 ° (shelf mark : Wr BU 572283). Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-5801. La Bible (1565), qui est Toute la saincte Escriture: Contenant le vieil et nouveau Testament. Avec Argumens sur chacun livre, Annotations augmentées, et nouvelles sur les Apocryphes, Genève: Pierre Bernard/Claude Dumont, 1565, 2 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 362142). Antwerp Polyglot Bible (Plantin Polyglot/Biblia Regia) PAn: Biblia Sacra hebraice, chaldaice, graece, & latine. Philippi II reg. cathol. Pietate, et studio ad sacrosanctae ecclesiae usum, vol. 1–8, Antverpiae: Christopher Plantinus, 1569–1573, 2º (shelf marks: Wr BU 464835; XVI.F.13823; Wr PWT III-666; ZNiO XVI.F.14071). Onile version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-77665. Szymon Budny’s Bible (Nesvizh Bible) BSzB: Biblia. To iest / kśięgi starego y nowego Przymierza / znowu z ięzyka Ebreyskiego / ­Grecskiego y Laćińskiego / na Polski przełożone, [Nieśwież (Nesvizh), Zasław or Uzda?]: Maciej Kawieczyński (printer: Daniel of Łęczyca), 1572, 4 ° (shelf marks: Wa BU Sd.614.300; ZNiO XVI. Qu.2336; 2338; 2339). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/biblia-to-iest-ksiegi-­staregoy-nowego-przymierza-znowu-z-iezyka-ebreyskiego-grecskiego,ODIxNDcwODg/6/#info: metadata. Biblia Sacra (1574). Quid, in hac editione, a Theologis Louaniensibus, praestitum sit, paulo post indicatur, Antverpiae, Christopher Plantinus, 1574, 8 ° (shelf marks: Wr BK I 24.O). New Testament translated by Szymon Budny NTSzB 1574: Nowy Testament znowu przełożony / a na wielu mieyscach za pewnemi dowodami odprzysad przez Simona Budnego ocżyśćiony / y krotkiemi przypiskami po kraioch obiaśniony. Przydane też są na końcu tegoż dostatecżnieysze przypiski / ktore każdey iak miarz odmiany przyczyny ukazuią, Łosk: [Daniel of Łęczyca], 1574, 8 ° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.191; Kraków, Biblioteka PAN [Kraków Library of Polish Academy of Sciences] Cim.O.261). Online version at: https://www.wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra/show-content/publication/edition/120603?id=120603. Psalmi Davidis Vulgata Editione, Calendario Hebraeo, Syro, Graeco, Latino, Hymnis, argumentis et commentarijs genuinum et primarium Psalmorum sensum, Hebraïsmosque locupletius, quam priore editione aperientibus, A G. Genebrardo Theologo Parisiensi, divinarum, Hebrai-

Bible editions

287

carumque literarum professore Regio instructi, Parisiis: Pierre L’Huillier, 1582. Online version at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5323596052&view=1up&seq=4. Biblia (1584) Sacra Cum Duplici Translatione, et Scholijs Francisci Vatabli, nunc denuo a plurimis, quibus scatebant, erroribus repurgatis, doctissimorum Theologorum, tam almae Universitatis Salamanticensis, quam Complutensis iudicio: ac Sanctae et generalis Inquisitionis iussu, vol. 1–2, Salamanticae: Gaspard de Portonariis/Guillaume Rouillé/Benito Boyer, 1584, 2 °. BGen 1588: La Bible, qui est toute la saincte Escriture du Vieil et du Nouveau Testament: Autrement, l’Anciene et la Nouvelle Alliance. Le tout reveu et conferé sur les textes hebrieux et grecs par les Pasteurs et professeurs de l’Eglise de Geneve, Genève: [Jérémie Des Planches], 1588, 4 °. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-3320. New Testament translated by Szymon Budny; a typographical variant of the 1574 edition NTSzB 1574/1589: [Nowy Testament, Łosk: Feliks Bolemowski, c. 1589], 8 ° (shelf mark: BN XVI.O.858). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/nowy-testament,NzY4NzA1Nw/5/#info:metadata. New Testament, translated by Jakub Wujek, 1st edn NTWj 1593: Nowy Testament Pana naszego IESVSA CHRISTVSA. Z nowu z Laćińskiego y z Gręckiego na Polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełożony: y Argumentami abo Summariuszami każdych Kśiąg / y Rozdźiałow / y Annotacyami po brzegach obiaśniony. Przydane są Nauki y Przestrogi mało nie za każdym Rozdźiałem: Porownanie Ewangelistow SS. Dźieie y drogi rozmaite Piotra y Pawła S. y Regestr rzeczy głownieyszych na końcu. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsądek Kośćioła S. Powszechnego Rzymskiego wszytko niech podlęże, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1593, 4 ° (shelf marks: BK Cim.Qu.2729; ZNiO XVI.Qu.3065). Online version at: https://books.google.pl/ books?id=LQxOAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false. VlgSC 1592: Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita, Romae: Ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, 1592, 2 ° (shelf mark: Wr BU 371010). Online version at: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=wtv21mSctwsC&hl=pl&pg=GBS.PP7. VlgSC 1593: Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita, Romae: Ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, 1593, 4 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.Qu.11664). Online version: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000011913&page=1. New Testament, translated by Jakub Wujek, 2nd edn NTWj 1594: Nowy Testament Pana naszego Iesvsa Christusa. Z nowu z Laćińskiego y z Graeckiego na Polskie wiernie a szczyrze przełożony. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsądek Kośćioła S. Powszechnego Rzymskiego wszytko niech podlęże, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1594, 8 ° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.O.665). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/nowy-testament-pana-naszego-iesvsa-christvsa-znowu-z-­ lacinskiego-y-z-graeckiego-na,OTYxNzYyNjQ/4/#info:metadata. Psalter, translated by Jakub Wujek PsWj: PSALTERZ DAWIDOW. Teraz znowu z Laćińskiego / z Graeckiego / y z Zydowskiego / na Polski ięzyk z pilnośćią przełożony / y Argumentami / y Annotacyami obiaśniony. Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Starszych. Pod rozsądek Kośćioła S. powszechnego Rzymskiego wszytko niech podlęże, Kraków: Andrzej Piotrkowczyk, 1594, 4 ° (shelf marks: ZNiO XVI.Qu.2659; 3095). Online version at: https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=10951&from=FBC.

288

Bibliography

Wujek’s Bible BWj: BIBLIA TO IEST KSIĘGI STAREGO Y NOWEGO TESTAMNETV WEDŁVG ŁACINSKIEGO przekładu starego, w kośćiele powszechnym przyiętego, na Polski ięzyk z nowu z pilnośćią przełożone, Z DOKŁADANIEM TEXTV ZYDOWSKIEGO y Greckiego, y z wykładem Katholickim, trudnieyszych mieysc do obrony Wiary swiętey powszechney przeciw kacerztwóm tych czasów nalezących: Przez D. Iakvba Wvyka z Wągrowca, Theologa Societatis Iesv. Z dozwoleniem Stolice Apostolskiey, a nakładem Iego M. Kśiędza Arcybiskupa Gnieźnieńskiego, etć. wydane, Kraków: Drukarnia Łazarzowa (Officina Lazari), 1599, 2 ° (shelf marks: BN SD.XVI.F.738; Wa BU Sd.612.49; Wr BU 437771; Wr PWT III-702 C; ZNiO XVI.F.4289). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/biblia-to-iest-ksiegi-starego-y-nowego-testamentv,OTEyMTMwMzU/6/#info:metadata. Gdańsk (Danzig) New Testament NTG: Novvy Testament PANA NASZEGO JEZVSA CHRYSTVSA z Greckiego na polski Jężyk z pilnośćią przełożony: A teraż znovvu przeizrzany y zdozwoleniem Starszych wydany, Gdańsk: Wdowa Guilhelma Guilmothana (Guilhelm Guilmothan’s Widow), 1606, 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ 35281; 390320; Kraków, Biblioteka Książąt Czartoryskich [The Czartoryski Princes Library in Cracow] 24157/I; Wr BU 300296; ZNiO XVII-1787). Online version at: https://www.wbc. poznan.pl/dlibra/show-content/publication/edition/1466?id=1466&from=FBC. Biblia rabbinica, 5th edn (Basel Rabbinic Bible) Biblia Sacra Hebraica et Chaldaica Cum Masora, quae Critica Hebraeorum sacra est, Magna et Parva, ac selectissimis Hebraeorum interpretum Commentariis, Rabbi Salomonis Jarchi […] et Notis ex authore, quem Baal Turim vocant, collectis, quibus textus Grammatice et historice illustratur. In his nunc primum, post quatuor editiones Venetas […] labore indefesso Johannis Buxtorfi […], vol. 1–4, Basileae: Ludwig König, 1618–1619, 2º (shelf mark: Wr BU 362157). Gdańsk (Danzig) Bible BG: Biblia Swięta: To jest, Księgi Starego y Nowego Przymierza z Zydowskiego y Greckiego Języka na Polski pilnie y wiernie przetłumaczone. Cum Gratia et Privilegio. S. R. M., Gdańsk: Andrzej Hünefeldt, 1632, 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ 311273; Wa BU Sd. 713.819; Wr BU 328624; ZNiO XVII-3245; 3246; 3248). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/biblia-swieta-to-jest-ksiegi-starego-y-nowego-przymierza-z-zydowskiego-y-greckiego-jezyka,ODA5OTU4NDk/6/#info:metadata. Biblia sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis interpretatione eiusque postrema recognitione; cum annotationibus eiusdem, historiae supplemento ab Esdra ad Machabaeos, et inde usque ad Christum, ex Josepho; accessere in nova hac editione eiusdem delineatio reipublicae Iudaicae ex Josepho […], Francofurti: Thomas Fritsch, 1697, 2 °. Online version at: http://www.mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10212493–3. Kennicott, Benjaminus (ed.) (1780), Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, vol. 2, Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Origenis Hexaplorum (1875) quae supersunt, sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, ed. Fridericus Field, vol. 1–2, Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875. Online version at: http://www.archive.org/details/origenishexaplor01origuoft; http://www.archive.org/details/origenishexaplor02origuoft. Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu w przekładzie z języków oryginalnych: Opracował Zespół Biblistów Polskich z inicjatywy Benedyktynów Tynieckich, 5th edn, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Pallottinum, 2003.

Sources

289

BHS: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Albrecht Alt/Otto Eißfeldt/Paul Kahle/Rudolf Kittel, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77. Nowy Testament w przekładzie Ks. Dr Jakuba Wujka T.J. z roku 1593, ed. Władysław Smereka, Kraków: Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne, 1966. Biblia w przekładzie księdza Jakuba Wujka z 1599 r., 2nd edn, ed. Janusz Frankowski, Prymasowska Seria Biblijna, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio”, 1999. Pismo Święte (2003) Starego i Nowego Testamentu w przekładzie z języków oryginalnych. Opracował zespół biblistów polskich z inicjatywy benedyktynów tynieckich, 5th edn, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Pallottinum, 2003. Biblia Hebraica Quinta (2004): General Introduction and Megilloth, vol. 18, ed. A. Schenker, Stuttgart, 2004.

Sources A Select Library (1890–1900) of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff/Henry Wace, New York: The Christian Literature Company (in BibleWorks 8.0). Alegambe, Philippe de (1643), Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu, Post excusum Anno M.DC.VIII Catalogum R. P. Petri Ribadeneirae Societatis eiusdem theologi; Nunc hoc novo apparatu librorum ad annum reparatae salutis M.DC.XLII editorum concinnata, & illustrium virorum elogiis adornata, Antverpiae: Johannes Meursius. Online version at: http://www. uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/alegambe/alegambe1/jpg/as001.html. Bellarmine, Robert (1578), Institutiones linguae hebraicae ex optimo quoque auctore collectae, et ad quantam maximam fieri potuit breuitatem, perspicuitatem, atque ordinem reuocatae, Romae: Francesco Zanetti, 8 °. Online version at: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=c8TIXaewlN4C&hl=pl&pg=GBS.PP8. Bellarmine, Robert (1585), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae ex optimo quoque auctore collectae, Et ad quantam maximam fieri potuit brevitatem, perspicuitatem, atque ordinem revocatae: una cum exercitatione grammatica in Psalmum XXXIII. […] Accesserunt in hac tertia editione interpretationes vocum Hebraicarum, & alia nonnulla, Romae: Domenico Basa, 8 °. Bellarmine, Robert (1596), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae […] una cum exercitatione in Psalmum XXXIII. […] Accessis in hac quarta editione commodior singularum rerum clariorque distinctio, Lugduni: Antoine Vincent, 8 °. Online version at: http://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/7976. Bellarmine, Robert (1606), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae […] una cum exercitatione Grammatica in Psalmum XXXIII. […] Accessis in hac nova editione commodior singularum rerum clariorque distinctio, Antverpiae: Christopher Plantin/Jan Moretus, 8 °. Online version at: https://books.google.pl/books?id=NdU7AAAAcAAJ&hl=pl&redir_esc=y. Bellarmine, Robert (1616), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae, postremo recognitae, ac locupletatae. Huic editioni accesserunt Tabulae duae, quarum prima Hebraicae linguae praecipua elementa continet, altera vero omnium coniugationum Hebraicarum tam anomalarum, quam analogarum varietatem multiplicem ad simplicitatem facilimam revocatam, comprehendit, Coloniae Allobrogum: Pierre de la Rovière, 8 ° Online version at: https://books.google.pl/ books?id=UPNtSZVCkz4C&hl=pl&redir_esc=y.

290

Bibliography

Bellarmine, Robert (1618), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae, postremo recognitae, ac locupletatae. Huic editioni accesserunt Tabulae duae, quarum prima Hebraicae linguae elementa praecipua, altera vero omnium coniugationum tam analogarum quam anomalarum varietatem comprehendit: Item Linguae Syriacae Iesu-Christo vernaculae Elementa prima, Sy­riacis characteribus edita, Coloniae Allobrogum: Pierre de la Rovière, 8 °. Online version at: https://books.google.pl/books?id=fNE7AAAAcAAJ&hl=pl&redir_esc=y. Bellarmine, Robert (1619), Institutiones linguae Hebraicae, postremo recognitae, ac locupletatae, [Lugduni?, Coloniae?], Franciscus Fabrus, 8 °. Online version at: https://books.google. pl/books?id=wxs-AAAAcAAJ&hl=pl&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&redir_esc=y. Benis, Artur (1892), Materiały do historii drukarstwa i księgarstwa w Polsce, Archiwum do dziejów literatury i oświaty w Polsce 7, 1–71. Online version at: https://www.wbc.poznan.pl/ dlibra/publication/57600/edition/73559. Bèze, Théodore de (1565), Preface, in: Commentaires de M. Jean Calvin, sur le livre de Josué. Avec une preface de Theodore de Besze, contenant en brief l’histoire de la vie et mort d’iceluy: augmentée depuis la premiere edition, et deduite selon l’ordre du temps quasi d’an en an, Genève: Francois Perrin, 2 °, 3–38. Online version at: https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-1055. Bèze, Théodore de (2008), The Life of John Calvin, in: John Calvin Collection, Christian Librery Series 7, CD-edition (version 2.2.4), Rio: AGES Digital Library. Bullinger, Heinrich (1838), Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte nach dem Autographon herausgegeben auf Veranstaltung der vaterländisch-historischen Gesellschaft in Zürich, ed. Johann Jakob Hottinger/Hans Heinrich Vögeli, vol. 1, Frauenfeld: Beyel. Caesar, Bartholomaeus (1516), Elementale Hebraicum a Caesare Trutaviensi Congestum, Liptz: Per Melchior Lotter, 4 °. Online version at: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ ALEPH000405271/NLI. Campen, Jan van den (1534a), Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi, huc fere congestum est opera Ioannis Campensis, quicquid ab absolutam grammaticen Hebraicam est necessarium. Quod ultima pagella magis indicabit. Adiecta est ipsius Eliae tabula, ut vocant, coniugandi omnis generis verba, quae priori editioni, propter inopiam characterum Hebraicorum addi non poterat, Cracovia: Officina Ungleriana, 8 ° (shelf marks: BJ Cim 1309; BN SD XVI.O.71; ZNiO XVI.O.974). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/ ex-varijs-libellis-eliae-grammaticorum-omnium-doctissimi-huc-fere-congestu-m-est,NjIzMTI4/2/#info:metadata. Campen, Jan van den (1534b), Libellus, De natura litterarum et punctorum hebraicorum; aliisque ad exactam grammaticen, Christianis, et neotericis Judaeis hucusque incognitam necessariis, ex variis opusculis Eliae Judaei, grammaticorum omnium facile principis, pro Joannem Campensem concinnatus, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 8 ° (lost; see E 14, 32). Campen, Jan van den (1534c), Commentariolus Ioannis Campensis, in duas divi Pauli epistolas sed argumenti eiusdem, alteram ad Romanos, alteram ad Galatas, Kraków: Maciej Szarfenberg, 8 °. Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/commentariolvs-ioannis-campensis-in-duas-di�ui-pauli-epistolas-sed-argumenti-eiusdem,NzQwNTAzMDQ/1/#info:metadata. Capito, Wolfgang (2005), The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito, vol. 1: 1507–1523, ed. Erika Rummel/Milton Kooistra, Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press. Cervus, Jan (1533), Institutiones grammaticae Joannis Cervi Tucholiensis una cum interpretatione ex Nicolao Perotto, Laurentio Valla, Marco Varone, Nonio Marcello succincte decerpta. Ad haec idiomate polonico et germanico illustrata, Cracoviae: Officina Ungleriana, 8 ° (shelf

Sources

291

mark: BN SD XVI.O.376 adl.). Online version at: https://polona.pl/item/institvtiones-grammaticae-ioannis-cerui-tucholiensis-ad-h-a-ec-idiomate-polonico,Nzg5NTgyODk/14/#info:metadata. Chmiel, Adam (ed.) (1892), Album studiosorum Universitatis Cracoviensis, vol. 2: Ab anno 1490 ad annum 1551, Kraków: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis 1892. Constitutiones Societatis Iesu. Anno 1558. Reprinted from the Original Edition, London: J.G. and F. Rivington, 1838. Online version at: https://archive.org/details/constitutionesso00jesuuoft/ page/n6/mode/1up. The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, Sain Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996. Council of Trent (1545–1563), https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent.htm. Enchiridion biblicum (1994): Documenti della Chiesa sulla Sacra Scrittura. Edizione bilingue, Bologna: EDB. Erasmus, Desiderius (1523), Opus de conscribendis epistolis quod quidam et mendosum et mutilum aediderant, recognitum ab autore et locupletatum […], Kraków: Hieronim Wietor (shelf marks: BJ Cim. 92; Katowice, Biblioteka Śląska [Silesian Library in Katowice] 65201 I; ZNiO XVI.O.672). Online version at: https://sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/11971/edition/34948. Erasmus, Desiderius (1917), The Epistles of Erasmus: From His Earliest Letters to His Fifty-­ First Year Arranged in Order of Time, vol. 3, ed. Francis Morgan Nichols, London/New York/ Bombay/Calcutta/Madras: Longmans, Green, and Co. Flavius, Josephus (1828), The Works of Flavius Josephus, the Learned and Authentic Jewish Historian, and Celebrated Warrior: Containing Twenty Books of The Jewish Antiquities, Seven Books of The Jewish War, and The Life of Josephus, Written by Himself: Translated from the Original Greek According to Havercamp’s Accurate Edition, Together with Exlanatory Notes and Observations. From the Last London Edition of 1827, vol. 1–2, transladed by William Whiston, New York: W. Borradaile. Forster, Johann (1557), Dictionarium hebraicum novum, non ex rabinorum commentis nec nostratium doctorum stulta imitatione descriptum, sed ex ipsis thesauris sacrorum Bibliorum […] depromptum, Basileae: Hieronymus Froben/Nicolaus Episcopius, 1557, 2 ° (shelf mark: Universitätbibliothek Basel [Hauptbibliothek] FQ I 13). Hieronymus, Eusebius St (1865), Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam libri duodeviginti, PL 24, 17–678. Hieronymus, Eusebius St (1883a), Adversus Jovianum, PL 23, 221–352. Hieronymus, Eusebius St (1883b), Liber Hebraicarum Quaestionum in Genesim, PL 23, 983– 1060. Index (1559) Avctorvm, Et Libroru[m]: qui ab Officio Sanctae Rom. & Vniuersalis Inquisitionis caueri ab omnibus et singulis in uniuersa Christiana Republica mandantur […], Romae: Bladus. Online version at: https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/title/BV001528702. Index (1564) Librorum prohibitorum, Cum Regulis Confectis per Patres a Tridentina S­ ynodo delectos, auctoritate Sanctiss. D. N. Pij IIII, Pont. Max. Comprobatus, Coloniae: Maternus Cholinus. Online version at: https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/resolve/display/ bsb11005363.html. Index (1596) Librorum prohibitorum, Cum Regulis Confectis Per Patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos, auctoritate Pij IV, Primum Editus, Postea vero a Syxto V. Auctus, et nunc demum S.D.N. Clementis Papae VIII, Iussu recognimus, & publicamus, Romae: Camerales.

292

Bibliography

Farrell, Allan P. (ed.) (1970), The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum of 1599: Washington: Conference of Major Superiors of Jesuits. Online version at: https://www.bc.edu/sites/libraries/ratio/ ratio1599.pdf. Jóźwiak, Magdalena (2010), Kwestie hebrajskie w Księdze Rodzaju św. Hieronima: Przekład i komentarz, Bibliotheca Biblica, Wrocław: TUM. Kidd, Beresford James (1911), Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Kimchi, David (1491), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim), Naples: Joshua Solomon Soncino, 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11648. Kimchi, David (1513), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim), [Istanbul: Shmuel Rikomin/Astruc ben Ya’akov de Toulon], 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11903. Kimchi, David (1545a), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim), ed. Elias Levita, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/42283. Kimchi, David (1545b), ‫( ספר מכלול‬Sepher Mikhlol), ed. Elias Levita, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1545, 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/42248. Kimchi, David (1546), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim), Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11649. Kimchi, David (1547), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim) – Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae Sive Dictionarium Hebreum, Venice: Marco Antonio Justiniano, 1547 or 1548, 2 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11650. Kimchi, David (1847), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim) – Rabbi Davidis Kimchi Radicum Liber sive hebraeum bibliorum lexicon cum animadversionibus Eliae Levitae, ed. Jo.H.R. Biesenthal/F.Lebrecht, Berolini: G. Bethge, 8 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/ 39117. Kimchi, Joseph (1888), ‫( ספר זכרון‬Sepher Zikaron) – Sepher Sikkaron. Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache, ed. Wilhelm Bacher, Berlin: Verl des Vereins Mekize Kirdamim. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/36865. Kimchi, Moses (1546), ‫( דקדוקים‬Diqduqim), ed. Elias Levita, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 8 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/19685. Kimchi, Moses (1563), ‫( מהלך ׁשבילי הדעת‬Mahalakh shevile ha-daat), Mantua: Meir Sopher. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11578; https://www.nli.org.il/en/books/NNL_ ALEPH001800860/NLI. Kimchi, Moses (1867), ‫( מהלך ׁשבילי הדעת‬Mahalakh shevile ha-daat), Lemberg (Lvov): S.L. Kugel, Lewin et com. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/37466. Kochanowski, Jan (1884), Dzieła wszystkie, vol. 3, Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff. Levita, Elias (1525), ‫( ספר הדקדוק‬Sepher ha-Diqduq) – Grammatica hebraica absolutissima, Eliae Lavitae Germani: nuper per Sebastianum Munsterum iuxta Hebraismum Latinitate donata, post quam lector aliam non facile desiderabis. Institutio elementaria in Hebraicam linguam eodem Sebast. Munstero autore, ed. Sebastian Münster, Basileae: Johann Froben, 8 ° (shelf mark: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, L.As. 250). Online version at: http:// daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0001/bsb00012985/images/; www.hebrewbooks.org/24784. Levita, Elias (1527), ‫( פרקי אליהו‬Pirqe Eliyahu), ed. Sebastian Münster, Basileae: Johann Froben, 8 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/24966. Levita, Elias (1539), ‫( ספר מסורת המסורת‬Sepher Masoret ha-masoret), Basileae: Heinrich Petri, 8 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/20911.

Sources

293

Levita, Elias (1541a), ‫( מלאכת הדיקדוק הׁשלם‬Melekhet ha-Diqduq ha-shalem) – Opus Grammaticum Consummatum, ex variis Elianis libris concinnatum […], ed. S­ ebastian Münster, Basileae: [no printer], 4 °. Online version at: http://www.bsb-muenchen-­digital. de/~web/web1016/bsb10163781/images/index.html?digID=bsb10163781&­p image=­ 4&v=100&nav=0&l=de. Levita, Elias (1541b), Opusculum recens hebraicum a doctissimo hebraeo Eliia Levita Germano Grammatico elaboratum, cui titulum fecit ‫ תׁשבי‬id est, Thisbites […], ed. Paul Fagius, Isnae in Algavia: [Paul Fagius], 4 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/11933. Levita, Elias (1556), ‫( ספר הבחור‬Sepher ha-Bachur) – Liber Gramaticae dictus Bachur videlicet Electus Magistri Eliae Levitae Hebraei Germani. Impressus hac tertia uice, Mantuae: Yaakov ben Naftali ha-Kohen of Gazolo, 8 °. Online version at: https://reader.digitale-sammlungen. de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10170875_00160.html. Levita, Elias (1789), ‫( ספר הבחור‬Sepher ha-Bachur), Prague: [sine nomine], 1789, 8 °. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/20100. Levita, Elias (1867), ‫( ספר מסורת המסורת‬Sepher Masoret ha-masoret) – The Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita. Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament in Hebrew, with an English Translation, and Critical and Explanatory Notes, ed. Christian D. Ginsburg, London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Online version at: www.archive.org/details/cu31924029276306. Liban, Jerzy (1539), De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione, scilicet Lectionali, Epistolari, et Euangelico, Libellus omnibus sacris iniciatis, Vicarijs et Ecclesiae Ministris, non minus Utilis quam necessarius, Craccoviae: Maciej Szarfenberg, [c. 1539], 8 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.756; 757). Luther, Martin (1913) Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, vol. 1: 1507–1521, ed. Preserved Shmith, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society. Melanchthon, Philipp (1843), De Capnione Phorcensi (an. 1552), in: Carolus Gottlieb Bretschneider (ed.), Philippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 11, Halis Saxonum: C.A. Schwetschke et Filium, 999–1010 (no. 127). Menachem ibn Saruq (1854), ‫( מחברת מנחם‬Machberet Menachem), ed. Herschell Filipowski, London: James Madden. Online version at: www.hebrewbooks.org/36818. Münster, Sebastian (1523), ‫( ערוך הׁשורׁשות‬Arukh ha-Shorshot) – Dictionarium hebraicum, nunc primum aeditum et typis excusum, adiectis chaldaicis vocabulis non parum multis, [Basileae]: Johann Froben, 8 °. Online version at: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0001/ bsb00013193/images/. Münster, Sebastian (1524), ‫( מלאכת הדיקדוק‬Melekhet ha-Diqduq) – Institutiones grammaticae in Hebraeam linguam Fr. Sebastiani Munsteri Minotirae, Ingelnheimensis, in quibus quid per ordinem tractetur, sequens indicabit pagella, [Basileae]: Johann Froben, 8 °. Online version at: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0001/bsb00012963/images/. Münster, Sebastian (1527), ‫( דקדוק דלי־ׁשן ארמי או הכסדאה‬Diqduq deli-shan arami o ha-kasdaa) – Chaldaica Grammatica […], Basileae: Johann Froben, 4 °. Online version at: http:// daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00021987/images/. Münster, Sebastian (1535), ‫( ספר הׁשרׁשים עם נגזרים‬Sepher ha-Shorashim im nigzarim) – Dictionarium hebraicum, Iam Tertio ab autore Sebastiano Munstero ex rabinis, praesertim ex radicibus David Kimhi, auctum et locupletatum, Basileae: Johann Froben, 8 °. Online version at: http://judaica-frankfurt.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30–180190542002.

294

Bibliography

Münster, Sebastian (1562), ‫( ׁשילוׁש לׁשונות‬Shilush Leshonot) – Dictionarium trilingue, in quo scilicet latinis vocabulis in ordinem alphabeticum digestis, respondet Graeca et Hebraica: Hebraicis adiecta sunt magistralia et Chaldaica: Sebastiani Münsteri opera et labore congestum, Basileae: Heinrich Petri, 2 °. Online version at: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen. de/0002/bsb00029539/images/. Myconius, Oswald (1912), The Original Life of Zwingli, in: Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.), The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, vol. 1, New York/London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons/The Knickerbocker Press, 1–24. Novenianus, Philip Michael (1520), Elementale Hebraicum in quo praeter caetera eius linguae rudimenta, declinationes et verborum coniugationes habentur, omnibus Hebraicarum literarum studiosis non tam utile, quam necessarium, Lipsiae: Valentinus Schumannus, 4 °(shelf mark: BJ Gram. 3194 II). Online version at: https://play.google.com/store/books/ details?id=UvNMAAAAcAAJ&rdid=book-UvNMAAAAcAAJ&rdot=1. Reuchlin, Johannes (1506), De rudimentis hebraicis libri III, Phorce: Thomas Anshelmus, 4. Online version at: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0001/bsb00017321/images/. Reuchlin, Johannes (1512), Ioannis Reuchlin Phorcensis LL. doctoris in septem psalmos poenite[n]tiales hebraicos interpretatio, de verbo ad verbum, & super eisdem commentarioli sui, ad discendum linguam hebraicam ex rudimentis, Tubingae: Thomas Anshelmus. Online version at: https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/title/BV010606694. Reuchlin, Johannes (1518), De Accentibvs, Et Orthographia, Lingvae Hebraicae, Hagenoae: Thomas Anshelmus. Online version at: https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/resolve/display/bsb10163785.html. Ringeltaube, Sylvius Wilh. (1744), Gründliche Nachricht von polnischen Bibeln, Danzig: George Marcus Knoch. Shmith, Preserved (ed.) (1911), The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Company/The Riverside Press Cambridge. Sixto da Siena (1586), Bibliotheca Sancta a F. Sixto Senensi […]: ex praecipuis catholicae ecclesiae autoribus collecta, et in octo libros digesta […] cum tribus locupletissimis indicibus, 3th edn, Coloniae: apud Maternum Cholinum. Online version at: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/ Record/009291358. Słonkowic, Marcin (1651), Synopsis grammaticae Hebraicae in gratiam eorum quibus cordi est linguae sanctae notitia, ex praeceptis generalioribus orthographiae, etymologiae, syntaxeos et prosodiae, deducta per M. Martinum Slonkowic […], Kraków, Łukasz Kupisz, 1651, 8 ° (shelf marks: BN SD XVII.2.483; ZNiO XVII 3950). Online version at: https://polona.pl/ item/synopsis-grammaticae-hebraicae-in-gratiam-eorum-quibus-cordi-est-linguae-sanctae-notitia,NzQwNTEwMDI/1/#info:metadata. Stancaro, Francesco (1547), Ebreae Grammaticae Institutio. In qua omnes octo orationis partes summa diligentia ita traduntur, ut nihil ad hanc rem desiderandum sit. Adiuncta sunt haec, ab eodem autore. Rerum omnium capita. Exercitatiuncula catholica. Et suae gramma­ ticae compendium. Nunc primum in lucem aedita, Basileae: Jakob Kündig, 8 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.730). Online version at: http://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=7412&from=publication&tab=1. Stancaro, Francesco (1555), Ebreae Grammaticae Institutio. In qua omnes octo Orationis partes summa diligentia ita traduntur, ut nihil ad hanc rem desiderandum sit. Adiuncta sunt haec, ab eodem autore. Rerum omnium capita. Exercitatiuncula catholica. Et suae gramma­

Studies

295

ticae compendium. Nunc primum in lucem aedita, Basileae, Jakob Kündig, 8 ° (shelf mark: ZNiO XVI.O.988). Online version at: http://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=6600&from=publication&tab=1. Trzecieski, Andrzej (1958), Dzieła wszystkie, vol. 1: Carmina: Wiersze łacińskie, ed. Jerzy Krókowski, Biblioteka Pisarzów Polskich B 8, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Uwagi (2003), Uwagi prowincji polskiej Towarzystwa Jezusowego na temat “Ratio studiorum” 1586, in: Ludwik Piechnik, Powstanie i rozwój jezuickiej “Ratio studiorum” (1548–1599), Studia i Materiały do Dziejów Jezuitów w Polsce 11, Kraków: WAM/Ignatianum, 2003, 157– 243. Vocabularium 1515: Vocabularium hebraicum totius veteris testamenti cum alijs dictionibus chaldaicis ibi contentis. Et hoc secundum ordinem Alphabeti hebraici, in: PCo 6, I–CLXXII (A1r–FF4r). Zwingli, Ulrich (1901), Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli (1484–1531): The Reformer of German Switzerland, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Studies Article “Ambrosius Moibanus”, http://www.biografie-niemieckie.pl/m/8354-Moibanus-Ambrosius.html. Article “Dawid Leonard” (1938), PSB 4, 1938, 461. Article “Fagius, Paulus”, EJCD 1997. Article “Forster (Foester, Vorster, Forsthemius), Johann”, EJCD 1997. Article “Heliczowie”, EWoK, 1971, 865 f. Article “Levita, Elijah”, EJCD 1997. Article “Melanchthon (Schwarzerd), Philipp”, EJCD 1997. Article “Turnowski Jan”, WEPWN 28, 2005, 153. Article “Turnowski, 1. Simeon Teofil; 2. Jan”, WIEP 17, [sine anno], 238. Alberigo, Giuseppe (1996), Article “Seripando, Girolamo”, OER 4, 1996, 47 f. Amir, Yehoshua (1997), Article “Osiander, Andreas”, EJCD 1997. Ansbacher, B.Mordechai (1997), Article “Bucer, Martin”, EJCD 1997. Artom, Menachem E. (1997), Article “Mithridates, Flavius”, EJCD 1997. Audin, Jean-Marie (1885), Histoire de Léon X et de Son Siècle, 6th edn, Paris: Retaux-Bray. Augusiewicz, Sławomir/Jasiński, Janusz/Oracki, Tadeusz (2005), Wybitni Polacy w Królewcu. XVI–XX wiek, Olsztyn: LITTERA. Avneri, Zvi (1997), Article “Basel”, EJCD 1997. Bacher, Wayne J. (1996), Article “Zurich Academy”, OER 4, 1996, 316 f. Bacher, Wilhelm/Kohler, Kaufmann/McCurdy, J. Frederic (1901–1906), Article “Bible Exegesis”, JE, 1901–1906, 162–178. Bacher, Wilhelm (1901–1906), Article “Saadia b. Joseph (Saʻid al-Fayyumi)”, JE, 1901–1906, 581. Baczewski, Sławomir (2010), Article “Orszak Grzegorz”, EK XIV, 2010, 831. Baczkowska, Wanda (1999–2000), Article “Słonkowic (Słomkiewicz, Słonkowicz) Marcin”, PSB XXXIX, 1999–2000, 27 f. Bainton, Roland H. (1963), The Bible in the Reformation, in: CHB III, 1–37.

296

Bibliography

Baker, J. Wayne (1996), Article “Zurich Academy”, OER 4, 1996, 316 f. Bałaban, Majer (1931a), Drukarstwo żydowskie w Polsce XVI w., in: Pamiętnik Zjazdu Naukowego im J. Kochanowskiego 8 i 9 czerwca 1930, Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 102–116. Online version at: http://biblioteka.teatrnn.pl/dlibra/Content/9645/Drukarstwo_ zydowskie_w_Polce_XVI_w.pdf. Bałaban, Majer (1931b), Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868, vol. 1, Kraków: Nadzieja. Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1972a), John Calvin and the Jews, in: Leon A. Feldman (ed.), Ancient and Medieval Jewish History: Essays by Salo Wittmayer Baron, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 338–352. Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1972b), The Council of Trent and Rabbinic Literature, in: Leon A. Feldman (ed.), Ancient and Medieval Jewish History: Essays by Salo Wittmayer Baron, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 353–371. Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1972c), Medieval Heritage and Modern Realities in Protestant-Jewish Relations, in: Leon A. Feldman (ed.), Ancient and Medieval Jewish History: Essays by Salo Wittmayer Baron, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 323–337. Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1974), Article “Calvin, John”, EJ V, 1974, 66 ff. Baron, Salo Wittmayer (1997), Article “Calvin, John”, EJCD 1997. Barycz, Henryk (1935), Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Barycz, Henryk (1937), Article “Campen van der (Campensis, de Campo) Jan”, PSB 3, 1937, 197 f. Barycz, Henryk (1938), Polacy na studiach w Rzymie w epoce Odrodzenia (1440–1600), Kraków: PAU. Barycz, Henryk (1957), Dzieje nauki w Polsce w epoce odrodzenia, 2nd edn, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Barycz, Henryk (1960–1961), Article “Grzepski Stanisław”, PSB 9, 1960–1961, 99–102. Barycz, Henryk (1969), Z dziejów polskich wędrówek naukowych za granicę, Wrocław/ Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Barycz, Henryk (1971), Article “Kulwieć (Culvensis, Kulwa) Abraham”, PSB 16, 1971, 165 ff. Barycz, Henryk (1972a), Article “Libanus Jerzy”, PSB 17, 1972, 272. Barycz, Henryk (1972b), Article “Lismanin Franciszek”, PSB 17, 1972, 465–470. Barycz, Henryk (1975), Article “Mączyński Jan”, PSB 20, 1975, 336–339. Barycz, Henryk (1979), Article “Orszak (Orsacius) Grzegorz”, PSB 24, 1979, 260–263. Bazydło, Janusz (1985a), Article “Bythner, Bitner, Bartłomiej”, EK 2, 1985, 1256. Bazydło, Janusz (1985b), Article “Campen, de Campo, Jan van den”, EK 2, 1985, 1303 f. Bednarski, Stanisław (1936), Article “Boksza (Boxa) Paweł”, PSB 2, 1936, 245. Bednarski, Stanisław (1994), Podstawowe zasady szkolnictwa jezuickiego, in: Jerzy Paszenda (ed.), Z dziejów szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Polsce: Wybór artykułów, Kraków: WAM, 20–31. Bednarz, Mieczysław (1986), Article “Rabb (Rabbus, Rab) Justus”, PSB 29, 1986, 541 ff. Bedouelle, Guy (1989), L’accès à la Bible du milieu du XVe siècle aux environs de 1530, in: BTT V, 17–121. Bedouelle, Guy (1996), Article “Bible: Editions og the Bible”, OER 1, 1996, 158–163. Bedouelle, Guy (1999), The Bible, Printing and the Educational Goals of the Humanists, in: Paul Saenger/Kimberly van Kampen (ed.), The Bible as Book: The First Printed Editions,

Studies

297

London/New Castel/Grand Haven: The British Library/Oak Knoll Press/The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 95–99. Bell, Dean Phillip/Burnett, Stephen G. (ed.) (2006), Jews, Judaism, and the Refromation in Sixteen-Century Germany: Leiden/Boston: Brill. Ben-Sasson, Haim Hillel (1974), Article “Reformation”, EJ 14, 1974, 18–23. Bidlo, Jaroslav (1922), Wzajemne stosunki czeskiej i polskiej Jednoty w okresie 1587–1609, Reformacja w Polsce 2:5–6, 118–124. Biedrzycka, Agnieszka/Szorc, Alojzy (2003–2004), Article “Staphylus (Stapellage) Fryderyk”, PSB 42, 2003–2004, 261 ff. Bieniarzówna, Janina (1980), Article “Pernus (Pirnis, Pyrnusz) Walerian”, PSB 25, 1980, 636 f. Bietenholz, Peter G. (2003a), Article “Borus”, CoE 1, 2003, 174. Bietenholz, Peter G. (2003b), Article “Nicolaus Clenardus”, CoE 1, 2003, 312 f. Bietenholz, Peter G. (2003c), Article “Jan van Campen”, CoE 1, 2003, 255 f. Birn, Józef (1926), Francuz wśród kalwinów małopolskich: Jan Thénaud, Reformacja w Polsce 4, 41–45. Black, M.H. (1963), The Printed Bible, in: CHB III, 408–475. Bodniak, Stanisław (1935–1936), Grzegorz Orszak: Pierwszy postyllograf polski, Reformacja w Polsce 7–8, 1–19. Brown, Horatio Forbes (1891), The Venetian Printing Press: An Historical Study Based upon Documents for the Most Part Hitherto Unpublished, New York/London: Scholar’s Choice. Brückner, Aleksander (1905), Mikołaj Rej: Studjum krytyczne, Kraków: Skład Główny w Księgarni Spółki Wydawniczej Polskiej/Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Budka, Włodzimierz (1922), Szymon Zacius: Pierwszy superintendent zborów litewskich, Reformacja w Polsce 2:8, 288–295. Burmeister, Karl Heinz (1969), Sebastian Münster: Versuch eines biographischen Gesamtbildes, 2nd edn, Basel/Stuttgart: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. Burnett, Amy Nelson (1996), Article “Basel”, OER 1, 1996, 125 ff. Burnett, Stephen G. (1996), From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 68, Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill. Burnett, Stephen G. (2000), Christian Hebrew Printing in the sixteenth century: Printers, Humanism and the Impact of the Reformation, Helmantica 51, 13–42. Burnett, Stephen G. (2004), Reassessing the “Basel-Wittenberg Conflict”: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship, in: Alison P. Coudert/Jeffrey S. Shoulson (ed.), Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 181–201. Burnett, Stephen G. (2012a), Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500–1660): Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning, Library of the Written Word 19, The Handpress World 13, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Burnett, Stephen G. (2012b), Christian Hebraism in Eastern Europe in a time of Confessional Change (1520–1660), Inaugural Lecture for a conference: Christian Hebraism in Eastern Central Europe, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, University of Halle-Wittenberg, March 18–21, 2012. Buzzetti, Carlo/Bravi, Giulio Orazio (1992), Edizioni della Bibbia versioni nelle lingue parlate con particolare riferimento all’Italia, in: BEMC, 23–41.

298

Bibliography

Cameron, Euan (2016), The Luther Bible, in: NCHB III, 217–238. Cassuto, Umberto (1997), Article “Manetti, Giannozzo”, EJCD. Chédozeau, Bernard (2016), Bibles in French from 1520–1750, in: NCHB III, 285–304. Chmiel, Jerzy (1975), Młodość i wykształcenie ks. Jakuba Wujka, Studia Gnesnensia 1, 355– 358. Chmiel, Jerzy (2003), Modele przekładu Biblii. Zarys hermeneutyczny, in: Paulus Podeszwa/ Waldemar Szczerbiński (ed.), Minister Verbi: Liber sollemnis Excellentissimo Domino, Domino Archiepiscopo Henrico Muszyński, Metropolitae Gnesnensi ad honorandum decimum quartum eiusdem vitae lustrum expletum dedicatus oblatusque, Gnesnae: Prymasowskie Wyższe Seminarium Duchowe, 71–77. Coudert, Alison P./Shoulson Jeffrey S. (ed.) (2004), Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, Jewish Culture and Contexts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Cybulski, Marek (1999), O dwóch XVI-wiecznych polskich przekładach Psałterza: “Psałterz Dawidow” Mikołaja Reja i “Psałterz Dawida” Jakuba Lubelczyka, Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN 44, 13–29. Czerkawski Jan (1997), Article “Jan z Trzciany, Arundinensis”, EK 7, 1997, 945 f. Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII w.: Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Dąbrowski, Eugeniusz (1967), Sobór Watykański II a biblistyka katolicka, Poznań/Warszawa/ Lublin: Księgarnia św. Wojciecha. Dąbrowski, Eugeniusz (1993), Kodeksy, wydania i przekłady “Antiqitates Judaicae”, in: Józef Flawiusz, Dawne dzieje Izraela, 3th edn, vol. 1, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Rytm”, 50–64. Dahl, Svend (1965), Dzieje książki, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Daiches, David (1968), The King James Version of the English Bible. An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 with Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition, [sine loco]: Archon Books. Daniluk Mirosław (1997), Article “Jan Fischer”, EK 7, 1997, 789 f. Danysz, Antoni (1922), Autobiografja Jana Rybińskiego senjora braci czeskich, Reformacja w Polsce 2:8, 305–314. Decavele, Johan (1996a), Article “Cassander, Joris”, OER 1, 1996, 271. Decavele, Johan (1996b), Article “Utenhove, Jan”, OER 4, 1996, 206. Deutsch, Gotthard (1901–1906), Article “Luther, Martin”, JE, 1901–1906, 213 ff. Deutsch, Gotthard/Haneman, Frederisk T. (1901–1906), Article “Reuchlin, Johann von”, JE, 1901–1906, 389 f. Deutsch, Gotthard/Lévy, Lois Germain/Jacobs, Joseph/Schwab, Moïse (1901–1906), Article “Paris”, JE, 1901–1906, 526–539. Deutsch, Gotthard/Lolli, Eude (1901–1906), Article “Venice”, JE, 1901–1906, 408–416. Deutsch, Gotthard/Ochser, Schulim (1901–1906), Article “Pico de Mirandola, Count Giovanni Frederico (Prince of Concordia)”, JE, 1901–1906, 32. Deutsch, Gotthard/Porges, N. (1901–1906), Article “Leipsic”, JE, 1901–1906, 673 f. Deutsch, Gotthard/Rhine, A. (1901–1906), Article “Baptista, Giovanni Salomo Romano Eliano”, JE, 1901–1906, 500 f.

Studies

299

Donnelly, John Patrick (1996), Article “Bellarmino, Roberto”, OER 1, 1996, 139 f. Drüll, Dagmar (2002), Heidelberger Gelehrtenlexikon 1386–1651: Heidelberg: Springer. Drzymała, Kazimierz (1950), Ks. Jakub Wujek z Wągrowca (1541–1597), Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 3, 23–63. Dunkelgrün, Theodor (2018), The Christian Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, in: CHJ VII, 316–348. Dyl, Janusz (1993), Article “Helicze”, EK 6, 1993, 651. Dyl, Janusz (1987), Biblia i komentarze biblijne wydrukowane w oficynach polskich w latach ok. 1475–1550, Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne 34:4, 5–26. Enelow, H.G. (1901–1906), Article “Aegidius of Viterbo (or Aegidius Antonius Canisius)”, JE, 1901–1906, 219. Eyre, L. Alan (1997), Jakub Paleolog (1520–1585). Dominican Friar, Member of the Brethren in Christ, Martyr for Biblical Christianity, A Journal from the Radical Reformation 6:3, 3–12. Fabris, Rinaldo (1992), Strumenti e sussidi per lo studio della Bibbia nei secoli XV–XVII, in: BEMC, 43–73. Fabris, Rinaldo (2006), Introduzione generale alla Bibbia, Logos. Corso di Studi Biblici 1, 2nd edn, Torino: ELLEDICI. Farge, James K. (1996), Collège de France, OER 1, 1996, 374 f. Fernández Marcos, Natalio (2016), The First Polyglot Bible, in: Andrés Piquer Otero/Pablo A. Torijano Morales (ed.), The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, Leiden: Brill, 3–18. Flood, John L. (1999), Les premières Bibles allemandes dans le contexte de la typographie européenne des XVe et XVIe siècle, in: BIEM, 144–165. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632), Modern Philology 123, Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Frick, David A. (1994), The Biblical Philology of Szymon Budny: Between East and West, in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz (hrsg.), Biblia. to jest Księgi Starego i Nowego Przymierza: In der Übersetzung des Simon Budny. Nieśwież, Zasław 1571–1572. Księgi Nowego Przymierza, Biblia Slavica. Serie II: Polnische Bibeln 3/2, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 305–349. Frick, David A. (2001), The Brest Bible of 1563: Translators, Sponsors, Readers, in: Hans Rothe/ Friedrich Scholz (hrsg.), Księgi Nowego Testamentu – Kommentare, Biblia Slavica. Serie II: Polnische Bibeln 2/2: Brester Bible 1563, Nowy Testament, Paderborn/München/Wien/ Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1661–1703. Friedman, Jerome (1983), The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia, Athens: Ohio University Press. Friedman, Jerome (1996a), Article “Cabbala, Christian”, OER 1, 1996, 233. Friedman, Jerome (1996b), Article “Christian hebraica”, OER 1, 1996, 312 f. Friedman, Jerome (1996c), Article “Münster, Sebastian”, OER 3, 1996, 98 f. Friedman, Jerome (1996d), Article “Servetus, Michael”, OER 4, 1996, 48 f. Gach, Piotr (1993), Article “Heidelberg”, EK 6, 1993, 631. Gach, Piotr (2004), Article “Lowanium”, EK 10, 2004, 1415 ff. Ganshof, François Louis (1931), Article “Clenardus, Nicolaus”, EIt 10, 1931, 575–576. Garofalo, Salvatore (1946), Gli umanisti italiani del secolo XV e la Bibbia, Biblica 27, 338–375.

300

Bibliography

Gauthier, Joseph D. (1945), Sanctes Pagninus, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7, 175–190. Geiger, Ludwig (1870), Das Studium der hebräischen Sprache in Deutschland vom Ende des XV. bis zur Mitte des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Breslau: Schletter’sche Buchhandlung H. Skutsch. Gesenius, Wilhelm (2006), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. Emil Kautzsch, Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. Gigilewicz, Edward (2002), Article “Królewiec”, EK 9, 2002, 1356 ff. Gilmont, Jean-François (1999), Calvin et la diffusion de la Bible, in: BIEM, 230–242. Ginsburg, Christian D. (1867), Life of Elias Levita, in: Elias Levita, ‫­( ספר מסורת המסורת‬Sepher Masoret ha-masoret) – The Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita. Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament in Hebrew, with an English Translation, and Critical and Explanatory Notes, ed. Christian D. Ginsburg, London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer., 1–84. Gleason, Elisabeth G. (1996), Article “Flaminio, Marcantonio”, OER 2, 1996, 112 f. Glikson, Yvonne (1997), Article “Talmud, Burning of ” EJCD 1997. Gmiterek, Henryk (1991–1992a), Article “Rybiński Jan (ok. 1565–ok. 1621)”, PSB 33, 1991– 1992, 329 ff. Gmiterek, Henryk (1991–1992b), Article “Rybiński Jan (1595–1638)”, PSB 33, 1991–1992, 331 f. Gmiterek, Henryk (1991–1992c), Article “Rybiński Maciej”, PSB 33, 1991–1992, 338 ff. Gmiterek, Henryk (2003–2004), Article “Stankar Franciszek młodszy”, PSB 42, 2003–2004, 163 f. Goczoł, Rufin/Misiurek, Jerzy (1985), Article “Castellion Sebastian”, EK 2, 1985, 1357 f. Goitein, Denise R. (1997), Article “French Literature. The Renaissance”, EJCD 1997. Gottheil, Richard/Bacher, Willhelm (1901–1906), Article “Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meïr (Aben Ezra)”, JE, 1901–1906, 520–524. Gottheil, Richard (1901–1906), Article “Hebraists, Christian”, JE, 1901–1906, 300–304. Gottheil, Richard/Jacobs, Joseph (1901–1906), Article “Incunabula”, JE, 1901–1906, 575–580. Gottheil, Richard/Kayserling, Meyer (1901–1906), Article “Cornel, Paul Nuñez”, JE, 1901– 1906, 277. Gottheil, Richard/Levias, Caspar/Jacobs, Joseph/Levy, S. (1901–1906), Article “Kimhi”, JE, 1901–1906, 493–497. Górecki, Artur (2014), O jezuickiej Ratio studiorum, Christianitas 58, 58–69. Górski, Konrad (1985), Article “Bracia polscy”, EK 2, 1985, 1002–1005. Grabowski, Tadeusz (1948–1958), Article “Gertich Marcin Gracjan”, PSB 7, 1948–1958, 405. Greswell, Edward (1834), A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press, Including the Lives of the Stephani or Estiennes, Notices of Other Contemporary Greek Printers of Paris. And various particulars of the Literary and Ecclesiastical History of their Times, vol. 1, Oxford: S. Collingwood. Grossman, Avraham (1997), Article “Sforno, Obadiah ben Jacob”, EJCD 1997. Gryglewicz, Feliks (1989), Article “Biblia IV: Przekłady”, EK 1, 1989, 397–409. Grzebień, Ludwik (1998), Jakub Wujek SJ (zarys biografii), Bobolanum” 9, 7–26. Grzebień, Ludwik (1997), Article “Jezuickie szkoły”, EK 7, 1997, 1280–1285. Guenther, Ilse (2003), Article “Johannes Cellarius”, CoE 1, 2003, 287. Gutiérrez-Larraya, Juan Antonio (1971), Article “Polyglotte, Bibbie”, EBibbia 5, 1971, 816– 820.

Studies

301

Hagen, Kenneth (2009), Article “Allegory. C. Medieval Times and Reformation Era”, EBR 1, 2009, 800 ff. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1959–1960a), Article “Goliniusz Błażej Bazyli”, PSB 8, 1959–1960, 221 ff. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1959–1960b), Article “Gołkowic Szymon”, PSB 8, 1959–1960, 254 f. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1974), Article “Mareniusz (Marennius) Stanisław”, PSB 19, 1974, 631 f. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1975), Article “Mateusz z Kościana”, PSB 20, 1975, 195 f. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek (1978), Article “Nowopolczyk (Novicampianus, Nowopolski) Wojciech”, PSB 23, 1978, 377 ff. Hamilton, Alastair (2016), In search of the most perfect text: The early modern printed Poly­ glot Bibles from Alcalá (1510–1520) to Brian Walton (1654–1658), in: NCHB III, 138–156. Hanc, Wojciech (1985), Article “Bucer, Butzer, Martin”, EK 2, 1985, 1144 f. Hall, Basil (1963), Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries, in: CHB III, 38–93. Hartleb, Kazimierz (1948–1958), Article “Gamrat Piotr”, PSB 7, 1948–1958, 264 ff. Heller, Joseph Elijah/Ansbacher, B.Mordechai (1974), Article “Luther, Martin”, EJ 11, 1974, 584 ff. Heller, Joseph Elijah/Ansbacher, B.Mordechai (1997), Article “Luther, Martin”, EJCD 1997. Herzog, Johann Werner (1778), Athenae Rauricae. Sive Catalogus Professorum Academiae Basiliensis ab A. MCCCCLX. ad A. MDCCLXXVIII. Cum Brevi Singulorum Biographia. Adiecta Est Recensio Omnium Eiusdem Academiae Rectorum, Basilae, Car. Aug. Serini. Hirsch, Samuel Abraham (1905a), Early English Hebraists: Roger Bacon and His Predecessors, in: Hirsch, Samuel Abraham, A Book of Essays, London: Macmillan, 1–72. Hirsch, Samuel Abraham (1905b), Johann Pfefferkorn and the Battle of the Books, in: Hirsch, Samuel Abraham, A Book of Essays, London: Macmillan, s. 73–115. Hirsch, Samuel Abraham (1905c), Johann Reuchlin. The Father of the Study of Hebrew among Christians, in: Hirsch, Samuel Abraham, A Book of Essays, London: Macmillan, s. 116–150. Hobbs, R. Gerald (2008), Pluriformity of Early Reformation Scriptural Interpretation, in: HBOT II, 452–511. Horne, Thomas Hartwell (1836), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowladge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 2, Philadelphia: Desilver, Thomas & Co. Hubbard, Alice Philena (1947), The Bible of Vatable, Journal of Biblical Literature 66:2, 197–209. Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1901), Introduction, in: Ulrich Zwingli, Selected Works of Huld­ reich Zwingli (1484–1531): The Reformer of German Switzerland, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 5–8. Jacobs, Henry Eyster (1906), Martin Luther: The Hero of the Reformation 1483–1546, 6th edn, New York/London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons/The Kinckerbocker Press. Jacobs, Joseph/Broydé, Isaac (1901–1906a), Article “Jacob ben Hayyim ben Isaac ibn Adonijah”, JE, 1901–1906, 32. Jacobs, Joseph/Broydé, Isaac (1901–1906b), Article “Levita, Elijah”, JE, 1901–1906, s. 46–49. Jacobs, Joseph/Levias, Caspar (1901–1906), Article “Fagius, Paul (Paul Büchlein)”, JE, 1901– 1906, 325. Jacobs, Joseph/Liber, Morris/Seligsohn, M. (1901–1906), Article “Rashi (Solomon bar Isaac)”, JE, 1901–1906, 324–328.

302

Bibliography

Jacobs, Joseph/Ochser, Schulim (1901–1906), Article “Ximenes de Cisneros”, JE, 1901–1906, 575. Jacobs, Joseph/Schwab, Moïse (1901–1906), Article “Bomberg, Daniel”, JE, 1901–1906, 299 f. Janocki, Jan Daniel (1776), Ianociana sive Clarorum Atque Illustrium Poloniae Auctorum Maecenatumque Memoriae Miscellae, vol. 1, Varsaviae – Lipsiae, Apud Michelem Groellium, 1776. Online version at: https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/17227/edition/15046. Janowski, Paweł (2010a), Article “Oekolampad, Oecolampadius, Johannes”, EK 14, 2010, 375 ff. Janowski, Paweł (2010b), Article “Osiander Andreas”, EK 14, 2010, 885 f. Janowski, Paweł/Koza, Stanisław Józef (2008), Article “Melanchton, Melanthon, Philipp”, EK 12, 2008, 480–485. Janowski, Paweł/Pracki, Roman (2006), Article “Łaski Jan, Joannes a Lasco”, EK 11, 2006, 418 ff. Jasnowski, Józef (1939), Mikołaj Czarny Radziwiłł (1515–1565): Kanclerz i marszałek ziemski Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, wojewoda wileński, Rozprawy Historyczne Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego 22, Warszawa: Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie. Jastrow, Marcus (2005), A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Jones, Gareth Lloyd (1983), The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jones, Gareth Lloyd (2005), Article “Hebraists, Christian”, in: Edward Kessler/Neil Wenborn (ed.), A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge Univetsity Press, 176 f. Junghans, Helmar (1996), Article “Wittenberg, University of ”, OER 4, 1996, 284 ff. Joüon, Paul/Muraoka, Takamitsu (2005), A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica 14, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Juszyński, Hieronym (1820), Dykcyonarz poetów polskich, vol. 2, Kraków: Józef Matecki. Kaczmarkowski, Michał (1989), Article “Filologia”, EK 5, 1989, 232 ff. Kamieniecki, Jan (1995), Zapiski językowe Szymona Budnego (Stary Testament), Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WTN 21, s. 145–153. Kamieniecki, Jan (1999), Z dziejów szesnastowiecznej filologii biblijnej – przekłady biblijne Szymona Budnego, Rozprawy Komisji Językowej WTN 25, 59–65. Kamieniecki, Jan (2002), Szymon Budny – zapomniana postać polskiej reformacji, Acta Universitatis Wratislawiensis 2373, Wrocław:Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Kaśków, Robert (1994), Zainteresowanie językiem hebrajskim w XVI wieku w Polsce, in: Matwijowski, Krystyn (ed.), Z historii ludności żydowskiej w Polsce i na Śląsku, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 1568, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 41–54. Kaśków, Robert (1996), Zainteresowanie Żydami i kulturą żydowską w XVI i na początku XVII w. w Polsce, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Katchen, Aaron L. (1984), Christian Hebraists and Dutch Rabbis: Seventeeth Century Apologetics and the Study of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Cambrigde/London: Harvard University Press. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1967–1968), Article “Kawieczyński Maciej”, PSB 12, 1967– 1968, 250. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1974), Ariańskie oficyny wydawnicze Rodeckiego i Sternackiego: Dzieje i bibliografia, Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk: ZNiO/Wydawnictwo PAN. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia (1975), Z dziejów polskiej książki w okresie Renesansu: Studia i materiały, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.

Studies

303

Kayserling, Meyer/Toy, Crawford Howell (1901–1906a), Article “Buxtorf (Buxtorff), Johannes”, JE, 1901–1906, 444 ff. Kayserling, Meyer/Toy, Crawford Howell (1901–1906b), Article “Buxtorf, Johannes”, JE, 1901–1906, 444 ff. Kessler, Edward/Wenborn, Neil (ed.) (2005), A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge Univetsity Press. Kessler-Mesguich, Sophie (1989), Les hébraïsants chrétiens, in: BTT VI, 83–95. Kilańczyk-Zięba, Justyna (2018), The Transition of the Printer’s Device from Sign of Identification to a Symbol of Aspirations and Beliefs, in: Anja Wolkenhauer/Bernhard F. Scholz (ed.), Typographorum Emblemata: The Printer’s Mark in the Context of Early Modern Culture, Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 315–331. Klawek, Aleksy (1950), Ks. Jakub Wujek w opinii wieków, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 3, 16–23. Kocowski, Bronisław (1960–1961a), Article “Helicz Andrzej”, PSB 9, 1960–1961, 362. Kocowski, Bronisław (1960–1961b), Article “ Helicz Jan”, PSB 9, 1960–1961, 362 f. Kocowski, Bronisław (1960–1961c), Article “Helicz Paweł”, PSB 9, 1960–1961, 363. Kohler, Kaufmann/Broydé, Isaac (1901–1906), Article “Felix Pratensis”, JE, 1901–1906, 361. Kohler, Kaufmann/Cohen, Max (1901–1906), Article “Bacon, Roger” JE, 1901–1906, 423 f. Kohler, Kaufmann/Harkavy, Abraham de (1901–1906), Article “Karaites and Karaism”, JE, 1901–1906, 438–447. Kohut, George Alexander (1901–1906), Article “Alfonso de Zamora” JE, 1901–1906, 378. Kornfeld, Walter (1971), Article “Lutero, Martin”, EBibbia 4, 777 ff. Kossowska, Maria (1968), Biblia w języku polskim, vol. 1, Poznań: Księgarnia św. Wojciecha. Kot, Stanisław (1937), Article “Budny Szymon”, PSB 3, 1937, 96–99. Kot, Stanisław (1938), Article “Czechowic Marcin”, PSB 4, 1938, 307 ff. Koza, Stanisław Józef (1997), Article “Jensen Cornelius Starszy”, EK 7, 1997, 988 f. Krahel, Tadeusz (2004), Article “Kulwieć, Culvensis, Abraham”, EK 10, 2004, 219. Krakowiak, Czesław (1989), Article “Génébrard Gilbert”, EK 5, 1989, 942 f. Krasiński, Józef (1983–1984), Nurt protestancki w doktrynie teologicznej Piotra z Goniądza, Studia Sandomierskie 4, 57–98. Krasiński, Józef (1989), Article “Gentile, Gentilis, Giovanni Valentino”, EK 5, 1989, 969 f. Krókowski, Jerzy (1954), Andrzej Trzecieski: Poeta-Humanista i działacz reformacyjny, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Krzyszkowski, Zbigniew (2010), Article “Odrodzenie. II. W teologii katolickiej”, EK 14, 2010, 350–358. Ksoll-Marcon, Margit (1999), Article “Widmannstetter, Johann Albrecht”, BBKL 16, 1999, 1548 ff. Kwilecka, Irena (1992), Staropolskie przekłady Biblii i ich związki z biblistyką europejską: Zarys problematyki, in: Maria Kamińska/Eliza Małek (ed.), Biblia a kultura Europy, vol. 1, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 272–293. Kwilecka, Irena (1999), Les Bibles protestantes polonaises et leurs rapports avec les Bibles françaises, in: BIEM, 364–377. Kwilecka, Irena (2001a), Die Brester Bibel: Kulturgeschichtliche und sprachliche Fragen der Übersetzung, in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz (hrsg.), Księgi Nowego Testamentu – Kommentare, Biblia Slavica. Serie II: Polnische Bibeln 2/2: Brester Bible 1563, Nowy Testament, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1485–1660.

304

Bibliography

Kwilecka, Irena (2001b), Z dziejów przekładu pierwszej polskiej Biblii protestanckiej, in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyżewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy: 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubicę na język dolnołużycki, Zielonogórskie Studia Łużyckie 3, 143–159. Kwilecka, Irena (2006), Biblia brzeska – jej dzieje i znaczenie, Nauka 3, 111–121. Laird, Gordon (1998), Martin Luther’s use of Hebrew, http://web.archive.org/web/­ 20020405005429/http://home.istar.ca/~glaird/luth-heb.htm. Lambdin, Thomas O. (2000), Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 15th edn, London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Lancaster, Irene (2004), Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham ibn Ezra’s “Introduction to the Torah”, Routledge Jewish Studies Series, Abingdon/Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Lange, Nicholas de (ed.) (2001), Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawee, Eric (2009), Article “Abarbanel, Isaac ben Judah”, EBR 1, 2009, 36 f. Lemański, Janusz (2009), Księga Wyjścia. Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz, Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 2, Częstochowa: Święty Paweł. Leszczyński, Rafał, elder (1996), Przekład fragmentów Biblii przez Krzysztofa Trecego, Rocznik Teologiczny 38:1–2, 199–215. Leszczyński, Rafał, elder (2001), Ewangelickie przekłady Nowego Testamentu w szesnastowiecznej Polsce, in: Tomasz Jaworski/Wiesław Pyżewicz (ed.), Nowy Testament w dziejach i kulturze Europy: 450 rocznica przekładu Nowego Testamentu przez Mikołaja Jakubicę na język dolnołużycki, Zielonogórskie Studia Łużyckie 3, 133–142. Leszczyński, Rafał (2008), Article “Mikołajewski Daniel”, EK 12, 2008, 1021 f. Leszczyński, Rafał Marcin, younger (2013), Biblia brzeska – ewangelicka czy antytrynitarna?, in: Rafał Marcin Leszczyński, younger (ed.), Biblia brzeska: historia – język – teologia. Materiały z konferencji odbytej we Wrocławiu 8 czerwca 2013 roku, Łódź: FOT-GRAF, 55–104. Leszczyński, Rafał Marcin, younger (2015), The Brest Bible: Trynitarian and Christological Issues, Reformation & Renaissance Review, 17:1, 82–96. Leu, Urs B./Weidmann, Sandra (2019), Huldrych Zwingli’s Private Library, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Liechty, Daniel (1996a), Article “Judaizers”, OER 2, 1996, 357. Liechty, Daniel (1996b), Article “Sabbatarianism”, OER 3, 1996, 459 f. Liedke, Marzena (2015), Bezowocne starania: Korespondencja Jana Kalwina z Zygmuntem Augustem, Jakubem Uchańskim, Janem Tarnowskim i Mikołajem Radziwiłem Czarnym, in: Dariusz Chemperek (ed.), Ewangelicyzm reformowany w Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej: Dialog z Europą i wybory aksjologiczne w świetle literatury i piśmiennictwa XVI–XVII wieku, Kultura Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą: Hermeneutyka wartości, vol. 9, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 17–56. Loewe, Raphael (1974), Article “Hebraists, Christian”, EJ 8, 1974, 9–71. Loewe, Raphael (1997), Article “Foreiro, Francisco”, EJCD 1997. Loffler, Klemens (1912), Article “Staphylus, Friedrich”, CEn 14, 1912, 248 f. Louvish, Misha (1997), Article “Capito, Wolfgang Fabricius”, EJCD 1997. Luzzatto, Samuel David (1836), Prolegomeni ad una grammatica ragionata della lingua ebraica, Padova: Tipografia e Fonderia Cartallier. Lyell, James P.R. (1917), Cardinal Ximenes: Statesman, Ecclesiastic, Soldier and Man of Let-

Studies

305

ters with an Account of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, London: Grafton/Coptic House. Online version at: http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028502700. Łempicki, Stanisław (1921), Działalność Jana Zamoyskiego na polu szkolnictwa (1573–1605), Prace Monograficzne z Dziejów Wychowania i Szkolnictwa w Polsce 1/2, Kraków: Książnica Polska. Łukaszewicz, Józef (1835), O kościołach braci czeskich w dawnej Wielkiejpolsce, Poznań: Karol Pompejusz. Łukaszewicz, Józef (1849), Historya szkół w Koronie i w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim od najdawniejszych czasów aż do roku 1794, vol. 1, Poznań: Jan Konstatnty Żupański. Łukaszewicz, Józef (1853), Dzieje kościołów wyznania helweckiego w dawnej Małej Polsce, Poznań: Jan Konstatnty Żupański. Maciejowski, Wacław Aleksander (1852), Piśmiennictwo staropolskie od czasów najdawniejszych aż do roku 1830: Z rękopisów i druków zebrawszy, w obrazie literatury polskiej historycznie skreślonym, vol. 3: Dopełnienia poprzednich tomów, tudzież dodatki do całego dzieła, Warszawa: S. Orgelbrand. Malej, Witold (1993), Józef Flawiusz w Polsce, in: Józef Flawiusz, Dawne dzieje Izraela, 3th edn, vol. 1, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Rytm”, 65–89. Maltby, William S. (1996), Article “Jiménez de Cisneros, Francisco”, OER 2, 1996, 345 f. Małłek, Janusz (1977), Article “Murzynowski Stanisław”, PSB 22, 1977, 281 f. Małłek, Janusz/Pepłowski, Franciszek (1974), Wstęp, in: Stanisław Murzynowski, Historia żałosna a straszliwa o Franciszku Spierze oraz Ortografia polska, ed. Janusz Małłek/Franciszek Pepłowski, Olsztyn: Pojezierze, 14 f. Małłek, Janusz/Polak, Wojciech (1987), Article “Rapagelan Stanisław”, PSB 30, 1987, 576 ff. Mandelbrote, Scott (2016), The Old Testament and Its Ancient Versions in Manuscript and Print in the West, from c. 1480 to c. 1780, in: NCHB III, 82–109. Manuel, Frank E. (1992), The Broken Staff: Judaism through Christian Eyes, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Mayenowa, Maria Renata (ed.) (1955), Zasady wydawania tekstów staropolskich: Projekt, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich/Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Merkle, Benjamin R. (2015), Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate: The Elohistae, Oxford Theology & Religion Monographs, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKane, William (ed.) (2004), Selected Christian Hebraists, Cambridge/New York/New Rochelle/Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press. McLeod, Randal (1999), ALTUM SAPERE, Parole d’homme et Verbe divin: Les chronologies de la Bible hébraïque in-quarto de Robert Estienne, in: BIEM, 83–141. Meller, Katarzyna (1992), Jakuba Lubelczyka Psałterz Dawida z roku 1558: Studium filologiczne, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Nakom. Merczyng, Henryk (1913), Szymon Budny jako krytyk tekstów biblijnych, Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności. Mesguich, Sophie Kessler (2008), Early Christian Hebraists, in: HBOT II, 254–275. Milwitzky, William (1901–1906), Article “Adelkind. Cornelius B. Baruch Adelkind”, JE, 1901– 1906, 189 f. Misiurek, Jerzy (1989), Article “Gertich Marcin Gracjan”, EK 5, 1989, 1023 f. Misiurek, Jerzy (1993), Article “ Grzegorz Paweł z Brzezin”, EK 6, 1993, 349 f. Morawski, Kazimierz (1900), Historya Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Średnie wieki i Odrodzenie, vol. 2, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

306

Bibliography

Moss, Ann (1991), Latin Liturgical Hymns of the Reformation Crisis (1520–1568), Humanistica Lovaniensia 40, 73–111. Moszyński, Leszek (1994), Zur Sprache der Bibelübersetzung Szymon Budnys von 1572, in: Hans Rothe/Friedrich Scholz (hrsg.), Biblia. to jest Księgi Starego i Nowego Przymierza: In der Übersetzung des Simon Budny. Nieśwież, Zasław 1571–1572. Księgi Nowego Przymierza, Biblia Slavica. Serie II: Polnische Bibeln 3/2, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 351–414. Napiórkowski, Stanisław (2004), Article “Lismanin, Lismanini, Franciszek”, EK 10, 2004, 1146 f. Natoński, Bronisław (1964–1965), Article “Junga (Junge, Jounge, Jungius, Jung) Adrian”, PSB 11, 1964–1965, 324 ff. Natoński, Bronisław (1994), Szkolnictwo jezuickie w Polsce w dobie kontrreformacji, in: Jerzy Paszenda (ed.), Z dziejów szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Polsce: Wybór artykułów, Kraków: WAM, 34–62. Nauert, Charles G. (1973), The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: An Approach to Pre-Reformation Controversies, Sixteenth Century Journal 4:1, 1–18 Newman, Louis Israel (1925), Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, Columbia University Oriental Studies 23, New York: Columbia University Press. Nicko-Stępień, Paulina (2017a), Louvain Edition of the Vulgate and the New Testament in the Translation of Jakub Wujek from Year 1593: The study from Matthew 16:13–20, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce SI, 147–166. Nicko-Stępień, Paulina (2017b), Źródła dla komentarza tekstowego Nowego Testamentu w tłumaczeniu Jakuba Wujka z roku 1593: Studium Dz 2, 14–36, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 61, 235–257. Nicko-Stępień, Paulina (2018), Nowy Testament w tłumaczeniu ks. Jakuba Wujka z 1593 roku: Studium wykorzystania źródeł na przykładzie tekstów Piotrowych, Wrocław: Papieski Wydział Teologiczny we Wrocławiu (doctoral dissertation). Nielsen, Bruce (2011), Daniel van Bombergen, a Bookman of Two Worlds, in: Hacker, Joseph R./ Shear Adam (ed.), The Hebrew Book in Early Modern Italy, Jewish Culture and Contexts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 56–75. Nischan, Bodo (1996), Article “Prussia”, OER 3, 1996, 360–363. Nowak, Edward (1993), Article “Gregorianum”, EK 6, 1993, 133 f. Nowak, Zbigniew (1968), Andrzej Hünefeldt jako nakładca i drukarz Biblii Gdańskiej z 1632 roku, Libri Gedanenses. Rocznik Biblioteki Gdańskiej 1, 35–53. Nowak, Zbigniew (1991–1992), Article “Rybiński Jan (ok. 1565–ok. 1621)”, PSB 33, 1991–1992, s. 329 ff. O’Connell, Marvin R. (1996), Article “Louvain”, OER 2, 1996, 455. Olson, Jeannine E. (1996), Article “Geneva Academy”, OER 2, 1996, 163 f. Opitz, Peter (2008), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, in: HBOT II, 407–451. Oracki, Tadeusz (1984), Słownik biograficzny Warmii, Prus Książęcych i Ziemi Malborskiej od połowy XV do końca XVIII wieku, vol. 1, Olsztyn: “Pojezierze”. Orme, William (1824), Bibliotheca Biblica: A Select List of Books on Sacred Literature, with Notices, Biographical, Critical, and Bibliographical, Edinburgh/London: A. Black. Ott, Michael (1909), Génebrard, Gilbert, CEn 6, 1909, 412. Palacz, Ryszard (1962–1964), Article “Jan z Trzciany (Arundinensis)”, PSB 10, 1962–1964, 485.

Studies

307

Patalon, Mirosław (2000), O trudnych początkach Biblii Gdańskiej, Rocznik Teologiczny 42:2, 21–47. Pawelec, Mariusz (2008), Bartłomiej Bythner starszy (ok. 1559–1629): Z dziejów protestanckiego irenizmu na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe “Semper”. Péligry, Christian (1999), La Bible en Espagne au XVIe siècle: de la polyglotte d’Alcalá à celle d’Anvers, in: BIEM, 306–322. Piechnik, Ludwik (1983), Dzieje Akademii Wileńskiej, vol. 2: Rozkwit Akademii Wileńskiej, Rzym: Institutum Historicum Societatis Jesu. Piechnik, Ludwik (1984), Dzieje Akademii Wileńskiej, vol. 1: Początki Akademii Wileńskiej, Rzym: Institutum Historicum Societatis Jesu. Piechnik, Ludwik (1994), Starania biskupów warmińskich i jezuitów polskich o przekształcenie kolegium w Braniewie w uniwersytet, in: Jerzy Paszenda (ed.), Z dziejów szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Polsce: Wybór artykułów, Kraków: WAM, 142–150. Piechnik, Ludwik (2001), Seminaria diecezjalne w Polsce prowadzone przez jezuitów od XVI do XVIII wieku, Studia i Materiały do Dziejów Jezuitów Polskich 6, Kraków: WAM/Ignatianum. Piechnik, Ludwik (2003), Powstanie i rozwój jezuickiej “Ratio studiorum” (1548–1599), Studia i Materiały do Dziejów Jezuitów Polskich 11, Kraków: WAM/Ignatianum. Piekarski, Kazimierz (1937–1939), Szymon Zacjusz w Brześciu, Refromacja w Polsce 9–10, 433 ff. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2011), W poszukiwaniu “szczyrego słowa Bożego”: Recepcja zachodnioeuropejskiej hebraistyki w studiach chrześcijańskich w Rzeczypospolitej doby renesansu, Rozprawy Naukowe PWT we Wrocławiu, Wrocław: Papieski Wydział Teologiczny we Wrocławiu. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2012), Początki polskiej hebraistyki chrześcijańskiej, Studia Judaica 15:1–2, 7–26. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2015), Hebraica Veritas in the Brest Bible, Reformation & Renaissance Review, 17:1, 44–62. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2016), Biblia Polonorum: Historia Biblii w języku polskim, vol. 1: Od początku do 1638 roku, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Pallottinum. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2019a), Hebraistyka protestancka w XVI wieku i w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku, Rocznik Teologiczny 51:3, 371–403. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2019b), Polish Biblical Editing in the Renaissance: An Attempt at Bibliographical Synthesis, in: Joanna Pietrzak-Thébault (ed.), Word of God, words of men: Translations, inspirations, transmissions of the Bible in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Renaissance, Refo500 Academic Studies 43, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 59–92. Pietkiewicz, Rajmund (2020), Problematyka żydowska w Biblii Jakuba Wujka z 1599 roku: Studium źródeł, The Biblical Annals, 279–302. Pietsch, Paul (1909), Bibliographie der deutschen Bibel Luthers, in: Martin Luther, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Die deutsche Bibel, vol. 2, Weimar: H. Böhlaus nachfolger, 201–727. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (1995), Źródła do bibliografii XVI–XVII-wiecznych hebraików z ziem polskich, Biuletyn Bibliteki Jagiellońskiej 45:1–2, 81–99. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (1998a), Reprodukcja Talmudu do połowy XVI wieku, Studia Judaica 1:2, 145–175. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (1998b), Talmud i jego drukarze w pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej: Z dziejów przekazu religijnego w judaizmie, Prace Międzywydziałowej Komisji Historii i Kultury Żydów 2, Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejetności.

308

Bibliography

Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (2004), Leksykon drukarzy ksiąg hebrajskich w Polsce z bibliografią polono-judaików w językach żydowskich (XVI–XVIII wiek), Kraków: Wydawnictwo “Antykwa”. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (2007), Hebrajska książka drukowana w Europie środkowowschodniej w XVI i XVII wieku: Topografia, wielkość produkcji i funkcja, Studia Judaica 10:1, 1–23. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (2009), Nowy Testament po żydowsku wydrukowany w Krakowie w latach 1540–1541, Studia Judaica 12:1–2, 121–141. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (2011), Katalog judaików – starych druków w zbiorach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie z dawnej Pruskiej Biblioteki Państwowej w Berlinie, Kraków: Wydawnictwo “Antykwa”. Pilarczyk, Krzysztof (2012), Drukowana książka hebrajska a religia. Vademecum bibliologiczne, Kraków: Wydawnictwo “Antykwa”. Płokarz, Józefat (1922), Jan Niemojewski: Studjum z dziejów arian polskich, Reformacja w Polsce 2:5–6, 71–117. Pniewski, Władysław (1919), Akademja Poznańska: Szkic historyczny, Poznań: Drukarnia Ludwika Kapeli. Poplatek, Jan (1950), Obecny stan badań nad życiem Jakuba Wujka T.J. i program dalszej pracy, Polonia Sacra 3:1–2, 20–91. Porter, Harry C. (1996), Article “Cambridge, University of ”, OER 1, 1996, 247 ff. Posset, Franz (2015), Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522): A Theological Biography, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 129, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Posset, Franz (2019), Respect for the Jews: Collected Works, vol. 4, Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Półćwiartek-Dremierre, Dorota (2016), Humanizm i reformacja. Dialog wartości w polsko-francuskich stosunkach literackich i kulturalnych od XV do końca XVI wieku, in: Mirosława Hanusiewicz-Lavallee (ed.), W przestrzeni Południa: Kultura Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej wobec narodów romańskich: estetyka, prądy i style, konteksty kulturowe, Kultura Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą: Hermeneutyka wartości, vol. 2, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 200–257. Prejs, Roland (2010), Article “Ochino Bernardino”, EK 14, 2010, 271. Price, David H. (2011), Johannes Reuchlin and the Campaign to Destroy Jewish Books, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Propp, William Henry (1999), Exodus 1–18. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 2, New York: Doubleday. Przyborowski, Józef (1868), Article “Żórawski (Mikołaj)”, EP 28, 1868, 1073 f. Rabin, Chaim M. (1997), Article “Boeschenstein, Johann”, EJCD 1997. Rashdall, Hastings (1895a), The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 2/1, Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Rashdall, Hastings (1895b), The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 2/2, Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Raz-Krakotzkin, Amnon (2004), Censorship, Editing, and the Reshaping of Jewish Identity: The Catholic Church and Hebrew Literature in the sixteenth century, in: Alison P. Coudert/ Jeffrey S. Shoulson (ed.), Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 125–155. Rechowicz, Marian (1973), Article “Alcalá de Henares”, EK 1, 1973, 316. Reader, Siegfried (2008), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of Martin Luther, in: HBOT II, 363–406.

Studies

309

Renouard, Philippe (1985), Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle, vol. 3: 1521–1530, Abbeville: F. Paillart. Online version at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ bpt6k58392059.texteImage. Rex, Richard (1996), Article “Fischer, John”, OER 2, 1996, 109 f. Rex, Richard (2008), Humanism and Reformation in England and Scotland, in: HBOT II, 512–535. Reychman, Jan (1960–1961), Article “Gryglicki (Gryglicius, Greglicius) Wojciech Albert”, PSB 9, 1960–1961, 76. Rhodes, Erroll F. (1997), Article “Biblie poliglotyczne”, in: Słownik wiedzy biblijnej, ed. Bruce M. Metzger/Michael D. Coogan, Prymasowska Seria Biblijna, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio”, 65 ff. Rosenthal, Herman (1901–1906), Article “Budny, Simon”, JE, 1901–1906, 421. Rosin, Robert (1996), Article “Cruciger, Caspar”, OER 1, 1996, 456 f. Roth, Cecil (1997), Article “Oxford”, EJCD 1997. Rothkegel, Martin (2002), Eine jüdisch-deutsche Handschrift des Buchdruckers und Konvertiten Johannes Helicz, Breslau 1537, Communio Viatorum 44:1, 44–50. Roussel, Bernard (1989), La Bible de 1530 à 1600, in: BTT V, 123–305. Roussel, Bernard (1996), Article “Pagnini, Sante”, OER 3, 1996, 194 f. Ruffini, Francesco (1935), Francesco Stancaro: Contributo alla storia della Riforma in Italia, Roma: Edizioni di “Religio”. Rummel, Erika (2006), Humanists, Jews, and Judaism, in: Dean Phillip Bell/Stephen G. Burnett (ed.) (2006), Jews, Judaism, and the Refromation in Sixteen-Century Germany: Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 3–31. Saebø, Magne (ed.) (2008), Hebrew Bible/Old testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 2: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sayce, R.A. (1963), Continental Versions to c. 1600: French Versions, in: CHB III, 113–122. Schenker, Adrian (2008a), From the First Printed Hebrew, Greek and Latin Bibles to the First Polyglot Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot: 1577–1517, in: HBOT II, 276–291. Schenker, Adrian (2008b), The Polyglot Bibles of Antwerp, Paris and London, in: HBOT II, 774–784. Schildenberger, Johannes (1971), Article “Tedesche, Versioni”, EBibbia 6, 1971, 799–805. Schrijver, Emile G.L. (2018), Jewish Book Culture since the Invention of Printing (1469– c. 1815), in: CHJ VIII, 291–315. Schwarz, Werner (1955), Studies in Luther’s Attitude towards Humanism, Journal of Theological Studies 6:1, 66–76. Schwarzbach, Bertram Eugene (ed.) (1999), Les édition de la Bible hébraïque au XVIe siècle et la création du texte massorétique, in: BIEM, 16–67. Schwiebert, Ernest George (1950), Luther and His Times, St Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Seebass, Gottfried (1996a), Article “Heidelberg, University of ”, OER 2, 1996, 216 f. Seebass, Gottfried (1996b), Article “Osiander, Andreas”, OER 3, 183 ff. Sela, Shlomo (2003), Abraham ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 32, Leiden: Brill. Serczyk, Jerzy (1994), Albertyna: Uniwersytet w Królewcu (1544–1945), Biblioteka Olsztyńska 27, Olsztyn: Ośrodek Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego.

310

Bibliography

Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997a), Article “Guidacerio, Agacio”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997b), Article “Mercier, Jean”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997c), Article “Muenster, Sebastian”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997d), Article “Pagnini, Santes”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997e), Article “Pellicanus (Pellikan), Conrad”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997f), Article “Postel, Guillaume”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997 g), Article “Reuchlin, Johannes”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997h), Article “Trithemius, Johannes”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond (1997i), Article “Wakefield, Robert”, EJCD 1997. Silverman, Godfrey Edmond/Scholem, Gershom (1974), Article “Reuchlin, Johannes (­Capnio, or Phorcensis; 1455–1522)”, EJ 14, 1974, 108–111. Sipayłło Maria (1976), Article “Mikołajewski Daniel”, PSB 21, 1976, 154 ff. Sipayłłówna, Maria (1934), W sprawie genezy Biblii gdańskiej, Reformacja w Polsce 6, 144–151. Simon, Richard (1682), A Critical History of the Old Testament, vol. 3, London: Jacob Tonson. Smereka, Władysław (1966), Wstęp, in: Nowy Testament w przekładzie Ks. Dr Jakuba Wujka T.J. z roku 1593, ed. Władysław Smereka, Kraków: Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne, VII– XLVIII. Smereka, Władysław (1975), Biblistyka polska (wiek XVI–XVIII), in: Marian Rechowicz (ed.), Dzieje teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 2: Od Odrodzenia do Oświecenia, part 1: Teologia humanistyczna, Lublin: TNKUL, 221–266. Snaith, Norman Henry (1974), Article “Bible. Printed Editions (Hebrew)”, EJ 4, 1974, 836–841. Sobieszczański, Franciszek Maxymilian (1867a), Article “Troperus (Andrzej)”, EP 25, 1867, 586. Sobieszczański, Franciszek Maxymilian (1867b), Article “Vitellius (Jakób)”, EP 26, 1867, 237. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor (1964), Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible 1, Garden City: Doubleday. Starke, Arnold (1937), Article “Bythner Bartłomiej”, PSB 3, 1937, 181. Stern, David (2011), The Rabbinic Bible in Its Sixteen-Century Context, in: Hacker, Joseph R./ Shear Adam (ed.), The Hebrew Book in Early Modern Italy, Jewish Culture and Contexts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 76–108. Strohm, Stefan (1999), Évolution du texte de la Bible de Luther: Réflexion sur les problèmes rencontrés dans l’histoire de son édition de la Réforme à nos jour, in: BIEM, 166–188. Strzałkowska, Maria (1973), Article “Arias Benito”, EK 1, 1973, 916. Swastek, Józef (1989), Article “Erazm z Rotterdamu I, II”, EK 4, 1989, 1062–1065. Synowiec, Juliusz (2001), Początki świata i ludzkości według Księgi Rodzaju, Kraków: Wydawnictwo OO. Franciszkanów “Bratni Zew”. Szczucki, Lech (1999–2000), Article “Socyn Faust”, PSB 39, 1999–2000, 631–636. Szczucki, Lech/Tazbir, Janusz (1978), Article “Niemojewski Jan”, PSB 23, 1978, 13–16. Szeruda, Jan (1985), Geneza i charakter Biblii gdańskiej, Z problemów reformacji 5, 7–16. Szturc, Jan (1998), Ewangelicy w Polsce: słownik biograficzny XVI–XX wieku, Bielsko-Biała: Augustana. Śliwa, Tadeusz (2002), Article “Krowicki Marcin”, EK 9, 2002, 1327 f. Tene, David/Barr, James (1974), Article “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew”, EJ 16, 1974, 1352–1401. Terlaga, Jan (1933), Szkolne czasy ks. Jakóba Wujka T.J. jako przygotowanie do jego działalności kaznodziejskiej, Przegląd Powszechny 50, 3–25.

Studies

311

Teter, Magda/Fram, Edward (2006), Apostasy, Fraud, and the Beginnings of Hebrew Printing in Cracow, Assotiation of Jewish Studies Review 30:1, 31–66. Thon, Johannes (2012), Hebraisten aus dem Östlichen Mitteleuropa an der Wittenberger Universität, Lecture for a conference: Christian Hebraism in Eastern Central Europe, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, University of Halle-Wittenberg, March 18–21, 2012. Toy, Crawford Howell/Jacobs, Joseph (1901–1906), Article “Münster, Sebastian”, JE, 1901– 1906, 112. Trapp, J.B. (1996), Article “More, Thomas”, OER 3, 1996, 88–91. Tromp, Sebastianus (1941), Tromp textus Novi Testamenti facta Romae a Commisione Pontificia circa an. 1617 praeside S. R. Bellarmino, Biblica 22, 303–306. Tromp, Sebastianus (1943), De revisione textus Novi Testamenti facta Romae a Commisione Pontificia circa an. 1617 praeside S. R. Bellarmino, Biblica 24, 304–307. Tronina, Antoni (2010), Article “Pagnini Santes”, EK 14, 2010, 1114. Tworek, Stanisław (1970), Article “Krośniewicki Baltazar”, PSB 15, 1970, 342 f. Tworek, Stanisław (1971), Starania o ujednolicenie obrządku kalwińskiego w Polsce XVII wieku, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 16, 117–139. Tyloch, Witold (1980), Gramatyka języka hebrajskiego, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 1980. Urban, Wacław (1967–1968), Article “Kłobucki, Jan”, PSB 13, 1967–1968, 42 f. Urban, Wacław (1996), Article “Stancarus, Francis”, OER 4, 1996, 107 f. Vanderjagt, Arjo (2008), Early Humanists Concern for the Hebraica veritas, in: HBOT II, 154–189. Venturi, P.T. (1934), Maldonado, Juan (Giovanni Maldonato), EIt 22, 1934, 4 Vollandt, Ronny (2016), The Conundrum of Scriptural Plurality: The Arabic Bible, Polyglots, and Medieval Predecessors of Biblical Criticism, in: Andrés Piquer Otero/Pablo A. Torijano Morales (ed.), The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, Leiden: Brill, 56–85. Volz, Hans (1963), Continental Versions to c. 1600: German Versions, in: CHB III, 94–109. Vosté, Giacomo-Maria (1946), La Volgata al Concilio di Trento, Biblica 27, 301–319. Vosté, Jacques-Marie (1941), De revisione Bibliae hebraicae iuxta votum Concilii Tridentini, Angelicum 18, 387–394. Wadowski, Jan Ambroży (1900), Wiadomość o profesorach Akademii Zamojskiej, Materiały i Opracowania Dotyczące Historyi Wyższych Zakładów Naukowych w Polsce 1, Warszawa: “Gazeta Rolnicza”. Walton, Robert C. (1996), Article “Oecolampadius, Johannes”, OER 3, 1996, 169 ff. Warmiński, Ignacy (1906), Andrz. Samuel i Jan Seklucjan, Poznań: Drukarnia i Księgarnia św. Wojciecha. Wicks, Jared (2008), Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras, in: HBOT II, 617–648. Wielgus, Stanisław (1990), Badania nad Biblią w starożytności i średniowieczu, Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL. Rozprawy Wydziału Filozoficznego 49, Lublin: TNKUL. Wiśniowski, Eugeniusz (1985a), Article “Bracia czescy”, EK 2, 1985, 992 ff. Wiśniowski, Eugeniusz (1985b), Article “Cambridge I”, EK 2, 1985, 1293 ff. Wojak, Tadeusz (1985), Studium o Biblii gdańskiej, Z problemów reformacji 5, 17–47. Wojtyska, Henryk (1985), Article “Biandrata Giorgio”, EK 2, 1985, 374 f.

312

Bibliography

Wolf, Johann Christoph (1715), Bibliotheca Hebraea, sive, Notitia tum auctorum Hebr. cujuscunque aetatis, tum scriptorum, quae vel Hebraice primum exarata vel ab aliis conversa sunt, ad nostram aetatem deducta. Accedit in calce Jacobi Gaffarelli Index Codicum Cabbalistic. MSS. quibus Jo. Picus, Mirandulanus Comes, usus est, vol. 1, Hamburgi/Lipsiae: Christiani Liebezeit. Wójcik, Maria/Zahajkiewicz, Marek (1985), Article “Bazylea”, EK 2, 1985, 127 ff. Wydra, Wiesław (1979), Z badań nad “Skargą umierającego” i “Dialogiem mistrza Polikarpa ze Śmiercią”, Studia Polonistyczne 7, 199–216. Zalewski, Ludwik (1946), Tajemnica Szymona Budnego, Biblioteka Lubelska 4, Lublin: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Zarosa, Ewelina (2010), Article “Odrodzenie”, EK 14, 2010, 346 f. Zilberberg, Gershon (1974), Article “Printing, Hebrew”, EJ 13, 1974, 1096–1116. Zorattini, Cesare Ioly (1993), Article “Eliano, Giovanni Battista”, in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 42, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giovanni-battista-eliano_(Dizionario-Biografico). Związek, Jan (1979), Article “Dávid Ferenc”, EK 3, 1979, 1045 f. Zwiercan, Marian (1975), Article “Michał z Wielunia”, PSB 20, 1975, 627 f.

Index of person

Abarbanel (Abrabanel), Isaac ben Judah 59, 73, 304

Abraham ibn Ezra (Abraham ben Meïr, Aben Ezra) 26, 28, 36, 48, 49, 73, 84, 173, 209, 300, 309 Abulafia, Hezekiah David 137 Adelkind, Cornelius ben Baruch 46, 305 Adendorp, Henning 114, 150 Adrianus, Matthaeus 33, 36, 40, 42, 43 Agrippa, Henricus Cornelius 30 Alberigo, Giuseppe 63, 295 Albonesi, Teseo (Theseus) Ambrogio degli 38 Alcalá, Alfonso de 38 Alciati, Gianpaolo 118, 122, 123 Alcuin of York 214, 244 Alegambe, Philippe de 147, 289 Alphasi, David ben Abraham 25 Alt, Albrecht 289 Ambrose, St 244 Amelung, Peter 11 Amir, Yehoshua 53, 113, 295 Amorbachus, Bruno 213 Andrzej of Łuków 129, 151 Ansbacher, B. Mordechai 52, 53, 295, 301 Anshelmus, Thomas 294 Aquila 200, 215, 222, 258 Arenius, Arnoldus Peraxylus 212 Arias Montano, Benito 75, 80, 199–200, 310 Armogathe, Jean-Robert 11 Artom, Menachem E. 31, 34, 295 Asolo (Asolani), Andrea Torresani di 76–77 Astruc ben Ya’akov de Toulon 292

Audin, Jean-Marie 31, 37, 38, 264, 295 Augusiewicz, Sławomir 112, 113, 114, 295 August I, Elector of Saxony 82 Augustine, St 187, 192–193, 200, 214, 215, 244 Aurogallus (Goldhahn), Matthaeus 42, 53 Avitus 244 Avneri, Zvi 41, 295 Bacher Wayne J. 295 Bacher, Wilhelm 25, 26, 27, 292, 295, 300 Bacon, Roger 28, 301, 303 Baczewski, Sławomir 120, 295 Baczkowska, Wanda 110, 295 Bade, Conrad 285 Badius, Conrad 285 Baffi, M.A. 12 Bainton, Roland H. 50, 295 Baker, J. Wayne 40, 57, 296 Balmes, Abraham ben Meir de 48 Bałaban, Majer 19, 46, 101, 103, 108, 140, 159, 160, 161, 162, 296 Bandtkie, Jan Wincenty 13 Bandtkie, Jerzy Samuel 13 Barbier, Nicolas 83–84, 206, 285, 286 Baron, Salo Wittmayer 58, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 296 Barr, James 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 48, 55, 84, 310 Bartilius, Wawrzyniec 147 Barycz, Henryk 19, 67, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 120, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 139, 141, 146, 147, 296 Basa, Domenico 92, 289 Basil the Great, St 214

314 Bathory, Stephan, king of Poland 140–141 Baum, Guilielmus 11 Baumgartner, Walter 14 Bautz, Friedrich Wilhelm 10 Bazydło, Janusz 104, 131, 296 Bazylik, Cyprian 286 Bede the Venerable, St 214 Bednarski, Stanisław 66, 146, 296 Bednarz, Mieczysław 147, 296 Bedouelle, Guy 11, 30, 32, 38, 75, 80, 296 Bellarmine, Robert 6, 67, 68, 85, 92–97, 142, 208, 214, 289, 290 Ben-Hadadad 210 Ben-Sasson, Haim-Hillel 297 Benis, Artur 162, 290 Bentkowski, Felix 11, 13 Berent, Szymon 147 Bernard of Clairvaux, St 214, 244 Bernard, Pierre 286 Bertram, Cornelius Bonaventura 41 Bertus, Dominique 283 Bessarion, Basilos 77 Bethge, G. 292 Bèze, Théodore de 41, 58, 61, 77, 78, 83, 120, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 202, 207, 290 Bezzel, Irmgard 14 Biandrata, Giorgio 61, 118, 122–123, 124, 125, 127, 139, 141, 151, 311 Bibliander, Theodore 58, 140 Bidlo, Jaroslav 133, 297 Biedrzycka, Agnieszka 113, 145, 297 Bieniarzówna, Janina 106, 297 Biesenthal, Jo.H.R. 292 Bietenholz, Peter G. 11, 40, 42, 104, 297 Birn, Józef 121, 123, 297 Black, M.H. 82, 84, 297 Boccadifuoco, Maria Rosaria 10 Bodniak, Stanisław 120, 297 Boeschenstein, Johannes 33, 35, 43, 56, 58, 308 Boksza (Boxa), Paweł 146, 152, 296 Bolemowski, Feliks 287 Bomberg (van Bombergen), Daniel 9, 27, 37, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 63, 73, 161, 213, 263, 283, 284, 292, 302, 306 Boyer, Benito 287 Bravi, Giulio Orazio 32, 50, 297

Index of person

Bredenbach, Matthias 213 Brelius, Piotr 118, 127 Brocar, Arnaldo Guillén de 283 Brown, Horatio Forbes 44, 45, 297 Broydé, Isaac 45, 47, 48, 301, 303 Brückner, Aleksander 123, 297 Brus, Antonín 64 Bucer (Butzer), Martin 37, 58, 59, 69, 77, 127, 295, 301 Buda, Jerzy 147 Budé, Guillaume 39, 105 Budka, Włodzimierz 125, 297 Budny, Szymon 9, 17, 18, 61, 134–139, 140, 152, 153, 176–178, 183–184, 189–191, 195, 196–197, 201, 202, 203–204, 206– 207, 208, 209–210, 213, 219, 226, 227, 229, 235, 237, 240, 246, 248, 249, 251, 253, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 270, 274–275, 278, 280, 286, 287, 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 309, 315 Budzyk, Kazimierz 13 Bullinger, Heinrich 56, 57, 58, 127, 129, 136, 139, 290 Burmeister, Karl Heinz 297 Burnett, Amy Nelson 41, 297 Burnett, Stephen G. 19, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 54, 62, 65, 68, 69, 74, 111, 114 149, 297, 309 Buszowski, Wojciech 106, 150 Buxtorf, Johannes, the Elder 41, 73, 297, 303 Buxtorf, Johannes, the Younger 41, 288, 303 Buzzetti, Carlo 32, 50, 297 Bythner (Bitner), Bartłomiej 129, 131, 152, 296, 307, 310 Caesar, Bartholomeus (Bartholomeus) 35–36, 166, 290 Calman 33 Calvin (Kalwin), John 11, 20, 39, 41, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70, 77, 83, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 129, 139, 206, 207, 237, 244, 274, 290, 296, 300, 304, 306 Cameron, Euan 13, 82, 298 Campen (Campensis, de Campo), Jan van den 6, 22, 40, 47, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 149, 157, 158, 162, 163, 166–168, 173, 213, 277, 283, 284, 290, 296, 297, 315

Index of person

Campinge, Johann 114, 150 Capito, Wolfgang Fabricius 41, 42, 58, 59, 69, 166, 290, 304 Caravita (Crovetta), Joseph ben Abraham 72 Cassander, Joris 127, 298 Cassuto, Umberto 31, 298 Castellano, Alberto 78 Castellion (Castalione), Sébastien 9, 61, 80, 202, 207, 212, 216, 217, 236, 236, 237, 240, 242, 258, 285, 288, 300 Cellarius (Borrhaus), Martin 42, 128 Cellarius (Gnostpolitanus), Johannes 35, 42, 43, 164, 166, 300 Ceporinus, Jacob 40, 56, 57, 58 Cervus, Jan 158, 290 Charles VI of France 46 Chayyim ben Isaac 161 Chayyuj, Judah ben David 26, 27 Chądzyński, Jan 147 Chédozeau, Bernard 84, 298 Chevallier, Antoine Rodolphe 41 Chevallier, Pierre 41 Chiari, Isidoro 80, 200 Chiya Meir ben Meir 45–46 Chmiel, Adam 291 Chmiel, Jerzy 146, 189, 191, 298 Cholinus, Peter 58 Cicero 106, 146 Cleinmann, Valentin 43 Clement I, pope, St 214 Clement of Alexandria, St 214 Clement V, pope 63 Clement VII, pope 37 Clemente, Abraham 37 Clenardus, Nicolaus 40, 142, 297, 299 Cohen, Max 28, 303 Colladon, Nicholas 58 Collingwood, S. 300 Constantine the Great 60 Coogan, Michael D. 309 Cornel, Paul Nuñez 300 Coudert, Alison P. 19, 297, 298, 308 Courteau, Thomas 83, 84, 206, 285, 286 Crato, Johann 44 Cromwell, Thomas 39 Cruciger, Caspar, the Elder 53, 309 Cruciger, Caspar, the Younger 112

315 Culvensis (Kulvietis, Kulwa), Abraham 112, 113, 114, 150, 296, 303 Cunitz, Eduardus 11 Cusi, Meshullama 72 Cwi (Cwija) ben Abraham Kalonymos Jafe 161 Cybulski, Marek 298 Czechowic, Marcin 137, 139, 140, 152, 303 Czerkawski, Jan 106, 298 Czerniatowicz, Janina 206, 298 Dahl, Svend 31, 298 Daiches, David 19, 298 Dandini, Hieronim 142 Danès, Pierre 104 Daniel of Łęczyca 286 Daniluk, Mirosław 298 Dantyszek (Dantiscus, Hoefen von), Jan (Johannes) 103, 277 Danysz, Antoni 134, 298 Dávid, Ferenc 61, 312 Dawid of Mirzyniec 99 Dąbrowski, Eugeniusz 30, 212, 298 Decavele, Johan 127, 298 Delaveau, Martine 11 Denck, Hans 81 Des Planches, Jérémie 287 Deutsch, Gotthard 30, 32, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 68, 298 Deutscher, Thomas B. 11 Diodati, Giovanni 42 Dionysius the Areopagite 214 Donnelly, John Patrick 68, 299 Drüll, Dagmar 43, 299 Drzymała, Kazimierz 145, 299 Du Ry, Antoine 80, 283 Dumont, Claude 286 Dunkelgrün, Theodor 46, 299 Duperron, Jacques-Davy 75 Dyl, Janusz 103, 104, 159, 161, 299 Eck, Johannes 33, 42 Edward VI of England 39, 61 Egidio da Viterbo (Aegidius of Viterbo, Aegidius Antonius Canisius), cardinale 32, 46, 47, 62, 63, 299 Einhorn, Werner, of Bacharach 33, 42 Eißfeldt, Otto 289 Eliezer ben Isaac 161 Elisha, prophet 236, 237

316 Enelow, H.G. 32, 46, 299 Episcopius, Nicolaus 291 Erasmus, Desiderius (Erazm from Rotterdam) 11, 20, 30, 32, 38, 39–40, 75, 76, 81, 108, 109, 126, 127, 154, 155, 156, 207, 291, 310, 315 Ernesti, Hieronymus 114 Estienne (Stephanus), Henri II 83 Estienne (Stephanus), Robert I 9, 44, 73, 78–80, 83, 197, 199, 201, 202, 206, 209, 212, 216, 217, 226, 231, 233, 237, 245, 255, 261, 263, 264, 265, 269, 271, 273, 284, 285, 300, 305, 315, 316 Estreicher, Karol, the Elder 12, 107, 132, 137, 154, 166 Eucherius, St 244 Eugubinus (Steuco), Agostino 213 Eusebius of Caesarea 214, 291 Eyre, L. Alan 61, 299 Fabris, Rinaldo 10, 73, 74, 75, 77, 186, 299 Fabrus, Franciscus 290 Fagius (Büchlein), Paul 33, 39, 43, 47, 48, 69, 71, 76, 127, 201, 208, 217, 293, 295, 301 Farnese, Alessandro 73 Farrell, Allan P. 68, 292 Faust (from Goethe’s drama) 30 Faye, Antoine de la 131 Feldman, Leon A. 296 Field, Fridericus 288 Fihn, Samuel ben Isaac 162 Filipowski, Herschell 293 Fischer, Andreas 62 Fischer, Jan 62, 298, 309 Fisher, John 38 Flaminio, Marcantonio 213, 300 Flavius (Flawiusz), Josephus (Józef) 7, 10, 20, 210, 212, 233, 235, 236, 237, 239, 244, 291, 298, 305 Flood, John L. 82, 299 Foigny, Jean I de 214 Foreiro, Francisco 64, 304 Forster (Foester, Vorster, Forsthemius), Johann (Johannes) 35, 42, 51, 52, 53, 55, 291, 295 Fox, John 136 Fram, Edward 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 311 Francis I of France 39, 46

Index of person

Frankowski, Janusz 289 Franowski, Stanisław 140, 152 Frederick III the Wise, Elector of Saxony 34, 42 Frederisk, T. 298 Frick, David A. 18, 108, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 176, 178, 181, 299 Friedman, Jerome 19, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 299 Fritsch, Thomas 288 Froben (Frobenius), Johann 44, 81, 90, 126, 292, 293 Froben, Hieronymus 55, 291 Froschauer, Christoph 284 Gach, Piotr 40, 43, 299 Gamrat, Piotr, bishop 160, 301 Gansfort, Wessel 43 Ganshof, François Louis 299 Gara, Giovanni di 73 Garofalo, Salvatore 31, 33, 299 Garton, Abraham 72 Gazolo, Yaakov ben Naftali ha-Kohen of 293 Geiger, Ludwig 19, 33, 42, 48, 49, 113, 114, 300 Gémeau, Adrien 78 Génébrard, Gilbert 39, 213, 214, 286, 303, 306 Gennep, Andreas van 40 Gentile (Gentilis), Giovanni Valentino 18, 61, 122, 214, 303 Gertich, Marcin Gracjan 129, 132, 152, 300, 305 Gesenius, Wilhelm 96, 255, 300 Gigilewicz, Edward 112, 300 Gilmont, Jean-François 84, 300 Ginsburg, Christian D. 48, 293, 300 Giunta, Jacques 283 Giunta, Lucantonio 80 Giustiniani, Agostino 39, 74, 213 Giustiniani, Marco Antonio 63, 64 Gleason, Elisabeth G. 213, 300 Glikson, Yvonne 65, 300 Gmiterek, Henryk 130, 131, 133, 134, 300

Index of person

Goczoł, Rufin 61, 300 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 30 Gogolewski, Jan 147 Goitein, Denise R. 39, 300 Goliniusz, Błażej Bazyli 109, 150, 301 Gołkowic Szymon 110, 150, 301 Gonzaga, Ercole 64 Gorlov (Gorlovius), Stephan 114 Gottheil, Richard 26, 27, 38, 43, 72, 300 Górski, Jakub 110 Górski, Konrad 61, 206, 300 Graben, Wojciech 149 Grabowski, Tadeusz 132, 300 Gravius, Bartholomeus 80 Greenslade, S.L. 11 Gregory I, pope 244 Gregory XIII, pope 141, 144 Greswell, Edward 78, 300 Grimanus, Dominicus 34 Groellium, Michel 302 Grossman, Avraham 34, 300 Gruner, Christoph 114, 150 Grüninger, Johann 36 Gryglewicz, Feliks 80, 300 Gryglicki (Gryglicius, Greglicius), Wojciech Albert 110, 150, 309 Grynaeus, Simon 58, 132 Grzebień, Ludwik 12, 66, 67, 146, 149, 300 Grzegorz Paweł from Brzeziny 135, 137, 151, 118, 123, 125 Grzepski, Stanisław 109, 150, 296 Guenther, Ilse 42, 300 Guidacerious (Guidacerio), Agathias (Agacio) 33, 38, 39, 310 Guilmothan Guilhelm’s Widow 288 Gutiérrez-Larraya, Juan Antonio 75, 300 Haetzer, Ludwig 81 Hagelius, Baltazar 67 Hagen, Kenneth 50, 69, 301 Hajdukiewicz, Leszek 108, 109, 110, 301 Hall, Basil 30, 32, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 301 Hamilton, Alastair 74, 75, 301 Hanc, Wojciech 59, 301 Haneman, Frederisk T. 42, 51, 298 Hanusiewicz-Lavallee, Mirosława 308 Harkavy, Abraham de 25, 303 Hartleb, Kazimierz 160, 301 Hazahel 210

317 Helicz, Asher (Andrzej) 133, 159, 161, 303 Helicz, Elyakim (Jan) 159, 160, 278, 303, 309 Helicz, family 133, 159–161, 295, 299 Helicz, Łukasz from Poznań 133, 151 Helicz, Samuel (Paweł) 159, 160–161, 303 Heller, Joseph Elijah 52, 53, 301 Henry II of France 61 Henry III (Walezy) of France, king of Poland 140 Henry VIII of England 39 Hentenius, Joannes 80 Herbermann, Charles G. 11 Herwagen, Johann 284, 285 Herzog, Johann Werner 41, 301 Hillard, Denise 11 Hillerbrand, Hans J. 13 Hirsch, Samuel Abraham 28, 34, 301 Hobbs, R. Gerald 77, 301 Hohenzollern, Albrecht, duke of Prussia 53, 108, 111, 112, 114–115, 277, 279 Horne, Thomas Hartwell 77, 301 Hozjusz, Stanisław, bishop 101 Hubbard, Alice Philena 58, 78, 80, 301 Hugo of St Victor 28 Hünefeldt, Andrzej 288, 306 Hunnius, Aegidius 59 Ignatius of Antioch St 214 Illicino, Piotr 134–135 Immanuel ben Abraham of San M ­ iniato 33 Irenaeus, St 214 Isaac ben Aaron 161–162 Isaac ben Chayyim 161 Isengrin, Michael 284 Israel Nathan ben Samuel 72 Jackson, Samuel Macauley 56, 294, 295, 301 Jacob ben Asher 71–72, 73 Jacob ben Chayyim ibn Adoniyah 45, 73 Jacob ben Jehiel Loans 33, 34 Jacobs, Henry Eyster 52, 53, 301 Jacobs, Joseph 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 72, 84, 298, 300, 301, 302, 311 Jakar, Joseph ben Jacob 161 Jakubica, Mikołaj 304 Jan of Sącz (Malecki) 283 Jan of Trzciana (Arundinensis) 106, 149, 298, 306

318 Janach, Jonah ibn 26, 27 Janicki, Marcin 129, 130, 131, 151, 181 Janocki, Jan Daniel 13, 107, 302 Janowski, Paweł 41, 53, 70, 123, 302 Jansen (Jensen), Cornelius the Elder 213, 303 Jarchi, Salomonis 288 Jasiński, Janusz 112, 113, 114, 295 Jasnowski, Józef 119, 302 Jastrow, Marcus 90, 231, 302 Jaworski, Tomasz 304 Jerome (Hieronymus, Eusebius) St 23, 30, 37, 51, 62, 77, 78, 80, 86, 181–184, 185, 186, 187, 198, 200, 202, 210, 211, 214, 215, 221, 222–223, 226, 240, 241, 244, 253, 258, 265, 267, 271, 291 Jeune (Juvenis), Martin le 44 Jiménez (Ximénes) de Cisneros, Francisco, cardinal 38, 62, 74, 76, 302, 304–305 Joachim, St 157 Jocher, Adam 13, 19, 101, 104, 106, 107, 132, 133, 163 Jones, Gareth Lloyd 18, 19, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 75, 80, 113, 302 Joram, king of Israel 236–237 Joseph Chayyim ben Aaron of Strasbourg 72 Joseph, St 136 Joüon, Paul 96, 302 Józef of Szczekociny 129, 151 Jóźwiak, Magdalena 292 Jud, Leo 37, 57, 58, 80, 258 Julius III, pope 63 Junga (Junge, Jounge, Jungius, Jung), Adrian 148, 152, 306 Junghans, Helmar 42, 302 Justin Martyr, St 214 Justiniano, Marco Antonio 292 Juszyński, Hieronym 13, 133, 302 Kaczmarkowski, Michał 18, 302 Kahle, Paul 289 Kalinowski, Mateusz 149 Kalonymos ben Mordechaj Jafe 161 Kamieniecki, Jan 19, 134, 135, 136, 202, 302 Kamińska, Maria 303 Kampen, Kimberly van 296 Kapela, Ludwik 308

Index of person

Karnkowski, Stanisław, the primate of Poland 185–186 Karp, Jonathan 11 Kaśków, Robert 18, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 109, 111, 302 Katchen, Aaron L. 19, 302 Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia 12, 13, 18, 139, 159, 302 Kawieczyński, Maciej 138–139, 152, 177– 178, 184, 206, 286, 302 Kayserling, Meyer 38, 41, 300, 303 Kessler-Mesguich, Sophie 75, 303, 305 Kessler, Edward 19, 302, 303 Kidd, Beresford James 57, 292 Kilańczyk-Zięba, Justyna 154, 303 Kimchi, David 26–27, 34, 37, 48, 49, 52, 59, 60, 72, 73, 84, 85, 86, 173, 210, 292 Kimchi, Joseph 26, 292 Kimchi, Moses 26, 46, 48, 52, 73, 171, 173, 292 Kiszka, Jan 136 Kittel, Rudolf 289 Klawek, Aleksy 146, 303 Kłobucki, Jan 109, 150, 311 Kłoniecki, Felicjan 75 Knoch, George Marcus 294 Kochanowski, Jan 119, 213, 292, 296 Kocowski, Bronisław 161, 303 Koehler, Ludwig 14 Kohler, Kaufmann 25, 26, 27, 28, 45, 295, 303 Kohut, George Alexander 38, 303 Koler (Antraceus), Wacław 100–101, 108, 149 Komparski, Jan 147, 153 König, Ludwig 288 Kooistra, Milton 290 Köpfel (Cephalaeus), Wolfgang 77 Kornfeld, Walter 82, 303 Kossowska, Maria 108, 121, 176, 274, 303 Kot, Stanisław 134, 137, 139, 303 Koza, Stanisław Józef 70, 213, 302, 303 Krahel, Tadeusz 112, 303 Krakowiak, Czesław 39, 303 Krasiński, Józef 61, 140, 303 Krośniewicz (Krośniewicki), Baltazar 129, 131, 152, 311 Krowicki, Marcin 118, 124, 151, 310

Index of person

Krókowski, Jerzy 119, 295, 303 Krüger, Oswald 145, 153 Krzyszkowski, Wawrzyniec 136 Krzyszkowski, Zbigniew 30, 303 Ksoll-Marcon, Margit 145, 303 Kugel, S.L. 292 Kündig, Jakob 169, 294–295 Kwilecka, Irena 18, 176, 178, 181, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 209, 212, 215, 232, 233, 237, 274, 303, 304 L’Huillier, Pierre 286–287 Laird, Gordon 52, 304 Lambdin, Thomas O. 246, 304 Lancaster, Irene 26, 304 Lange, Nicholas de 19, 304 Laskowski, Paweł 147 Laurencius, Stanisław 129, 152 Lawee, Eric 59, 304 Lebrecht, F. 292 Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques 32, 36, 206, 217, 283 Lemański, Janusz 259, 304 Lempereur, Martin 283 Leo X, pope 35, 37, 38, 62, 63, 73, 74, 80 Leonard, Dawid 101–103, 112–113, 149, 157, 163, 277–278, 295 Leopolita, Jan Nicz 9, 62, 108, 134, 145, 175–176, 177, 181–182, 183, 199, 203, 216, 245, 246, 248, 249, 255, 258, 259, 261, 265, 267, 269, 270, 285, 315 Leszczyński, Andrzej 130 Leszczyński, Rafał Marcin, the Younger 118, 121, 123, 124, 126, 304 Leszczyński, Rafał, the Elder 129, 130, 304 Leu, Urs B. 56, 304 Levi ben Gershon 73 Levias, Caspar 26, 27, 33, 48, 300, 301 Levita, Elias (Elijah ben Asher) 6, 26, 33, 44, 46–48, 56, 68, 73, 84, 87, 88, 89, 103, 104, 154, 168, 172, 173, 187, 208, 277, 278, 292, 293, 295, 300, 301 Lévy, Lois Germain 47, 298 Levy, S. 26, 27, 300 Liban (Libanus), Jerzy from Liegnitz 6, 106, 108–109, 110, 112, 149, 158, 163, 168–169, 173, 293, 296, 315 Liebezeit, Christiani 312

319 Liechty, Daniel 62, 304 Liedke, Marzena 123, 304 Liesiewski, Jan 147, 153 Lismanin (Lismanini), Franciszek 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125–126, 141, 151, 296, 306 Loewe, Raphael 23, 29, 32, 33, 34, 50, 64, 77, 84, 98, 304 Loffler, Klemens 113, 304 Lolli, Eude 45, 298 Lotter, Melchior, the Younger 81, 290 Louvish, Misha 58, 59, 304 Lubelczyk, Jakub 118, 123–124, 125, 127, 151, 298, 305 Lubieniecki, Krzysztof 140 Lufft, Hans 81, 82 Luther, Martin 6, 13, 20, 29, 35, 40, 42, 49, 50–55, 56–57, 58, 59, 69, 70, 72, 77, 80–82, 111, 112, 113, 123, 138, 160, 200, 206, 207, 215, 216, 293, 294, 298, 301, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310 Luzzatto, Samuel David 68, 304 Lyell, James P.R. 38, 74, 304–305 Łabęcki of Zasław 137 Łaski, Jan (Joannes à Lasco), the Younger 20, 114, 118, 121, 122, 124, 126–127, 134, 135, 141, 151, 279, 302 Łaski, Jan, the Elder, the primate of Poland 126 Łaszcz, Marcin 137, 187–188 Łempicki, Stanisław 141, 305 Łukaszewicz, Józef 101, 104, 107, 130, 131, 132, 133–134, 163, 305 Maciej of Miechów 100 Maciejowski, Samuel, bishop 101, 107– 108, 160, 277 Maciejowski, Wacław Aleksander 124, 305 Madden, James 293 Maes (Masius), Andreas 47, 75 Maimonides 73, 302 Maldonata, Juan 144 Malej, Witold 305 Malicki, Marian 13 Maltby, William S. 38, 305 Małek, Eliza 303 Małłek, Janusz 53, 112, 113, 114, 305 Mandelbrote, Scott 45, 305

320 Manetti, Giannozzo 30–31, 298 Manuel, Frank E. 19, 31, 35, 53, 54, 305 Manutius, Aldus 76 Marcello, Nonio 290 Mareniusz (Marennius), Stanisław 108, 301 Margaritha, Antonius 33 Martinus, Theodoricus 103 Mary (mother of Jesus) 157, 244 Masalli, Ludwik 147 Matecki, Józef 302 Mateusz of Kościan 109, 149, 301 Matwijowski, Krystyn 302 Maximilian I of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor 34 Mayenowa, Maria Renata 21, 305 Mączyński, Jan 128, 151, 296 Mąkowski, Władysław 99 McCurdy, J. Frederic 26, 27, 295 McKane, William 19, 305 McLeod, Randal 73, 305 Melanchthon (Schwarzerd), Philipp 35, 42, 50–51, 53, 55, 56–57, 70, 77, 81, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 120, 124, 125, 127, 128, 141–142, 147, 201, 277, 284, 293, 295 Meller, Katarzyna 124, 305 Menachem ibn Saruq 25, 293 Mercier (Mercerus), Jean 39, 41, 310 Merczyng, Henryk 137, 176, 178, 305 Merkle, Benjamin R. 43, 305 Messerschmidt (Machaeropoeus), Georg 284 Metzger, Bruce M. 309 Meursius, Johannes 289 Mękalski, Wojciech 149 Michał of Wieluń 100, 149 Migne, Jacques Paul 13 Mikołajewski, Daniel 129–130, 132, 152, 181, 199, 204, 207, 208, 215, 227, 229, 247, 248, 249, 251, 253, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 274–275, 280, 304, 310 Milwitzky, William 46, 305 Mirandola, Pico della 31, 32, 33–34, 298 Misiurek, Jerzy 125, 132, 300, 305 Mithridates, Flavius 31, 33, 34, 295 Moibanus, Ambrosius 145, 295 Montluc, Jean de 140

Index of person

Morawski, Kazimierz 19, 101, 104, 106, 108, 145, 305 More, Thomas 62, 311 Moretus, Jan 44, 289 Morin (Morinus), Jean (Johannes) 75 Moses 25, 31, 114, 119, 131, 190, 221, 222, 224, 256–257, 258–259, 260–261 Moss, Ann 213, 306 Moszyński, Leszek 18–19, 306 Münster, Sebastian 6, 35, 36, 37, 40–41, 43, 44, 47, 48–49, 56, 69, 71, 80, 84–85, 86, 87–92, 96, 100–101, 112–113, 154, 172, 197, 200, 208, 218, 241, 258, 277, 284, 292, 293, 294, 297, 299, 311 Muraoka, Takamitsu 96, 302 Murmelius, Stanisław 286 Murzynowski (Suszycki), Stanisław 53, 113, 114, 115, 150, 176, 305 Murzynowski, Wojciech 149 Myconius, Oswald 56, 294 Mylius, Andreas 114 Mylius, Georg 114, 150 Myslenta, Coelestin 114, 151 Napiórkowski, Stanisław 126, 306 Natoński, Bronisław 65, 148, 149, 306 Nauert, Charles G. 35, 306 Newman, Louis Israel 18, 28, 38, 58, 60, 77, 306 Nicholas of Lyra 28–29, 51, 52, 59, 86 Nicholas V, pope 31, 62 Nichols, Francis Morgan 291 Nicko-Stępień, Paulina 199, 214, 306 Niemojewski, Jan 137, 139, 140, 152, 308, 310 Nischan, Bodo 111, 112, 113, 306 Novenianus, Philip Michael, from Hasfurt 6, 43, 101, 163–166, 173, 277, 294, 315 Nowak, Edward 66, 306 Nowak, Zbigniew 181, 306 Nowopolczyk (Novicampianus, Nowopolski), Wojciech 108, 149, 301 O’Connell, Marvin R. 40, 306 Ochino, Bernardino 108, 118, 123, 308 Ochser, Schulim 30, 32, 34, 298, 302 Oecolampadius (Oekolampad), Johannes 40, 56–57, 58, 69, 126, 302, 306, 311 Olearius (Coppermann, Kupfermann), Johann 114, 150

Index of person

Oleśnicki, Mikołaj 115, 277 Olivétan, Pierre-Robert 37, 83, 206, 215, 217, 283 Olson, Jeannine E. 42, 306 Opatowczyk, Adam 109 Opitz, Peter 77, 306 Oporinus, Johann 285 Oracki, Tadeusz 112, 113, 114, 295, 306 Origen 23, 211, 214, 258, 288 Orme, William 55, 306 Orszak (Orsacius), Grzegorz 118, 120, 121, 124, 127, 151, 295, 296, 297 Ortiz, Jakub 148, 153 Ortiz, Michał 148, 153 Osiander, Andreas 53, 56–57, 111, 113, 115, 150, 277, 295, 302, 309 Ott, Michael 39, 289, 306 Pagnini, Santes 9, 19, 33, 37, 38, 59, 62, 75, 78, 80, 191, 201, 202, 215, 217, 242, 246, 248, 255, 258, 263, 264, 271, 273, 280, 281, 283, 284, 309, 310, 311 Paillart, F. 309 Palacz, Ryszard 106, 306 Paleologus (Paleolog), Jakob (Jakub) 61, 136–137, 299 Paliur, Paweł 132–133, 152 Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) 30 Paradis, Paul 39, 105 Paszenda, Jerzy 296, 306, 307 Patalon, Mirosław 207, 215, 307 Paul IV, pope 64, 65, 200 Paul of Burgos 28, 51, 52 Pellicanus (Pellican), Conrad 33, 34, 36, 37, 40–41, 43, 48, 57, 58, 69, 84, 126, 128, 213, 310 Pełka, Joachim 119 Penyafort, Raymond of 63 Pepłowski, Franciszek 53, 305 Pernus (Pirnis, Pyrnusz), Walerian 104– 106, 149, 297 Perotto, Nicolao 290 Perrin, François 83, 286, 290 Petit, Guillaume 39 Petrarch 131 Petri, Heinrich 44, 284, 292, 294 Pfedersheimer, Paul 36 Pfefferkorn, Johann 34, 301

321 Philip II of Spain 75 Philo of Alexandria 214 Piechnik, Ludwik 40, 65, 67, 68, 141, 142– 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 295, 307 Piekarski, Kazimierz 118, 307 Pietkiewicz, Rajmund 19, 53, 114, 118, 119, 123, 131, 133, 137, 139, 175, 176, 178, 184, 187, 263, 265, 266, 271, 273, 307 Pietrzak-Thébault, Joanna 307 Pietsch, Paul 81, 307 Pilarczyk, Krzysztof 19, 24, 26, 27, 31, 34, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 63, 64, 65, 72, 100, 106, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 307, 308 Piotr of Goniądz 135, 303 Piotrkowczyk, Andrzej 287 Piquer Otero, Andrés 299, 311 Pisanus (De Pisa), Alfons 67, 143 Pius IV, pope 64 Planches, Jérémie Des 287 Plantin (Plantinius), Christopher 44, 73, 74, 80, 199, 286, 289 Pliny, the Elder 20, 214 Płokarz, Józefat 139, 308 Pniewski, Władysław 149, 308 Podeszwa, Paulus 298 Polak, Wojciech 305 Polentz, Georg von 111 Pompejusz, Karol 305 Poplatek, Jan 145, 146, 308 Porębny, Jan 106, 150 Porges, N. 43, 298 Porter, Harry C. 39, 308 Portonariis, Gaspard de 287 Posset, Franz 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 52, 308 Postel, Guillaume 47, 75, 310 Pouchenius, Levin 114, 151 Półćwiartek-Dremierre, Dorota 206, 308 Pracki, Roman 302 Prato (Pratensis), Felix 45, 73, 213, 303 Price, David H. 19, 34, 308 Propp, William Henry 257, 308 Przyborowski, Józef 110, 308 Przyjemski, Władysław 130 Przyjemski, Wojciech 130 Pyżewicz, Wiesław 304 Rab (Rabbus, Rabb), Justus 144, 147, 152, 278, 296

322 Rabanus 244 Rabin, Chaim M. 308 Radike (Radicius), Georg 114, 150 Radziwiłł, Krzysztof 188 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Czarny (the Black) 9, 115, 119, 121, 122–123, 125, 128, 134, 136, 138, 139, 176, 178, 182, 174, 277, 279, 286, 302 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Krzysztof (the Orphan) 138 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Rudy (the Red) 141 Rafajłowicz (Rapagelan, Rapagelanus), Stanisław 112–113, 114, 115, 150, 305 Rashdall, Hastings 28, 308 Rashi (Solomon bar Isaac) 27, 28, 49, 52, 71–72, 73, 86, 301 Raz-Krakotzkin, Amnon 64, 65, 308 Reboul, Antoine 83, 285 Rechowicz, Marian 38, 308, 310 Rej, Mikołaj 123–124, 297, 298 Renouard, Philippe 78, 309 Rescius, Rutgerusc 40 Reuchlin, Johann (Johannes) 6, 31, 33–36, 37, 40, 42, 43–44, 48, 50–51, 52, 55, 56, 62, 63, 84, 85–87, 90, 91, 93, 100–101, 166, 167, 170, 208, 218, 223, 226, 294, 298, 301, 308, 310 Reuss, Eduardus 11 Rex, Richard 39, 309 Reychman, Jan 111, 309 Rhine, A. 68, 298 Rhodes, Erroll F. 75, 309 Rikomin, Shmuel 292 Ringeltaube, Sylvius Wilh. 118, 294 Rittangel, Johann 114 Rodecki, Aleksy 159, 302 Romano (Eliano, Bressano), Giovanni Battista 68, 144, 146, 278, 298, 312 Rosenthal, Herman 137–138, 309 Roth, Cecil 12, 39, 309 Rothe, Hans 299, 303, 306 Rothkegel, Martin 161, 309 Rouerian, Petrus 212 Rouillé, Guillaume 287 Roussel, Bernard 11, 37, 200, 309 Rovière, Pierre de la 289, 290 Rummel, Erika 33, 290, 309 Ry, Antoine du 80, 283

Index of person

Ryba (Rybiński), Jan 133 Rybiński, Jan, the Elder 133, 151, 298, 300, 306 Rybiński, Jan, the Younger 133–134, 151, 300 Rybiński, Maciej 133, 151, 300 Rynsocki, Jan 149 Rysiński, Salomon 131 Rywocki, Jan 147, 153 Saadia Gaon (Saadiah ben Joseph, Saʻid al-Fayyumi) 24–25, 295 Sabinus (Schuler), Georg 112, 113, 115 Sacon, Jacques 78 Saebø, Magne 12, 19, 309 Saenger, Paul 296 Samuel ha-Nagid 26 Saruq, Menachem ibn 25, 293 Schauffler, Irmgard 11 Schildenberger, Johannes 82, 309 Schoeffer, Peter 80 Scholem, Gershom 34, 35, 84, 310 Scholz, Bernhard F. 303 Scholz, Friedrich 299, 303, 306 Schomann, Jerzy 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 135, 151, 206 Schöningh, Ferdinand 299, 303, 306 Schrijver, Emile G.L. 46, 309 Schumannus, Valentinus 163, 164, 294 Schwab, Moïse 44, 45, 47, 298, 302 Schwarz, Werner 52, 309 Schwarzbach, Bertram Eugene 11, 73, 309 Schwiebert, Ernest George 51, 309 Sciurus (Eichhorn), Johann 113, 114, 150 Seebaß, Gottfried 43, 53, 113 Segovia, Paul Coronel de 38 Seklucjan, Jan 53, 115, 311 Sela, Shlomo 26, 309 Selve, Georges de 46, 47 Serczyk, Jerzy 111, 112, 113, 309 Serini, Carl August 301 Seripando, Girolamo, cardinal 63, 64, 295 Servetus, Michael 59–61, 69, 299 Sforno, Obadiah ben Jacob 33, 34, 44, 300 Shmith, Preserved 293, 294 Shoulson, Jeffrey S. 19, 297, 298, 308 Siboldi, Georg 43 Sicco, Maria 12 Siebeneicher, Mateusz 159

Index of person

Sigismund I the Old, king of Poland 103, 126, 160 Sigismund III Vasa, king of Poland 147 Silverman, Godfrey Edmond 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 49, 84, 310 Simmler, Josias 136 Simon, Richard 58, 310 Singer, Isidore 13 Sipayłłówna (Sipayłło), Maria 10, 130, 133, 181, 204, 207, 275, 310 Skowid, Walenty 147 Skutsch, H. 300 Słonkowic (Słomkiewicz, Słonkowicz), Marcin 109–110, 150, 294, 295 Smereka, Władysław 19, 145, 289, 310 Snaith, Norman Henry 73, 75, 310 Sobieszczański, Franciszek Maxymilian 106, 109, 310 Sobolewski, Ludwik 13 Soncino, Gershon ben Moses 72, 81 Soncino, Joshua Solomon 72, 292 Sopher, Meir 292 Sozzini (Socyn), Fausto (Faust) 139, 140, 310 Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor 218, 310 Staffelsteiner, Paul 43 Stamm, Johann Jakob 14 Stancaro (Stancarus), Francesco (Francis), the Elder 6, 107–108, 109, 113–114, 118, 119, 120, 121–122, 123–124, 127, 130, 135, 150, 151, 153, 160, 163, 169– 173, 277, 294, 309, 315 Stankar, Franciszek, the Younger 129, 130–131, 152, 300 Staphylus (Stapellage), Friedrich 113, 115, 125, 145, 150, 297, 304 Starke, Arnold 131, 310 Statorius (Stojeński), Pierre (Piotr) 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 141, 151, 206 Steinschneider, Moritz 14, 46, 47, 48 Sternacki, Sebastian 159 Strażnicki, Andrzej 129, 152 Strohm, Stefan 11, 82, 310 Strzałkowska, Maria 75, 310 Sturm, Johannes 128 Sunyer, Francisco 144 Sutcliffe, Adam 11 Swastek, Józef 40, 310

323 Symmachus 86, 200, 215 Szarfenberg (Scharffenberg), Maciej (Matthias) 101, 104, 108, 157, 158, 159, 162, 163, 166, 175–176, 278, 283, 284, 290, 293 Szarfenberg (Scharffenberger, Szarffenberger), family 285 Szczerbiński, Waldemar 298 Szczucki, Lech 139, 140, 310 Szeruda, Jan 130, 181, 207, 215, 275, 310 Szmalc, Walenty 140 Szorc, Alojzy 113, 145, 297 Szturc, Jan 131, 310 Szuszkowski, Walerian Protaszewicz 141 Śliwa, Tadeusz 124, 310 Tazbir, Janusz 140, 310 Tedesche, Versioni 309 Tene, David 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 48, 55, 84, 310 Terlaga, Jan 145, 310 Teter, Magda 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 311 Thénaud (Gallus), Jan (Ioannes) 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 151, 206, 297 Theodocion 258 Theodoretus 200, 239, 240 Thomas of Aquinas, St 214 Thon, Johannes 114, 145, 311 Tintori, Abraham ben Chayyim de (of Pesaro) 72 Titelmans, Franciscus 213 Tolmainer, Michał 144, 152 Tomicki, Piotr, bishop 101, 103, 104, 164, 277 Tonson, Jacob 310 Torijano Morales, Pablo A. 299, 311 Toulon, Astruc ben Yaakov de 292 Toussaint, Jacques 105 Toy, Crawford Howell 41, 49, 226, 303, 311 Trapp, J.B. 311 Trecy, Krzysztof 129, 151, 181 Tremellius, Immanuel 39, 80 Trithemius, Johannes 30, 32, 34, 36, 310 Tromp, Sebastianus 74, 311 Tronina, Antoni 37, 311 Troperus, Andrzej 106, 150, 310 Trzecieski, Andrzej, the Elder 119, 151 Trzecieski, Andrzej, the Younger 108, 118, 119, 126, 127, 151, 295, 303

324 Turchi, François 283 Turnowski, Jan 129, 131, 133, 152, 295 Turnowski, Szymon (Simeon) Teofil 152, 295 Tworek, Stanisław 128, 131, 181, 311 Tyloch, Witold 22, 311 Ugniewski, Szymon 147, 153 Ungler, Florian 104, 159, 160, 278, 283 Ungler, Helena 160, 162 Urban, Wacław 108, 109, 121, 311 Utenhove, Jan 118, 127, 151, 298 Uzda 9, 135, 138, 286, 315 Valla, Lorenzo (Laurentio) 30, 290 Vanderjagt, Arjo 38, 39, 40, 311 Varone, Marco 290 Vatable, François 37, 39, 41, 58, 59, 78, 80, 105, 202, 284, 287, 301 Vega, Emanuel de 148, 153 Victor, Marius 244 Vincent, Antoine 289 Vingle, Pierre de 83, 284 Vitelius (Vitellius), Jakub (Jakób) 109, 150, 310 Vitrelin, Aleksander 118, 124, 151 Vogel, Paul Heinz 14, 81, 82, 83, 84 Vollandt, Ronny 74, 311 Volz, Hans 82, 311 Vosté, Jacques-Marie (Giacomo-Maria) 74, 311 Wadowski, Jan Ambroży 111, 311 Wakefield, Robert 38, 39, 310 Wakefield, Thomas 39 Walton, Brian 41, 74, 301 Walton, Robert C. 311 Wargocki, Andrzej 148, 153 Warmiński, Ignacy 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 311 Warszewicki, Stanisław 141, 146, 147, 152 Wechelus, Christianus 103 Weidmann, Sandra 56, 304 Weiglowa, Katarzyna 140 Wenborn, Neil 19, 302, 303 Wesseling (Wessling), Andreas 114, 150 Whiston, William 291 Wicks, Jared 74, 200, 311 Widmannstetter, Johann Albrecht 145, 303 Wielgus, Stanisław 28, 29, 311

Index of person

Wigoder, Geoffrey 12 Wingen, Godfried van 127 Winkler, Andreas 145 Wiszniewski, Michał 14, 118 Wiśniowski, Eugeniusz 39, 311 Wiśniowski, Stanisław 118, 128 Wojak, Tadeusz 129, 130, 131, 132, 181, 204, 311 Wojewódka, Bernard 118, 119, 151 Wojewódka, Dorota 118 Wojnowski, Jan 14 Wojtyska, Henryk 61, 311 Wolf, Johann Christoph 30, 154, 292, 312 Wolkenhauer, Anja 303 Wolsey, Thomas 38, 62 Wójcik, Maria 41, 312 Wujek, Jakub 9, 17, 62, 130, 139, 142, 144–146, 147, 148, 152, 178, 179, 180, 184–188, 191–193, 195, 198, 199–201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210–211, 212, 213–215, 222–223, 224, 227, 232, 233, 235, 237, 240, 242, 245, 246, 248, 249, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 270, 275, 278, 280, 287, 288, 299, 300, 303, 306, 315, 316 Wydra, Wiesław 99, 312 Yaakov ben Naftali ha-Kohen of Gazolo 293 Zacjusz, Szymon 118, 125, 127, 134, 151, 307 Zahajkiewicz, Marek 41, 312 Zalewski, Ludwik 137, 312 Zalmati, Solomon ben Maimon, of Jativa 72 Zamora, Alfonso de 38, 303 Zamoyski (Zamojski), Jan 140–141, 305 Zanetti, Francesco 77, 289 Zarosa, Ewelina 30, 312 Ziegler, Bernhard 53 Zilberberg, Gershon 72, 312 Związek, Jan 61, 312 Zwiercan, Marian 100, 312 Zwingli, Ulrich 20, 36, 40, 49, 56, 57, 58, 77, 126, 294, 295, 301 Zwinogrodzka, Ewa 13 Żórawski, Mikołaj 110, 150, 316 Żupański, Jan Konstanty 305

Index of places

Africa 25 Alcalá de Henares (Complutum) 9, 38, 43, 67, 74, 75, 283, 301, 308 Aldorf 131 Antwerp 9, 37, 44, 62, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 186, 195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 214, 215, 216, 217, 245, 286, 309 Apennine Peninsula 30, 31, 72, 74, 104, 157, 278 Augsburg 82 Austria 24, 53, 65, 144 Avignon 37, 38 Babylon 25, 238 Bacharach 33, 42 Baranów 129, 131 Basel 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 68, 69, 73, 77, 90, 108, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 278, 288, 291, 295, 297 Basra 25 Bełżyce 130 Bern 2, 43, 56, 122 Bochnia 125 Bohemia 24, 125, 132 Bologna 28, 72, 126, 128, 213 Bourges 121 Brandenburg 121 Braniewo 141, 149 Brescia 72, 81 Brest (-Litovsk) 119, 176, 202, 274, 279 Brzeziny 118, 123, 125, 135, 151 Bytom 124, 133, 134 Cambridge 11, 13, 38–39, 43, 294, 308, 311 Carniola 144, 152 Chołchło 136

Chomutov 42 Coimbra 65, 148 Cologne 34, 43, 65, 92 Constance 47 Constantinople 31, 161 Cracow (Kraków) 6, 19, 21, 43, 44, 45, 66, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 134, 135, 137, 140, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 175, 176, 277, 278, 279, 288, 308, 311 Crown of the Kingdom of Poland 18, 115, 137, 178, 278 Dillingen 65 Dubiecko 121 Duchy of Prussia 111, 115 England 24, 38, 44, 45, 57, 127, 134, 302, 309 Erfurt 42, 43, 51, 82 Europe 5, 11, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 42, 44, 45, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 68, 84, 98, 103, 111, 121, 175, 238, 277, 278, 297, 298, 299, 303, 308 central 43 east 297 east-central 297, 311, 61, 114 northern 30, 35, 38, 43 Western Europe 18, 19, 21, 26, 30, 62, 99, 100, 111, 162, 188, 193, 209, 216, 277, 307 Faro 72 Flanders 65, 134, 213 France 10, 11, 24, 26, 34, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 58, 60, 65, 134, 140, 299

326 Frankfurt 34, 42 Frankfurt/O 43, 130 Freiburg 43, 104 Freiburg/Br 43 Friesland 127 Gdańsk (Danzig) 9, 17, 115, 117, 119, 128, 129, 130, 131–133, 149, 153, 181, 188, 195, 199, 203, 204, 207, 232, 242, 266, 275, 279, 280, 288, 306, 307, 310, 311, 315 Geneva 9, 19, 41, 42, 44, 45, 58, 59, 60, 61, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 115, 121, 122, 123, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 147, 176, 206, 224, 226, 227, 232, 233, 235, 237, 240, 242, 245, 248, 253, 258, 261, 265, 269, 271, 274, 278, 281, 281, 306 Genoa 39, 74, 213 Germany 24, 34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 111, 127, 130, 132, 297, 309 Gniezno 161, 185 Goniądz 135, 303 Grand Duchy of Lithuania 18, 134 Graz 65 Great Poland 108, 130, 132, 134, 145, 160 Hasfurt 101, 163 Heidelberg 40, 42, 43, 48, 80, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 299, 309 Herborn 41 Hessen 59 Hirschberg (Jelenia Góra) 100 Holy See 37, 184, 186 Hundsfeld (Psie Pole) 161 Hungary 132 Iberian Peninsula 26, 33, 40, 72, 148 Ingolstadt 65, 67, 35, 42, 43 Isna im Allgäu 47 Ixar (Hijar) 72 Izbica Kujawska 130 Jarosław 149 Jativa 72 Jena 147 Kalisz 67, 149 Kamieniec Podolski 149 Kleck 136 Kłobuck 109 Königsberg 19, 53, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 125, 126, 134, 139, 150, 153, 176, 279

Index of places

Koźminek 128, 132 Kujawy (Kuyavia) 130 Lausanne 41, 120 Lavaur 46 Leiden 44 Leipzig 42, 43, 112, 132, 139, 147, 163, 166 Leszno 132, 134 Leuven 38, 40, 42, 44, 65, 80, 103, 112, 119, 120, 127, 147, 213, 214, 215, 278, 279 Liége 40, 42, 43 Liegnitz 43, 106, 108, 161 Lipowiec 108, 119 Lisbon 72 Lithuania 111, 112, 121, 125, 127, 131, 134, 138, 139, 178, 278, 279 Little Poland 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 134, 176, 279 Lower Silesia 145, 159, 160, 161 Lübeck 82 Lublin 139, 140, 148, 149, 161 Lucca 42 Lyon 37, 44, 78, 80, 92 Łosk 136 Łuków 129, 151 Mainz 42, 65 Mantua 72, 107, 130, 170, 173 Marburg 41, 43, 56, 57, 131, 133, 134 Masuria (Mazury) 148 Mazovia 134 Messina 66 Miechów 100 Mirzyniec 99 Moravia 53, 62, 133, 161 Moscow 161 Naples 72 Narbonne 26 Netherlands 40, 45, 57, 134 Neuchâtel 83 Neustadt an der Haardt 131 Nieśwież (Nesvizh) 17, 136, 138, 139, 152, 178, 183, 189, 201, 203, 212, 224, 226, 232, 242, 253, 274, 279, 286 Nowy Sącz 140 Nuremberg 53, 82, 103, 111, 113, 277, 279 Old Continent 17, 36, 42 Oleśnica 159 Olkusz 106

Index of places

Ostroróg 132 Oxford 13, 28, 39, 43, 305, 308, 309 Padua 46, 65, 108, 109, 113, 125, 126, 128, 129, 142 Palestine 210 Paris 10, 11, 28, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 58, 65, 73, 75, 78, 80, 104, 105, 118, 126, 128, 129, 140, 144, 147, 202, 278, 298, 300, 309 Pavia 141 Pesaro 72, 73 Pforzheim (Phorce) 34, 35, 293, 310 Piedmont 122, 123 Pińczów 9, 108, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 136, 147, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 189, 196, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 212, 227, 232, 233, 235, 237, 240, 248, 249, 251, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 286 Piove di Sacco 72 Pisa 46 Płock 99 Płońsk 148 Poland 6, 10, 18, 45, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 99, 100, 103, 108, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 140, 141, 146, 149, 154, 159, 161, 162, 163, 166, 185, 188, 191, 193, 203, 212, 216, 269, 277, 278, 279 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 61, 99, 100, 111, 115, 121, 127, 139, 148, 149, 153, 154, 175, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 307 Pomerania 138 Pomesania 111 Portugal 44, 45, 59, 65, 72 Poznań 67, 128, 132, 133, 143, 148, 149, 308 Prague 46, 64 Prościejów 161, 162 Provence 26 Pułtusk 146, 149 Racibórz 124 Racov (Raków) 159 Radziejów 130 Reggio di Calabria 71 Rhineland 128

327 Riga 149 Rochester 38 Rome 28, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 63, 64, 65, 66, 77, 92, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148 Salamanca 28, 40, 65, 67, 80, 144 Salerno 63 Saluzzo 122 Samland 111 San Miniato 33 Sandomierz 128 Saxony 42, 82, 121 Scythia 240 Secemin 129, 130 Segovia 38 Silesia 62, 100, 109, 124, 128, 154, 155, 291, 315 Slovakia 62 Spain 24, 25, 26, 38, 44, 45, 65, 72, 73, 75 Spanish Netherlands 44 Sponheim 30, 32, 34, 36 Strasbourg 36, 39, 43, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 77, 82, 84, 107, 128, 129, 131 Stuttgart 9, 11, 34, 289 Switzerland 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 125, 126, 132, 139, 295, 301 Szczekociny 129, 151 Świerczynek 130 Toledo 38, 67 Toruń 133, 134, 149 Transylvania 108, 121, 122, 146 Trzciana 106, 149 Tübingen 34, 35, 40, 42, 43 Tuchola 158 Turkey 65 Uzda 138 Valencia 65, 140 Vatican 31, 37, 76, 264, 287 Venice 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 64, 73, 76, 77, 80, 107, 108, 154, 162, 200, 278, 298 Vienna 43, 56, 65, 108, 126, 144, 145, 147 Vienne 8, 38, 145 Vilnius 40, 131, 134, 136, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 279 Viterbo 32, 46, 47, 62, 63, 299 Warsaw 10, 101, 112, 166 Wągrowiec 146, 178, 184, 198, 200, 210, 214 Wieliczka 124 Wieluń 100, 149, 312

328 Wittenberg 40, 42, 44, 51, 53, 55, 59, 68, 69, 70, 77, 81, 82, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 124, 125, 128, 129, 132, 133, 138, 142, 145, 147, 277, 278, 279, 297, 302, 311 Worms 82 Wrocław (Breslau) 10, 104, 113, 124, 131, 145, 154, 156, 159, 161, 166, 169, 302, 304, 307

Index of places

Würzburg 65 York 38, 214 Zamora 38, 303 Zamość 111 Zasław 136, 137, 138 Zurich 36, 40, 55, 56, 57, 69, 77, 78, 82, 122, 128, 131, 136, 140, 213, 278, 295, 296

Index of topics

Academia (Collège) in Geneva 41–42 ad fontes 17, 29, 32, 36, 49 anabaptism 125, 139 anti-Christian 64, 187 anti-Judaism 59, 71 antiquity 6, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31–32, 43, 47, 49–51, 66, 77, 100, 121, 183, 187, 214, 215, 240, 279, 291, 293, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 Antitrinitarianism 18, 21, 60, 61–62, 111, 121–123, 124, 125, 128, 134, 136–137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 152, 176, 178, 237, 279, 280 apocrypha (deuterocanonical books) 78, 81–82, 83, 201, 215, 274, 283–284, 286 Apostles 60, 190 Apostolic See 64–65 Apostolic Church 122 Apostolic letters 70, 131 Arabic 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 40, 66, 68, 75, 110, 144, 146, 148, 311 Arabs 25, 26 Aramaic (Chaldaic) 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36–37, 41, 48–49, 63, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 84, 85, 86, 90–91, 140, 148, 178, 188, 200, 201, 215, 221, 223, 231, 241, 284, 286, 288, 293, 294, 295 Ashkenazy tradition 73 astronomy 29 Augustinians 51, 53, 63, 64, 213 baptism 140, 159, 160 Baroque 109 Battle of the Books (Battle over Jewish Books) 34–35, 36, 40, 63–64, 301 BeGaDKePaT consonants 87, 164, 171

Benedictines 30, 32, 39, 80, 200 Bohemian Brethren 6, 21, 111, 115, 128– 129, 130, 131, 132–134, 151–152, 153, 204, 207, 278–280 burning of books 63 Bible: 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 49–50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 63, 65, 69, 70, 76, 77, 90, 96, 136, 142, 168, 172, 181–182, 193, 195, 278, 280, 283, 296, 297 ancient versions: 6, 20, 21, 32, 70, 187, 195, 199, 218, 223, 249, 253, 273, 305 Ȥ Aldine edition of Septuagint 76–77, 81 Ȥ Hebrew Bible 5, 6, 9, 12, 17–18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36–37, 41, 44, 47, 49, 52, 56, 62, 70, 71–75, 76, 77, 80, 86, 97–98, 130, 173, 175, 181, 183, 187, 191, 192, 195–201, 206, 212, 215, 216–217, 225, 233, 236, 237, 248, 249, 251, 253, 258, 259, 263, 267, 273, 278, 279–281, 293, 299, 300, 309, 311 Ȥ Peshitta 75 Ȥ Samaritan Pentateuch 75 Ȥ Septuagint 5, 9, 57, 67, 73–74, 75, 76–77, 86, 178, 183, 186, 192, 200– 201, 208, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 236, 242, 245, 246, 248, 249, 253, 255, 258, 259 Ȥ Sixto-Clementine Vulgate 10, 178, 185–186, 199, 217, 245, 263 Ȥ Vulgate 5, 6, 10, 17, 21, 30, 36–37, 52, 62, 73–74, 75, 77–78, 80–81, 142, 144, 175, 178, 181–192, 198, 199,

330 200, 208, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 227, 242, 245, 246, 248, 249, 253, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264, 265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 273, 275, 280, 306 Ȥ Vulgata lovaniensis (Leuven Vulgate) 80, 199, 214 Ȥ Vulgata Sixtina (Sistine) 80 Ȥ Sixtine edition of Septuagint 77, 201 translations: Ȥ in Czech (Kralice Bible, 1579–1594) 133, 207, 215 Ȥ in Dutch 127 Ȥ in English 84, 214, 293, 298, 300 Ȥ in French 6, 11, 61, 78, 83–84, 200, 201, 205, 206, 207, 212, 216, 217, 224, 240, 274, 283, 298, 309 • Geneva Bible 9, 19, 83–84, 196, 200, 201, 203, 206, 209, 212, 217, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 280, 281, 284, 285, 286, 287 Ȥ in German 6, 36, 47, 57–58, 80–81, 311 • Zurich Bible 57 • Luther’s Bible 53, 57, 72, 80–82, 138, 160, 206 Ȥ in Italian 12, 41–42, 84 Ȥ in Latin (sixteenth-century-translations) 5, 6, 31, 32, 34, 36–37, 45, 49, 58, 62, 64, 74, 75, 76, 77–80, 83, 90, 115, 126, 162, 181, 183, 197, 200, 201–202, 213, 255, 265, 271, 309 • Biblia tigurina 58, 78–80, 162, 284 • Castellion’s Bible 9, 61, 202, 207, 237 • Pagnini’s Bible 19, 37, 62, 78, 80, 191, 201, 202, 215, 217, 263, 271, 273, 280, 281 • Vatable’s Bible (Stephanus Bible) 78–80, 197, 199, 201, 202, 209, 212, 216, 217, 226, 231–232, 233, 237, 245, 261, 263, 271, 273, 285, 315, 316

Index of topics

Ȥ in Polish 6, 17, 18–19, 21, 22, 23, 53, 71, 76, 84, 98, 113, 115, 118, 119, 126, 130, 133, 175–181, 189, 195, 199–201, 202–205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 215–217, 233, 235, 237, 240, 245, 248, 258, 267, 270, 273–275, 280–281 • Bible of Queen Sophia (1455) 175, 203 • Brest Bible (Radziwiłł Bible; Pińczów Bible; 1563) 9, 18, 19, 115–129, 134, 135–136, 138, 151, 153, 176–178, 182–183, 188, 189, 190, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213, 215, 218, 220, 224, 225, 226–227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 238–239, 240, 241, 243, 245– 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 256–257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265–266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279–280, 281, 286, 299, 303, 304, 307, 315, 316 • Gdańsk Bible (1632) 9, 115, 117, 128–133, 151–152, 153, 178, 181, 188, 195, 196, 199, 203, 204–205, 207, 215, 218, 221–222, 227, 228, 229, 231–232, 233, 236, 241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 253, 255, 257, 259, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 275, 279, 280, 288, 315 • Königsberg New Testament (1551–1555) 176 • Leopolita’s Bible (1561) 6, 62, 145, 175–176, 177, 181–182, 183, 199, 203, 216, 245, 246, 248, 249, 255, 258, 259, 261, 265, 267, 269, 270, 285, 315 • Budny’s Bible (Nesvizh/Nesvitz Bible; 1572) 9, 17, 18, 135, 137, 138–139, 153, 176–178, 183–184, 189–191, 195, 196–197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203–204, 206–207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235–236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248,

Index of topics

249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 279, 280, 286, 287, 315 • Saint Florian Psalter (1399) 175 • Szarfenberger’s New Testament (1556) 175 • Trecy’s translation (not finished) 129, 181 • Ungler’s Evangeliary (1527/1528) 157, 158, 283, 315 • Wujek’s Bible (1599) 7, 9, 17, 62, 146, 147, 178, 184–186, 187, 188, 191–192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199–201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 210– 212, 213–215, 218, 219, 220–221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239–240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 254–255, 257, 258, 259, 260–261, 262–263, 264, 265, 266–267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 280, 287, 288, 315, 316 • Wujek’s New Testament (1593, 1594) 9, 178, 199, 214, 287, 306 Ȥ in Spanish 84 Polyglots: Ȥ Antwerp (Biblia Regia; 1569–1572) 9, 37, 62–63, 74–75, 76, 77, 80, 186, 195, 197, 200, 201, 202, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 233, 241, 242, 245, 247, 251, 256, 260, 261, 262, 264, 269, 272, 273, 286, 309 Ȥ Complutensian (Polyglot Bible of Alcalá; 1514–1517/1522) 9, 34, 62, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 84–85, 156, 186, 197, 201, 208, 215, 216, 217, 219, 223, 226, 241, 242, 245, 247, 251, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 272, 273, 283, 295, 299, 304–305, 309, 311 Ȥ London (1654–1657) 74 Ȥ Paris (1628–1645) 75 Ȥ Polyglotta Sanctandreana (586– 1587) 80 Ȥ Vatable Polyglots (1599, 1616) 80 Rabbinic Bible (Miqraot gedolot, Biblia rabbinica) 9, 27, 41, 44, 45, 73, 76, 195,

331 197, 201, 216–217, 219, 231, 233, 242, 263, 264, 272, 273, 283, 284, 288, 310 biblical text criticism 20, 71, 76, 136, 138, 176, 195, 214, 236, 273, 311 Cabala 30, 31, 33–34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 50, 53, 63, 64, 162 Catholic Cabala 34 Calvinism 5, 6, 42, 58–60, 78, 83–84, 111, 121, 128, 135, 139, 178, 182, 194, 200, 201, 206, 207, 209, 212, 216, 217 Carolinum in Zurich 40 catechism 68 Catholicism 5, 6, 11, 17, 20, 21, 30, 35, 40, 51, 53, 60, 62–68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 80, 92, 106, 111, 113, 121, 125, 126, 127, 130, 136, 138, 139, 140, 147, 149, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 193, 201, 213, 214, 216, 279, 294, 300, 308, 311 censorship 63–64, 161, 185–186, 308 chair of the Hebrew language 28, 30, 35–36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46–47, 48, 68, 101, 108, 114, 142, 153, 277 Christology 53, 60, 136–137, 138 Christocentrism 54, 70 circumcision 59, 62 Codex Vaticanus 76 Collège de France in Paris 39, 47, 58, 299 Collège des Lectures Royaux in Paris 39, 46, 78, 104, 129, 140, 147 Collège des Trois Langues in Paris 39 Collegium Humanitatis in Zurich 40 Collegium Nobilium in Vienna 145 Collegium Romanum in Rome 66, 67, 68, 141–142, 144, 146, 147 Collegium Trilingue in Alcalá de Henares 38, 127 Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense (Leuven collegium) 120 Biblical commentary 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28–29, 32, 39, 49, 12, 54, 57, 58–59, 64, 67, 69, 71–73, 75, 77, 78, 83, 86, 104, 122–123, 129, 130–131, 142, 161, 162, 175, 178, 179, 185–186, 188, 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200–201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209–210, 213– 215, 222–223, 231–233, 237, 240, 242, 255, 284, 286, 288, 290, 291, 294, 301, 308, 315

332 Constitutions of Society of Jesus 66, 291 Councils: ancient 122, 176, 214 of Basel (1434) 38, 40 of Vienne (1311) 28, 38 of Trent (1545–1563) 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 73–74, 77, 99, 154, 186, 213, 291, 296 Corpus Christi College in Oxford 39 Counter-Reformation 5, 6, 21, 49, 62–63, 66, 99, 111, 128, 130, 147, 213, 279, 299 Cracow Academy 6, 21, 99–111, 124, 125, 140–141, 145, 149–153, 159, 168, 279 creed 122 crypto-Judaism 59 Decalogue 59 dedication (of a book) 46, 61, 73, 74, 101, 104, 107, 110, 122–123, 160, 164, 166, 171, 188, 195 dejudaization 47, 55, 71 dictionary 6, 7, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 42, 44–45, 48–49, 55, 71, 84, 87, 90, 91, 97–98, 162, 207–208, 216, 219, 223, 225–226, 241, 291, 292, 293, 294 ditheism 139, 140 dogma 35, 60, 61, 69, 115, 121, 122, 136, 140, 175, 193, 215, 280 Christological 69, 121, 122, 176, 178 Trinitarian 60, 61, 69, 121, 122, 140, 176, 178 Dominicans 29, 34, 37, 63, 64, 78, 299 education 4, 40, 41–44, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 65–68, 99, 108, 111–114, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128–129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140–149, 279, 281, 296 esotericism 30, 31 excommunication 63, 121 exegesis 20, 27, 28, 35, 50, 54, 57–58, 67, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 145, 146, 213, 295, 306, 308 rabbinical 37, 47, 50, 54–55, 57, 59, 60, 69, 209, 210 Fathers of the Church 13, 20, 28, 31, 33, 195, 200, 211, 214–215, 305 Five Megillot 47, 289 Franciscans 28, 36, 125 Garden of Eden 31 Gospel 32, 35, 49, 54, 59, 70 grammar 6, 7, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24–25, 26–27,

Index of topics

28, 34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48–49, 52, 54, 57, 58, 66, 67–68, 71, 74, 75, 84–85, 86–98, 100–104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 120, 142, 144, 145, 154, 157, 158, 160, 163–173, 207–208, 216, 255, 257, 277, 278, 281, 300, 302 Greek 17, 22, 28, 30–31, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 49, 52, 55, 56–57, 60, 61, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 91, 99, 100–101, 104–105, 106, 108–110, 112–114, 120, 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133–135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 155, 157, 159, 164, 168, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184–186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 198, 200–201, 202, 206, 208, 212, 214, 215, 222, 244, 259, 269, 291, 300, 309 Greekist 33, 40, 60, 108, 176 gymnasium: in Bytom 133 in Königsberg 111–112, 114 in Leszno 132 in Pińczów 115, 120–121, 147 in Strasburg (Sturm’s) 128, 147 in Toruń 133 in Wrocław (St Elizabeth) 145 Haggadah 159, 161 Hebraica veritas 6, 21, 181, 182–184, 297, 298, 307, 308, 311 Hebraist 18–21, 23, 26, 35–36, 37, 43, 47, 53, 54–55, 57–58, 60, 60, 62, 65, 68, 71, 85, 90, 91–92, 98, 99, 103–104, 106, 107–108, 111, 112–115, 118, 128, 130, 133, 134, 144, 147, 151–154, 162, 165, 176, 202, 207, 213, 215–216, 257, 277– 281, 297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 305, 305, 308 Hebrew: consonants (letters) 22, 34, 46, 54, 72, 85–88, 90–93, 95–96, 97, 156–157, 160, 161, 164–165, 166–168, 171–172, 173, 187, 197, 211, 217, 221, 242, 257, 264, 271 accents (accentuation) 34, 46, 54, 72, 73, 74, 77, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 108, 110, 163, 165–166, 168–169, 173, 187, 294 vocalisation (vowel points) 25, 26, 34, 46, 47, 54, 72, 74, 77, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 97, 155, 156, 157, 164, 165, 166, 167,

Index of topics

168, 171, 181, 187, 188, 195, 217, 219, 231, 242, 244, 245, 264 syntax 48, 57, 96, 98, 172, 216, 242, 273, 274, 280, 281, 294 morphology 48, 88, 89, 98, 164–165, 172 heresy 43, 51, 60, 64, 100, 106, 121–123, 125, 127, 130, 134, 135–137, 138, 140, 144, 173, 183, 184, 185–186, 188, 192, 193–194, 207, 221, 223 Holy Spirit 60, 70, 123, 192, 194 homo (vir) trilinguis (viri trilingues, homo trium linguarum) 100, 106, 107, 108–109, 120, 144, 148 humanism 5, 6, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29–32, 33–34, 35, 36–37, 38, 39–40, 41, 42, 49–50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65–66, 71, 74, 75, 77, 84, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111–112, 114, 119, 120, 121, 124, 127, 128, 139, 140– 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 159, 182, 213, 277, 278–279, 296, 297, 303, 306, 309, 310, 311 Indian 66 interlinear translation of the Bible 28, 75, 201, 202 interpretation of the Bible 12, 18, 24, 26, 28, 31, 35, 47, 50–51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 69–70, 76, 77, 78, 105, 162, 184, 187, 193, 194, 198, 209–210, 211–212, 214, 219, 223, 232, 236, 237, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 255, 258, 259, 285, 288, 289, 301, 309, 311, 315 Inquisition 64, 108, 287, 291 Jesuits 21, 40, 65–68, 99, 111, 139, 141– 149, 152–153, 154, 178, 188, 279, 280, 289, 291, 292, 307 Jewish books 34, 63–64, 308 Jewish studies 5, 24, 41, 64, 65, 84, 297, 304, 309, 311 Jews 23–24, 25, 26–27, 28, 29, 31, 32–33, 35, 37, 45, 46, 47, 49, 53–55, 58, 59–60, 64, 70, 72, 100, 137–138, 159–162, 181– 182, 194, 197, 209–212, 221, 222, 229, 231, 232, 239, 244, 254–255, 257, 278, 296, 297, 308, 309 Alexandrian 76 converted 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37,

333 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48, 53, 63, 68, 73, 100, 101, 137, 159–161, 277–278 Orthodox 45, 46, 47, 59, 73, 278 Judaism 11, 18, 19–20, 21, 23–24, 25, 28–29, 35, 45, 51, 53–55, 58, 59–60, 63, 64, 71, 136–137, 140, 277–278, 297, 298, 299, 305, 307, 308, 309 post-Pharisaic 60 Judaization 49, 50, 53, 55, 59, 61–62, 69–71, 100, 136–137, 139, 140, 304 justification 140 by faith 53 Karaism 25, 303 laazim 27 Law of the Old Testament 54, 59, 70, 190 languages ancient 17, 18, 30, 32, 39–40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 56, 62, 66, 83, 99, 100, 109, 110, 141, 148, 149, 279 languages Biblical 17, 23, 24, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39–40, 43, 50–51, 52, 53, 55, 56–57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67–68, 71, 99, 106, 109, 112–113, 114, 115, 124, 129, 137, 138, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148–149, 168, 187, 189, 213 Liberal Arts 100, 112, 113 literature classical 61 Latin 5, 6, 10, 17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, 106, 108, 109, 111, 115, 120, 125, 126, 127, 132, 134–135, 141, 145, 146, 149, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 222, 227, 233, 238, 241, 245, 246, 253, 255, 261, 263, 264, 265, 269, 271, 273, 275, 280, 284, 286, 291, 292, 294, 306, 309 library: Biblioteca Marciana in Venice 77 Czartoryski Library in Cracow 137 Jagiellonian Library in Cracow 10, 154 National Library of Poland in Warsaw 10, 166

334 The National Ossoliński Institute in Wrocław 10, 12, 13, 154, 166, 169, 295, 296, 298, 302, 305 private 31–32, 38, 56, 100–101, 110, 162, 215, 304 royal (Sigismundi II Augusti) 125 Seminary Library in Płock 99 Silesian Library in Katowice 109, 154, 155, 291, 315 Trithemius library in Sponheim 34, 36 Vatican Library 37, 76, 264 Załuski Library 101 loci theologici 70 Lord’s Supper 69, 140 Lubrański College in Poznań 128, Lutheranism 5, 6, 21, 51, 53, 54, 59, 70, 71, 82, 106, 111–112, 113, 115, 124, 125, 128, 133, 139, 160, 176, 194, 216, 278– 279, 293, Masorah 25, 34, 41, 46, 47, 73, Masoretes 25, 47, 54, 74, 77, 181, 187–188, 195, 245, 292, 293, 300 magic 30, 31 manuscript 26, 31–32, 37, 39, 45, 71, 73, 76–77, 80, 99, 101, 108, 118, 119, 129, 203, 264, 265, 274 Marburg Colloquy 56–57 mathematics 29, 91, 148 medicine 29, 100 Middle Ages 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 36, 37, 38, 50, 51, 52, 65, 69, 70, 77, 105, 175, 214, 308 Midrash 25, 27, 210, 302 Mishnah 25, 30 mission among the Jews 23–24, 29, 32, 63, 160 monotheism 60 Muslims 26, 54–55 New Testament 9, 18, 30–31, 53, 54, 56–57, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81–82, 83, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 126, 127, 129, 131, 137, 138–139, 142, 160, 175, 176, 178, 184, 185, 189, 199, 202, 206, 214, 286, 287, 288, 306 Noble et Trilingue Académie in Paris 39 nonadorantism 136 Old Church Slavonic (language) 137 Old Testament 12, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31,

Index of topics

36–37, 40, 41, 42, 45, 50, 53, 54, 58–59, 60, 61, 64, 66–68, 69–71, 74, 75, 76–77, 78, 81–82, 83, 106, 114, 115, 120, 129, 131, 132, 133, 136–137, 138, 142, 143, 145, 162, 181–182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 189, 193, 195, 196, 198, 201, 202, 206– 207, 214–215, 216, 273, 275, 279, 293, 300, 305, 310, 311 original sin 140 pamphlet 53–54, 59 papacy 31–32, 34, 35, 37, 50, 62, 63–64, 68, 73, 74, 80, 141, 144, 214 papists 35 parash 197 Pauline Fathers 115 Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses) 25, 26, 47, 71–72, 74, 75, 76, 81, 114, 131, 201, 284 philology 18, 29, 50, 65, 69, 75, 84, 105, 112, 114, 120, 124, 125, 129, 134–135, 145, 175, 277, 279 philosophy 27, 29, 31, 60, 91, 100, 108, 110, 122, 131, 148 poetry 31, 66, 81, 96, 119, 126, 132, 302 polemic 23, 27, 29, 32, 51, 53–54, 59, 63, 67, 130, 136, 139, 142, 148, 175, 178, 181, 184, 202, 203–204, 210, 213, 214, 280 polytheism 60 post-biblical literature 29, 51 post-Talmudic literature 47 postil 120 prayer books (Jewish) 61–62, 159, 161, 162 printing house 17, 18, 22, 33, 44–47, 55, 63, 72, 73, 80, 82, 83, 92, 115, 133, 136, 138–139, 156–157, 158–162, 173–178, 274 Prophezei 57, 77 Prophets 27, 36, 59, 72, 76 Former Prophets 76 Protestantism 21, 30, 38–39, 40, 42–43, 48, 50, 51, 62, 65, 69, 71, 80, 107–108, 111–112, 119, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 136, 138, 140–141, 147, 178, 185, 188, 213, 296 rabbis 25, 36, 39, 49, 54, 55, 57, 59, 69, 91–92, 160, 173, 188, 209–211

Index of topics

rabbinical literature 28, 41, 50, 53, 54, 55, 57, 63, 65, 68–71, 159, 161, 162, 209, 210, 216 Radicals 5, 6, 60–62, 134–140 Ratio studiorum 67–68, 142–144, 295, 300, 307 Reformed Church of Little Poland (Little Poland church, the reformed church in Little Poland) 115, 120, 121, 122–123, 126, 130, 133, 134, 138, 176, 279 Reformed Protestantism 21, 40–41, 42–43, 98, 120, 122–123, 125, 128, 129, 131, 133 Reformation 5, 6, 11, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38–40, 42–43, 49–50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59–60, 61, 62–63, 65, 68, 69, 70–71, 78, 98, 99, 100, 108, 111–112, 115, 119, 120, 121–122, 125–126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 145, 161, 175, 176, 182, 213, 279, 290, 292, 295, 297, 299, 301, 304, 306, 307, 309, 311 Ruthenian (language) 137, 191 Sabbatarianism 53, 61–62, 304 Sabbath 62 sacco di Roma 38 Sandomierz Consent (1570) 128 Semitic languages 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 38, 65, 68, 71, 98, 146, 148, 196, 278 Scythians 237–240 sens of the Bible 6, 189, 190, 192–193, 265, 273 allegorical 28, 50, 69, 70 anagogic 50 Christological 69, 70, 187 fourfold sense (quadriga) 50, 51, 69 historical 24, 28, 50, 69, 70 literal 24, 26, 27, 28, 50, 51, 61, 69, 70, 142 moral 50, 69 spiritual 50, 51, 70 Sephardic tradition 73 Sinai Mount 31 sola Scriptura 17, 29, 49–50 St John’s College 38–39 Subordinationism 139, Superscriptio Lincolnensis 28 Synod 10, 20, 129, 131, 214, 279

335 in Książ Wielki (1560) 122 Lublin (1593) 140 in Pińczów (1550, 1556, 1559, 1560, 1561) 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125 of the Polish Brethren (antitrinitarian) 136, 137, 204 Syriac 67, 75, 97, 110–111, 140, 148, 290 Talmud 25, 27, 30, 34, 41, 44, 46, 47, 50, 54, 62, 63–65, 100, 137–138, 159, 161, 162, 278, 300, 307 Babylonian 45, 162, 302 Palestinian 45, 302 Targumim 5, 27, 41, 49, 57, 73, 75, 76, 90, 201, 215, 216, 217, 223, 302 Jonathan 60, 76, 231, 233 Onkelos 10, 60, 72, 74, 76, 86, 201, 217, 218 Samaritan 75 Tatars 239 theology 30, 32, 35, 40, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 78, 84, 97–98, 103, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113–114, 115, 122, 123, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136–137, 142–144, 146, 148, 184, 190, 197, 210, 214, 215, 280, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 305, 308, 309 Torah 59, 100, 159, 161, 197, 302, 304 Turks (Turcs) 35, 238, 240 teachers of Hebrew, Jewish 24, 28, 32–34, 38, 43–44, 53, 56, 66, 101, 111, 114, 144, 147, 148–149, 194 textbook 17, 20, 40, 43, 44–45, 56, 67, 68, 71, 84, 92, 101, 107, 110, 161, 163, 166, 207, 280 textus receptus 32 Trinitology 60, 122–123, 136, 138, 211– 212, 305 tritheism 122, 123 typography Hebrew 17, 170 typography Christian Hebraism 78, 170 unitarianism 122, 139 university: 65, 66, 68, 112, 130, 134, 140, 162, 277, 278, 279, 280 of Alcalá de Henares (Complutum) 38, 74 of Basel 40–41, 42, 48, 56, 61, 126, 128 of Bologna 28

336 of Cambridge 38–39, 308 of Erfurt 51 of Frankfurt 42 of Heidelberg 42–43, 309 of Ingolstadt 35–36, 65 of Königsberg (Collegium Albertinum, Albertina) 108, 111–112, 113, 115, 145, 150–151, 153, 279 of Leipzig 42, 43, 139 of Leuven 39–40, 65, 120 of Marburg 131 of Paris (Sorbonne) 28, 39, 65, 78, 126 of Pavia 141

Index of topics

of Rome (Gregoriana) 66 of Rome (Sapientia) 37, 38 of Oxford 28 of Salamanca 28, 65 of Wittenberg 42, 51, 53, 112, 302, 311 of Vienna 65, 108, 145 of Vilnius (Academy, college) 141–142, 144, 147, 148–149, 152–153, 279, 307 woodcut 157 Yiddish 47, 100, 159, 161, 162, 278 Zamość Academy 110–111 Zurich Academy 57, 295, 296 Zwinglianism 5, 56–58

Index of references

Bible Genesis 27, 70, 118, 142, 200, 222, 310 1 79, 315 1–2 90 1–11 214 1:1 96, 197, 209 1:2 197, 200 1:2.6 198, 211 1:5 209 1:6 200 1:6.20 197 1:8 209 1:26 210, 214 2:1 204 2:4 211 2:6 7, 201, 240–242 2:6.8 202 2:8 200, 207 2:12 212 2:17 197, 200 2:19 210 2:23 196, 200 3:1 59 3:5 196 3:8 199 3:15 7, 200, 214, 242– 245 3:13 197 3:16 199 3:20 198, 200, 210 4:1 198, 204 4:2 210 4:8 197 4:23 202, 210

4:25 197, 198 4:26 210 5:29 197, 200, 201, 210 6:2 200, 202, 214 6:2.14 201 6:5.12.14 197 6:8–11:32 197 6:9 197, 199 6:12 198 6:13 204 6:14 208 6:15 215 6:29 198 7:1 196, 197 7:13 197 8:1 197 8:4.7 200, 201 9:4 202 10 239 10:2 239 10:21 85 10:25 198 11 187 11:7 214 11:8 196 11:9 196, 198 11:26 207 12:1 197 12:5 196, 198 12:6 7, 195, 217–219 13 190 14:5 199 14:18 210 14:20.23 200

14:21f 198 15:4 200 16:11 197, 198 17 85 17:1 197 17:4 85 17:5.15.19 198 17:15.19 197 18:1 197 18:8.25 197 19:15 199, 205 19:24 214 19:38 198 20:7 198 20:12 212 20:16 204 21:22 197 21:31 196, 197 22:14 204 22:21 199 23:1 197 23:9 197 23:15 212 24 223 24:1 197 24:10 199, 204 24:11 86 24:22 197, 199, 206 24:33 198 24:43 7, 198, 210, 219– 223 24:44 219 24:65 200 25:6 197

338 25:8 198 25:17 199 25:18 199 25:30 197 25:32 197 26:12 199, 204 26:20 ff.32 196 26:20 ff.33 197 26:33 199 26:35 199 27:38 91 27:34.46 199 27:41 199 28:2 204 28:19 197, 199 29:1.2 197 30:6.8.11.13.19 f.24 198 30:11 207 30:14 197, 206, 214 30:31 196, 198 30:33 208 31:19 200, 215 31:16 208 31:26 199 31:27.29.35 197 31:42 198 31:46f 215 31:47f 197 31:9 208 32:2 196 32:19 199 32:25 204 32:28 215 32:28.30 198 32:30 198 33 86 33:11 86, 199 33:17 197 33:19 197, 204 34:2 204 34:3 198 34:26 197 35:7.9.16.18 197 35:8 196, 199 35:18 207 35:21 199 36:14 210 36:24 199

Index of references

36:33 210 37:25 204 37:26 197, 204 37:28 215 37:28.35 200 37:35 198, 204, 210 38:14 197 38:17 198 38:18.29 204 38:18.38 204 38:29 198 40:15 199 41:16 200 41:36 199 41:42f 197 41:45 199, 201, 214 43:8 7, 245–247 44:27 7, 247–248 44:28 7, 248–249 44:29 7, 250–251 44:30f 7, 251–253 45:19 201 47:7.10 86 45:19 195, 199, 200 46:27 200 48:16 204 49:3 201 49:10 201, 210, 212 50 214 Exodus 222 1–18 308 1:15 212 1:19 254 1:21 7, 254–255 2 223 2:8 222, 223 2:15 7, 212, 223–224 2:21 208 2:22 198, 200, 208 3:2 197 3:14 7, 256–258 4:1 7, 258–259 4:11 257 6:3 210 6:8 196 8:19 196 9:21 197

10:28 197 12:5 197 12:40 200, 214 13:16 197, 210 13:19 209 16:15 197, 210 17:15 197 18:2–3 207 18:2f 7, 260–261 18:3f 197 20:2 257 25:17f 197 25:18 212 25:30 197 28:41 197 33:7 197 Leviticus 1 226 1:2 203 1:8 7, 224–226 1:8.12 225 8:20 225 10:9 7, 203, 226–227 11 204 11:5 200, 203 11:16 ff.22 7, 228–229 11:22 209 12:2 209 14:10 196, 203 16:8 203 18:21 200 22:24 204 23:10.13 197 25:9 203 27:28 197 Numbers 6:2 203 6:8.12 197 11:7 196, 200 13:23 201 13:26 195 15:15 196 16:22.28.38 196 21:6.8 196 21:24 195 23:10 196

339

Bible

24:1 197 25:4 203 25:8 200, 201 27:14 196 36:1 85 38 85 Deuteronomy 5:6 257 7:10 196 9:1.14 196 13:1 190 17:8 196 20:5 196 21:12 204 25:7 196 28:35 86 28:53 212 30 90 32:30 196 Joshua 2:1 7, 210, 229–232, 233 5:9 198 6:5 201 21:36f 7, 261 Judges 6:3 212 14:12 212 16:1 7, 209, 232–233, 235 17:1 237 Ruth 1:1 212 2:23b (3:1a) 7, 263–265 3:15b 7, 265–266 1 Samuel (1 Kings) 26:25 201 28:13 201 2 Samuel (2 Kings) 5:6 7, 212, 233 10:12 201

8:18 201, 212 18:24 7, 266–267 1 Kings (3 Kings) 6:36 268 7:26 212 8:64a 7, 267–269 21:13 86, 91 2 Kings (4 Kings) 3:13 201 4:1 212 5:6 7, 233 6:31f 236 6:32 236–237 6:33 7, 235–237 6:34 235 7:1f (LXX) 236 8:15 210, 212, 235 17:24 212 1–2 Kings 129 1–2 Chronicles 27 1 Chronicles 1–3 85 4:2 7, 269–271 Ezra 4:14 215 7:22.25 215 Nehemiah 5:7 204 5:8.13 207 7:68 7, 272–273 8:9 207 Esther 14:5 215 1 Maccabees 81 Job 83, 123 1:21 200

1 The Vulgate numbering of the Psalms in square brackets.

2 86 2:9 86, 91 2:11 200 8:12 90 14:5 155 40:10 199 40:20 199 40:21 199 40:26 199, 204 41:2 199, 204 42:11 208 Psalms1 9, 27, 28, 31, 34, 39, 45, 51, 52, 70, 72, 74, 76, 81, 103, 109, 113, 118, 120, 123, 127, 128, 131, 133, 145, 148, 157, 158, 161, 162, 175, 176, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 199, 200, 202, 210–211, 213, 287, 298, 305, 315 1:1 198 2 185, 198, 216 2:1 198 2:6 213 2:12 198 3 179, 315 3:2 157 4 157 4:4 72 5 157 7 157 9:1 223 18 [17] 213 34 [33] 92, 97 36:7 [35:7] 59 45 [44] 168 55:14 [54:14] 201 69 [68] 213 81:11 [81:11] 257 86:9 [85:9] 59 89:53 [88:53] 154 95:6 [94:6] 86 112:5 [111:5] 59 118:26 [117:26] 86

340 119 [118] 157 138 [137] 213 Proverbs 30 223 30:5–6 190 Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) 1:9 88 Song of Songs (Canticles) 61 6:11 90 Wisdom of Solomon 81 3:18 215 Sirach 81 15:14 215 17:31 215 Isaiah 64, 109, 222 7 223 7:14 7, 200, 201, 210, 212, 219–223 11:1 171 11:1–5 171 11:8 95 35:3 91 36 91 43:11 257 44:24 257 Jeremiah 109 8:22 59 51:25 96

Index of references

Ezekiel 109 8:3 59 9:9 59 17:3 59 21:10 201 22 85 22:7 85 25:2 238 38:2 212 Daniel 59, 81 2:28.30 215 2:44f 59 3:1 200, 212 4:13–16 59 4:16 215 5:11.18 85 7:9 215 7:27 59 9:24f 59 Hosea 123 1:2 201, 209 Zechariah 3, 8 201 Malachi 129 Matthew 49 5:18 190 16:18 208 Acts 122–123 Romans 70, 104 11:26 53

2 Corinthians 82 Galatians 104 Ephesians 4:8 193 Hebrew 1:7 193 11:27 224 11:31 230 James 2:25 230 Revelation of John 20 239 20:8 (incorrect 20:18) 238, 239, 240 3 Ezra 5:41 215 4 Ezra 215 8:2.19.53 215 9:1 215 10:23 215 13:51 215 14:18 215 15:13.25 215 16:37 215 3 Maccabees 2:16 215

Others

341

Others Ant. 10, 212 5, 304 233 7, 61 235 9, 68ff 236 9, 92 210 Augenspiegel by Johann Reuchlin (1511) 35 Arukh ha-Shorshot (=Dictionarium hebraicum) by Sebastian Münster (1523) 48–49, 87, 90–92, 293 Biblia sacra ad vetustissima exemplaria castigata (1547) 80 Bibliotheca rabbinica by Buxtorf the Elder (1613) 41 Calvinus Judaizans by Aegidius Hunnius (1595) 59 Carmina Sibillae Erythreae by Jerzy Liban (1535) 158 Collatio Novi Testamenti by Lorenzo Valla (fifteenth century) 30 De accentibus et orthographia linguae hebraicae by Johann Reuchlin (1518) 34 De accentuum ecclesiasticum exquisita ratione by Jerzy Liban (c. 1539) 6, 108, 110, 158, 163, 168–197, 293, 315 De arte cabalistica by Reuchlin (1517) 34 De S. Trinitate libri tres […], by Gilbert Génébrard (1569, 1585) 214 Defensio translationum Bibliorum by Sébastien Castellion (1562) 61 Defensio verae sententiae de magistratu publico by Jacob Paleologus and Grzegorz Paweł (1573, 1580) 137 De modo legendi et intelligendi hebraeum by Pellican (1504) 36 De rudimentis hebraicis by Reuchlin (1506) 6, 34, 51, 56, 62, 85–87, 223, 294 Dialogue with Trypho by St Justin Martyr 136 Dicta super Psalterium by Martin Luther 51 Dictionarium hebraicum novum by Matthaeus Aurogallus (Goldhahn) 42 Dictionarium hebraicum novum, non ex rabbinorum commentis, nec nostratium

doctorum stulta imitatione descriptum by Johann Forster (1557) 55, 291 Die Propheten alle Deudsch translated by Martin Luther (1532) 81 Diqduqim by Moses Kimchi and Elias Levita (twelfth century; printed in 1546) 26, 48, 292 Disputationes by Robert Bellarmine 214 Ebreae grammaticae institutio by Francesco Stancaro (1526) 6, 107, 169–173, 294, 315 Elemental oder Lesebüchlein by Paweł Helicz 161 Elementale hebraicum by Philip Michael Novenianus (1520) 6, 43, 101, 163–166, 290, 294, 315 Epistoła albo list ku drogiemu rabbi Izaakowi posłany by Rabbi Samuel Maroccanus 157 Epitome grammaticae hebraeae by Buxtorf the Elder 41 Epitome hebraicae grammaticae by Sebastian Münster (1520) 48 Epitome radicum hebraicarum et chaldaicarum, by Buxtorf the Elder (1607) 41 Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium by Van den Campen 6, 102, 103, 163, 166–168, 290, 315 Hebraicarum Institutionum libri duo by Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1518) 41 Hermes trismegitus by Jakub Vitelius (1629) 109 In Genesim by John Calvin 244 In LXIX. Psalmos seu Hymnos Prophetae Davidis priores […], by Matthias Bredenbach (1560) 213 In omnes Psalmos Davidicos exactissima enarratio by Franciscus Titelmans (1544) 213 In Psalmum XVIII et CXXXVIII interpretatio by Agostino Eugubinus (Steuco) (1533) 213 Index librorum prohibitorum (1559) 64–65, 291 Index librorum prohibitorum (1564) 64–65, 291

342 Introductio artis grammaticae hebraicae (in Pco) 34, 84–85 Institutiones grammaticae in hebraeam linguam by Sebastian Münster (1524) 48, 293 Institutiones linguae hebraicae by Robert Bellarmine 6, 92–97, 208, 289, 290 Isagogicon in hebraeas literas by Johannes Cellarius Gnostopolitanus (1518) 42 Kitab al-Shir by Saadiah Gaon (tenth century) 24 Kutub al-Luga by Saadiah Gaon (tenth century) 25 Lexicon chaldaicum talmudicum by Buxtorf the Elder and Younger (1638) 41 Lexicon hebraicum et chaldaicarum; Manuale hebraicum et chaldaicum by Buxtorf the Elder (1612, 1658) 41 Libellus, De natura litterarum et punctorum hebraicorum by Jan van den Campen (1534) 163, 290 Liber de verbo mirifico by Reuchlin (1494, 1514) 34 Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesim by St Jerome 200 Luach be-Diqduq ha-Pealim we-ha-Binyanim by Elias Levita (1518) 46 Mahalakh shevile ha-daat by Moses Kimchi (twelfth century) 26, 46, 292 Mahalakh shevile ha-daat by Moses Kimchi, ed. Elias Levita (1504) 292 Melekhet ha-Diqduq ha-shalem (= Opus Grammaticum Consummatum ex variis Elianis libris concinnatum by Elias Levita, ed. and translated by Sebastian Münster (1541) 48, 293 Mikhlol by David Kimchi 26–27, 292 Naturalis historiae by Pliny the Elder 214 Operationes in Psalmos by Martin Luther (1519–1521) 51 O Sakramencie Ciała i Krwi Pańskiej by Daniel Mikołajewski (1590) 130 Paraphrases in omnes Psalmos Davidicos by Cornelius Jansen the Elder (1569) 213 Pirqe Eliyahu by Elias Levita (1520) 46, 292 Polonicae gramatices institutio by Pierre Statorius (1568) 120

Index of references

Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam by Nicholas of Lyra (fourteenth century) 28–29 Postylla domowa polska (Polish home postil) by Grzegorz Orszak (1556, 1557) 120 Praeceptiones grammaticae de lingua hebraea by Buxtorf the Elder (1605) 41 Proverbia Salomonis translated by Jan van den Campen 104, 283, 284 Psalterium Davidis ad Hebraicam Veritatem interpretatum translated by Conrad Pellican 213 Opus de conscribendis epistolis by Desiderius Erasmus (1523) 108, 109, 154–157, 291, 315 Psalmorum omnium translated by Jan van den Campen 103, 105, 157–158, 283, 315 Psalterium juxta hebraeos translated by St Jerome 51 Psalterium octaplum (1516) 39, 74, 213 Quadruplex Psalterium 213 Ratio studiorum (1556) 67–68 Ratio studiorum (1586) 142–144, 307 Ratio studiorum (1599) 67–68, 292 Recognitio Veteris Testamenti ad Hebraicam veritatem […] by Agostino Eugubinus (Steuco) (1529) 213 Shemot Devarim by Elias Levita (1542) 47 Sepher Arbaa Turim by Jacob ben Asher (1475) 72 Sepher Diqduq Miqne Avram by Abraham de Balmes (1523) 48 Sepher ha-Agron by Saadiah Gaon (902) 24 Sepher ha-Bachur by Elias Levita (1518) 46, 47, 48, 88, 293 Sepher ha-Diqduq (= Grammatica hebraica absolutissima) by Elias Levita, ed. and translated by Sebastian Münster (1525) 48, 87, 90, 292 Sepher ha-Harkava by Elias Levita (1525) 46 Sepher ha-Shorashim by David Kimchi (thirteenth century) 26–27, 292 Sepher ha-Zikhronot by Elias Levita 46 Sepher Machberet by Menachem ibn Saruq (tenth century) 25

Others

Sepher Masoret ha-masoret by Elias Levita (1539) 47, 292, 293, 300 Sepher Mikhlol by David Kimchi (thirteenth century) 26, 292 Sepher Zikaron by Joseph Kimchi (twelfth century) 26, 292 Shilush Leshonot (= Dictionarium trilingue) by Sebastian Münster (1530) 49, 87, 91, 294

343 Tabula in grammaticen hebraeam by Clenardus (1529) 40 The Odyssey 131 Thirteen Articles of Faith by Maimonides 73 Tiberias, commentarius masorethicus by Buxtorf the Elder (1620) 41 Tishbi by Elias Levita (1541) 47, 208 Vocabolarium hebraicum atque chaldaicum in PCo 84

List of figures

Fig. 1. Stephanus Bible, Geneva 1557, Genesis 1 (ZNiO XVI.F.13809). Fig. 2. Jan van den Campen, Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, title page (BN SD XVI.O.71). Fig. 3. Jan van den Campen, Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, folio I3v (BN SD XVI.O.974). Fig. 4. Jan van den Campen, Ex varijs libellis Eliae grammaticorum omnium doctissimi […], Cracow 1534, folio a3r (BN SD XVI.O.974). Fig. 5. Psalmorum Omnium iuxta Hebraicam veritatem paraphrastica interpretatio, autore Ioanne Campensi […], Cracow 1532, folio A6v (ZNiO XVI.O.912). Fig. 6. Francesco Stancaro, Ebreae Grammaticae Institutio, Basel 1555, title page (ZNiO XVI.O.988). Fig. 7. Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, title page (Silesian Library in Katowice 65201 I). Fig. 8. Jerzy Liban, De accentuum ecclesiasticorum exquisita ratione […], Cracow c. 1539, folio G3v (ZNiO XVI.O.756). Fig. 9. Brest Bible, Brest-Litovsk 1563, title page (ZNiO XVI.F.4015). Fig. 10. Gdańsk Bible, Gdańsk 1632, the first title page (ZNiO XVII-3246). Fig. 11. Budny’s Bible (Nesvitz Bible), Nesvizh or Zasław or Uzda, 1572, title page (ZNiO XVI.Qu.2339). Fig. 12a. Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, page 352 with the printer’s mark “Terminus” (Silesian Library in Katowice 65201 I). Fig. 12b. Desiderius Erasmus, Opus de conscribendis epistolis […], Cracow 1523, page 352 with the printer’s mark “Terminus” (ZNiO XVI.O.672). Fig. 13. Ungler’s Evangeliary, Cracow 1527–1528, filio 15v (ZNiO XVI.O.863). Fig. 14. Philip Michael Novenianus, Elementale Hebraicum […], Leipzig 1520, folio E2v (BJ Gram. 3194 II). Fig. 15. Leopolita’s Bible, Cracow 1561, title page (BJ Cim. 8307). Fig. 16. Psałterz Dawidow (David’s Psalter), translated by Jakub Wujek, Cracow 1594, folio 7r with a commentary to Ps 3 (ZNiO XVI.Qu.2659).

346

List of figures

Fig. 17. Wujek’s Bible, Cracow 1599, title page (ZNiO XVI.F.4289). Fig. 18. Wujek’s Bible, Cracow 1599, page 553 with Ps 2 (BN SD.XVI.F.738). Fig. 19. Stephanus Bible, Geneva 1557, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (ZNiO XVI.F.13809). Fig. 20. Brest Bible, Brest-Litovsk 1563, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (Wr PWT III-701).