Table of Contents
THE 17TH CENTURY DUTCH TRANSLATIONS OF SPINOZA'S TTP, by Gerrit H. Jongeneelen (not published before)
Three 17th century Dutch TTP translations are extant in 17th century sources. In the first place the The Hague codex of the Short Treatise contains a Dutch TTP translation:
Godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge, inhoudende enige redeneeringen door de welke word getoond, dat de vrijheid van te philosopheren, niet alleenlijk behoudens de godvruchtigheid, en vrede vande gemeene Staat, magh werden toegestaan: Maar dezelvde, niet dan met de vreede vande gemeen staat zelve, en de godvruchtigheid, wegh genomen kan worden. Johannis eerste briev Cap.IV.V.xiii. Hier aan kennen wij, dat wij in God blyven en God in ons, omdat hy ons van zynen geest gegeven heeft. (B. de Spinoza: Geschriften, KB 75G15. Cited as the manuscript.)
And with almost the same title, except for its beginning which is an allusion to the title of the 1693 edition, a printed edition appeared in 1694:
Een rechtzinnige theologant. Of godgeleerde staatkunde. Behelsende eenige redeneeringen, met welke getoont word, dat de vriheid om te redeneeren niet alleen behoudens de Godsaligheid, en de vrede des Gemeene-bests kan toegelaten, maar ook dat deselve niet, dan te gelijk met de Godsaligheid en de vrede des Gemeene-bests kan weggenomen worden. 1 Joh. 4: vers 13. Hier door weten wy, dat wy in God blijven, en God in ons, dat hy ons van syn geest gegeven heeft. Uit het Latijn in 't Hollands vertaald. En om syn voortreffelijkheid nu weer herdrukt. Tot Bremen, By Hans Jurgen von Weyl, 1694. [20+292 pp.] (Cited as 1694.)
And finally the same fictitious printer who printed the Latin TTP in 1670 published a Dutch translation in 1693:
De rechtzinnige Theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge. Uit het Latijn vertaalt. Te Hamburg, by Henricus Koenraad. MDCXCIII. [28+360pp.]. (Cited as 1693).
Contemporary information on the three sources is provided in the Vervolg van 't leven van Philopater (1697) by Johannes Duijkerius (1661/2-1702) (Maréchal 1991:194-196). This publication is the second part of the Spinozistic novel Het leven van Philopater (1691). Carl Gebhardt (1924-26:272-273) extensively cites from Duijkerius' text in his investigation of the three sources. Jarich Jelles (?1683) most probably was the one who made Glazemaker translate the TTP. After Spinoza's suppression of its printing in 1671, he kept the autograph. Both the TTP manuscript and the TTP shown in 1704 by the younger Jan Rieuwertsz to Stolle, should be copies of this autograph. According to Gebhardt the 1693 and 1694 editions have nothing in common, which according to him, is not the case with the Dutch TTP in the KV-codex and in the 1693 edition. Thijssen-Schoute accepts Gebhardt's conclusion regarding the revised TTP in the KV-codex, but she does not believe that 1694 is completely independent from Glazemaker's translation. Further investigations made the manuscript appear to be a rewritten version of Glazemaker's translation: before being copied both the Dutch TTP and the Short Treatise in The Hague manuscript have been revised by one and the same person (Jongeneelen 1990; cf. Akkerman 1997:6).
For the identification of Glazemaker as the translator of the TTP and of the Opera Posthuma Duijkerius' novel is the only contemporary source available. In an attempt to reconstruct the extratextual reality of the novel a closer investigation of the Vervolg therefore seems appropriate. In it not only historical hypotheses about the extratextual reality of the novel will be verified, but also experimental methods will be used in order to proof these hypotheses by testing them on the results of a linguistic analysis of the texts the novel is referring to.
1. Vervolg van 't leven van Philopater, 1697
Especiallly the Vervolg van het leven van Philopater has been characterized as half way between fiction and confession by Gerardine Maréchal, the modern editor of Duijkerius' novels (Maréchal 1991:26). The end of the novel seems to support a factual interpretation of the information, if the interpretation by a contemporary pamphleteer makes sense, that the exclamation "Wat Duiker, ...zijt gy de schrijver van't leven van Philopater, ..." (Maréchal 1991:197; cf p.11) refers to the author himself. This would make Duijkerius act as a person in his own novel when the information on the TTP translations is communicated. Visiting him on a bright summer day, Physiologus shows a copy of De Rechtzinnige Theologant (1693). Philopater immediately recognizes the TTP in it and asks: How did it get translated? By a translator, is Physiologus' reply. And then:
dog om u evenwel regt te antwoorden, zoo gelieft u te weten dat de Oude Jan Hendriksze Glazemaker, wiens naam befaamt genoeg is door't vertaalen der Werken van de Heer Cartesius en verscheiden anderen, ook de werken van dezen Auteur vertolkt heeft: nu weetje dat de Zedekunde, Staatkundige verhandeling, Verbetering van't verstand en verscheiden Brieven van geleerde Mannen in 't Nederduits gedrukt zijn. (Maréchal 1991:195)
As a twenty years old young man Duijkerius still might have met the old Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker (1619/20-1682). Between 1656 and 1661 Glazemaker had translated the works of Descartes (Akkerman 1982 nr.1-5), published by Jan Rieuwertsz (1617-1685). Rieuwertsz also published Glazemaker's translation of Spinoza's *1Opera Posthuma, cited after the titles of the separate parts: Zedekunst, (...); Staatkundige verhandeling, (...); Handeling van de verbetering van 't verstant (...); Brieven van verscheide geleerde mannen (...) in Duijkerius and used as a source for the quotes from Spinoza in his novels (Maréchal p.28).
Dit werk is dan ook door den zelfden J.H. Glazemaker vertaalt en dus in geschrift by den geen die de Vertaaler te werk gestelt had, blijven leggen. (Maréchal 1991:195)
It most probably was Jarich Jelles who charged Glazemaker with translating the TTP. He was the addressee of the letter in which Spinoza suppressed the printing of the translation under the press at the moment of its suppression (Gebhardt 1924-26:273). Duijkerius explicitly states that the autograph remained in the possession of him who charged the translator, but he does not give information about Spinoza's stopping the printing process. It seems probable that the TTP codex shown to Gottlieb Stolle in 1704 by the younger Jan Rieuwertsz (Ep 44 Opera 4:227,6-17; cf. Gebhardt 1924-26:274) was a revised copy of the autograph used for printing and not the autograph.
Het had voor lange jaaren al gedrukt geweest, maar de ecclesiastijke, die hun gezag hier door oordeelden benadeelt te konnen worden, hebbender zoo nu en dan wat tegen gewoelt: tot dat eindelyk, en nu het vergeten scheen, dit evenwel het licht ziet. (Maréchal 1991:195)
In 1687 the Amsterdam Church Council succeeded in suppressing the publication of a Dutch TTP by Jan ten Hoorn, the editor of the reprints of Glazemaker's Descartes translations 1690-1692 (Akkerman 1982 nr.17-20). The Church Council made Jan ten Hoorn destroy the complete impression of the *2TTP.
Wijders weet ik'er u Heeren nog dit van te zeggen dat'er zoo veel afschriften in die reeks van jaaren, na dat'er een afschrift van't origineel buiten twijffel aan een singulier goed vriend en die weer aan een ander was gegeven, geboren wierden dat de laatsten by't eerste te confronteren door veelvoudig en kreupel uitschrijven tot weinig respect van den Vertaaler zou geweest zijn, indien het op zijn naam, of ten minste indien men geloofde dat zoodanig een laatste afschrift ook van Glazemaker dus vertaalt was, was uitgekomen. Hierom moet ik zeggen dat dien Heer, my zeer wel bekent, Doctor in de Medicynen en illuster Philosooph, wien het Origineel van J.H. Glazemakers hand onder zig had, zijn besondere yver en liberaliteit suffisant getoont heeft in 't bezorgen, dat de ware Copie dus curieus gedrukt den liefhebberen nu kan universeel gemaakt worden: (Maréchal 1991:195)
The errors introduced by copying the copies permitted to a good friend by the owner of the autograph made that Glazemaker hardly could be kept responsible for the text anymore. An unknown "Doctor in de Medicynen en illuster Philosooph" edited the text. If the person possessing the autograph was Jarich Jelles, Lodewijk Meyer (1629-1681) is excluded from being the editor. According to Wielema the reformed Spinozist Anthoni van Dalen (1644-?), who is not the Haarlem medicin Anthonius van Dale (1638-1708), had some concern with the 1693 edition of the*3 TTP. But the Anthoni van Dalen mentioned by Wielema was a theologian and no medicin. He therefore does not seem to be a probable candidate for being the editor of 1693.
en op dat dit werk zijn volslagen aanzien zou hebben, heeft hy, conform Cartesius werken en de Zedekunde van Spinoza, het zelve verrijkt met konstwoorden op de kant, 't geen yder die zelfs de Latijnsche taal kundig is, kan dienen in opzigt van 't welvertalen. (Maréchal 1991:195)
A check of some dozens of notes in the margin learns that the editor of 1693 did indeed use Spinoza's Latin TTP for the composition of these notes. In only two out of 57 cases*4 something else was written in the margin than could be read in Spinoza. Duijkerius' reference to the practise of the Nagelate Schriften therefore factually is not correct. The notes in the Nagelate Schriften have been added by the editor of the printer's copy without consulting Spinoza's Latin. Before Steenbakkers (1997) Crapulli*5 had reached similar conclusions for Rieuwertsz' edition of Glazemaker's Descartes translations. The practise of adding notes in the margin is a remainder of the purist and humanist tradition of the 16th and 17th centuries (cf. Steenbakkers 1997:234-238). After 1650 it had lost its function, which might be one of the grounds for the attack by the printer of 1694*6 on the notes in 1693. The differences between the notes in 1693 and the printer's practise of adding notes are in support of Duijkerius' information that a medicin/philospher edited 1693.
Ik verhaal dit u hierom alleen Heeren, vervolgde hy, om dat ik weet dat 'er een stuk of twee vertaalingen die ik geloof uit eigen liefhebbery geschied te wezen gevonden worden, daar zekerlijk ook afschriften onder deze en gene van [196] zullen berusten: daarenboven heb ik informatie dat'et misschien kon gebeuren, dat 'er nog een tweede druk na een van die afschriften gedrukt in de wereld zal komen, want my is van zeker Heer verhaalt die nu eerst uit Vriesland is gearriveert, dat hy daar een gedrukt blad of twe, zijnde het begin van dit werk gezien heeft, maar hy wist te zeggen, behalven dat'et maar slegjens wierd uitgevoert ten opzigt van papier en letter, dat het geen uniformiteit had met het ware afschrift van Glazemaker. (Maréchal 1991:195-196)
Duijkerius informs his readers about one or two other manuscript traditions, that should be distinguished from the manuscript tradition originating from Glazemaker's autograph. A translation belonging to one of them might have been used for the edition of the Frisian TTP under the press then. In the next paragraph I will show that the editor of 1694 was in the possession of a copy of the revised printer's copy. The deliberate changes of the text and his translation technique make it probable that the editor of the 1694 edition has to be found in the Franeker circle of Ulrik Huber, that adapted the Spinozism of the TTP to what was acceptable to Calvinism.
2. Een rechtzinnige theologant, 1694.
Gebhardt did not find indications for a common textual tradition in the texts of the 1693 and 1694 TTP. Thijssen-Schoute is less certain in her conclusions, but for her, too, the differences between these two sources were more obvious than the similarities. In order to reach more exact conclusions I analyzed about 18% of the TTP*7. Sondages in the other chapters did not falsify the conclusions I reached from analyzing this restricted material.
In the first place it strikes as remarkable, that in chapter IX all the sources have a different reading of the text but agree together in chapter III, whereas only 1693 and the manuscript agree in chapter XVIII. Agreements never are complete agreements. Differences between agreeing sources make it possible to specify their mutual dependency.
Although chapter III is the most similar in all the sources, there also are some readings the manuscript and 1694 have in common that differ from 1693. These readings cannot be explained without accepting the hypothesis, that the editor of 1694 somehow possessed a copy of the revised TTP translation. Differences between 1694 and the The Hague manuscript falsify the hypothesis, that 1694 has used the The Hague manuscript. E.g. 3:44,15 quod ipsi soli, caeteris non item bene fit has not been translated in 1693 and has a very specific translation in the manuscript and 1694 that cannot be explained without accepting the hypothesis of a common source: omdat hij alleen in een goede stand staat en het met de andere niet dus gesteld is. And 3:44,26 invidus est, & malus; translated as bedroeft zich in 1693 but as is nijdig en kwaad in the manuscript and in 1694. And 3:44,31 ipsis denique tantum, caeteris posthabitis, innotuisse, which is rendered as Dat hij haar alleen en de andere volken ter zijde stellende erkend heeft in 1693 and as zich aan hen alleenlijk bekend gemaakt en de andere minder geacht heeft in the manuscript and 1694. The differences between 1694 and the manuscript almost always suggest the conclusion, that 1694 disposed of a much better copy of the revised TTP than was copied in the The Hague manuscript. Many errors have been introduced into the manuscript by copiists. About 80% of the differences between the sources caused by corruption occur in the manuscript and are due to copiists making errors themselves or attempting to correct the errors of a preceding copiist. This confirms earlier conclusions, that the TTP translation has been copied at least twice (Jongeneelen 1990:488).
In 1693 I only found four cases of omission of words and in 1694 ten. The manuscript has twenty cases of ommission. In twelve cases a copiist of the manuscript read something similar to what had to be read such as der instead of door and uitzinnig instead of ontzinnig etc. A permanent cause of interpretation difficulties and copiist errors is the arbitrary use of -e and -en endings in the manuscript for singular and plural flexion*8.
The unknown manuscript referred to in the The Hague manuscript of the translated Adnotationes (Nauwkeurige en nootsakelyke aenmerkingen tot beeter verstant van dit boek) (Spruit 1997:200) is another indication for the existence of presently lost TTP manuscripts. Agreements and differences between 1694 and the The Hague manuscript forbid the hypothesis that the revision of the TTP took place in the The Hague manuscript. The The Hague manuscript thus is a copy of the revision of Glazemaker's translation and if the pages in the translated Adnotationes refer to the revised printer's copy, it counted nearly as many pages as the The Hague manuscript*9. That the The Hague TTP manuscript was a copy of the revised printer's copy is also evident from the thick black lines drawn from p.164 onwards until p.379 with the signatures L:2/82 until prim X/161*10. For Gebhardt (1924-26:277) these lines formed an enigma, but Meyer (Mignini 1986:28) corectly intepreted them as signs for the printer. Akkerman found similar lines in English manuscripts used by printers for counting the copy (Akkerman to be published in 2000; Simpson 1970:49vlg). Hellinga also gives Dutch examples; especially from Jan Rieuwertsz*11.
The format signatures in the TTP manuscript start with L2/82 on p.164. Counting backward Prim L/81 should have appreared on p.162, but is lacking*12. Between p.162 and p.163 the TTP manuscript shows a break. On p.161, the last page of chapter V, a 4,5x4,5 cm big V has been drawn. Careful study of the material conditions of the manuscript learns, that from p.163 onward a browner kind of ink, containing more iron, has been used than until p.162; that p.163-608 consists of 54 4o's and p.1r-162 of seven 12mo's and one 8vo. of a heavier kind of paper; that on p.1r-162 the lines indicating the under margin are lacking; and that the page numbers 1-20 have been used twice, once for the recto and once for the verso side.
From all this only one conclusion is possible: p.1-162 has been copied after p.163-608. The lost pages 1-162 (signature A-K) have been used for type setting and were thrown away afterwards, as was usual. The preface belongs to the same stage of the manuscript as p.163-608. This may be inferred from the Latin glosses, explaining problematic translations and only occurring on p.163-244 of the manuscript and on p.11-17 of the preface*13. When Spinoza suppressed the printing of the Dutch TTP in February 1671, p.163-608 nor the preface had been used for setting. The The Hague manuscript thus contains the extant copy, and was supplemented with a new copy of the revised printer's copy. The editor of 1694 possibly possessed the copy of p.1-162 that was thrown away, or otherwise was authorized to take copy from the revised printer's copy that still was in the the possession of the Rieuwertsz family in 1704. The number of pages of the 1694 edition (289) approximately corresponds to the number of pages that can be inferred from the counting signatures in the manuscript (265) and is far below the 360 pages of 1693.
In a dozen of cases, especially in the preface and in chapter XVIII 1694 has deviating readings that cannot be explained in a linguistic way. They especially occur where Spinoza seriously critisizes the political and religious ideas of the Calvinist and Orangist circles in the Republic. The translation de rust van de vrede bekwaam om oproer te verwekken of 1693 and the manuscript of 3:227,15 otium pacis rumoribus aptum has been reduced to vrede in 1694 and regis amicos vel amicitia suspectos (3:227.14): des konings vrienden of de gene die van de vriendschap verdacht waren in 1693 and manuscript is reduced to de vrienden of toegedane des Konings in 1694. In his translation ten zij hij niet te gelijk de zaak des voorgaande Tyrans verdedigt of nisi simul ejusdem prioris tyranni causam defendat (3:227,3) 1694 gives the reverse of what Spinoza intended to say by adding niet to the reading of 1693 and the manuscript. This is also the case with the translation of magistratu alterutram partem adjuvante (3:223,20) by zonder dat de Overheid de een of de ander kant behulpig is instead of door hulp van de overigheid, die een van beide zijden begunstigt in 1693 and the manuscript. The translation dat is als degene die de uitvinders der secte als uitleggers van het goddelijke recht erkennen in 1693 and manuscript of hoc est, ut qui sectae doctores juris divini interpretes agnoscunt (3:225,34) has been reduced to dat is als uitvinders der secte in 1694.
In the preface two passages in which 1694 might have read political allusions, have been suppressed. It concerns 3:12,16 & dum sibi nihil prosunt, aliis obsint, qui liberius philosopharentur, nisi hoc unum obstaret, quod putant rationem debere Theologiae ancillari; nam his hoc opus perquam utile fore confido and 3:6,21 Sequitur deinde eandem variam admodum, & inconstantem debere esse, ut omnia mentis ludibria, & furoris impetus, & denique ipsam non nisi spe, odio, ira, & dolo defendi; nimirum, quia non ex ratione, sed ex solo affectu, eoque efficacissimo oritur. Except for one case where praeterea aliquot loca truncata (3:135,20) has not been translated, corrections like those in the preface and chapter XVIII do not occur in the chapters treating bilble criticism.
The political corrections seem to indicate an Orangist Calvinist as the editor of 1694. Because Friesland is mentioned by Duijkerius as the printing place, someone in the circle of Ulrik Huber (1636-1694) at the University of Franeker might be the editor of 1694*14. The profile of the Franeker Huber circle as Calvinist but accepting the Machiavellian politics of Spinozism and the Cartesanism of its Scriptural interpretation, perfectly fits the profile of an editor who deliberately accomodates the TTP text to the Orangist and Calvinist restrictions of his circle.
3. De rechtzinnige theologant, 1693
Because both for 1694 and the manuscript Rieuwertsz' revised printer's copy has been used, 1693 is a relatively independent source for Glazemaker's TTP translation. An analysis of the differences between 1694 and the mutually more similar texts of 1693 and the manuscript shows, that 1694 publishes a completely new translation for chapter XVIII, showing peculiarities that do not occur in Glazemaker's translations.
Primarily the translation technique of 1694 is much more litteral than Glazemaker's*15. Although accusativus cum infinitivo constructions are not absent in Glazemaker's Dutch (Akkerman 1980:128), they are almost the only way in which 1694 is able to translate this kind of Latin constructions. In cases where the revisor of the TTP incidentally uses sentences with gelijk 1694 corrects them. E.g.:
3:140,19 de quo neminem dubitare opinor: 1693 waaraan ik niet geloof dat iemand zal twijfelen; ms van 't welk gelijk ik acht, niemand zal twijfelen; 1694 waar aan ik meen niemand te twijfelen.
3:133,28 quod neminem credere existimo: 1693 dat ik meen dat niemand geloven zal ms 't welk gelijk ik acht, niemand geloven zal and 1694 't geen ik niemand achte te geloven
3:140,4 multas enim appositas esse diximus honestatis causa: ms/1693 want veel zijn er gelijk wij gezegt hebben, uit eerbaarheid bijgevoegd; 1694 want wij hebben vele bijgevoegd te zijn, getoond, eershalven
In dozens of cases 1694 transforms dependent clauses in the manuscript and 1693 into accusativus cum infinitivo constructions. In construction, literalness and number of words the translation of 1694 is much closer to the Latin than any of the other sources. E.g.
3:5,11 in rebus prosperis: 1693 in voorspoed levende; hs zo zij in voorspoed leven; 1694 in voorspoedige zaken
3:8,3 plus quam iniquo animo: hs/1693 met zo grote onbillijkheid; 1694 met meer als onrechte gemoede
3:8,12 vulgo religioni fuit: hs/1693 men gemeenlijk uit godsdienst en schroom; 1694 bij het volk godsdienst gehouden zij
3:135,8 manus dabo: hs 't gewonnen geven; 1693 de overwinning geven; 1694 de hand bieden
3:221,25 iis forsan tantum utilis esse posset: hs/1693 zou misschien alleenlijk aan de genen nut konnen zijn; 1694 die gene alleen mogelijk nuttig zijn
3:221,31 & quae forsan imitari consultissimum: ms/1693 en misschien ook zeer geraden om na te volgen; 1694 en welke het misschien na te volgen zeer raadsaam was
3:222,16 quae authoritas ut aeterna esset: ms/1693 en op dat dit gezag eeuwig zou zijn; 1694 welke macht, op dat dezelve eeuwig zoude zijn/).
Sometimes this results in a better translation; e.g.:
3:224,29-32 quia non amplius ut antea pro pace, & libertate, sed pro gloria certandum erat, omnes bella ? gessisse legimus: ms/1693 zo hebben zij alle oorlog gelijk wij lezen, gevoerd, dewijl men voortaan niet gelijk te voren, voor de vrijheid en vrede, maar voor de roem en eer te strijden had; 1694 dewijl toen niet langer voor de vrede en vrijheid, maar om de roem te strijden was, lezen wij, dat alle, (...) den oorlog gevoerd hebben.
But more often the result is a construction that hardly can be called Dutch anymore:
3:137,20 ideoque, ne earum aliqua negligeretur, unam scribendam & aliam legendam voluerunt: 1694 en daarom hebben zij op dat niets daar van verwaarloosd zoude worden, een dat geschreven en een ander dat gelezen zoude worden, gewilt.
Wrong translations sometimes occur, when 1694 is translating on his own:
3:129,10 quae communis superstitio vulgus deprendere non sinit: 1693 die't algemeen bijgeloof 't gemeen volk niet toelaat t'achterhalen; ms de welke uit oorzaak van 't gemeen waan geloof niet van 't gemeen volk bemerkt worden; 1694 welke het gemeen Waan-geloof des gemene volks te begrijpen niet toelaat.
Being even more source oriented than Glazemaker, 1694 is more accurate in time, mode and number than Glazemaker is and even than the manuscript:
3:225,31 adumbratur: ms/1693 bekleed werd; 1694 afgeschilderd wordt;
3:225,29 persecuti sunt: ms/1693 vervolgde; 1694 hebben vervolgd;
3:224,34 manserunt: ms/1693 bleven; 1694 zijn gebleven;
3:224,13 capiunt: ms/1693 vingen; 1694 nemen gevangen;
3:224,6 curaverint: ms/1693 poogden; 1694 bezorgd hebben;
3:222,4 tradiderunt: ms/1693 gaven ... over; 1694 hebben zij... overgegeven.
Sometimes more accurate translations occur in the other sources. Not always active and passive forms have been restored after the Latin or 1694 does not recognize them as such:
3:224,13 Hierosolymae murum demoliuntur: ms/1693 zij wierpen de muur van Jerusalem bijna neer; 1694 de muren van Jeruzalem worden vernietigd;
3:224,5 miserati sunt: ms/1693 deernis kregen; 1694 met zodanige ontferming ... aangedaan geweest zijn.
The use of plural constructions with singular subject forms and the suppression of subject forms that can be substituted from the context is peculiar for 1694:
3:227,17-19 Sero igitur animadvertit populus se pro salute patriae nihil aliud fecisse quam jus legitimi regis violare, resque omnes in pejorem statum mutare; 1694 Het volk bemerkte dieshalven te laat dat zij niets anders gedaan hadden dan;
3:9,34 cum autem vidissem; ms/1693 En dewijl ik zag; 1694 en wanneer bemerkt hadde.
In spite of the formal equivalence aimed at in 1694, the translation seems adequate as a medium for transmitting Spinoza's philosophy. The number of translation errors or liberties is relatively restricted:
3:225,6 pro re nata: ms/1693 naar voorkoming van de zaak; 1694 na haar geboorte;
3:135,21 talis notae: 1693 van zo een aanmerkelijk gewicht; ms van zodanig gewicht; 1694 zodanige kenteken;
3:5,9 praefidens alias: 1693 op zichzelf vertrouwende; ms anderzins reukeloos; 1694 andersins mistrouwende.
The number of doublet translations has been reduced in 1694 (cf. Akkerman 1980:132-134). Sometimes 1694 has doublets where Glazemaker can do without them or common doublets occur in the three sources. It is remarkable, that most of the doublets used by Glazemaker in the analyzed fragments do not occur in the Ethics.
3:228,2 authoritatem; ms/1693 gezag en de achtbaarheid; 1694 macht;
3:226,35 precario; 1693 bij vergunning; ms bij vergunning en overlating; 1694 smeeksgewijze;
3:226,30 sponte: ms/1693 vrijwilliglijk; 1694 gewillig en van zelf;
3:225,18 de opinionibus: ms/1693 van de waanen en gevoelens; 1694 inbeeldingen;
3:225,9 flecti ... possunt: ms/1693 gebogen kon worden; 1694 konnen gedwongen of gebogen worden;
3:47,10 docuit: ms/1693/1694 heeft geleerd en aangewezen;
3:49,5 ritus: ms/1693/1694 voorschriften en gewoonten.
Where the manuscript substitutes purisms by loan words, 1694 uses loan words too:
3:48,25 testamenti: 1693 verbond; ms/1694 testament;
3:50,34 historiae: 1693 geschiedenissen; ms/1694 historien;
3:52,34 Deut. 1693 Mozes vijfde boek; ms/1694 Deut.
Although the preface has been worked over most intensively in all the souces, 1694 is deviating most. In 1694 I noted 71 translations deviating from common translations in the manuscript and 1693, like:
3:5,7 quidvis: ms/1693 alles dat hun voorkomt; 1694 iets;
3:5,6 ut plurimum: ms/1693 ten meestendeel; 1694 voor 't merendeel;
3:5,5 plerumque: ms/1693 doorgaans; 1694 meestendeel;
3:5,9 agitatus haeret: ms/1693 aangestuwd blijft; 1694 wankelt;
3:6,8 ad superstitionem humanarum mentium ludibria revolutus: ms/1693 tot waangeloof en bespottelijke dingen van 't menselyk vernuft begaf; 1694 tot de bygeloof als speeltuigen van de menselijke verstanden vervallen zijnde (cf. Akkkerman to be publishes in 2000).
Mostly both translations are equivalent and the choice between them is arbitrary. Nevertheless 1694 also seems to take over revised translations from the printer's copy also occurring in the manuscript:
3:5,5 sine modo: 1693 losselijk; ms/1694 zonder maat;
3:5,19 quamvis centies fallat: 1693 schoon oneindig maal daar door bedrogen; ms/1694 (al)hoewel het honderd maal bedriegt;
3:5,17 in metu versantur: 1693 van vrees bevangen zijn; ms/1694 in hoop en vrees leven;
3:10,14 eo stylo: 1693 op die wijze; ms/1694 met die stijl;
3:5,8 dum: 1693 dewijl; ms/1694 terwijl;
These instances might be 1694's own invention. That seems improbable for the following examples of common translations:
3:8,27 excogitata: ms/1693 bedacht en uitgevonden; 1694 uitgevonden en bedacht;
3:8,28 arcanis: ms/1693/1694 ongerijmde verborgenheden;
3:6,3 animi: ms/1693/1694 gemoed;
3:5,18 memores reddere: ms/1693/1694 indachtig maken;
3:5,28 sibi auxilio esse nequaeunt: ms/1693/1694 zichzelf niet kunnen helpen.
The formal equivalence principle in the translation technique of 1694 makes his translation most adequate as a rendering of Spinoza's Latin, be it that 1694 often forces the Dutch. Although indications have been found, that 1694 did not only use a copy of the revised Glazemaker translation for chapter III, 1694 cannot be judged an edition of the revised translation. The extremely source oriented translation technique aimed at in 1694 made both 1693 and the revised printer's copy of the The Hague manuscript unacceptable for 1694 as a rendering of Spinoza's TTP. Besides, the public 1694 was writing for made him accomodate the philosophy of the TTP to the Frisian Calvinist Machiavellism of his circle and induced him to subtitute Glazemaker's vocabulary by a vocabulary with a greater Calvinist appeal.
The overall picture that evolves from the analysis of the material in the chapters III, IX and XVIII and in the preface is, that 1694 certainly used a copy of the revised Dutch TTP for chapter III and probably also in the preface and chapter IX. The political content of chapter XVIII made him independently produce a new translation of that chapter, in which Spinoza's text is subjected to the political correctness of Calvinism. The The Hague TTP manuscript enables us to establish the interrelation between the three 17th century sources and Glazemaker's translation in a more exact way than Duijkerius was able to do . In the concluding paragraph this will be shown in the stemma of the sources.
4. Conclusion
Sp-----Gl--------v------1693
| \
|---------- x-----z------ ms.
| \
|------------------- y------ 1694
Two out of three extant sources derive from the revised Glazemaker translation (x). Ms is a full copy (z) of it, wheras 1694 also has its own link with Spinoza's Latin. To which extent the editor of 1693 (v) has changed Glazemaker's text is hard to establish. There are indications that the manuscript sometimes preserves the reading of Glazemaker's original and that the editor of 1693 has changed the text; e.g. ms. p.319e reads in dier voegen dat for ita ... ut 3:134,5 where 1693 and 1694 have zodanig dat (cf. Jongeneelen 1987:256).
The analysis of the extant Dutch TTP translations has confirmed Duijkerius' report about the two 17th century manuscript traditions. One manuscript tradition most probably originates from the person who commissioned the translator. The other turned out to originate in the intended printer, almost certainly Jan Rieuwertsz. As usual the intended printer adapted Glazemaker's spelling and vocabulary to his pinter's language. He also revised the text after Spinoza's Latin. A copy of the revised and rewritten text has been used for type setting the text. The revised text itself remained in the possession of the Rieuwertsz family. It is not excluded, that 1694 came in the possession of the part of the copy that had been thrown away after setting the text of the Dutch TTP in 1671 or was authorized otherwise to use a copy of the revised text. Duijkerius information, that 1694 is based on an amateur translation is not exact: 1694 shows traces of 'the use of the revised printer's copy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akkerman, Fokke: Ulrik Huber Oratio III. Vertaald door F. Akkerman e.a. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1978.
Akkerman, Fokke: Studies in the posthumous works of Spinoza on style, earliest translation and reception, earliest and modern editions of some texts. Meppel: Krips, 1980.
Akkerman, Fokke e.a.: Glazemaker 1682-1982. Catalogus bij een tentoonstelling over de vertaler Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker. Amsterdam: Universiteitsbibliotheek, 1982. (Speciale catalogie N.S. 13).
Akkerman, Fokke: "Mots techniques - mots classiques dans le Tractatus theologico-politicus de Spinoza". In: Pina Totaro, Spinoziana. Ricerche di terminologia filosofica e critica testuale. Firenze: Olschki, 1997. (Lessico Intelletuale Europeo 72): 1-22.
Akkerman, Fokke: Spinoza Theologisch-politiek traktaat. Uit het Latijn vertaald, ingeleid en van verklarende aantekeningen voorzien door F. Akkerman. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 1997. (Werken van B. de Spinoza.)
Akkerman, Fokke: "Les traductions néerlandaises du 17me siècle". In: Les textes de Spinoza: To be published in 2000.
Burgersdijck, Franco: Institutio logica. Dat is Reden-konstigh Onderwys, Amsterdam: Nicolaes Ravesteyn, 1646.
Crapulli, Giovanni: "Le note marginali Latine nelle versioni olandesi di opere di Descartes di J.H.Glazemaker". In: G. Crapulli e E. Giancotti Boscherini Ricerche lessicali su opere di Descartes e Spinoza. Roma: Ateneo, [1969] (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo 3): 5-118.
Gebhardt, Carl: "Die alten holländischen Übersetzungen des Tractatus Theologico-politicus". In: Chronicon Spinozanum 4 (1924-1926): 271-278.
Hellinga, W.Gs.: Kopij en druk in de Nederlanden. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandse Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1962. English translation: Copy and print in the Netherlands.
Hellinga-Querido, Lotte: Methode en praktijk bij het zetten van boeken in de vijftiende eeuw. (diss. Amsterdam), 1974.
Janssen, Frans A.: David Wardenaar Beschrijving der boekdrukkunst (1801). Tekstverzorging, inleiding en aantekeningen door Frans A. Janssen. Haarlem, Joh. Enschedé en Zonen, 1986 (1982).
Jongeneelen, Gerrit H.: "The translator of Spinoza's Short Treatise". In: Studia Spinozana 2 (1987): 249-263.
Jongeneelen, Gerrit H.: "The rewriter of the Korte verhandeling". In: Filippo Mignini Dio, l'uomo, la liberta. Studi sul "Breve Trattato" di Spinoza. L'Aquila: Japadra, 1990 (Methodos 18): 483-494.
Maréchal, Gerardine: Johannes Duijkerius Het leven van Philopater en Het vervolg van 't leven van Philopater. Een spinozistische sleutelroman uit 1691 / 1697 opnieuw uitgegeven en van een inleiding en noten voorzien door Gerardine Maréchal. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.
Mignini, Filippo: Benedictus de Spinoza Korte verhandeling van God, de Mensch en deszelvs welstand. Introduzione, edizione, traduzione e commento di Filippo Mignini. L'Aquila: Japadre, 1986.
Simpson, Percy: Proof-reading in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Oxford: University press, [1970].
Spruit, L.: "I manoscritti nederlandesi delle Adnotationes al Tractatus theologico-politicus di Spinoza. Edizione critica". In: Pina Totaro, Spinoziana. Ricerche di terminologia filosofica e critica testuale. Firenze: Olschki, 1997 (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo 72) 185-233.
Steenbakkers, Piet: "Purisme et gloses marginales dans la traduction néerlandaise de 1677 de l'Ethica". In: Pina Totaro Spinoziana. Ricerche di terminologia filosofica e critica testuale. Firenze: Olschki, 1997. (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo 72): 233-247.
Thijssen-Schoute, C.L.: "Jan Hendrik Glazemaker, de 17de eeuwse aartsvertaler". In: C.L.Thijssen-Schoute Uit de republiek der letteren, 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1967: 259-261.
Veen, T.J.: Recht en nut. Studiën over en naar aanleiding van Ulrik Huber (1636-1694), Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1976.
Veen, T.J.: "De lege regia. Opmerkingen over de interdependentie van gescheidbeschouwing, politieke theorie en interpretatie van Romeins recht bij Ulrik Huber". In: Universiteit te Franeker 1585-1811. Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Friese hogeschool, Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 1985: 321-334.
Wielema, Michael Rudolf: Ketters en verlichters. De invloed van het spinozisme en wolffianisme op de verlichting in gereformeerd Nedeland. (diss. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit) 1999.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Anscheinend völlig unabhängig von einander erscheinen 1693 und 1694 zwei niederländische Übersetzungen des TTP. Bekannt is schon, dass in 1693 die 1670/71 von Jan Hendriksz. Glazemaker verfasste und auch im Haager KV Manuscript überlieferte TTP Übersetzung publiziert wurde. Die vorliegende Untersuchung behauptet, dass diese Übersetzung nicht nur für die Ausgabe von 1693 benutzt wurde, sondern teilweise auch für diejenige von 1694. Die von Akkerman hervorgehobene Hypothese, das Haager KV/TTP Manuscript würde beim Drucken benuzt, konnte anhand dieser Untersuchung weiter spezifiziert werden.
NOTES
n1 De nagelate schriften van B.D.S. Als Zedekunst, Staatkunde, Verbetering van 't verstant, Brieven en antwoorden. uit verscheide talen in de Nederlandsche gebragt. 1677 [=Amsterdam: Jan Rieuwertsz] (Akkerman 1982 nr.22; cf. Akkerman 1980).
n2 Wielema 1999:44 note 50; the "doctoraalscriptie" by Jessica van Geel (RUU 1998) Wielema is referring to with an analysis of the acts of the Church Council on p.82-83 has got lost.
n3 ""(...) als Spinoza zeer wel heeft aangemerkt, in zijn Godgeleerde Staatkundige Verhandeling, of gelijk het Antonius van Dalen zegt genoemd te hebben; de Rechtzinnige theologant(...)"" H. Wyermars Den ingebeelde chaos (...). 1710 quoted from Wielema 1999:44.
n4 acta for facta on p.227 and monarchia for imperium monarchicum on p.7; I investigated pp.5-17; pp.129-135; pp.221-227.
n5 Crapulli [1969]. Notes in the margin or glosses usually explained new scientific terminology (konstwoorden), e.g. linguistic terminology: even as a declared opponent of the use of glosses, 1694 could not do without them; see in the table in the appendix: grammatica, constructio, pro verbi nominativo, pronomen, verborum anomalia, quantitas.
n6 Reprint in Crapulli 1969:115-117.
n7 107 pages of the manuscript: Preface (24p.); chapter III (35p.); chapter IX (32p.); chapter XVIII (16p.). See appendix.
n8 Cf. Akkerman to be published in 2000. The implications of this pour condition of the The Hague manuscript for the reliability of the Short Treatise still has to be explored.
n9 Adnotatio 39 refers to p.514 in the unknown manuscript and to p.563 in the The Hague manuscript.
n10 In P, R, S, T and V the signatures 3 and 7 are lacking; in O and Q only O3 and Q3. Cf. Hellinga-Querido 1974:35,45.
n11 Hellinga 1962 nrs.144, 154, 155; cf. Janssen 1986 s.v. tellen, aftellen.
n12 KV 1/3 has signs of a similar break:. Chapter 3 has been copied backward from p.33. This is evident from the line on p.32 and the very small writing on p.30. The puristic terminology in KV 1/3 almost litterally derives from from the Dutch translation of F. Burgersdijck Institutio logica. 1646:95-106. The missing under margins in the dialogues might indicate that they have been added.
n13 Latin glosses in the manuscript: p.11 Quae homines rationalibus brutos reddunt. =3:8,24; p.12 Siquidem ipsorum saluti et non suae fortunae timerent =3:8,34; p.13 Scripturam ubique veracem, et divinam esse. =3:9,11; p.17 secundum captum, et opiniones eorum quibus Prophetae, & Apostoli hoc verbum Dei predicare solebant. =3:10,28. p.163 duas potentias, numero ab invicem distinctas, imaginamur. scilicet potentiam Dei, & potentiam rerum naturalium, a Deo tamen certro modo determinatam &c. =3:81:16; p.167 Dei intellectus. /*Gods verstand; Dei voluntas. /*syn wil; p.177 nullam Dei cognitionem dare potest. =3:8625; p.188 ad res magis admirandum et consequenter ad devotionem in animis vulgi imprimendum. =3:90,5/ *om de zaaken wonderlijk te maaken en bij gevolg om aandagt in de gemoederen van't volk te drukken; p.193 ut plane aliud quam quod vident, aut contigisse audiunt, percipiant. =3:92,2 /zodanig ingenomen *dat zy ganschelijk "wat anders bevatten, dan 't geen dat zij zien, oft dat zij hooren gebeurd te zijn; p.244 exemplaribus, copyen, afschriften. =3:109,26/ noch in welke *schriften, zoo veel verscheide lezingen zijn gevonden. Except for some details like the omission of itaque on p,163, substitution of ipsam by scripturam on p.13 and of posset by potest on p.177 the glosses record the TTP.
n14 Cf. Veen 1976; Veen 1985; Akkerman 1978. Between 1684 and 1694 the reception of Spinoza's (political) philosophy took place at the University of Franeker. Huber critisizes the Aristotelean political philosophy, but unlike Spinoza and Hobbes rejects utilitarianism (Veen p.223). Huber's political philosophy distinguishes between an amoral politica and a Grotian jus publicum universale. His 'politica' is Machiavellian (Veen p.229) and his method of Scriptural interpretation Cartesian (Veen p.240).
n15 The characteristics of what Akkerman calls a translation technique attempting 'formal equivalence' in a very large degree apply to 1694 (Akkerman 1980:105).
APPENDIX: collation of the manuscript and the editions 1693, 1694.