Translations of Historical Writings Composed and Read in the Czech Lands up to the Hussite Revolution and Their Audience
Abstract
42
Full text
Translations of Historical Writings Composed and Read in the Czech Lands up to the Hussite Revolution and Their Audience1 Marie Bláhová2 ABSTRACT As with most of the Latin cultural circle countries, the oldest written texts, including the historical writings, in the Czech Lands were written in Latin. In Bohemia, the first translations of texts on historical topics into vernacular languages appear in the second half of the 13th century. It begins with loose adaptations of “common historical” topics, such as the life of Alexander the Great, in German and from the end of the 13th century also in Czech. In the first half of the 14th century we can find real translations of historical texts, not from Latin into vernacular language, but on the contrary from Czech into Latin and into German (Chronicle of so called Dalimil). Following are the German chronicles in verse, already translated from Latin. While the Latin translation was probably meant for ahighlevel laic, the German texts were written for the German monks living in the Bohemia, and perhaps for the Prague patricians. Further translations of historical texts were being written from the second half of the 14thcentury. Those are the translations of the official historical works from the Charles IV era into Czech, later also into German for the citizens of “incorporated lands of the Bohemian Crown”. At the end of the 14th and at the beginning of the 15th century, even the “common” texts of Latin culture were translated into Czech, such as Peter Comestorʼs Historia scholastica, Martin of Opavaʼs Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum or the German chronicle of Jacob Twinger of Königshofen. However, the readers were much more interested in pseudo-historical light literature. The translators were among the clergymen, but also laymen, and the translated texts were primarily meant for laic readers. In the 15th century, the Czech history was being translated also outside the Czech borders, mainly in Bavaria. KEYWORDS Translations; Historical Writings; Czech Lands; Middle Ages; Latin; Czech; German Like most countries influenced by Latin culture, the oldest literary works in the Czech lands were written in the literary language, i.e. in Latin. Besides hagiographical legends, the oldest literary expressions include historical writings, chronicles and 1 This study was published as part of the Charles University program PROGRES Q09: History— The key to understanding the globalized world. It presents an extended version of the paper at “The XI Cardiff Conference on the Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages, The Medieval Translator: Medieval Translations & Their Readership” held in Vienna on April 15–18, 2017. 2 Marie Bláhová, Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences and Archive Studies, Charles University, Nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, Praha 1, Czech Republic, [email protected]
MARIE BLáHOVá 43 annals. Clerics wrote these for their colleagues, who then read (and translated) them to high-status laity. It wasn’t until the mid-13th century that lay people also began to take an interest in literary, mainly historical, works. Because they could not read the Latin texts well, these needed to be translated or written directly in the vernacular language. In this regard, however, one must clarify two questions: 1) What was historiography in the Middle Ages, or what was considered ahistoriographical text?, and 2)What exactly was atranslation in the Middle Ages? For medieval authors, readers and hearers, any narrative about the past was ‘history’, and only afew authors perceived history as ‘true’ or ‘real events which occurred’— historiae sunt res verae quae factae sunt3– or retellings of such events, or such retellings written down.4 Ancient and mediaeval historical epics and the biographies of heroes, especially saints, were also considered history.5 Although the focus of the following discussion is on history as atrue record of real events as far as possible, one cannot avoid writings which are on the border of, or even outside this definition, simply because these writings played the largest role in literary translations. As for the second question— what is atranslation?— one must assume that mediaeval translators did not always consistently keep to the shape of the text, often giving loose translations and sometimes just paraphrasing. They also often updated and corrected the texts for their audience, who were usually different from the audience the original text had in mind, and even just used the text as atemplate for creating anew work. As such, the border between atranslation and the author’s own written material is hard to determine. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that, mainly as aresult of social developments during the 13th century, two vernacular languages were used in the Czech lands: Czech and German. It was mainly the nobility who spoke Czech, although there was atrend in the second half of the 13th century for them to use German, sponsoring the translation of chivalric romance into German. Czech predominated in the Royal Court, although the Royal court’s composition in terms of nationalities (and languages) varied according to the status of Czech rulers and the size of the land they ruled. Until the beginning of the Hussite Revolution, i.e. the end of the 1420s, the very highest social classes in most Royal towns were mainly German. German was also predominant in most monasteries of various orders: in particular the Premonstratensians, Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans and the military orders. The rural population were generally Czech, while in border regions which were settled over the course of the 13th century by foreigners, mainly Germans, German was predominant.6 3 Isidor de Seville, Etymologiae I, 44, 5.Similarly, e.g., John of Salisbury. Cf. J.O.WARD, Some Principles of Rhetorical Historiography in the Twelfth Century, in: E.BREISACH (ed.), Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, Kalamazoo, Mi 1985 (= Studies in Medieval Culture XIX), p.107. 4 Srv.H.W.GOETZ, Die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit im frühund hochmittelalterlichen Geschichtsbewußtsein, in: Historische Zeitschrift, Bd. 255, 1992, p.62. 5 Cf. W.FAULSTICH, Medien und Öffentlichkeiten im Mittelalter. 800–1400, Göttingen 1996 (=Die Geschichte der Medien 2), p.33. 6 Cf. J.V.ŠIMÁK, České dějiny I, 5.Středověká kolonizace včeských zemích, Praha 1938; E.SCHWARZ, Volkstumsgeschichte der Sudetenländer I-II, München 1965, 1966.
44 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2018 THE BEGINNINGS OF TRANSLATIONS OF HISTORICALLY ORIENTED LITERATURE IN THE CZECH LANDS Vernacular literature looking at history appeared in the Czech lands in the second half of the 13th century. It comprised German epics, composed by court poets of the Přemyslid kings in accordance with Western models adapted to the Czech environment through historical allusions and contemporary comments.7 Some religious texts were also translated into Czech at this time, including some of the Bible.8 At the end of the 13th century, the first translation of alarge work was made into Czech. This was atranslation of the Romance of Alexander, known in Czech as Alexandreida. The work was based on Walter of Châtillon’s Latin text, Alexandreis sive Gesta Alexandri Magni from the end of the 1170s or early 1180s (approx. 1178/82). However, the unknown translator was also familiar with the German version of the Romance of Alexander, also entitled Alexandreis, written in over 30,000 verses by Bohemian-born Ulrich von Etzenbach (around 1250— post-1300) at King Ottokar II of Bohemia’s court,9 the work extended in the German regions and still preserved in manuscripts in various Western European libraries.10 The Czech Alexandreis, however, is not adirect translation. The author applies ancient themes to the ideological and social circumstances in Bohemia at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries, in particular expressing the endeavours of the Czech nobility and their ideas on the organisation of the state, as well as their status within it.11 From the start of the 14th century, further works were regularly transcribed into Czech,12 especially hagiographical legends.13 These, however, were not translations, but rather loose reworkings of material in Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend. 7 An overview is given by R.WOLKAN, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur in Böhmen bis zum Ausgange des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Prag 1894, pp.172–209; H.-J. BEHR, Literatur als Machtlegitimation. Studien zur Funktion der deutschsprachigen Dichtung am böhmischen Königshof im 13.Jahrhundert, München 1989 (= Forschungen zur Geschichte der älteren deutschen Literatur, Bd. 9), passim; J.K.HOENSCH, Přemysl Otakar II. von Böhmen. Der goldene König, Graz— Wien— Köln 1989, pp.192–195; M.BLÁHOVÁ, Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila vkontextu latinské středověké historiografie ajejí pramenná hodnota. Historický komentář. Rejstřík (= Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila 3), Praha 1995, pp.125–128. 8 Cf. V.KYAS, Česká bible vdějinách národního písemnictví, Praha 1997, p.32; J.VRAŠTIL, České překlady biblické, in: Český slovník bohovědný III, Praha 1926, p.335. 9 Cf. L.VARCL (ed.), Antika ačeská kultura, Praha 1978, pp.55, 58; H.-J. BEHR, Literatur, pp.143–175. 10 Cf. Handschriftencensus. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der handschriftlichen Überlieferung deutschsprachiger Texte des Mittelalters, http://www.handschriftencensus.de/werke/490, [2018-05-27]. 11 Cf. J.HRABÁK (ed.), Dějiny české literatury, I.Starší česká literatura, Praha 1959, pp.99–100. 12 Cf. M.BLÁHOVÁ, Překlady „českých dějin“ zdoby vlády prvních Lucemburků do národních jazyků, in: Cesta krozmanitosti aneb Kavárenský povaleč digitálním historikem středověku. Sborník příspěvků kživotnímu jubileu PhDr. Zdeňka Uhlíře, Praha 2016, pp.65–77. 13 Cf. A.ŠKARKA, Básnická legenda vliteratuře českého středověku, Praha 1959, pp.11–13.
MARIE BLáHOVá 45 These were not the true lives of saints, but rather fantastical and exciting narratives with exotic features.14 Similar tendencies to the Old Czech Alexandreis are expressed in the only slightly younger Old Czech Chronicle of so called Dalimil, written originally in Czech.15 These second retellings of Czech national history, written for the nobility and expressing their perspective on the history of their state and nation, in contrast to the oldest writing of this type, Cosmas’s Chronicle of Bohemia, were translated into Latin in the second quater of the 14th century.16 The wonderfully illuminated manuscript on which the translation was written was clearly designed for ahigh-born, high-status figure. Some think it may have been written for the heir to the Czech throne, the young Charles of Luxembourg, who after his seven-year stay in France did not yet speak Czech. 17 Unfortunately, only afragment of this translation remains. But even this testifies to the fact that alarge section of the chronicle was translated, and most likely the full text.18 In around the 1340s, the Chronicle of so called Dalimil was transcribed into Middle High German verse.19 It appears to have been translated by amember of 14 Cf. J.HRABÁK (ed.), Dějiny české literatury I. pp.98–99. 15 J.DAŇHELKA— K.HÁDEK— B.HAVRÁNEK et al. (eds.), Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila. Vydání textu aveškerého textového materiálu, 1–2, Praha 1988. 16 Národní knihovna České republiky (National Library of the Czech Republic) purchased afragment of the manuscript found by chance in October 2005, sign. XII. E. 17.Adescription and analysis including an attempt at its interpretation was given at the time by A.VIDMANOVÁ, Nad pařížskými zlomky latinského Dalimila, in: Slovo asmysl. Časopis pro mezioborová bohemistická studia. 3, 2006, pp.25–67. Zdeněk Uhlíř looked in detail at these fragments of manuscript, also placing them within their historical context. See in particular Z.UHLÍŘ, Nově objevený zlomek latinského překladu Kroniky tak řečeného Dalimila, in: Knihovna 16, 2005, pp.137–164. 17 Cf. A.VIDMANOVÁ, Nad pařížskými zlomky p.65. Stated hypotheses are summarised by P.ČERNÝ, Pařížský fragment kroniky tzv.Dalimila ajeho iluminátorská výzdoba, Olomouc 2010, pp.144–162. 18 Cf. Z.UHLÍŘ, Nově objevený zlomek, p.143. 19 J.EMLER (ed.), Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant wirt zcu rim wol bekant, in: Prameny dějin českých / Fontes rerum Bohemicarum (further only FRB) III, Praha 1882, pp.5–224; V.BROM (ed.), Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant: die gereimte deutsche Übersetzung der Alttschechischen Dalimil-Chronik, Brno 2009, pp.102–585. Basic information on the manuscript and chronicle translation is given by A.TOMSA, Rýmovaný německý překlad t. zv. kroniky Dalimilovy apoměr jeho kčeské předloze, in: Časopis pro moderní filologii 4, 1915, pp.35–48. An overview of research and analysis of this translation is given by Z.MASAŘÍK, Zur Sprache der mittelhochdeutschen Dalimilchronik, in: Brünner Beiträge zur Germanistik und Nordistik, Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity K12, 1991, pp.51–64. From relatively large newer literature it is necessary to draw attention to: P.HILSCH, Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant. Der Verfasser der Dalimilübertragung und die deutschböhmische Identität, in: K.HERBERS— H.H.KORTÜM— C.SERVATIUS (eds.), Ex ipsis rerum documentis. Beiträge zur Mediävistik. Festschrift für H.Zimmermann zum 65.Geburtstag, Sigmaringen 1991, pp.103–115. To date and used language cf. V.BROM, Zu einigen historisch-semantischen Spezifika des Spätmittelhochdeutschen in den böhmischen Ländern. Am Beispiel der gereimten deutschen Übersetzung der Alttschechsichen Reimchronik des sogenannten Dalimil, in:
46 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2018 the Czech-German clergy living on the right bank of the Vltava, perhaps one of the knights at the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star monastery,20 in order that his fellow knights, and also members of other orders with mainly German membership, could read it or rather hear. The translator may also have been aiming for members of the Prague patriciate as his readers.21 Its verse form made it suitable to be read over shared meals, particularly within military orders whose members were not greatly literate and who would better absorb and remember verses when read to them.22 It appears that this translation was not the only attempt at transcribing the Dalimil Chronicle into German, as suggested by two pairs of verses preserved by chance which clearly come from the Dalimil Chronicle, but which are different from the translation we know of.23 The only preserved manuscript24 of the versed German translation of the Chronicle of so called Dalimil contains as an introduction other German versed text known as the (German) Versed Chronicles,25 or the ‘Abriss’, or ‘Outline’.26 It contains abrief history of Bohemia from the first mythical princes to the start of the 1340s (1342). This is atranslation of Latin texts, specifically acatalog of Czech rulers from the first, mythical, prince Přemysl the Ploughman to John of Bohemia (1310–1346),27 and annalistic records mostly of well-known historiographic texts. We do not know who the arranger and translator of the chronicles is. From their content, one can surmise that he was likely from amongst the clergy. He may well also have been Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, R 9, 2004, pp.199–235. Any relationship between the possibly contemporaneous translations (into Latin and into German) has not yet been determined. Cf. Z.UHLÍŘ, Nově objevený zlomek, p.144. 20 As identified by author P.HILSCH, Di tutsch kronik, p.115. Cf. also A.VIDMANOVÁ, Nad pařížskými zlomky, p.59; with reservations V.BROM (ed.), Di tutsch kronik, pp.18–19. 21 Cf. M.BLÁHOVÁ, Překlady, pp.70–71. 22 Anumber of versed vernacular writings were produced for the Teutonic Order. See in particular U.ARNOLD, Deutschordenshistoriographie im Deutschen Reich, in: Die Rolle der Ritterorden in der mittelalterlichen Kultur, Toruń 1985, pp.65–87; U.ARNOLD, Geschichtsschreibung im Preußenland bis zum Anfang des 16.Jahrhunderts, in: Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittelund Ostdeutschlands 19, 1970, pp.74–126; in brief M.BLÁHOVÁ, Staročeská kronika, p.50n. 23 Cf. G.DUNPHY, Merborts Chronicon: Eine mittelhochdeutsche Dalimilübersetzung bei Martin Opitz, in: Euphorion, Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 107,3, 2013, pp.260. 24 Library of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter G 45, fol.1r–6v. 25 J.EMLER (ed.), Veršované letopisy, in: FRB IV, pp.231–237; V.BROM (ed.), Di tutsch kronik, pp.84–101. On this source, see especially P.HILSCH, Di tutsch Chronik, pp.109–111; V.BROM, Der sog. „Abriss“ und sein Verhältnis zur deutschen Reimübersetzung der Dalimil-Chronik, in: Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity R 10, 2005, pp.137–149; J.ZOUHAR, Im Schatten der deutschen Reimübertragung der Dalimil-ChronikVersannalen (der so genannte „Abriss“ aus dem 14.Jahrhundert). (Ein Beitrag zur mittelalterlichen deutschsprachigen Literatur in Böhmen), in: Listy filologické 130, 2007, 1–2, pp.21–42. 26 Cf. V.BROM (ed.), Di tutsch kronik, p.29. 27 J.EMLER (ed.), Veršované letopisy, FRB III, pp.23 –237; V.BROM (ed.), Di tutsch kronik, pp.84–88. For the catalogue of Czech rulers, see M.BLÁHOVÁ, Středověké katalogy českých knížat akrálů ajejich pramenná hodnota, Średniowiecze polskie ipowszechne 1, Katowice 1999, pp.33–63.
MARIE BLáHOVá 47 amember of the Order of the Cross, and was undoubtedly asupporter of John of Bohemia.28 TRANSLATIONS OF HISTORICAL WRITINGS FROM THE REIGN OF CHARLES IV Under the reign of Charles IV, translations of historic works even received official support. Encyclopaedias and dictionaries could be used for translations,29 which were probably produced mainly for university students to help them improve their— usually poor— knowledge of Latin.30 These contained not just translations of terms, but also alogically organised overview of knowledge at the time. The greatest works of lexicography were the Latin-Czech dictionaries of Bartoloměj of Chlumec, known as Claretus de Solencia, Klaret,31 produced in the early 1360s. They included terminology from all known disciplines. History, which was not aseparate discipline at the time, is only mentioned peripherally in the dictionary with regard to theology and church terminology (beside allegory, anagoge and tropology). The terms for these disciplines are literal translations from Greek. The Czech equivalents for history were the expressions wydorzeczie or vidnost (from vídati, viděti = to see).32 In the section “Artes”, kronycze is given as the Czech equivalent to the Latin term cronographie.33 In terms of historical and related writings, some of the most important translated works of Charles IV’s era are the translations of the official historical records, Charles’ autobiography34 and the Bohemian Chronicle of Přibík Pulkava of Radenín.35 Charles’ 28 Suggested by insertions into the draft text. Cf. P.HILSCH, Di tutsch kronik, p.111; J.ZOUHAR, Im Schatten, pp.29–30. 29 Cf. Z.HLADKÁ, České slovníkářství na cestě kjednojazyčnému výkladovému slovníku, Naše řeč 88, 2005, nr.3, pp.140–159. 30 On the level of Latin in the Czech lands at this time, see A.VIDMANOVÁ, Mistr Klaret ajeho spisy, in: Laborintus. Latinská literatura středověkých Čech, Praha 1994, pp.150–163. 31 V.FLAJŠHANS (ed.), Klaret ajeho družina. 1.Slovníky veršované, Praha 1926, 2.Texty glossované, Praha 1928. On the authors name and identification see B.RYBA, Nové jméno mistra Klareta, in: Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk 1943, tř. filos.-hist.- filol. n. V, pp.1–13; B.RYBA, Klaretovo autorství Enigmatiku, in: Listy filologické 64, 1937, pp.266–267; F.M.BARTOŠ, Claretus de Solencia aPetrus Clarificator, in: Listy filologické 60, 1933, pp.153–157; IDEM, Ještě jednou omistru Klaretovi, Český časopis historický 2, 1943/44, pp.143–147. Cf. also A.VIDMANOVÁ, Prolegomena klatinským spisům Mistra Klareta, in: Listy filologické 101, 1978, pp.193–207; A.VIDMANOVÁ, Mistr Klaret, pp.150–163; Z.HLADKÁ, České slovníkářství, pp.141–143. 32 Klaret, Vokabulář, 329–330. Cf. V.FLAJŠHANS, Klaret ajeho družina. I.Slovníky veršované, Praha 1926, p.18; Mg. Clareti de Solentia Glossarium, 47/2449, ibidem, p.194. 33 Cf. Mg. Clareti de Solentia Glossarium 34/1629, p.164. 34 J.EMLER (ed.), Život císaře Karla IV., FRB III, pp.369–395 (Czech text). To the age of both translations cf. V.KYAS, Stáří dvou staročeských překladů Životopisu Karla IV., in: Listy filologické 93, 1970, pp.271–275. 35 J.EMLER, J.GEBAUER (eds.), Přibíka zRadenína řečeného Pulkavy Kronika česká, (also quoted as Kronika Pulkavova), FRB V, Praha 1893, pp.3–207 (Latin text), pp.211–326
48 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2018 autobiography was probably first translated into Czech while he was still alive. The translation is fairly loose. It has been preserved in four manuscripts, all from the 15th or early 16th century.36 In the 15th century, Charles’ autobiography was translated into Czech again, this time with slavish precision. It appears that this translation was not widely read, and is currently known from just one manuscript.37 Athird Czech translation of this work is also known from one manuscript from the first quarter of the 17th century, although as yet this has not received attention from researchers.38 The Bohemian Chronicle of Přibík Pulkava of Radenín, the third Czech state national chronicle, was probably also translated into Czech during Charles IV’s lifetime. This tells of the history of the Czech nation and state from its mythical beginnings in the spirit of court ideology and propaganda in accordance with the ideas of Charles IV. In its widest reviews, the second and sixth,39 it describes the history of the ‘lands of the Bohemian Crown’ up to the end of the 1320s. The Czech translation was made according to the final, sixth chronicle version. It goes up to the year 1330 and also contains the history of Brandenburg, which Charles IV acquired in 1373. The translator also took the second version of the chronicle into account, however. This covers the same period of time, however it does not contain Brandenburgica, but it does divide the text into chapters. According to explicit of the chronicle, the Czech translation should be made by its author himself.40 This does not indicate the nature of the translation, however. It does not always correspond to the Latin text, sometimes even stating its opposite. It seems that the translator did not understand the Latin text properly, and furthermore had problems converting dates and names.41 The in- (Czech text). On this chronicle, its genesis and the nature of official historical records during CharlesIV’s era, see M.BLÁHOVÁ, Přibíka Pulkavy zRadenína Kronika česká in: M.BLÁHOVÁ— J.ERŠIL— J.ZACHOVÁ (eds.), Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp.572–580, 590–593; M.BLÁHOVÁ, Offizielle Geschichtsschreibung in der mittelalterlichen böhmischen Ländern, in: J.WENTA (ed.), Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa, Toruń 1999 (= Subsidia historiographica I), pp.32–39; M.BLÁHOVÁ, Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung am böhmischen Herrscherhof im Mittelalter, in: R.SCHIEFFER— J.WENTA (eds.), Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung im mittelalterlichen Europa, Toruń 2006 (= Subsidia historiographica 3), pp.65–67; M.BLÁHOVÁ— V.BOK, Pulkava of Radenín, Přibík, in: G.DUNPHY (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle (further only EMC), Leyden— Boston 2010, pp.1246–1247. 36 Cf. M.SVOBODOVÁ, Několik poznámek kobsahu aosudům znovunalezeného litoměřického rukopisu Pulkavovy kroniky, in: Miscellanea 16, 1999–2000, Praha 2002, pp.93–117; M.BLÁHOVÁ, Literární činnost Karla IV., in: M.BLÁHOVÁ— J.ERŠIL— J.ZACHOVÁ (eds.), Kroniky doby Karla IV., Praha 1987, pp.562–263. 37 Moravský zemský archiv v Brně, G 10, č.114. J.Emler and other authors after him considered this manuscript to be older because of its close similarity to the original, something later research has refuted. Cf. V.KYAS, Stáří, pp.271, 275. 38 Národní knihovna ČR XIX A50, fol.134v-144r. Cf. A.RICHTEROVÁ, Děčínské rukopisy ze sbírky Františka Martina Pelcla (1734–1801), nyní ve fondech Národní knihovny České republliky, Praha 2007, p.112. 39 On the genesis and reviews of Pulkava’s chronicle, see M.BLÁHOVÁ, Přibíka Pulkavy zRadenína Kronika česká, pp.573–577. 40 Kronika Pulkavova, p.211. 41 Cf. M.BLÁHOVÁ, Přibíka Pulkavy zRadenína Kronika česká, pp.576–577.
MARIE BLáHOVá 49 formation on the translator clearly just paraphrases the Latin text describing Přibík Pulkava of Radenín as the chronicle’s author.42 The chronicle’s Czech translation was mainly used by Czech nobility. Its members acquired richly illuminated manuscripts of this work also in the 16th century.43 THE BLOOM OF TRANSLATIONS OF HISTORICAL WRITINGS DURING THE REIGN OF WENCESLAS IV The ‘Golden Era’ for translations of historical (and pseudohistorical) writings into Czech, however, was during the rule of Charles’ son and successor, Wenceslas IV. The university which Charles IV founded and supported, along with parish schools which now operated in every city, town and smaller town and where the university’s graduates worked as teachers,44 made an important contribution to promoting written culture and supporting readers of literary works. Now it was not just clergy, members of the Royal Court and the nobility who were able to read and be aware of literature, including historical writings, but also an audience within towns and cities. Although these people went to Latin schools, they preferred the vernacular language. It was for them that translations of Latin writings into Czech were made. But even the clergy often preferred Czech texts. At about the end of the 14th century, the well-known and widespread biblical history textbook, Historia scholastica, by Petrus of Troyes, known as Comestor or Manducator († 1178), was translated into Czech.45 The oldest version of the Czech translation has been preserved in the fragments of the Glagolitic manuscript written for Prague’s Na Slovanech monastery (Emmaus), aBenedictine monastery in which the liturgy was run in Old Slavonic.46 Further— atotal of three are known— manuscripts are written in Latin script.47 The oldest of these dates back to 1404. None, however, contain the text of the whole textbook, but complement each other. The translation keeps 42 Kronika Pulkavova, pp.207, 211. 43 Cf. M.BLÁHOVÁ, Přibíka Pulkavy zRadenína Kronika česká, pp.578–579. 44 Cf. M.SVATOŠ (ed.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy I, 1347/48–1622, Praha 1995; F.ŠMAHEL, Nižší školy na Podblanicku aVltavsku do roku 1526, in: Sborník vlastivědných prací zPodblanicka 19, 1978, pp.133–171; M.BLÁHOVÁ, Pražské školy předuniverzitního období, in: Škola aměsto. Sborník příspěvků zkonference „Škola aměsto“, konané ve dnech 5.–6. října 1992, Documenta Pragensia XI, 1993, pp.26–39. 45 Cf. M.SHERWOOD— P.SMITH, Comestor, in: G.DUNPHY (ed.), EMC 1, pp.1200–1201. 46 Cf. L.PACNEROVÁ, Úvod, in: L.PACNEROVÁ (ed.), Staročeský hlaholský Comestor, Praha 2002 (= Práce Slovanského ústavu AV ČR, Nová řada 11), p. XXIII. Other old Czech texts were also written in Glagolitic, in particular the Bible, the Passional, perhaps even the Golden Legend. Overview by L.PACNEROVÁ, Úvod, s, XXXVI; A.VIDMANOVÁ, Kpůvodní podobě atextové tradici staročeského pasionálu, in: Listy filologické 108, 1895, pp.16–45. 47 The genesis of the text is provided by L.PACNEROVÁ, Úvod, pp. XXIII, XXIX. Adescription of the manuscripts is given by J.V.NOVÁK, Úvod, in: J.V.NOVÁK (ed.), Petra Comestora Historia scholastica, Praha 1910, pp. VII–XIII. J.V.Novák, however, did not know of the Glagolitic text’s relationship to the manuscripts written in Latin script which was identified through further discoveries of Glagolitic fragments.
50 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2018 to the original, with nothing left out or added. He created new words for terms which did not have aCzech equivalent, most of these again being aliteral transcript (e.g.‘vidopis’, “adescription of what has been seen”, for historia).48 There are some sections which the translator appears not to have understood properly, meaning there are numerous errors in the translation. In later copies, some errors are corrected, likely in accordance with the Latin original.49 These younger transcripts were amended in various ways, with some parts of the text being left out, or in turn being supplemented. The translator of the School History was from the clergy, perhaps even one of the Slavic monks at the Emmaus monastery. It is possible that the translation was made along with the Old Czech translation of the Bible.50 Besides the clergy, the laity were also interested in the Czech version of Comestor’s manuscript. The oldest preserved manuscript mentioned was made in 1404, allegedly ‘in memory of Mr. Laut (?), the highest Burgrave of Prague’.51 Likely because of his interest in foreign locations, especially Rome52, the era of Charles IV likely led to the production of the Old Czech version of Gesta Romanorum in the second half of the 14th century. This was acollection of exempla whose tales were set in Rome and whose main characters were Roman rulers, although mostly mythical.53 The Old Czech version is one of the oldest versions of Gesta Romanorum in Europe written in avernacular language.54 The translation was made in accordance with the Latin wording, word-for-word in places.55 Its tales were used by preachers as exempla for preaching, but they were also used in lay literature and folk poetry.56 Under Wenceslas IV, however, the main centre of Czech intellectual life, in addition to the university, was the Royal Court. The nobility residing at the court, es48 Cf. J.V.NOVÁK, Úvod, p. XV. 49 Cf. J.V.NOVÁK, Úvod, pp. XIV–XV. 50 Cf. V.KYAS, Úvod, in: V.KYAS (ed.), Staročeská bible drážďanská aolomoucká. Kritické vydání nejstaršího českého překladu bible ze 14.století, I, Praha 1981, pp.11–14; V.KYAS, Česká bible, p.27; V.KYAS, Vznik staročeského biblického překladu, in: Mezinárodní vědecká konference Doba Karla IV. vdějinách národů ČSSR. Materiály ze sekce jazyka aliteratury, Praha 1981, pp.48–54; J.VRAŠTIL, České překlady, p.335; J.VAŠICA, Eseje astudie ze starší české literatury, Opava 2001, pp.149–150. 51 Cf. J.B.NOVÁK, Úvod, p. VII. Apparently there is meant Filip Laut (Loukota) of Dědice, who appears between 1396–1412 as the hunter on Křivoklát, also the highest hunter, and burgrave at the castle of Týřov. The highest burgrave in the years 1403–1407 was Jan Krušina of Lichtenberg. Cf. F.PALACKÝ, Přehled současný nejvyšších důstojníků aúředníků, ed. Jaroslav Charvát, in: Dílo Františka Palackého I, Praha 1941, pp.344, 347; V.V.TOMEK, Dějepis města Prahy V, 2 ed. Praha 1905, p.47; A.SEDLÁČEK, Hrady, zámky atvrze Království českého, 8.Rakovnicko aSlánsko, Praha 1891, pp.22, 65. 52 Cf. H.PROCHÁZKOVÁ, Die Entstehung der tschechischen, polnischen und russischen Gesta Romanorum, in: Zeitschrift für Slavistik 11, 1966, pp.1–24. 53 J.V.NOVÁK (ed.), Staročeská Gesta Romanorum, Praha 1895. Cf. also J.HRABÁK (ed.), Dějiny české literatury I, p.137; M.ŠVÁB, Příběhy římské— Gesta Romanorum vliterárním vývoji, in: Příběhy římské (Staročeská Gesta Romanorum), Praha 1967, pp.7–17. 54 Cf. M.ŠVÁB, Příběhy římské, pp.12–13. 55 Cf. J.V.NOVÁK, Staročeská gesta Romanorum, p. XX. 56 Cf. J.V.NOVÁK, Úvod, p. XII.
MARIE BLáHOVá 57 the laity, Czech nobility, and perhaps also educated Czech-speaking burghers. At the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century, universal histories were also translated into Czech. In particular, these included Petrus Comestor’s Historia scholastica, whose translation was probably originally aimed at the religious, most likely Benedictines, and specifically monks at the Na Slovanech monastery, but soon spread to the educated laity. At the same time, the papal section of Martin of Opava’s Chronicle of Popes and Emperors, and Jakob Twinger of Königshofen’s German Chronicle were translated. They were translated by the lower nobleman— layman, and were aimed at readers from their own social class. In fact, however, they were read by amuch wider section of society simply because the manuscript was printed at the end of the 15thcentury. The nobility and burghers, however, were much more interested in literature for entertainment, whose tales were set in the past but were far from historical reality. The nobility and burghers wanted fantastic tales, exciting narratives, exotic subjects and legends. The quality of the translations varied. For some translations, it is clear that the translator did not always understand the base text properly, and there were problems with difficult text being mechanically transcribed without ensuring it made sense, or such sections being left out. Sometimes, however, the transcribers who wrote the text were not afraid to refer to the original and correct questionable sections.