cold.223 Sancho did, however, allow that the pope had the authority to permit the use of the vernacular should he deem it expedient.224 In late July or early June Cristoforo of Padua (1500-1569), the general of the Augustinian Hermits (1555-1569), wrote a paper on the thirteen articles, in which with regard to the ninth he made the usual point that a literary language was more suitable for the divine mysteries than a vernacular, adding that Moses had had to write Scripture in his mother tongue (materna lingua) since there was no other language at the time.225 He too cites Gregory VII's epistle, although he correctly states that it was addressed to the Duke of the Bohemians,226 and then gives yet another misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:16: Paul was referring either to the sermon or the Biblical reading but not to the divine office as such.227 Cristoforo, however, did make one valid point not hitherto recorded in the acts of the Council: mass had been said in a mother tongue in places where there was only one language, as had been the case with the Greeks before Greek had been corrupted and hence the use of a vernacular was not intrinsically wrong.228 When the draft doctrinal treatise on the sacrifice of the mass and the twelve canons accompanying it which had been drawn up for submission to the Council fathers was distributed on 6 August 1562, it became clear that the more extreme views of theologians such as Sancho had not been taken into account. The use of the vernacular is dealt with in the treatise in c. iv on rites and ceremonies: unlike in the doctrinal treatise of 1552 there is no reference to the superscription on the Cross, no description of Latin as a divine instrument, merely the statement that if mass were celebrated in the vernacular of every people there would be less reverence for the divine mysteries. Moreover, if there were errors in the many translations it might appear that there were differing mysteries, not common ones. However, there were certain parts of the mass which all must understand, such as the scriptural readings, which must be explained to the people especially on feast days.229 The wording of the tenth canon

On such misinterpretations of 1 Corinthians 14 see above notes 59-64, 169; 174, 217 and below 227. Ibidem: Possit tamen Pontifex Maximus statuere contrarium, sicut judicaverit expedire. On Sancho and the Council see Gutirrez, Espaoles 436-439. 225 Super praedictis articulis explicatio et decisio, ed. CT, xiii, l, 708-714, see 713. His paper must antedate 6 August when the draft doctrinal treatise and 13 canons were distributed. 226 Ibidem: duci Bohemorum. 227 Ibidem. On similar misinterpretations of 1 Corinthians 14 see above notes 59-64, 169, 174, 217 and 223. 228 Ibidem: Non est dubium, quod dicta sit aliquando missa materna lingua, ubi non est nisi una lingua, ut apud Graecos, antequam corrupta esset. Ex suo igitur genere non est malum. Schmidt, Liturgie 132, stated that not one of Cristoforo's arguments against the use of the vernacular was valid, which, however, ignores this final point. On the role which Cristoforo played at the Council see Zumkeller, Augustiner-Eremiten 532-533. 229 Doctrina de sacrificio missae, ed. CT viii, 751-754, see c. iv: De ritibus et caeremoniis, quae in missae celebratione adhibentur, ibid. 753-754, see 753: Lingua etiam latina, qua missae in occidentali ecclesia celebrantur, maxime congruit; si quidem ea pluribus nationibus communis est, neque videtur esse dubitandum, quin, si missae vulgari cuiusque gentis idiomate peragerentur, divina mysteria minori reverentia colerentur. Esset etiam magnopere

224 223

on the use of the vernacular is the same as that part of the eleventh of 1552 dealing with it, viz. anyone who claims that mass cannot be celebrated other than in the vernacular is anathema.230 The treatise and the canons were discussed in nine general congregations from 11 to 27 August and once again those bishops in whose dioceses the Slavonic liturgy was in use took an active part in the debates. On the first day Antonio Elio ( 1576), bishop of Pola (1548-1572), objected to the wording of the tenth canon and wished to have it replaced by one in which specific reference was made to ecclesiastical permission for the use of the vernacular.231 Muzio Calini (1525-1570), archbishop of Zara (1555-1566), objected on principle to any condemnation of the use of the vernacular and pointed out that in Dalmatia even in those churches in which Latin was used the Gospel was read twice, first in Latin and then in Dalmatian.232 On 18 August Bishop Giovanni Alberto Duimio de Gliricis (=Glirii) of Veglia (Krk, 1550-1564) bluntly stated that the reason given in the treatise for the retention of Latin was not good233 and that the sole reason for its retention was habit.234 The debates revealed, however, that for

Little is known of the activity of the commission as its work was not discussed at the general congregations262 and indeed such an undertaking was scarcely a suitable task for a council.263 It was thus decided on 4 December 1563, the second and last day of the final 25th session of the Council, that although the Commission had completed its task of compiling the rules for ecclesiastical censorship, the number and variety of individual books to be examined surpassed the capabilities of the Council to judge them all properly and it was thus decided to submit what had already been achieved to the pope's judgement and to leave the rest to be finished under his authority at Rome.264 The final touches were put to the revision at Rome and the index was published there in late March 1564.265 The index is prefaced by Pope Pius IV's bull Dominicis gregis custodias of 24 March 1564, in which the reasons for the compilation are explained and the penalties for those who read or possess prohibited books are outlined.266 This is followed by a preface by the secretary of the commission of the Council, the Portuguese Dominican Francisco Foreiro (1523-1581),267 in which he explains how the revision has been compiled on the basis of the 1559 index.268 This is then followed by the ten rules drawn up by the Council commission for ecclesiastical censorship, which are without doubt the most lasting achievement of the commission's work as they remained, despite some subsequent revision, the basis for ecclesiastical censorship down to the 20th century.269 The fourth of the ten rules concerns vernacular translations of Scripture: whereas formerly no such translation could be read without the express permission of the Holy Office at Rome,270 now the rule had been relaxed to allow all those who would profit by reading Catholic vernacular translations to do so provided that their parish priest or confessor had obtained written permission from the diocesan bishop or inquisitor.271 Although the new index was still strict, it was a vast improvement
On its work see De Bujanda, Index viii, 78-94; Ehses, Vorgeschichte 71-77; idem in CT ix, 1104, n. 1; Pastor, Geschichte vii, 300-302; Reusch, Index i, 312-321. 263 As Ehses, Vorgeschichte 77, rightly pointed out. 264 Ed. CT ix, 1106; De Bujanda, Index viii, 96: Audiens nunc, huic operi ab eis extremam manum impositam esse, nec tamen ob librorum varietatem et multitudinem distincte et commode possit a sancta synodo diiudicare: praecepit, ut, quidquid ab illis praestitum est, Sanctissimo Romano Pontifici exhibeatur, ut eius iudicio atque auctoritate terminetur et evulgetur. This decree had been drawn up by Francisco Foreiro, on whom see below note 267. 265 Index Librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos, auctoritate Sanctiss. D.N. Pii IIII, Pont. Max. comprobatus. Facsimile in De Bujanda, Index viii, 802-872; reprint in Reusch, Librorum 243-281; on the contents see idem, Index i, 326-329, and De Bujanda, Index viii, 347-707, who also describes the final work on it at Rome, ibid. viii, 97-99. 266 Ed. Reusch, Librorum 243-245; De Bujanda, Index viii, 803-808. 267 On his participation in the Council see Gutirrez, Espaoles 402-406. 268 Ed. De Bujanda, Index viii, 809-812; Reusch, Librorum 245-247; on his preface see idem, Index i, 321-330. 269 Regulae indicis, ed. Reusch, Librorum 247-251; De Bujanda, Index viii, 813-822 (facsimile reprint); Chdozeau, Bible 25-29, with a French translation, ibid. 30-35. On the rules see Reusch, Index i, 330-341; De Bujanda, Index viii, 92-94 and 150-153. That they had been drawn up by the commission is revealed by Foreiro's letter of 3 December 1593, ed. CT ix, 1104, n. 1, on which see De Bujanda, Index viii, 95-96. 270 See above note 186. 271 Ed. Reusch, Librorum 248; De Bujanda, Index viii, 815-816; Chdozeau, Bible 26-27:

whose sees were populated by Slavs who did not use Slavonic. Thus in 1558, the year in which Bishop Stanislas Hosius of Ermland (Warmia, 1551-1579) was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul IV to give advice on how to stop the spread of Protestantism and later became one of the Council legates during the third session,287 the bishop published at Dillingen a book in dialogue form between Arator, Cultivator, a Catholic protagonist, and Harpago, Curmudgeon, his Protestant antagonist, about whether the chalice should be given to the laity, whether women should be admitted to the priesthood and whether the vernacular should be used in the liturgy,288 in which he pointed out that over six hundred years had passed since Cyril and Methodius had obtained permission from the Apostolic See to use Slavonic in the liturgy and there might still be some who remembered that it had been used in the Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz in Poland,289 but probably because more people understood Latin than Slavonic and for other reasons it had ceased to be used as a liturgical language. It was well known that Cyril and Methodius had obtained permission to use it since it was they who had converted the Moravians to the faith but the use of Slavonic, to which the Moravians' language had been closer than Polish was, had not lasted long either in Moravia or Poland as its use had been seen to be more detrimental than advantageous and had thus been replaced by Latin. There was scarcely any language under the sun more widely used than Slav: Bohemians, Moravians, Cashubians, Russians (viz. Ruthenians), Muscovites, Dalmatians,
L'Indice de' Libri Proibiti non valesse alterare questa comune consuetudine, il che sarebbe impossibile, si ancora perch detta lingua schiava antica non la volgare, e materna di quei populi, anzi loro cos oscura, come quasi a nostri idioti Italiani la Latina. 287 On him see above notes 192 and 206. 288 Dialogus de eo, num calicem laicis, et uxores sacerdotibus permitti, ac divina officia vulgari lingua peragi fas sit. For the editio princeps at Dillingen in 1558 see VD 16, ix, H 5148, and Klaiber, Kontroverstheologen no. 1602 (where later editions are also listed). The editio princeps was here consulted. 289 Inspired by the establishment of the Benedictine monastery of the Glagolitic rite at Prague in 1347, on which see above notes 54-55, King Ladislas II (1386-1434) and Queen Hedwig (Jadwiga, 1384-1399) of Poland by a charter of 28 July 1390 established a similar foundation for 30 Benedictine monks at Kleparz on the outskirts of Cracow with an annual endowment of 20 Polish marks (1 mark=88 groschen), for which establishment the first monks were to come from the monastery at Prague, see the accounts of its foundation by Jan D ugosz (14151480) in his Historiae Polonicae libri xii, ed. Prze dziecki, Joannis xii, 487-488, and Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis, ed. ibid. ix, 225-226, with an edition of Ladislas' charter ibid. ix, 226-227. His accounts make it abundantly clear that it was Hedwig's initiative, by the time of whose death in 1399 a modest chapel had been built. There is, however, no record of any further great interest in the foundation: the Glagolitic rite in Slavonic lasted less than a hundred years and disappeared between 1457 and 1480 since D ugosz ( 1480) reports that for lack of a priest of the rite Georgius Lithvos now celebrated in Latin, ed. ibid. ix, 226, while the terminus post quem non is given by the Polish historian Matthias of Michau (Miechw, 1457-1525), who records in his Chronica polonorum, i, 13, l, ed. Pistorius, Historiae ii, 1-259, see 15: Qui mos ad tempora mea circa Cracoviam in Ecclesia sanctae Crucis in Clepardia observatus, sed iam extinctus est. The many hypotheses advanced regarding Hedwig's motivation need not be examined here, nec alibi, quoniam testimonia desunt, as Slobodan Fomi was wont to say. The editio princeps of Matthias' Chronica appeared at Cracow in 1519 but was confiscated and a revised version published there in 1521. It first became available in Western Europe when published by Johannes Pistorius (1546-1608) in his collection of works on Poland at Basel in 1582. The Italian translation of the Chronica which is sometimes listed as having been published at Venice in 1562 is a ghost work and is probably a confusion with the Italian translation of another of Matthias' works, Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, which appeared at Venice in 1561, see Ciampi, Bibliographia i, 346, no. 68. For Matthias' account of Cyril and Methodius see below note 308.

where Greek is also partly used.296 Of all languages Hebrew as the earliest is the purest,297 to which Arabic is close.298 After Hebrew comes Greek in which the New Testament was written and then Latin into which the religious books had been translated.299 He then goes on to make the same point as Cristoforo of Padua: contemporary vernacular Greek is not the same as early Greek.300 In his section on Illyrian or Sarmatian, his terms for Slavonic, he makes the same point as Hosius: it is very widely used301 and for him all Slav languages are dialects of
Mithridates 1r: Quemadmodum autem magna infelicitatis humanae pars fuit sermonis confusio: ita nostris temporibus donum ver divinum et praeclarae felicitatis loco iudicare debemus, totum fer orbem terrarum tribus illis in cruce consecratis linguis, quas passim homines studiosi exercent, denu coniungi: atque harum cognitione non ea modo quae ad hominum commercia, quaeque ad sapientiam humanam pertinent, sed pietatem et Deum innotescere. Quis enim nescit per universam Europam Latinae ac Graecae linguarum usum esse: Hebraicae ver , sive potius Arabicae, in Africa Asiaque totis fer, Graecae etiam in parte earundem? 297 Ibid. 2v: Ex linguis Hebraica, ut prima et antiquissima omnium est, ita sola videtur pura et syncera: reliquae mixtae sunt pleraeque omnes, nulla enim est quae non ab Hebraica derivata quaedem et corrupta vocabula habeat. 298 Ibid. 9v: Arabica vel Punica lingua est, qua omnes Muhamedicae religionis cultores in grammaticis utuntur, affinis Hebraicae. 299 De Graeca lingua vetere, ibid. 44v-46v, see 45v: Vetustissima enim est Hebraica, et literarum monumentis religionem sacram prodidit ea primum, hanc sequitur Graeca, in qua novum Testamentum conscriptum est. Post Graecos Latini et acceptarunt religionem, et suis tradidre literis. 300 De lingua Graeca vulgari hodie, ibid. 46v-47r, see 46v: Lingua Graeca hodie vulgaris non minus fer multis in locis vetere Graeca recessit tum vocabulis barbaris admixtis, tum Graecorum depravatione literis et terminationibus immutatis, qum Italica et Hispanica, vetere Latina. For Cristoforo's comments see above note 228. 301 De Illyrica sive Sarmatica lingua, ibid. 52r-56r, see 52r: Moscovitae Illyrica lingua Illyricisque literis utuntur, sicuti et Sclavi, Dalmatae, Bohemi, Poloni et Lithuani, ea lingua long omnium latissima esse perhibetur. This passage is a literal quotation taken from one of his sources, viz. the account of the talks of the eminent Italian humanist and historian Paolo Giovio (1483-1552) with Demetrius Gerasimov (c. 1465-after 1536), envoy of Grand Prince Basil III (1505-1533) of Muscovy to Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) in 1525-1526, which Giovio first published at Rome in 1525: Libellus de legatione Basilii Magni Principis Moscoviae ad Clementem VII. Pont. Max., in quo situs regionis antiquis incognitus, religio gentis, mores et causae legationis fidelissime referuntur. []. The account was reprinted many times, e.g. de Marne, Rerum 118-130, see 128. This section on the "Illyrian" language in Gesner's work illustrates one of the book's weaknesses: the author uses different terms for the same language since he has not attempted to unify the terminology of his sources; for another example see above note 298. On this see the remarks by Peters, Gessner 20 and 65. Nevertheless, in dwelling on the wide use of Slavonic he rightly claims that the term "Sclavonic" is an incorrect one to denominate the language: Slavonica lingua, quae hodie corrupto nonnihil vocabulo Sclavonica appellatur, latissim patet. Mithridates 52v. On the various forms of the word see Fu ak, Stolje a 114-116. The principal source for both Bibliander's and Gesner's knowledge of the Slav peoples and languages was the work Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, Asiana et Europiana, et de contentis in eis by Matthias of Michau, on whom see above note 289. This work was first published at Cracow in 1517 but, as has been pointed out, e.g. by K delska, Pocz tki 66, the two Zurich scholars probably used either the first (1532) or second (1537) of the editions published at Basel of the Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum, un cum tabula cosmographica, et aliquot alijs consimilis argumenti libellis [],

and Muscovy was the pure and unadulterated Slavonic first introduced by SS. Cyril and Methodius. The grammatical, orthographic and lexical revision was carried out on the basis of the norms laid down in the grammars of Lawrence Zizany ( after 1634) published at Vilnius in 1596445 and Meletius Smotri(t)sky (c. 1577-1633) at Vievis near Vilnius in 1619.446 That Levakovi himself was expecting opposition is revealed by his brief preface in which he expressed the hope that people would in time become used to the archaic way of writing and excused himself by stating that he had done as he had been told but would have preferred to write in the common language.447 At the General Consistory on 28 September 1643 Urban VIII directed that the revised text and Terletsky's attestation be shown to him before the breviary was printed,448 but printing was further delayed because there was nobody at Rome to assist Levakovi with the task of supervising it until a certain Franciscan named Petar (fl. 17th century) arrived from Bosnia in 1646. In March 1647 the Propaganda proposed to Pope Innocent X (1644-1655) that Levakovi be appointed to the newly created archsee of Ochrid, to which the Pope agreed on 15 June, so that when the revised breviary finally appeared in 1648 he is referred to in the papal breve Romanum Pontificem dated 22 February 1648 giving permission for the breviary to be printed as venerabili fratri Raphali Archiepiscopo Achridae seu Primae Justinianae.449 The revision had affected the orthography, vocabulary, morphology and syntax not merely of the Psalms450 but also of the rest of the breviary, e.g. vrime Grammatika slovenska s"ver ennago iskustva osmi astii slova i inyh nu dnyh; Karatayev, Rospis' no. 119; Golenchenko, Kniga no. 42. The most recent reprint is that by Yaskevich, Gramatyki 177-260. 446 Grammatiki Slavenski pravilnoe Sntagma; Karatayev, Rospis' no. 206; Golenchenko, Kniga no. 89. See the facsimile reprint by Nimchuk, Melety i, quires 1, 1r-31, 8v; the claim, ibid. ii, 108, that Levakovi actually used Smotritsky's grammar is rightly denied by Sgambati, Ruolo 445. On the influence of Smotritsky's grammar in Croatia see Stojkovi , Poku aj 120-131. 447 His brief preface is on **4: V m' da mnogim' trudno ho tet' biti ispr'va novi sej na in i pisania drevnago i glagolania no s' vremenem' oslad ati ho tet' kogda obiknut' emu. [] Az' sotvorih' jako povel no mi bist', a udobn e b e mn ob tim' jazikom' na im' pisati. 448 The decision ed. Pand i , Franjo 107, n. 127; cf. Welykyj, Acta i, 199. 449 Breviarium Romanum Slavonico idiomate, iussu S.N.D. Innocenti PP. X. editum. asoslov' Rimskij Slovinskim' jazikom' poveleniem' S.G.N. Innokentija Papi X vidan'; Kruming, Katalog no. 38; Kukuljevi , Bibliografija i, no. 55; Bohatta, Bibliographie no. 2287. The breve is found on *2-*4 of the edition in Latin and on *5-*6 in Slavonic; the Latin text has been reprinted by Ginzel, Geschichte app. 98-99, and Jeli , Fontes [17th century] 36-37. Levakovi ' archiepiscopal title was the result of the mistaken idea that Ochrid was the site of the autocephalous archsee established by Emperor Justinian I in 535. The archsee is last heard of in 602 and its actual site is a much disputed question which cannot be addressed here. In the event political circumstances prevented his going to Ochrid and he died at Zara in late 1649. 450 For a juxtaposition of Psalm 133 [Massoretic 134]:1-18 in the 1561 and 1648 editions of the breviary see Kukuljevi , Knji evnici 154-155. All the changes have been made to bring the Croat Slavonic text closer to that of the Slavo-Greek rite and in some cases the alterations take the text away from the Vulgate to agree with the LXX, e.g. 133:14 ne loquantur was ne glagolati, which has become e e ne glagolati, cf. : 884; 133:17 ut perdat, potr biti, has become e e potrebiti, cf. >84. Orthographical alterations include ime-im , gospodan' gospoden', opl itse - opol it's ; lexical alterations include ufaet

480 479

nate a task.487 Was it necessary to eliminate metaphrastic errors on the basis of the Hebrew or the Greek or was the intention simply to restore the Hieronymian text by removing later scribal errors? On 8 June 1546 the Council legates replied to Farnese that it was necessary to remove scribal errors and that only when obscure passages remained would it be necessary to consult the originals and retranslate them.488 Emperor Charles V instructed the Faculty of Theology of the University of Louvain to publish a Vulgate quam emendatissime as the Council wanted and the work was entrusted to the Dominican Jan Henten (1499/1500-1566), who in 1547 published the result at Louvain.489 As its basis Henten had taken the second revision of the Vulgate published by Robert Estienne (1503-1559) at Paris in 1540,490 which he had collated with 28 MSS and two other printed editions. Since Estienne's text had been based upon the 1492 Mainz edition,491 which he had collated with the Complutensian Polyglot,492 the edition published by Johann Froben (c. 1460-1527) at Basel in 1495493 and 17 MSS, the textual base of Henten's edition was fairly broad. On 25 July 1562 Cardinal Seripando, one of the Council legates, wrote to Cardinal Marcantonio Amulio (1505-1572) suggesting that the Louvain Bible should form the basis of the planned Roman revision and be collated with more MSS and patristic quotations.494 The celebrated Biblical scholar Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514-1585), who had begun in 1549 to make annotations on the text of the New Testament, also began glossing his copy of the 1547 Louvain Bible with variants495 and in 1563 or 1564 he drew up guidelines for the revision.496 An ad hoc commission was formed in 1569 by Pope Pius V, which included Cardinals Marcantonio Colonna (c. 1523-1597), Sirleto, Ludovico Madruzzo (1532-1600),497 Antonio Carafa (1538-1591) and Jrme Souchier ( 1571). The work of collating continued but it soon became clear that for the Old Testament both the Hebrew and the Greek would have to be consulted498 and work almost ground to a halt as the result of differences between members of the
Ed. CT, x, 506-507, see 507: una impresa troppo larga et troppo indeterminata. 488 See the excerpt of their letter ed. Hpfl, Beitrge 48, n. 1. 489 Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigata []. Darlow, Catalogue ii, 2, no. 6129. On this edition see Stummer, Einfhrung 175-176. 490 Biblia. Darlow, Catalogue ii, 2, no. 6117. Printing took over three years but it was published in 1540. 491 Ibid. ii, 2, no. 6080. The edition in two volumes has no title page. 492 See above note 92. 493 GKWD iv, no. 4275. 494 Excerpt of his letter ed. Hpfl, Beitrge 307-308. 495 The copy of the Bible with his glosses is now codex Vaticanus latinus 9517, see Hpfl, Kardinal 50, n. 3; on his annotations see ibid. 17-56, 100-123. On his revision of the New Testament see Denzler, Kardinal 117-141. 496 For excerpts see Amann, Vulgata 19, n. 3, and Hpfl, Beitrge 94-95. 497 He was the nephew of Christoforo Madruzzo, on whom see above nn. 87, 128-129, 138 etc. 498 For an example of the way in which the commission worked, which reveals that Sirleto played the leading role, see Hpfl, Beitrge 97-100.

made principally in countries where Protestant translations were available.526 Cardinal William Allen, a member of the commission to revise the Sixtine Vulgate,527 was one of those who collaborated on the translation of the revised Vulgate into English, the New Testament appearing at Rheims in 1592528 and the Old Testament at Douai in two volumes in 1609-1610.529 In the 16th century not only Protestantism but also anti-Trinitarianism was rife in Poland and the first Catholic translation of the Vulgate into Polish by Jan Nicz (c. 1523-1572) was published at Cracow already in 1561530 and went through three editions before being replaced by the translation of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate by Jacob Wujek (1541-1597), which was published posthumously at Cracow in 1599 after having been revised by a Jesuit commission headed by Stanislas Grodziecki (1541-1613).531 In Croatia Protestant Biblical translations had been circulating since the mid sixteenth century: the first Croat (akavian) translation of the New Testament by Anton Dalmatin and Stjepan Konzul was published at Tbingen by Ungnad in two volumes in Glagolitic in 1562-1563 and in Cyrillic in 1563.532 In 1583 the Slovene translation of the New Testament by Primus Truber (c. 1508-1586) was published at Tbingen in Latin script533 and the Slovene translation of the complete Bible by Jurij Dalmatin appeared in Latin script at Wittenberg in 1584.534
See above notes 275-276. See above note 519. 528 The New Testament of Isus Christ, translated faithfully into English, out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greeke and other editions in divers languages []. Rheims 1582. Darlow, Catalogue i, no. 134; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 61, no. 34. Reprint London 1975 (English Recusant Literature, 267). The Biblical text is accompanied by annotations and various other material. 529 The Holie Bible faithfully translated into English, out of the authentical Latin. Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greeke and other editions in divers languages [], 2 vols. Douai 1609-1610. Darlow, Catalogue i, no. 231; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 61, no. 35. It too is accompanied by annotations and other material. On this first English Catholic Bible see above note 276. 530 Biblia. To iest Kxi gi Stharego y Nowego Zakona na Polski i zyk z pilno ia wed ug La i skiey Bibliey od Ko io a Krze i skiego powszechnego przyiethey nowo wy o ona. Cracow 1561. Darlow, Catalogue, ii, 3, no. 7383; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 104, no. 9. It contains no commentary. Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps by Olesch, Leopolita [i], 1r-614r. 531 Biblia to iest Ksi gi Starego y Nowego Testamentu wed ug aci skiego przek du st rgo w ko ciele powszechnym przyi tgo n Polski i zyk znowu z pilno i prze o one []. Cracow 1599. Darlow, Catalogue ii, 3, no. 7389; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 105, no. 11. It has a commentary which was influenced by that in the 1582 Rheims edition of the English translation, see above note 529. For the many reprints of Wujek's Bible down to the 20th century see BPL iii, 420-422. 532 Glagolitic: Prvi del novoga testamenta [.]. Tbingen 1562; Drugi del novoga testamenta []. Tbingen 1563. Badali , Jugoslavica no. 94; Kruming, Katalog no. 24; Darlow, Catalogue ii, 3, no. 8083; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 112, no. 1. Cyrillic: Prvi del novoga te tamenta []; Drugi del novoga te tamenta []. Tbingen 1563. Badali , Jugoslavica no. 103; Kukuljevi , Bibliografia i, nos. 68-69; Darlow, Catalogue ii, 3, no. 8084; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 112, no. 2. The Glagolitic edition has more Italicisms than the Cyrillic as it was intended for Dalmatia, the latter for Serbia. 533 Ta Celi Novi Testament Nashiga Gospudi inu Isvelizharie Iesusa Christusa []. Tbingen 1582. Badali , Jugoslavica no. 176; Darlow, Catalogue ii, 3, no. 8427; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 112, no. 5. 534 Biblia, tu ie, vse svetu pismu, Stariga inu Noviga Testamenta, Slovenski, tolmazhena, skusi Iuria Dalmatina. Wittenburg 1584. Badali , Jugoslavica no. 180; Darlow, Catalogue ii, 3, no. 8428; Vogel, Bibeldrucke p. 113,

translation had not been viewed as being for all Croatian Catholics, be they of the Latin or the Slavo-Latin rite, but exclusively for those of the latter rite and hence should be published in accordance with the Propaganda's decision of 18 December 1626 in the archaic form of Croat Slavonic and in either Glagolitic or Cyrillic.569 Although Ingoli was in favour of publishing the translation570 it was decided at the meeting on 22 November 1632 to leave the decision whether it was expedient to publish the translation to the Holy Office.571 On 17 March 1633 while Archbishop Pietro Massarechi was on a visit ad limina Ingoli showed him Kai' translation of the New Testament and he too gave his approval for its publication.572 At this juncture, however, opposition to the publication appeared. The bishop of Agram, Francesco Erghely (Franjo Ergelski Hasanovi , 16291637) in about May 1633 wrote to the Holy Office that he had heard that the archbishop of Ragusa intended to have a translation of the New Testament published in Ragusan dialect and pointed out that that dialect varied from others and therefore requested that publication be postponed until the other bishops and the monastic orders in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Croatia had been consulted since it was a matter which concerned all and not merely Ragusa. He ended by expressing the conviction that the Holy Office would not consider it necessary to print the translation as it would do more harm than good, just as similar translations had for other nations.573 The letter was read out at a meeting of the Holy Office in the presence of Urban VIII on 23 June 1633 and the Pope ordered that the translation should not be published until it had received the authorization of the Holy Office.574 At about the same time while on a visit to Our Lady's House at Loreto Bishop Giovanni Battista Agati of Segna wrote to
Ma perch alcuni, a quali f commessa la revisione di detta opera, per vedere se ci era cosa contra fidem bonos mores, dissero, che era opera buttata, perch non era caratteri di S. Girolamo di San Cirillo, f messa da parte. The memorandum is anonymous but a note appended to it in Ingoli's hand in the copy in the archives of the Holy Office states that it is by the archbishop of Ragusa, ed. Golub, Quellen 180. 569 See above note 393. 570 See his memorandum ed. von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 110-111; Golub, Quellen 178-179; excerpt ed. Horvat, Obranu 178. It is undated but must postdate 23 June 1633 since it refers to the Pope's decision taken at the meeting at the Holy Office on 23 June 1633: paruto bene a Nostro Signore, che di nuovo si discuta quest'articolo nel Santo Officio se si deva stampare il detto testo. On this decision see below. von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 111, takes testo to be an abbreviation of testamento. 571 The decision ed. von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 109, and Horvat, Obranu 179: Sacra Congregatio censuit remittendum esse huiusmodi negotium ad Sanctum Officium ut in eo discutiatur an expediat et conveniat Testamentum praefatum in ea lingua imprimere. 572 Ed. Rothe, Biblia i, 460; von Erdmann-Pand i , Bibelbersetzung 196, n. 23; eadem, Drucklegungsversuch 109; Horvat Obranu 196; repel, Prijevodu 44. As in the case of Cellesi's approbation, see above note 559, the copy in the archives of the Holy Office, ed. Golub, Quellen 176, has been altered. The date of 1631 for Massarechi's approval in Radoni , tamparije 43, is probably a misprint. 573 Ed. Golub, Quellen 177: L'Eminenze Vostre troveranno chiaramente non esser necessario di stampar detta traduttione, anzi che apporter pi danno, che utile, come hanno fatto simili versioni per altri Nationi. 574 The decision ed. ibid. 170. On this meeting see ibid. 133-135.

the Propaganda urging it not to publish the translation made for the archbishop of Ragusa until the advice of the other bishops, the religious orders, the Holy Office and the inquisitor of all Dalmatia, viz. Cornelio Nassi (1601-1641), had been obtained. Instead of publishing at great expense something of so little benefit to the Illyrian nation, the Propaganda should have the translation examined by several people who knew Illyrian, Greek and Hebrew and if it was considered necessary it could be published for the benefit of all the Illyrian provinces and not only of Ragusa.575 This letter was read out at the meeting of the Propaganda on 4 July and it was decided that the archbishop of Zara, viz. Ottaviano Garzadoro, should be consulted.576 In his Apologia, a brief treatise written in 1639 to show that the invention of Glagolitic script was falsely ascribed to St. Jerome, Kai claimed that this letter allegedly from the bishop of Segna had in fact been written by his fellowcountrymen, who had misused the bishop's name and had thus prevented the publication of his Biblical translation.577 In another short treatise on the various Slav versions of Scripture written at about the same time Kai specified two reasons why his translation had not been published: this letter by some malicious fellow-countrymen and the death of Archbishop Cellesi.578 Kai nowhere
Ed. von Erdmann-Pan i , Drucklegungsversuch 110; Golub, Quellen 178; Horvat, Obranu 183-184, see 184: acci letta e considerata bene la traduttione fatta non da un solo, m da pi huomini intelligenti della lingua materna illirica, dell'ebrea, e greca, nella qual' stato scritto la maggior parte del testamento nuovo, sia poi stampata (se sar guidicata necessaria) beneficio commune di tutte le provincie della natione illirica, non d'una sola di Ragusa, come di presente si pretende. 576 The decision ed. von Erdmann-Pan i , Drucklegungsversuch 110; Horvat, Obranu 184. Ingoli sent a copy of this letter to Cardinal Scaglia, see his note ed. Golub, Quellen 178, but precisely when is uncertain. 577 Apologia adversus eos qui asseruerunt a S. Hieronymo Dalmata Doctore Maximo Slavonicos seu Glagoliticos caracteres repertos esse, et ab eodem universum corpus Sacrae Scripturae Dalmatis Slavonica lingua traditum esse, ed. Horvat, Obranu 169-175, see 175: Atque ita S. Hieronymus Dalmata Doctor Maximus ab impostura vindicatus est, falsitatisque arguuntur illi nostrates, qui apposito nomine Episcopi Segnensis in supplici Libello oblato S. Sedi Apostolicae ante sexennium versionem qua utuntur Dalmatae et Crovatae in Missali et Breviario esse S. Hieronymi Dalmatae asseruerunt, selectamque ex Veteribus versionem nuperam ne typis in lucem prodiret, magno cum damno Illyricorum Sacerdotum impediverunt. It is doubtful whether Ka i himself had seen the letter since it does not contain an ascription of Glagolitic script to St. Jerome as Ka i claimed. Horvat, ibid. 175, n. 13, dated the Apologia to 1638 but it was written six years after the letter, which was discussed by the Propaganda on 4 July 1633. Ka i was clearly ignorant of the bishop of Agram's letter to the Holy Office as he nowhere mentioned it. 578 De variis versionibus Slavonicis, Dalmaticis seu Illyricis, et Serblianis seu Ruthenicis, ed. ibid. 191-206, see 198: et sane iam editum fuisset, nisi, et obitus Domini Celesii accidisset, et Memoriale oblatum Sanctissimo Domino Nostro a quibusdam malignantibus Nationalibus intercessisset et opus perneccessarium perutileque huc usque impedivisset. In later Latin malignare can mean to scheme and Ka i perhaps meant scheming fellow-countrymen. Since in this treatise he stated that the lectionary in Ragusan dialect had as yet not been published, ibidem, and it appeared in 1641, see below note 624, the treatise must have been written prior to then. It is immediately followed by another short treatise in the form of corollaries, objections and responses, Corollaria, Obiectiones et Responsa, ed. ibid. 200-206, in which Ka i expressed the hope that his translation of the Rituale Romanum would soon appear, ed. ibid. 206, and that was published in 1640, see above note 471. It is thus probable, but not proven, that all three treatises were compiled in 1639.

Ed. Golub, Quellen 180-181. Ka i must have seen a copy of this circular since in his Obiectiones et Responsa he deals with them in the order 2-5 and 1, ed. Horvat, Obranu 203-206, as Golub, Quellen 168, points out; see below note 603. 589 See above note 571. 590 The report entitled Non est expediens ut imprimatur versio Sacrae Scripturae facta lingua illyrica vernacula, seu nova, characteribus latinis, ed. von Erdmann-Pan i , Bibelbersetzung 197-200; eadem, Drucklegungsversuch 111-115; Horvat, Obranu 209-214. It quotes the decision, e.g. ed. Horvat, Obranu 210; for the text of the decision see above note 393. The report is undated but there is no reason to assume that it postdates 1634. 591 By quoting only the beginning of chapter viii the report misrepresents the Council's decision; for the full text see above note 238, cf. note 240. 592 It then quotes the refusal of Pope Gregory VII to allow Duke Vratislav II of Bohemia to celebrate in Slavonic, ed. Horvat, Obranu 211-212. On this incident in 1080 see above notes 216, 218-219. 593 Cf. the memorandum, ed. ibid. 188: 4. motivo sia per toglier via tutte le translationi non ben fatte, et piene d'errori, o per defetto di stampatori, o vero de scrittori.
use in the Church since the time of St. Cyril, a new vernacular version would represent danger, confusion and pernicion for ill-educated Illyrian priests.594 If the early translation, either in print or in manuscript, had been corrupted by the ignorance of scribes or the malice of heretics, it should be corrected by experts in Greek, Illyrian, Czech and Polish. The author of the report writing in the first person singular then addresses the question of the use of the Latin script: Of Latin characters used for the Illyrian language I shall say only this: it is ridiculous to write in Illyrian or Slavonic with Latin characters. For all the writers of the Dalmatian littoral of our times who have printed something in their maternal Illyrian language in Latin characters have written (as far as orthography is concerned) arbitrarily and according to the fancy of their own minds so that the one opposes the other in orthography and the one cannot understand the other well. Until now Illyrians (I am speaking of the Illyrians in general) have never agreed amongst themselves about orthography when writing and printing with Latin characters, nor will they ever agree.595 The reason for this is simple: Germans, Italians, Frenchmen and Spaniards learn one orthography through Latin, but the Illyrians are divided, those in Carniola, Carinthia and Styria learn Latin at school through the medium of German, those in Croatia through the medium of Hungarian, those in Dalmatia and the Illyrian littoral though the medium of Italian and all think that their method is best and disdain the suitable characters invented by SS. Jerome and Cyril for Illyrian. The reports ends: For not only the Hebrews, Chaldees, Arabs, Greeks and Latins but also the Illyrians have their own characters which the holy Fathers instructed by God bequeathed to their compatriots for the speech and pronunciation of the Illyrian language and the difficulty of pronouncing it so that it could be well and properly written.596

been involved in drawing up the petition is clear from the fact that it refers to some malicious persons whose memorandum had prevented the publication of his translation in 1633.607 Unfortunately the names of those who signed it have not been traced but since it was drawn up only in the name of the Illyrian clergy608 it is clear that none of the bishops had participated. The Pope forwarded the petition to the Holy Office, which on 1 July 1642 instructed that the clergy should be informed of the reasons why publication had not been permitted.609 Kai' last attempt to obtain permission for publication was his petition to Pope Urban VIII in 1644 in which he pointed out that few Illyrian clergy knew Latin well enough to be able to interpret the Bible correctly and thus it was necessary to have an official translation, something which the Propaganda had appreciated, and they had thus commissioned it. He therefore begged the Pope, who had erected the Illyrian College at Loreto610 and who had permitted the publication of the Illyrian edition of the Rituale, to allow publication of the translation of the Bible, which would drive out heretical, schismatic and anonymous Illyrian versions.611 Since the Pope did not forward this petition to the Holy Office it probably arrived shortly before or perhaps even after the Pope's death on 29 July 1644 and there is no evidence that Kai made any subsequent approach to his successor, Innocent X, prior to his own death on 28 December 1650. He bequeathed his translation to his nephew Ermolao Cassio (Hermolaj Kai', 1686), the son of his brother Ivan (1577-1627) and a canon of Arbe, with a request to attempt to have it published.612 As it was, the first complete Croatian
The petition is undated but since it states that nine years have elapsed since 1633 when Ka i learned that his translation had been rejected it must be of 1642. 607 Ed. ibidem: la Sacra Congregatione doppo matura consideratione decret , che si stampassse, si chiamase Roma il sodetto P. Cassio per assister' alla stampa. Venuto egli del 1633, trov intorbidato il negotio da alcuni maligni con un Memoriale. Cf. his then unpublished treatise on the various Slav versions of Scripture, ed. Horvat, Obranu 198: Memoriale oblatum Sanctissimo Domino Nostro a quibusdam malignantibus Nationalibus. 608 Ed. Golub, Quellen 175: Supplicano dunque humilmente li Sacerdoti Illirici. 609 The decision ed. ibid. 171. 610 Ka i is referring to its reestablishment at Loreto by Urban VIII's bull Zelo Domus Dei of 1 June 1627; on this see above note 412. 611 Ed. von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 118-119; Horvat, Obranu 207. 612 See von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 119. The three volumes of the Agram codex, which include Ka i ' autograph, were purchased from a certain Ivan-Toma Gozini on Arbe and most of the Zara codex was copied in 1788 by a certain Petar Gozini , see Ba i , Handschriften 8-9. The Gozini (Galzigna) and Ka i ' families were later related by marriage see Grani , Ime, genealogical table VIII; on Ermolao Cassio see ibid. 38. It has been suggested that the reason why permission for publication was not granted was that the translation was not accompanied by a Catholic commentary, thus Murko, Bedeutung (v) 83, and Stojkovi , Bartuo 257, and it is true that some Catholic vernacular translations were accompanied by commentaries e.g. the English New Testament of 1582, see above notes 276 and 528, whose annotations influenced the Polish Bible of 1599, see above note 531. However, not all Catholic vernacular translations had a commentary, e.g. the Polish Bible of 1561, see above note 530, and the suggestion was rightly rejected by Vanino, Ritual 109.

See the decision ed. Golub, Quellen 172. Excerpt of his letter ed. von Erdmann-Pand i , Drucklegungsversuch 125. 629 See above note 232. In the early 1750s the Ragusan Dominican Stefano Roza (Stjepan Rozi , 1770) stated that there were no more than four or five complete copies of Ka i ' and Natali's lectionary left in Ragusa, see Vanino, Stjepan 139, and it was reprinted in a slightly revised form in 1784 and 1841. 630 As Bratuli , Bartol 236, somewhat picturesquely put it: In the plans of the Roman Propaganda the Croats were to be the bait by which a large fish was to be caught, the Christian fish of Orthodoxy.
commendation that the study of Latin by the clergy should be encouraged so that in the longer term the very use of Slavonic in the liturgy would become superfluous. The success of the Counter-Reformation was thus ultimately unpropitious to the maintenance of the Cyrillomethodian legacy in Croatia.