Inserts and omissions in the Calvinist Catechism printed in 1648

The present paper aims to contribute to researches on old Romanian translations, examined from the perspective of translation studies. In this respect, the pursued objective is to set up a typology of inserts and omissions found in the Romanian translation of the catechism printed in 1648, taking into account the main causes which generated them. Thus, applying the methods and tools characteristic for comparative analysis, we shall present the contexts in which the Romanian translation deviates from one of its sources or from both of them, focusing on the reasons which could have determined the translator’s options to insert or, on the contrary, to omit certain linguistic units. In the text chosen for analysis, the status of inserts and omissions varies from case to case, but, taken all together, they may be grouped into two main classes reflecting two different levels of translation achievement: the level of creation and the level of imitation respectively.


Enikő Pál
But beyond its dialectological resourcefulness and potentiality, the catechism printed in 1648 is also remarkable for its richness in material for translation studies.As a matter of fact, a great part of the linguistic peculiarities which characterize this text derive, directly or indirectly, precisely from the fact that it is a translation.Moreover, beside the general issues encountered in case of any translation, this text bears certain specific problems due to the fact that it is the product resulted from the direct translation of a bilingual source-text.We do not intend to insist on the differences between translations based on two or more sources and translations carried out by rendering only one source-text (see also Arvinte & Gafton, 2007, p. 27).We shall remark, however, that, in a case like Fogarasi's translation, not only the polyvalence of the undertaken endeavour (i.e. the translation act itself, both on the level of the sourcetext's comprehension/interpretation and on the level of the target-text's production) increases, but also the complexity of the end product (i.e. the translated text).
The source-text of Fogarasi's translation is a Latin-Hungarian version of the Heidelberg catechism.This bilingual version, entitled Catechismus Religionis Christianae, had several editions, like the 1636, 1639, 1643, 1647 editions and other subsequent editions.Fogarasi's translation is most probably based on the 1643 or on the 1647 edition, less possibly on the 1639 edition (see also Tamás, 1942, p. 11, 129).As a matter of fact, the 1639, 1643 and 1647 editions-the latter one being an accurate reprint of the previous editions (cf.rmny III, under 2167, rmk II, under 672, rmk I, under 790)-are almost identical, which makes the unequivocal identification of the source-edition used by Fogarasi quite difficult 4 .There are two important evidences which sustain the fact that the Romanian translation was made based on the Latin-Hungarian source-text: a formal evidence regarding text composition, since both the Romanian and the Latin-Hungarian versions contain 77 questions and answers; and a stylistic evidence consisting of numerous Hungarian loanwords, including bookish ones, directly borrowed from the source-text, and of a series of linguistic calques by means of which Fogarasi renders the Hungarian source.
As might be expected, the Romanian text does not reproduce exactly and integrally either the Latin or the Hungarian versions.The ways in which the two sources may be employed and combined are much more manifold.Thus, the Romanian translation has sections which are undeniably attributable to either the Hungarian or to the Latin version, but it also has passages which show a compilation of the two models or a release from both of them, the portion in question being constructed independently of the sources, bearing the personal contribution of the translator who, at times, exceeds the very duties of a translator, 4 Certain differences may be found regarding the numbering of Bible quotes.For instance, under 12/8, Fogarasi makes reference to Gen. 2. v. 1, whereas the 1639 and 1643 Latin-Hungarian editions make reference to Gen. 2. 17.Similarly, under 12/18, Fogarasi mentions Matt.6, while the 1639 and 1643 editions recall Matth.6. 12.In a similar way, under 28/16, the Romanian text records only Act.2., whereas the 1639 and 1643 register Act. 2. 39.Another example is encountered under 16/3, where the quote is said to be from Act. 4. v. 13, unlike the 1639 and 1647 Latin-Hungarian editions in which the quote is apparently from Act. 4. 12. Similar to this is the numbering under 18/20, where the reference is made to Luc. 23. v. 13, while the Latin and Hungarian texts from the 1639 and 1643 editions point to Luc. 23. v. 13. 14.Another   .In such cases, however, it is quite difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions, since some of these differences might have been fairly due to the translators' inattention or possibly to misprints, especially taking into account that the quotes do not make reference to completely different passages and that the small differences which may be observed regard only the numbering of the cited verses.In some cases, the numbers themselves are easily mistakable; in other cases the more concise reference in the Romanian text may also be due to the translator's deliberate option to omit certain numbers, possibly pursuing text economy.Therefore, we believe that these differences alone can not be regarded as irrefutable evidence to indicate the use of the 1647 edition as source-edition.
in the strict sense of the word.
Despite all the possible solutions potentially offered by the existence of the two sources, taken as a whole, the Romanian text is rendered by the unequal contribution of the two source-texts, the Hungarian model being much more present in the final product of the translation than the Latin one.The fact that Fogarasi employs mainly the Hungarian source may be sustained by several "translation marks"5 , in other words by a series of signs which unquestionably indicate the use of the Hungarian model, since these elements of the Romanian text do not have correspondents in the Latin source, but they render exactly what appears in the Hungarian version.Such translation marks are: the bookish loanwords directly borrowed from the Hungarian source and the loan translations which appear as an immediate reply to the source-text, certain morpho-syntactic patterns which follow the Hungarian model, certain proper names and biblical quotes, as well as the inserts and omissions, the latter ones representing our main concern in what follows.

The status of inserts and omissions in Fogarasi's translation
Following step by step the Romanian translation and the Hungarian version, on the one hand, and the Latin source, on the other hand, we encounter several situations in which Fogarasi inserts into his text or omits from it words, phrases or smaller passages as opposed to one of the source-texts or to both of them.Naturally, the function of these inserts and omissions varies from case to case.Thus, the inserts and omissions executed independently of the source-versions, for instance, may reflect that the Romanian translator assumes, in certain cases, roles which go beyond the translation act, becoming closer to an act of creation.Unlike these, the inserts and omissions carried out by Fogarasi and which are found in one of the source-texts too, but missing from the other one, may function as translation marks.Basically, the difference between these two categories of inserts and omissions refers, in the first case, to a momentary assumption of certain liberties, despite the formal and content restraints imposed by the sources and, in the second case, to the servility towards one of the models.

Inserts and omissions rendered independently of the sources
On the whole, Fogarasi's text may be placed somewhere between imitation and creation.On the microstructural level, however, both the former and the latter one may be found and distinguished quite obviously.The cases in which the Romanian translation belongs to the paradigm of creation may be illustrated, among other things, by the inserts and omissions executed independently of both the Hungarian and the Latin source-texts.

Inserts placed independently of the sources
In Fogarasi's translation, inserts are usually meant to provide clarifications regarding certain meanings encountered in the source-text, some of them being found in the context of certain loanwords of Hungarian origin.This is the case of the underlined (lexical) insert in: "semeliuri sau obraze" (14/12-13) 6 , cf.Hung.személyek, cf.Lat.personae.Here the Hungarian loanword of bookish origin semeliuri 'persons' , borrowed directly from the Hungarian source (cf.Hung.személyek 'id.'), was probably regarded as being less familiar to the target audience of the catechism, which is why the translator introduces a clarifying passage.In a similar way, the underlined term in: "bătăi sau bintetluială" (12/2), cf.Hung.büntetések, cf.Lat.poenis, functions as an insert with explicative purposes, but, this time, precisely the Hungarian loanword is the Enikő Pál one which is meant to clarify the meaning of the Rom.bătaie '(divine) punishment'7 , possibly calqued on Hungarian büntetés 'punishment' .Another loan translation of a Hungarian word is explained in the underlined insert in: "a ne ține sau ne ispăsi" (16/5-6), cf.Hung.megtartatnunk, cf.Lat.servati.Here the term of Slavic origin, introduced by Fogarasi, seems to be used as a clarifier to the meaning with which the Romanian verb a (se) ține 'to be redeemed' is loaded, as a result of calqueing on Hung.megtart 'to keep, to redeem' .
The Romanian translation also records inserts which are not necessarily due to purely linguistic reasons, neither do they pursue stylistic purposes, but they rather reflect the translator's individual option for a more precise or complete utterance.For instance, there is a term introduced by Fogarasi, but absent from the Latin and Hungarian sources, in: "Trei sînt în cer... Tatăl, Fiul, sau cuvîntul, și Duhul Sfînt" (14/15-16), cf.Hung."Hárman vagynak az égben… az Atya, az Ige, és a' Szent Lélek", cf.Lat."Tres sunt qui in coelo... Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus".Similarly, at the end of the Creed, Fogarasi inserts the term amen 'so be it' (13/24) which is quite interesting, since this interjection does not appear either in the Latin text or in the Hungarian source in the given passage.
Beside these kinds of insertions, there are certain Hungarian or Latin text fragments incorporated in the Romanian translation, even in cases in which they are not present in the source-versions.These inserts show the translator's personal contribution.For instance, the Latin formula "Gloria Deo.Venia Reo", inserted into the end of the catechism (i.e. after the 77 questions and answers), is followed by the Hungarian formula "Dicsőség Istennek.Bocsánat a' bűnösnek" (46/9-10).Additionally, the end formulae which conclude Fogarasi's translation are rendered in Hungarian: "Vége" (48/11) and in Latin: "Soli gratias tibi, o gratiose Deus" (48/12-13).

Inserts and omissions as translation marks
Although the Latin text is also present in the final product of the Romanian translation, there are numerous passages in which the Romanian text undoubtedly follows the Hungarian version, either on a formal level or regarding its content.Among the evidence which indicate the influence of the Hungarian source we could (also) mention the inserts and omissions observable in the Romanian translation, on the one hand, and in the Hungarian source-text, on the other hand, especially when these units do not have correspondents in the Latin version.Naturally, the fact that the Romanian text is exclusively or mainly subjected to the Hungarian source-text's influence may be sustained only in and for that particular passage which records these marks, since, in other passages, the situation could be different.

The typology of inserts corresponding to the Hungarian source
The status of being inserts, attributed to words, phrases etc. found in the Romanian text, on the one hand, and in the Hungarian source, on the other hand, most certainly derives from the differences between the two source-texts (Hungarian and Latin) of the translation.The Romanian inserts which correspond exactly to the Hungarian model, being absent from the Latin version, play different roles regarding the Romanian text's construction and structuring.Thus, among these inserts, we may distinguish certain classes, such as: affective, discursive, syntactic and lexical-explicative inserts.

Affective inserts
In the category of affective inserts we may include those passages which have a rather phatic function and a stylistic role, since they are found mainly in rethorical questions, in hyperbolical formulae or in iterative constructions which follow the expression pattern and construction model offered by the Hungarian source.
The iterative construction is also employed with certain stylistic effects in the warning expressed in: "Din poamele pomului știutului binelui și al răului să nu mănînci că oare în ce zi vei mînca cu moartea morției vei muri" (12/8-10), cf.Hung."Az jónak és gonosznak tudásának fájának gyümölcsében ne egyél, mert valamely napon abban ejéndel halálnak halálával halsz meg", cf.Lat."De fructu arboris scientiae boni et mali, de isto ne comedas, nam in quo die comederis de eo, utique moriturus es".Although the formula itself belongs to a certain Bible tradition, first employed in the Hebrew version of the Holy Book and then reproduced in other languages as well (cf.Lat.morte morieris, morte morietur), its presence in the Romanian text in the passage in which it appears in the Hungarian source, but is absent from the Latin version, is probably due to the influence of the Hungarian source-text.

Inserts with discursive function
Another category of inserted elements, found in Fogarasi's text, rendering exactly what appears in the Hungarian source, but missing from the Latin version, is represented by those elements which provide and/or strengthen the text's coherence on the discursive level, but which do not have actual syntactic implications.These elements mainly consist of adverbs, but there are a few interjections and adjectives too.
A similar situation is encountered in the case of the interjection's insertion in: "Iacă în alnicie m-am prins și muma mea în păcat m-a incălzitu-mă în sgăul său" (11/12-14), cf.Hung."Ímé én álnokságban fogantattam, és az én anyám bűnben melegített engemet az ő méhében", cf.Lat."Enim iniquitate formatus sum, et in peccato fovit me mater mea".As a matter of fact, the passage may be attributed to the Hungarian source due to other translation marks as well, such as the presence of the Hungarian loanword alnicie 'iniquity' (cf.Hung.álnokság, cf.Lat.iniquitate) and of the Romanian verb a (se) prinde (în...) 'to conceive' calqued on Hungarian fogantat < fog-ni 'to grasp' (cf.Lat.formatus sum) or the presence of the lexeme zgău 'womb' (cf.Hung.méh 'id.') which does not have any correspondent in the Latin text. 8In fact, the iterative construction is found in a few other Romanian translations of the prayer as well.Thus, in the 16 th century, it is recorded in Luca Stroici's version of the Lord's Prayer (1593): "în veczij vecilor" (Gaster, 1891, p. 39) as well as in another text fragment from Codicele Todorescu [The Todorescu Codex]: "di veci-/e vecului" și "ve-/cie vécu[lu]i" (Drăganu, 1914, p. 229).Additionally, the formula may be found in the catechism printed in 1656 too: "véciĭ de vécŭ" (Barițiu, 1879, p. 48, 49).In case of the latter text, it is not excluded that this construction has been introduced-just like in Fogarasi's textdue to the influence of the Hungarian text, since the catechism printed in 1656 seems to be based on the same Latin-Hungarian version of the catechism as the one printed in 1648 (see also Drăganu, 1922, p. 164;Juhász, 1940, p. 192;Tamás, 1942, p. 10-15, 129, 131).Nevertheless, it is not excluded either that this very formula reflects a somewhat fixed or "canonized" version of the prayer, characteristic for Calvinist worship, in other words, a particular tradition kept in the Calvinist versions of the Lord's Prayer.For the different Romanian versions of this prayer see also (Niculescu, 2006(Niculescu, -2007, especially p. 48-72), especially p. 48-72).

Syntactic -phrasal inserts: connectors
Another class of inserts is made up of those connectors which are introduced into the Romanian translation in passages in which the Latin version does not record any connector, but they have correspondents in the Hungarian source.As a matter of fact, these units also function as discursive elements, their delimitation from the previous class being solely based on the fact that, unlike the former category of inserts, these connectors also mark various types of syntactic relations (coordination or subordination) on the level of the sentence or phrase.Here could be included several conjunctions, relative adverbs and pronouns, sometimes employed with the morpho-syntactic values of their Hungarian correspondents, as well as certain prepositional (or adverbial) phrases.
We shall note, however, that the use of the connectors mentioned above is not necessarily determined by the Hungarian source only, at least not in all of the cases.There could be invoked, at least theoretically, other reasons too, which could explain their occurrence in Fogarasi's text.Thus, on the one hand, some of these connectors may reflect a prior tradition, these words or phrases being characteristic for Calvinist-Romanian texts in general, which the author could have been familiar with.On the other hand, even those "foreign" syntactic constructions which had been acquired during the translation process per se might have remained dormant in the course of the translation act, so that certain formulae could have been engraved in the translator's memory who could have used them subsequently, even without his options being directly subjected to the influence of the Hungarian passage.Therefore, the only certainty regarding the use of these connectors in the Romanian text is that these elements co-occur with their formal correspondents in the Hungarian text, whether they have or lack semantic correspondents in the Latin version.
Therefore, although the Romanian passages correspond to the Latin version as well, the presence of the connectors noted above within the Romanian translation, in contexts in which they have correspondents in the Hungarian source, but not in the Latin one, may serve as a translation mark, indicating the influence of the Hungarian source-text or, at any rate, a compilation of the two sources.

Lexical inserts
There are several cases in which the presence of a semantically and functionally autonomous lexical element, found in the Romanian translation and corresponding to semantic equivalents in the Hungarian source, serves as translation mark, at least within the given passage, indicating the use of the Hungarian model, all the more so because the Latin version does not record any correspondent lexeme, the wording in the latter one being more concise than in the former one.These lexical or phrasal inserts, introduced independently of the Latin source, usually function as explanatory notes or passages, reflecting, at the same time, the translator's endeavour to be as precise and accurate as possible.
In another case, the Romanian wording is as concise as the one in the Latin text, but it includes an element which indicates the use of the Hungarian source (too), like in: "înaintea dregătorului de afară" (18/16), cf.Hung."külső polgári társaságbéli bíró előtt", cf.Lat."coram judice politico".
An interesting situation represents the presence of the determiner sfînt 'saint' , found quite consistently in the Romanian translation and which is also noted in the Hungarian version, but not in the Latin source, like in: "Patru Evangheliomuri: etc. Unlike the previous cases, however, these inserts are less representative, since they may reflect (also) a certain prior custom of the author or, possibly, a certain kind of standard variety of rendering these contexts.

Omissions as translation marks
Compared to the inserts, the amount of omissions observable in Fogarasi's text is less and they usually function as translation marks, indicating the use of the Hungarian source, since the status of omission from the Romanian and Hungarian texts may be established compared to its presence in the Latin version.In other words, the omission of a word or phrase from the Romanian translation, but which is found in the Latin text, may reflect the influence of the Hungarian model, since that very word or phrase does not appear in the Hungarian text either.Such an example is found in: "Veniți toți la mine cari v-ați ostenit" (10/1-2), cf.Hung."Jöjjetek én hozzám mindnyájan, akik megfáradtatok", cf.Lat."Venire ad me omnes, qui fatigati estis et onerati".

Conclusions
Taken all together, the inserts recorded in the Calvinist Catechism printed in 1648, as well as the omissions executed by Fogarasi reflect a certain translation "theory" of the Romanian translator, his conception of the translation act, in general, and of the functionality and availability of the two sources employed by him, in particular.In this respect, it may be observed that, on several occasions, the Hungarian source enjoys priority over the Latin text, being predominantly, if not exclusively, used in certain passages of the Romanian translation.The Latin version, on the other hand, seems to play a secondary function, being chiefly used as a subsidiary source and, perhaps, as a control or reference-text.As a matter of fact, such a hierarchy regarding the use of the two sources may be sustained on the macrostructural level of the whole translation too, provided that the evidence given by the inserts and omissions corroborate other translation marks, such as the bookish loanwords borrowed directly from the Hungarian source-text, the calques and other smaller or larger constructions which copy Hungarian morpho-syntactic patterns.The predilection for the Hungarian source may (also) be explained by the fact that Hungarian language was perhaps more accessible to the translator than Latin, which he could have mastered but superficially.
The status of inserts and omissions varies from case to case in Fogarasi's text.The units included in or omitted from the Romanian translation play different roles, but, overall, they may be grouped into two main classes, reflecting two different levels of accomplishment.Thus, some of them represent mainly immediate solutions which fall within the realm of imitation, since they are produced as a result of certain constraints imposed by the Hungarian source-text.Others may be included in the realm of creation since they appear independently of both sources, as a result of the translator's personal intervention.Both the former and the latter ones might have aimed, on the one hand, at comprehension, the translator taking into account, first and foremost, the reader he addressed his text to, and, on the other hand, at enriching and nuancing the utterance, in accordance with the addresser's and the addressee's level of competence, as well as with the availability of old Romanian language.Additionally, some of these inserts and/or omissions reflect a deliberate option of the author, while others may be attributed to "slips", in other words, to causes which are not entirely controlled by consciousness or which are possibly due to the bilingual status of the translator.
Certainly, the main cause of the majority of the inserts and omissions encountered in Fogarasi's text is the differences between the two sources employed, i.e. between the Hungarian and Latin texts.It is interesting, however, that Fogarasi's translation does not record inserts which render exclusively the Latin source, in the sense that they would not be found in the Hungarian version, or omissions which are determined exclusively by the Latin text, in the sense that the Hungarian version would include something more than the Latin and Romanian texts.In each case, the inserts and omissions are either independent of both of the sources or determined by the Hungarian source.
The findings of the present case study could be made use of from a diachronic perspective too, examining the prior and/or subsequent Romanian translations of the Heidelberg catechism, which have led to the relatively standard Romanian version thereof.Additionally, the comparative analysis of the Calvinist catechisms printed in 1648 and 1656 respectively would be of great interest, since both Romanian translations are based on the same Latin-Hungarian version of the Heidelberg catechism.Such a study could provide us more information about the criteria which governed the options of those who translated the catechisms in question and, at the same time, it could offer data regarding the reasons which determined the integral or partial use of a certain source.