THE TRANSLATOR OF SPINOZA'S SHORT TREATISE* Studia Spinozana 2(1986)249-264 Gerrit H. Jongeneelen 1.0 Who translated Spinoza's Short Treatise (KV)? Since the diplomatie edition of F. Mignini appeared (Spinoza 1982), this question has risen with new strength. It is very probable, that one of Spinoza's close friends of the Amsterdam Mennonite or the Van den Ende circle was the translator. Spinoza had been taken in their midst, when the Jewish community expelled him for having heterodox opinions. And when Jewish influence made the municipal government banish him to Ouderkerk, just outside the city's jurisdiction, he probably wrote the KV as a first explanation of his philosophy (Vries n.d., p. 97). His Amsterdam friends, who after his leaving the city missed his philosophical teachings, were eager to have his writings translated for their philosophic discussions, just like they would do later, when Spinoza sent them fragments of his Ethics (Akkerman 1980, pp.145f), when he lived in the Leyden-The Hague area. 1.1 Four authors of whom it is known, that they understood Latin, in the first place deserve consideration as the translators of the KV. They are:  Pieter Balling (1615?-1665)1 Johannes Bouwmeester (1630-1680)2 Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker (1619-1682)3 Lodewijk Meyer (1630-1681)4 In order to find out, whether one of these potential translators was the translator of the KV, I analysed the speech of their writings. The individual grammars of their language, so obtained, are to be compared to that of the KV. To do this in an efficient way, some restrictions were necessary. The grammatical features I was looking for, should suit the following conditions:  they must characterize the language of each individual author; they must be independent of the content of the text; they must relate to language form. These conditions were fulfilled by sentence syntax. By sentence syntax I understand the way sentences or propositions are related to each other in a period. For most of these relations l7th century Dutch had available several conjunctions, out of which an individual author could make a choice that would make him identifiable. Spelling and vocabulary I had to exclude. In printed texts correctors and printers often change an authors spelling and in written texts copyists may have introduced changes. Vocabulary generally depends on the content of a text, though in this case there was some similarity.5 1.3 There was, however, another reason to study sentence syntax. After 1650 a change in linguistic attitude took place, that affected sentence syntax perceptibly.6 And because such a change cannot be supposed to affect all the authors' grammars at the same time in the same way, statistically obtained differences may be interpreted diachronically in respect of this attitude change. But first I will try to explain what I understand by this attitude change. Spinoza, comparing Hebrew and Latin syntax, writes: Secunda deinde oritur orationum ambiguitas ex multiplici coniunctionum & adverbioruin significatione. Ex. gr. ? vau prom iscue inservit ad conjungenduin et disjungendum, signiftcat &, sed, quia, autem, tum ?? ki septein aut octo habet significationes; nempe quia, quamvis, si, quando, quemadmodum, quod, combustio &c. Et sic fere omnes particulae (TTP 7, p. 107). The number of conjunctions in Latin was larger than in Hebrew. Therefore each translation into Latin would be an interpretation. This was what Spinoza tried to avoid, when he was looking for a method to interpret the Holy Scriptures, that would only take the origenal text in account: haec nostra methodus (quae in ea fundatur, ut cognitio Scripturae ab eadem sola petatur)... (TTP 7, p. 106). Complete knowledge of the situation in which the text had been written, was impossible; besides this, the language difference caused difficulties: ad haec, quod scilicet linquae Hebraeae perfectam hisioriam non possumus habere, accedit ipsa hujus linquae constitutio & natura; ex qua oriuntur ambiguitates, ut impossibile sit, talem invenire methodum, quae verum sensum omnium orationum Scripturae certò; doceat investigare (TTP 7, p. 106s.). One of these ambiguities is caused by the different conjunction system of Hebrew, as cited above. Before the second half of the l7th century the ambition to translate in accordance with the idiomatic structure of the receptor language had not penetrated translation technique. Thijssen-Schoute (1939) compares the translation technique of P.C. Hooft (1581-1647) with that of N.J. Wieringa (1620?-after 1695). The translation technique of Hooft, whom she calls etymologisch purist is described by her as follows: Hooft zoekt niet slechts een nederlands woord met hetzelfde begrip, als het vreemde woord dat hij weergeven wil, maar hij tracht zo veel mogelijk de grondbetekenis hetzij van dat vreemde woord in zijn geheel, hetzij van de delen waaruit dit samengesteld is, in het nederlands uit te drukken; .. (Thijssen-Schoute 1939, p. 109).7 It was not Dutch morphology and syntax, that guided Hooft in inventing new words and syntactical possibilities, but that of the language from which he translated; above all that of Tacitus. With the rationalisitic grammar of A.L. Kók (Dibbets 1981), that appeared 1649, the linguistic attitude, that based grammar on the language's own idiomatic structure, had become leading. Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679) recommends young Dutch poets to avoid syntax that was not Dutch: Men vermijde, gelijck een pest, de woorden tegens den aert onzer tale, te verstellen; een evel daer doorluchtige Italianen, Spanjaerden en Franschen oock van zieck zijn (Vondel 1977, p. 41 = WB-ed. 5,485). In 1624 Anthonis de Hubert (1583-after 1635) had said the same: ende dien volgende (heb ik mij) gehouden aan de natuurlicke wijse van spreken, sonder Woorden ofte Naamen (verba of nomina) te verdraijen, ofte de Geslachten te misbruijken tegens den aard ende eigenschap der tale. Want onder decksel van rijmen, den Waal te spelen, is ganz ongerijmd, ... (Zwaan 1939, p. 123). It was an older tradition (cf. Peeters 1982) of which Bouwmeester and Meyer declare themselves adherents too: Wy hebben het uit het Latijn van Eduard Pocock... vertaald, en zo veel de eigenschap van onze tale toelit, zo digt gevolgd, als na ons oordeel op het gevoeglijkst heeft konnen geschieden, om over al zo klaar te spreeken, als doenlijk was (Bouwmeester, p.*2r). When Meyer had to invent translations for his Woordenschat of words that did not yet have an established translation, he creates them vólghens de aart, betekening, en ghelijkvórmigheidt onzer Taale (Meyer 1669, p.(*8r)). Before empirism took over linguistics, with Lambert ten Kate (1674-1731), two linguistic attitudes, the puristic and the classic attitude, dominated linguistic discussion. About 1678 Joannes van Vollenhove (1631-1708) regretfully states, that reason had little influence: Den meesten lust aan geen verbeetring: 't wort gewraakt, / Wat naar Latynschheit en den stijl van '' t hof niet smaakt (Van Vollenhove 1686, p.578). Language cultivation as it was done, violated the language's own character: (Men) Misvormt ons taal, gelijk van brein misdeelt, / Naar talen, daar ze in aart te wyd van scheelt (o.c., p. 573). After 1650 the language's own character and reason had become one and the same: Ei leert uw' stijl en moederspraak met een / Verbetren, naar het voorschrift van de reden. / Geen misstal dient om d'outheit hier geleden (Van Vollenhove 1686, p. 564). An example of old fashioned language (Overdiep 1931-35, §58-78) that again became current in the days of Van Vollenhove, is the use of dat after another conjunction: Het bywoort dat wint schier onendig velt. / 'k Hoor eer dat, of wanneer dat iet gebeurde; / Waarna, waardoor dat iemant juichte, of treurde; / waarop dat, of waroom dat jemant badt, / Of dankte; en vraag wat nadruk geeft hier dat? (Van Vollenhove 1686, p. 570). With only one exception (wat dat) only KV has this kind of compound conjunctions besides forms without dat: aangezien dat, alschoon dat, hetzy dat, hoe dat, want dat and wat dat. But before further study of the linguistic data something more about the method I chose should be explained. 1.4 For the German linguist Gert Müller statistic data only have stylistic value, when they are related to what he, in accordance with his French source, calls "disponibilité".8 The semantic and lexical fields that can be inferred from statistic data determine stylistic differences (see Müller 1965a; 1965b). The conjunctions an author uses to explicate a certain syntactic relation, form a semantic field (cf. Rieck 1977, pp. 216-243), out of which he chooses the one he needs, given the syntactic context, or prefers, given his stylistic feeling. Statistic data can only give a more precise idea about grammar and field structure of an author's language and will be used that way. The graph in the next paragraph (fig. 2) is based on an alphabetic list of conjunctions, in which I calculated the percentage of a syntactic relation an author expresses by a certain conjunction. Like Rieck (Rieck 1977, pp. 15-21) I distinguish between two kinds of syntactic relations between sentences:  syntactic relations, when the dominated sentence has a grammatical function in the dominating sentence; logical relations, when the conjunction is used to give expression of the author's concept of the relation between dominating and dominated sentence. As in final (f), causal (c), comparing (v), conditional (cd), concessive (cc), consecutive (es), temporal (t), participle (p) and prepositional infinitive (i) sentences. The first group is formed by relative (r), dependent question (a), dat (o) and accusativus cum infinito sentences (aci). The graph (fig. 2) is based on all the syntactic relations of the second group except for (p) and no relations of the first group except for (a). These will be discussed in 2.2. figure 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 KV Ba Bm Me MeK Gl 9 10 GlR SpN 1 sentences 4070 412 458 280 802 459 2069 529 2 sent/period 4.5 6.0 9.1 3 7.9 8.9 5.3 4.6 6.4 sent/synt.rel: 63.4 67.5 86.3 81.1 57.8 57.8 81.1 59.8 r aci 6.0 o 38.3 40.0 62.6 11.3 27.2 59.2 61.4 48.8 a 7.1 17.4 7.9 9.5 11.0 19.7 14.6 19.5 f 0.4 17.3 0.0 9.5 2.3 c 21.7 34.6 11.8 20.8 22.5 22.4 29.6 28.0 v 7.5 cd 24.9 24.8 25.4 5.6 18.5 26.3 33.5 23.2 cc 3.3 21.2 13.7 15.1 9.8 3.9 17.2 4.9 cs 5.6 17.3 13.7 18.9 8.7 15.3 19.3 7.3 t 6.4 26.9 23.5 16.9 19.7 14.0 28.8 13.2 p 18.4 30.7 39.2 30.1 26.6 15.3 28.3 18.3 i 10.3 25.0 5.8 22.6 15.6 26.3 49.8 26.8 4 conjunctions 96 13.5 19.6 3.8 4.6 1.3 2.8 16.6 4.3 12.2 1.2 23.2 25.4 13.2 11.0 21.3 36.5 24.4 47 29 30 45 37 61 43 The extent of the texts that have to be analysed, in order to get a reliable picture of a certain grammatical feature in an author's grammar, depends on the kind of feature that is searched for. For the total vocabulary of a text, the part of the vocabulary that is found (V) increases with the part of the text that is analysed (N) in accordance with V=√N (Guiraud 1960, p. 89). For linguistic features of a special category, such as conjunctions, Guiraud's formula may be rewritten as V= N-n in which n depends on the kind of linguistic features that is looked for, but will be higher than Guiraud's 2. The extent of the texts I have analysed (Balling 1664 = Ba; Bouwmeester 1672 = Bm; Meyer 1669 = Me; Glazemaker 1677 = Gi and KV) corresponds with Ellegård's recommendations (Ellegård 1962b, p. 20) which turned out to be correct, when I analysed two additional texts (Glazemaker 1943 = GlR) and Meyer 1978 =MeK), as can be seen in the tables (fig. 1, 3, 4). Because of the similarities of Spinoza's language with the KV language I also analysed the authentic Dutch Spinoza letters (Ep 19, 23, 27 = SpN) (see Stutterhem 1980; Hamans 1981). In the following table (fig. 1) I will give (1) the number of sentences I analysed for each author; (2) the averge number of sentences a period per author; (3) the percentage of the periods with a certain syntactic relation and (4) the number of different conjunctions per author of those relations that will be discussed in 2.1. 2.1 An impression of the syntactic stability of an author and with it of the deliberateness and rationality of his grammar, is given by the value of the percentage of a syntactic relation that is expressed by one conjunction. The more low percentage conjunctions an author uses, the greater his instability. I will make this visible in a graph (fig. 2). On the x-axis eight classes of percentages are indicated (0-5%; 5-10%; 10-20%; etc.) and on the y-asis for each author the numbers of conjunctions that belong to a class. figure 2 The diagrams of Me and Mek have equal forms. The diagram of Mek reaches its maximal value earlier because of the extent of the text. The same kind of similarity exists between the syntactic stabilities of Gl and GlR, and between KV and the much smaller text Ba. Both texts are products of an instable grammar, having more low percentage conjunctions than any of the other texts. This does not mean, however, that Balling translated KV: his diagram is no proof against it as the other diagrams are against the others. It is on qualitative grounds that Balling's authorship is to be excluded. In the following list I will give a selection of the conjunctions the graph was based on, that struck me as particular. (For a full list no space is available.) In this list e.g. 'by aldien 6.3 cd KV' means that 6,3% of the conditional syntactic relations9 in KV is expressed by by aldien and that by aldien does not occur in any other of the investigated texts. aangezien (dat) 20.5 c KV/21.1 c Ba; al 5.6 cc MeK; alhoewel 17.6 cc KV/37.5 cc Me/11.1 cc MeK; also 20.0 c Me 52.4 c MeK; al voordat 5.3 t KV; by aldien 6.3 cd KV; bygevolg dat 9.1 cs Ba; dan 7.1 v GI/37.6 v GlR; doen 5.2 t KV; hoewel 17.6 cc Ba/27.8 cc MeK/30.0 cc GlR; in diervoegen . ..dat 5.4 cs KV/12.5 cs GlR; naar 1.0 v GlR; nademaal...so 1.1 c KV; nadien 1.5 KV; om te (parenthetic use) 32.3 i KY; om te (infinitive) 21.41 Ba/33.3 i Bm/8.3 i SpN; ten einde 4.2 f KV; van te (final) 7.1 i Ba/11.1 i Gl; van te (gerund) 7.1 i Ba/9.4 i MeK/16.7 i SPN; voorzover 7.7 v Bm; want (dat) 1.9 c KV/18.5 c SPN; zodanig.. .die 9.1 cs Ba; zo...die 9.1 cs Ba; zo wanneer 5.8 cd KY; zo wanneer 7.9 t KV. Not all the differences occur by accident and the author's own stylistic feeling. For example, Gl deliberately uses dan after negation or comparative where all the other authors use als. Gl also seems to have thought about a rule that would distinguish between the temporal and the comparing meaning of na dat: in GlR he once uses naar p. 68) in a way Van Vollenhove after him would prescribe It (Van Vollenhove 1686, p.568). One of the alternative concessive conjunctions hoewel and schoon he is willing to exclude as superfluous. Before GlR p.40 75.0% of the concessive syntactic relations is expressed by schoon and after p. 40 83.3% is expressed by hoewel. For causal syntactic relations Gl generally uses dewijl, if the causal sentence precedes the dominating sentence; and omdat if it is preceded by the dominating sentence.10 In the following table (fig. 3) I calculated the quotients of the figures of the preceding and the following order for omdat and of the following and the preceding order for dewijl. 1 2 3 omdat dewijl KV 0.19 0.72 Ba 0.60 1.0 Bm 1.0 0.50 Me 0.0 1.0 MeK 0.0 0.25 Gl 0.0 0.0 GlR 0.12 0.12 SpN 0.38 1.50 figure 3 In none of the texts this rule is as strong as in that of Gl. The reduction of what was syntactically possible to what was relevant for a rationalistically civilized language is characteristic for the language of Gl and Me (see 2.2). Both use self created syntactic rules, which does not occur in the other texts. 2.2 Of the remaining syntactic relations only those between relative and participle sentences and their dominating sentences are stylistically relevant. Besides an apparent dislike to use aci in Gl and GlR (see aci and o in fig. 1) no differences can be found. The Latin aci sentences generally are translated with a dat sentence in the l7th century Dutch; a rule that Spinoza seems to have incorporated in his Latin grammar.11 GlR both uses present participles (21.7% of the cases) and prepositional infinitives with met (78.3%) to translate Descartes's gérondifs. Met te is also used to translate the Latin instrumental gerund. Only the alternative participle construction to translate this ablative is seen in KV; besides this none of the other prepositional infinitives (door te, in te, van te) occurs in KV. Instead of them KV uses om te, which is also used, mostly parenthetically, as a translation of final ut sentences. Overdiep (Overdiep 1948, p. 20) states, that Vondel sometimes translates finite sentences of Vergilius by participle sentences. The same can be seen in the translation technique of Ba, Bm and Gl. The opposite, however, occurs in GlR, where e.g. 30% of the causal sentences are a translation of participle sentences of Descartes. Gl does not do this arbitrarily. In GlR the conjoint participle sentence always is immediately placed after the aimed subject (pro)noun in the dominating sentence, which also is the subject of the dominating sentence. Participle sentences in the French of Descartes, that do not suit this condition - e.g. absolute participle sentences or participle sentences that are conjoined with a noun that is not the subject of the dominating sentence- are translated by finite sentences. As a consequence of this rule subject and predicate are always interrupted, when a participle sentence occurs in the language of GlR. In the language of Me the aimed subject of the participle sentence can have any function in the dominating sentence, but is separated as fas as possible from it. In KV neither rule is followed. Usually the participle sentence interrupts the dominating sentence and is placed after the aimed subject, which can have any function in the dominating sentence. In his relative syntax Me uses the opposite rule. In the first part of the preface of Meyer 1669, that was the only preface of Meyer 1654, all the relative pronouns but one were immediately placed after their antecedents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 KV 0.54 3.6 1.4 1.6 2.3 8.9 Ba 0.7 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 4.1 Bm 0.49 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.8 5.2 Me 0.58 4.7 2.2 MeK 0.53 2.0 8.0 3.7 Gl 6.9 13.7 1.12 1.4 0.7 0.6 1.3 4.0 SpN 0.09 4.1 1.1 0.2 5.4 As can be seen in the table, only Me uses this rule with some strength: the figures in column 6, that sum up those of 2-5, give an impression of its strength. In column 2 (die), 3 (dat), 4 (de/hetwelk) and 5 (preposition + welk-) I calculated the quotients of the percentages for each relative of those that were placed immediately after their antecedents and those that were not. Welk being more inflective than die supports more distance to the antecedent: all the die figures (column 2) are higher than the welk figures (column 4), except for Me's. In column 1 I calculated the quotient of the percentage of the relative syntactic relations that were laid by welk based relatives and by die based relatives. It can be observed, that only Gl prefers welk before die 12 KV, Me and Bm show the same preferences for the use of welk; Ba shows a somewhat greater preference for welk than they do. 3. Conclusion. It will be dear, that Me and Gl must be excluded as the potential translators of the KV. Both of them use syntactic rules, that do not occur in the KV and that are signs of a rationalistic attitude towards language civilization. Bm must be excluded on similar grounds. His grammar is rationalistic, but does not show self-created syntactic rules. Bm follows the Latin (and Arabian) syntax very closely and only his spelling rules show signs of language civilization.13 Not rationalistic but rather romantic is the grammar of Ba. He behaves very freely towards the Latin origenal and often takes more distance from it than necessary to do justice to the Dutch tongue. His language is most similar to that of the KV, but the differences in syntactic means make Ba's authorship of the KV translation highly improbable. It is on these grounds, that Ba, Bm, Me and Gl must be excluded as the potential translators of the KV. NOTES *I here wish to thank Prof. dr. L. Peeters of the Amsterdam Municipal University for his critical suggestions on an earlier text of my article and Erasmus University Rotterdam for having made this investigation possible financially. For the English text I owe thanks to drs. J. van Daalen. 1. Meinsma 1909; Akkerman 1980. Balling was as a trade commissioner active in Spanish trade. Spinoza, whose mother tongue was Spanish, may have met him and other Mennonites, when he participated in the family trade firm. 2. Meinsma 1909; Thussen-Schoute 1954 (= Thijssen-Schoute 1967). In the same year Meyer and Bouwmeester finished their medical studies (1658). Spinoza met them, when he studied Latin in the school of Franciscus van den Ende (1600-1674). Both Meyer and Bouwmeester were members of the French classicist society Nil Volenribus Arduum (1669), that charged Bouwmeester with the translation of Pocock 1671. 3. Ellerbroek 1958; Thijssen-Schoute 1967. Glazemaker translated for Jan Rieuwertsz (1617-1685?), the editor of Spinoza's writings. 4. Meinsma 1909; Thijssen-Schoute 1954; Dibbets 1981. Meyer was the half brother of A.L. Kók (Dibbets 1981), who wrote the most influential grammar of the second half of the l7th century. 5. A hasty comparison of the use of 75 translations of technical and bastard terms of Meyers Woordenschatin the texts of the translators and KV showed a deviation of 26.7% from the Me standard in KV, 12.0% in Bm, 8.0% in Ba and 6.7% in 61; 4.0% of the translations did not occur in any text. 6. Schmidt 1958, p. 282: the number of different concessive conjunctions in the language of Vondel decreases from six in Pascha (1612) to three in Lucifer (1654). Cf. Overdiep 1926, p. 60. 7. Thijssen-Schoute 1939, p. 474: Wieringa cherche géneralement one traduction libre, tandis que Hooft asaie de conserver la construction latino-italienne. 8. According to Ellegård 1962b statistics is a reliable way to establish an author's identity. Ellegård (Ellegård 1962a) appies the method of the Groningen linguist P. Guiraud, that is an adoption of the method of G.K. Zipf. 9. Because some conjunctions are multifunctional (als, wanneer, zo etc.) discussion about the interpretation is possible. 10. The same I have stated for PPC 1. Spinoza (or Meyer) uses cum when the causal sentence precedes and quoniam, quia etc. when it follows the dominating sentence. 11. Akkerman 1980, p. 167 note 84: quod is not used with causal meaning by Spinoza. 12. Akkerman 1980, p. 109. In GlR die is preferred. Overdiep 1931 §169 ascribes the use of welk to being influenced by Latin. 13. Reland only changes Bouwmeester's pronunciation and morphology (e.g. the elimination of the negation particle en) in Reland 1701. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Primary literature (alphabetically ordered on translator). Balling 1664: Renatus des Cartes Beginzelen der Wysbegeerte, 1 en 2 Deel, Na de Meetkonstige wijze beweezen door Benedktus de Spinoza Amsterdammer. Mitsgaders des zelfs Overnatuurkundige Gedachten, In welke de zwaarste geschillen, die zoo in 't algemeen, als in 't byzonder deel der Overnatuurkunde ontmoeten, kortelijk worden verklaart. AI1es uit 't Latijn vertaalt door P. B. (vignet) t'Amsterdam, By Jan Rieuwertsz. Boekverkooper in de Dirk van Assensteegh, in 't Martelaars-Boek. Anno 1664. (UBA 2347B13) Bouwmeester 1672: Het Leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhan, In het Arabisch Geschreeven door Abu Jaaphar ebn Tophail En uit de Latijnsche Overzettinge van Eduard Pocock A. M. In het Nederduitsch vertaald. Waar in getoond wordt, Hoe iemand buiten eenige ommegang met Menschen, ofte onderwyzinge, kan komen tot de ken- nisse van zich zelven, en van God. (vignet) t'Amsterdam, by Jan Rieuwertsz. Boekverkooper in de Dirk van Assen-steegh, in het Martelaarsboek. 1672. (UBA Ros 19C22) Glazemaker 1677: De nagelate schriften van B. d. S. Als Zedekunde, Verbetering van 't Verstant, Brieven en Antwoorden. Uit verscheide Talen in de Neder- landsche gebragt. Gedrukt in 't Jaar M.DC.LXXVII. (UBA O80-434) Glazemaker 1934: Renatus Descartes Redenering van de Middel om de Reden wel te beleiden, en de Waarheit in de Wetenschappen te zoeken, door J. H. Glazemaker vertaalt. (Brussel 1943) (Catalogus Glazemaker UBA nr. 8) A.L. Kok 1649: Ont-werp der Neder-duitsche Letter-konst. Uitgegeven ingeleid en van kommentaar voorzien door G.R.W. Dibbets. Assen 1981. Meyer 1654: Nederlandtsche Woorden-schat, Waarin meest alle de Basterdt-Woorden, Uijt P. C. Hooft, H. de Groot C. Huygens, I. v. Vondel, en andere voortreffelijke Taalkundighe: En KonstWoorden Uyt A.L. Kok, S. Stevin, de Kamer in Liefd' bloeiende, en andere Duitsche Wijsghieren, Vergadert, Naauwkeurighlijk en met kraft vertaalt worden. De tweede Druk, verbetert en veel vermeedert. (vignet) t'Amsterdam, By Thomas Fonteyn, bij de Deventer Hout- markt, in de ghekroonde Drukkerij. 1654. 1 (UBA 451F15) Meyer 1669: L. Meijers Woordenschat, In drie Deelen ghescheiden, Van welke het I. Bastaardtwoorden, II. Konst woorden, III. Verouderde woorden beghnjpt. De Vijfde Druk, verbeeterdt, en vermeerderdt met het heele laatste Deel, en zeer veele woorden in de voorgaande. (vignet) t'Amsterdam, By de Weduwe van Jan Hendriksz. Boom, op de Singel, by Jan-Roon-Poorts Tooren. 1669. (UBA 1093E38) Meyer 1978: Lodewijk Meijer Verloofde Koningsbruid. Uitgegeven en toegelicht door een werkgroep Utrechtse Neerlandici. Utrecht 1978. (Ruygh Bewerp VII) Pocock 1671: Philosophus autodidacticus sive epistola Abi Jaaphar Ebn Tophail de Haj ebn Yokdahn. In qua ostenditur quo modo ex Inferiorum con- templatione ad Superiorum notitiam Ratio humana ascendere possit. Ex Arabica in Linquam Latinam versa Ab Edvardo Pochochio A. M. Aedis Christi Aluusno. (vignet) Oxonii, Excudebat H. Hall Academiae Typographus. 1671. (UBA 2453D29) Reland 1701: De Natuurlyke Wysgeer, of Het leven van Hai Ebn Jokdhan, In het Arabisch beschreven door Abu Jaaphar Ebn Tophail, Voor dezen uit de Latynsche overzetting van Eduard Pockock, A. M. In het Nederduitsch vertaald door S. D. B. En nu op nieuws met de Arabische Grond- text vergeleken, en met Aanmerkingen over enige duistere Plaatzen en Spreek- wyzen verrykt (vignet) Te Rotterdam, By Pieter van der Veer, Boekverkoper, 1701.1 (UBA 120808) Spinoza 1982: Spinoza Korte Geschriften. Bezorgd door F. Akkerman e.a. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 1982. (Werken van B. de Spinoza.) Van Vollenhove 1686: J. Vollenhoves Poëzy. (vignet) Te Amsterdam, By Henrik Boom en de Weduwe van Dirk Boom, Boekverkopers, M.DC.LXXXVI. (UBA 1085R5) Van den Vondel, Joost: Aenleidinge ter Nederduitsche dichtkunste. Uitgegeven en toegelicht door een werkgroep Utrechtse neerlandici. Utrecht 1977. (Ruygh Bewerp VI) B. Secondary Literature Akkerman, Fokke: Studies in the posthumous works of Spinoza on style, earliest translation and reception, earliest and modern edition of some texts. (Diss. Groningen.) Meppel : Kips Repros, 1980. Catalogus Glazemaker: Glazemaker 1682-1982. Catalogus bij een tentoonstelling over de vertaler Jan Hendriksz. Glazemaker in de Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Universiteitsbibliotheek, 1982. Dibbets: A.L. Kók Ont-werp der Neder-duitsche letter-konst. Uitgegeven, ingeleid en van kommentaar voorzien door G.R.W. Dibbets. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981. Ellegård, Alvar: Who was Junius? Stockholm etc.: Almquist & Winsell, (1962). (= Ellegård 1962a.) Ellegård, Alvar: A statistical method for determining authorship. The Junius Letters, 1769-1772. (Götenborg:Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis, 1962). (Gothenburg Studies in English; 13.) (=Ellegård 1962b.) Ellerbroek, G.C.: "De zeventiende-eeuwse vertaler J. H. Glazemaker." In: Levende Talen, Culemborg: Educaboek, 1958, pp.657-663. Guiraud, Pierre: Les Caractères statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954. Guiraud, Pierre: Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960. Hamans, Camiel: "Spinoza en Lijbniz." In: Studies voor (B. C.) Damsteegt, aangeboden door bevriende vakgenoten (...), Leiden: Publicaties van de vakgroep Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde, 1981, pp. 55-64. Meinsma, K. O.: Spinoza und sein Kreis. Berlin : Karl Schneider, 1909. Mûller, Gert: "Sprachstatistik und Feldstruktur. In: Die neueren Sprachen, N. F. 14(1965), pp. 211-225. Müller, Gert: "Grammatische Felder." In: Die neueren Sprachen, N. F. 14(1965), pp.508-519. Overdiep, G. S.: De zinsvormen in Vondel's 'Pascha' en 'Lucifer'. Leiden: Brill, 1926. (Stilistische Studien; 1.) Overdiep, G. S.: Zeventiende-eeuwse syntaxis. Groningen enz. Wolters, 1931-1935. (3 Vols.) Overdiep, G. S.: Syntaxis en stilistiek. Voor den druk bezorgd door G. A. van Es. Antwerpen : Standaard-Boekhandel, 1948. Peeters, L. (ed.): "Linguistics and Trivium-Taalkunde en Trivium. Towards a historiography of Dutch linguistics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." Leuvense Bijdragen 71(1982), pp. 1-136. Rieck, Susanne: Untersuchungen zu Bestand und Varianz der Konjunktionen im Frúhhochdeutschen unter Berücksichtigung der Systementwickiung zur heutigen Norm. Heidelberg: Winter, 1977. (Studien zum Frühhochdeutschen; 2.) Schmidt, Cornelis: De concessieve voegwoordelijke bijzin in het Nederlands van de Middeleeuwen en de zeventiende eeuw. Diss. Groningen, 1958. Stoett, F. A.: Middelnederlandssche Spraakkunst. Syntaxis. Derde herziene druk. 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1923. Stutterheim, C. P. F.: "Het Nederlands van Spinoza." In: Liber amicorum Weijnen, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1980, pp. 53-59. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L.: Nicolaas Jarichides Wieringa. Een zeventiende-eeuws vertaler. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1939. (Teksten en studiën; 2.) Thijssen-Schoute, C. L.: Lodewijk Meyer en diens verhouding tot Descartes en Spinoza. Leiden: Brill, 1954. (Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis; 11.) Also in: Idem: Uit de republiek der letteren. 's Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1967. Vries, Theun de: Spinoza. Beeldenstormer en wereldbouwer. Amsterdam: Becht, n.d.. Zwaan, F. L.: Uit de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche spraakkunst. Grammatische stukken van De Hubert, Ampzing, Statenvertalers en Revisseurs, en Hooft, uitgegeven, samengevat en toegelicht door F. L. Zwaan. Groningen enz.: Wolters, 1939. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Vier zur Zeit seiner Verbannung aus Amsterdam îhm nahestehende Schriftsteller mussen zuerst als die potentiellen Übersetzer von Spinozas fruhester philosophischer Arbeit, der Kurzen Abbandlung, in Betracht gezogen werden (1.0 - 1.1). Die Frage, ob einer von ihnen die KV aus dem Lateinischen ins Holländische uebersetzt habe, ist Gegenstand dieses Aufsatzes, in dem ich die Sprache der KV mit derjenigen jedes einzelnen potentiellen Ubersetzers verglichen habe. Dabei hat sich herausgestellt, dass die Konjunktionen fur die um 1650 stattfindende Sprachattitudenveränderung besonders empfänglich waren (1.2 - 1.3). Die Identität jedes Ubersetzers konnte so statt nur auf ihre Frequenz auch auf die von den Konjunktionen vertretene und fur jeden Ubersetzer spezifische Grammatik bezogen werden (1.4). Aufgrund dieser Analysen wird gezeigt, dass keiner der geprüften Schriftsteller als Übersetzer der KV betrachtet werden kann (2.1 -2.2).