Page 366 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik XI (2015), številka 21-22, ISSN 1408-8363
P. 366
SYNOPSES, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
were set up in the church. Both were removed during the Thirty Years’ War (in 1635) by
Catholic adversaries, but in 1672 they were set up again. However, in the following cen-
turies the memorial and epitaph were lost during renovations. The memorial was found
and set up again in the church in 1947, whereas the wooden epitaph remained lost. Based
on sources and a survey of the literature, the present article reconstructs the inscription
on the lost epitaph. It also establishes that the epitaph was certainly still in the church
until after 1855 and most probably disappeared during the1867 renovation of the church.
UDC 811.163.6"15":929 Krelj S.
Majda Merše
Krelj’s Postilla slovenska (1567) and its relationship to Spangenberg’s original text
Krelj’s Postilla slovenska (1567) is a translation of Spangenberg’s postil. Already at the
end of the 19th century V. Oblak established that Krelj did not keep closely to the original
source, but expanded Spangenberg’s text with number of additions, most of which are
critical ones. This new, more extensive comparison of Krelj’s translation with Spangen-
berg’s text was made with the aim of discerning the characteristics of Krelj’s translating
technique and establishing the extent and types of the additions. It has ascertained that
Krelj’s additions are diverse, both with regard to their function and their content. In most
cases, they were added to facilitate the understanding of the text. For this purpose he
included explanatory notes and concrete facts, references to the Old and New Testaments,
the evangelists and prophets, quotes from the Bible and from other sources, etc. With
his often negatively or positively evaluating comments, Krelj dealt critically with specif-
ic ecclesiastic and secular matters, especially the teachings and actions of his religious
opponents (the “papists”).
Krelj’s additions and alterations demonstrate his thorough understanding of biblical
content and religious teaching (especially Protestant baselines), his acquaintance with
(sinful) human nature and with the everyday life of people of different social strata.
Many explanatory or critical additions are formed as double or triple formulas (e.g.
Siegel (SA 1559: XXXVIIa) → Sigill alli pezhat (KPo 1567: XLVIIIb)) which can be considered
from different aspects: with regard to origin, acceptance, word class, the semantic relation
between parts of a sentence, etc. In some places Krelj’s translation differs from Spangenberg’s
text in either enhanced or reduced expressiveness, as indicated by the inconsistent use of
diminutives, modifiers, phrasemes, interjections, etc. Points of departure from Spangen-
berg’s text also include Krelj’s own choice of different linguistic possibilities (e.g. a personal
form instead of impersonal, passive instead of active voice and vice versa, with descriptive
substitutes for substantive compounds, phrasemes, etc.), partly necessitated by differences
in the language systems of German and Slovene. One of the most noticeable, stylistically
effective departures from the underlying text is the inconsistent use of a postmodifier (e.g.
durch ſein wort (SA 1559: LXXIXa) → ſkusi beſedo ſvoio (KPo 1567: CXa)).
364
were set up in the church. Both were removed during the Thirty Years’ War (in 1635) by
Catholic adversaries, but in 1672 they were set up again. However, in the following cen-
turies the memorial and epitaph were lost during renovations. The memorial was found
and set up again in the church in 1947, whereas the wooden epitaph remained lost. Based
on sources and a survey of the literature, the present article reconstructs the inscription
on the lost epitaph. It also establishes that the epitaph was certainly still in the church
until after 1855 and most probably disappeared during the1867 renovation of the church.
UDC 811.163.6"15":929 Krelj S.
Majda Merše
Krelj’s Postilla slovenska (1567) and its relationship to Spangenberg’s original text
Krelj’s Postilla slovenska (1567) is a translation of Spangenberg’s postil. Already at the
end of the 19th century V. Oblak established that Krelj did not keep closely to the original
source, but expanded Spangenberg’s text with number of additions, most of which are
critical ones. This new, more extensive comparison of Krelj’s translation with Spangen-
berg’s text was made with the aim of discerning the characteristics of Krelj’s translating
technique and establishing the extent and types of the additions. It has ascertained that
Krelj’s additions are diverse, both with regard to their function and their content. In most
cases, they were added to facilitate the understanding of the text. For this purpose he
included explanatory notes and concrete facts, references to the Old and New Testaments,
the evangelists and prophets, quotes from the Bible and from other sources, etc. With
his often negatively or positively evaluating comments, Krelj dealt critically with specif-
ic ecclesiastic and secular matters, especially the teachings and actions of his religious
opponents (the “papists”).
Krelj’s additions and alterations demonstrate his thorough understanding of biblical
content and religious teaching (especially Protestant baselines), his acquaintance with
(sinful) human nature and with the everyday life of people of different social strata.
Many explanatory or critical additions are formed as double or triple formulas (e.g.
Siegel (SA 1559: XXXVIIa) → Sigill alli pezhat (KPo 1567: XLVIIIb)) which can be considered
from different aspects: with regard to origin, acceptance, word class, the semantic relation
between parts of a sentence, etc. In some places Krelj’s translation differs from Spangenberg’s
text in either enhanced or reduced expressiveness, as indicated by the inconsistent use of
diminutives, modifiers, phrasemes, interjections, etc. Points of departure from Spangen-
berg’s text also include Krelj’s own choice of different linguistic possibilities (e.g. a personal
form instead of impersonal, passive instead of active voice and vice versa, with descriptive
substitutes for substantive compounds, phrasemes, etc.), partly necessitated by differences
in the language systems of German and Slovene. One of the most noticeable, stylistically
effective departures from the underlying text is the inconsistent use of a postmodifier (e.g.
durch ſein wort (SA 1559: LXXIXa) → ſkusi beſedo ſvoio (KPo 1567: CXa)).
364
