LITUANUS LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   Volume 44, No.1 - Spring 1998 Editor of this issue: Antanas Klimas ISSN 0024-5089 Copyright © 1998 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.

MARTYNAS MAŽVYDAS AND JOHN WYCLIFFE:
AN ENGLISH CONNECTION?

WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG*
The Pennsylvania State University

The purpose of this brief note is to suggest that the influence of the English religious reformer Wycliffe might be discerned in the First Lithuanian Catechism. Probably direct influence cannot be proven, but at least there is a striking parallelism between Martynas Mažvydas and John Wycliffe in the rendering of the Decalogue. For Christian religious reformers beginning at least as early as the 14th century and perhaps continuing until today the correct vernacular rendering of the Ten Commandments was (and is) a serious matter occasioning much controversy. Just at the time Mažvydas was writing his Catechism, the Polish Protestant reformers Jan Sandecki-Malecki and Jan Seklucjan were disputing about the translation of sacred texts.

In 1545 Seklucjan published his Simple Text of the Catechism for Simple People (Katechismu tekst prosty dla prostego ludu). Malecki made critical annotations in a copy of this catechism of Seklucjan and in 1546 Malecki issued his own catechism, which ended with a brief justification of his method of translation. Secklucjan, in turn, entered his criticisms in his copy of Malecki's work and sent it to Malecki's patron Paul Speratus. At Speratus' request Malecki replied to the criticism with A Defense, against the Calumnies of Jan Seklucjan, of the True Translation of the Body of the Catechism in the Polish language (Defensio verae translationis Corporis Catechismi in linguam polonicam. aduersus calumnias Ioannis Secluciani) in which Malecki answered Seklucjan's criticisms and also examined Seklucjan's new, larger catechism published in 1547 (Frick 1989:14).

Seklucjan had translated phrases of the type Latin Non habebis... Thou shalt not have...' with the Polish second singular future as Nie będziesz miał... Thou shalt not have... whereas Malecki had used the second singular negative imperative Nie miey... 'Don't have...' Malecki argues first that Latin uses the future because of a peculiarity of Hebrew, which 'often replaces tense for tense, mood for mood, future for present, and present for future. This is peculiar to this language.' ('In Hebraea lingua in veteri testamento, saepius ponitur tempus pro tempore, modus pro modo, futurum pro praesenti et praesens pro futuro. Hoc enim huic linguae peculiare est.') Malecki then appeals to the sense of the passage: 'But the law of God indicates our sin and constantly asserts it and terrifies and damns us' (Porro lex Dei indicat peccatum, et perpetuo arguit, terret, at damnat nos). Malecki is certain of his interpretation because he can quote Martin Luther, who argues that the sense of the command requires the use of the present tense. Since the law is for all time, these negative commands must be rendered in Polish not with the future indicative but with the second person singular of the present tense of the imperative mood: Nie miey 'Don't have... (Frick 1989: 21-22).

Malecki finds further support for his argument in Luther's German translation: Du solt nicht ander goetter haben, Thou shalt not have other gods,' du solt nicht toedten 'thou shalt not kill,' du solt nicht ehebrechen 'thou shalt not commit adultery.' He renders these phrases in Polish with the negative imperatives Nie miey Bogow ijnych 'Don't have other gods,' nie zabijaj 'don't kill,' nie cudzolosz 'don't commit adultery.'1 For Malecki this is preferable because it takes less time to say, and also sounds more pleasant and sweet. The word będziesz 'you (sg.) will' on the other hand is 'rough.' Its first syllable is an 'imperfect Polish diphthong,' which is difficult to pronounce and its second syllable is 'uncouth and rough,' and difficult to pronounce. According to Malecki, such words, in a language that is already 'harsh' enough, should be avoided as much as possible, especially in texts for the instruction of the people (Frick 1989: 22). Those of us who are not native speakers of Polish can certainly agree with Malecki about the difficulties of pronunciation of this language.

Malecki further rejects the phrase Nie bądźcie tobie bogowie yny 'Let there not be to thee other gods' as a literal rendering of the 'Hebrew' Non sint tibi alii dii. Malecki writes in his Defense (Frick 1989:22): 'Just so in all the negative precepts of the Decalogue, as Doctor Martin Luther writes in a certain brief treatise about the Decalogue, the future indicative is to be replaced by the second person singular of the present tense, imperative mood: thus, 'Thou shalt not have'; Thou shalt not kill'; Thou shalt not covet'; are to be replaced by 'Don't have'; 'Don't kill,' 'Don't covet.' Thus the law of God might seem to say: 'Behold you have other gods'; 'Behold you kill'; 'Behold, you are an adulterer'; 'Behold you covet.' 'Don't have other gods.' 'Don't kill, don't covet': and thus in the present tense let it assert, frighten and damn us.' ('Proinde in omnibus praeceptis Decalogi negativis, ut Doctor Martinus Lutherus in quodam commentariolo super Decalogum scribit, futurum indicativi exponendum est, per secundam personam singularem praesentis temporis, imperativi modi: ut, Non habebis: Non occides: Non concupisces, exponatur, per Non habe, Non occide, Non concupisce. Ut lex Dei videatur dicere: Ecce habes Deos alienos: Ecce occidis: Ecce Mechus es: Ecce concupiscis. Non habe Deos alienos. Non occide, Non concupisce: atque ita in praesenti tempore, arguat, terreat, ac damnet nos.'). Prof. J. M. Claassen points out to me that classical Latin would not use non with the imperative as does Malecki, but either noli plus the infinitive or ne with the present or perfect subjunctive.

According to Brockelmann (1913: 20) the imperative cannot be combined with a negative in any of the old Semitic languages. Now according to Prof. Haim Rosén of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Biblical Hebrew the negative particle lō(') plus the prefixed form of the verb (not the imperative!) expressed in the Decalogue an absolute categorical prohibition (personal communication). But the Septuagint translation represents the Post-Biblical understanding of Hebrew in which the prefixed form of the verb (abbreviated below as pref.) had come to be understood as a future (see Rosén 1984: 232-233 and 1997: 302). Thus the Hebrew prefixed form lō(') tirsah 'don't kill, thou shalt not kill' is rendered by the future tense in the Greek Septuagint translation ou phoneúseis. Similarly the Hebrew prefixed verbs w =lō(') tin'ap 'and thou shalt not commit adultery' and w =lō(') tignub 'and thou shalt not steal' are rendered by the future tense in Greek ou moikheúseis and ou klépseis respectively.2 The Latin Vulgate has correspondingly the future tense in non occides 'thou shalt not kill,' neque moechaberis 'thou shalt not commit adultery,' and furtumque non facies 'thou shalt not commit theft, thou shalt not steal.'

As is well known the ten commandments occur twice in the Old Testament, once in Exodus 20:3-17 and once in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. (The Latin transcription of the Hebrew Exodus comes from Richter 1991a:178-181 and the Hebrew Deuteronomy from Richter 1991b:410-414.3 The English interlinear translations of the Hebrew text come from Kohlenberger's Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament [Exodus pp. 200-202 and Deuteronomy pp. 498-500]. The Greek translations with suffix a. are from the Septuagint and the Latin translations with suffix b. are from the Vulgate.)

Thus Exodus 20:3:

Exodus 20:7:

Exodus 20:8

Exodus 20:12:

mētėra

Exodus 20:13:

Exodus 20:14

Exodus 20:15;

Exodus 20:16;

Exodus 20:17:

Deuteronomy 5:7:

Deuteronomy 5:11:

Deuteronomy 5:12:

Deuteronomy 5:16:

Deuteronomy 5:17:

Deuteronomy 5:18:

Deuteronomy 5:19:

Deuteronomy 5:20:

Deuteronomy 5:21:

Now it is generally accepted that Mažvydas used both the Seklucjan and Malecki Catechisms in preparing his own translation (Stang 1929: 1-2; Zinkevičius 1988: 26). In Mažvydas' Catechism the Ten Commandments occur twice and in different versions. Below I give first the Lithuanian complete text version followed by Malecki's 1546 Polish version with the suffix a. and then by Seklucjan's 1545 Polish version with the suffix b.:

(According to Rospond 1948: 23, fn. 1, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism underlined Niebędziesz miał and wrote beside it Niemiey 'Don't have' [2nd sg. imperative].)

(According to Rospond 1948: 23, fn. 3, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism underlined Niebęziesz brał and wrote beside it Niebierz 'Don't take' [2nd sg. imperative].)

(According to Rospond 1948: 35, fn. 4, Seklucjan reproached his opponent for omitting the words chceszli długo bye ziw na ziemi 'if you wish to be alive for a long time on earth.')

(According to Rospond 1948: 24, fn. 1, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism did not underline the phrase but in the margin wrote: Nie zabiyay 'Don't kill' [2nd sg. imperative].)

(According to Rospond 1948: 24, fn. 2, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism did not underline the phrase but in the margin wrote: Nie czudzolosz 'Don't  commit adultery' [2nd sg. imperative].)

(According to Rospond 1948: 24, fn. 3, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism did not underline the phrase but in the margin wrote: Nie kradn 'Don't steal' [2nd sg.o imperative].)

(According to Rospond 1948: 24, fn. 4, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism underlined the phrase Niebędziesz falsiwie swiathczil but in the margin wrote: Nie mow [2nd sg. imperative] swiadecztwa falsziwego 'Do not speak false witness.')

(According to Rospond 1948: 24, fn. 5, Malecki in his copy of Seklucjan's Catechism wrote in the margin: Cur reliqua precepta non eodem modo transtulisti 'Why didn't you translate the other commandments in the same way?' That is, Malecki is asking why Seklucjan did not use the imperative rather than the future in the other commandments as well.)

In the Hymns we encounter a version of the Decalogue meant to be sung (those with suffix a. from Seklucjan's 1545 Polish Catechism [Stang 1929:10; Rospond 1948: 29-30]):

It seems that in the full text version of the Ten Commandments Mažvydas follows Malecki more closely, whereas in the hymns Mažvydas follows Seklucjan. Frick (1989: 17) notes that Malecki was a great admirer of the Czech language and believed that the Polish language arose from the Czech

language. Malecki relied heavily upon Czech religious literature. Therefore it seems certain that he was aware of the Hussite reform. And it is also well known that Hus was heavily influenced by John Wycliffe. Thus, for example, Loserth (1884:281) writes: '...if one takes into consideration the great number of definitions which Hus transcribes word for word from Wiclif, - of the Church, Faith, the Indulgence, Sacraments, Heresy, etc., - one might easily be led to the belief that, with the exception of the Bible and some few of the Fathers, Hus consulted in his theological studies no other sources than those of Wiclif only.'

I quote next, then, Wycliffe's English adaptation of Archbishop Thoresby's Ten Commandments as they appear in his Catechism (from Simmons and Nolloth, eds. 1901):

Wycliffe adaptation:

(1) Thou schalt haue o god and no mo. Non adorabis deos alienos (p. 33).

(2) In ydyl godys name tak (imperative) pou noth. Non assumes nomen dei tui in vanum (p. 37).

(3) Kepe (imperative) py halyday in clene lyf. Sabbata sanctifices (p. 39).

(4) Fadyr and modyr worschipe (imperative) both. Honora parentes (p. 43).

(5) Sie (imperative) noman with wykkyd wyl. Non occides. In the explanation of this commandment we find, however: pou schalt not sie (p. 47).

(6) Synne (imperative) pou not in leccherye. In the explanation of this commandment, a few lines farther on we find, however: pou schalt not do leccherye nober in consent in hert ne spekynge ne in countenaunce withowte-forp (p. 49).

(7) Stele (imperative) pou not by neijbors byng. In the explanation of this commandment we find, however: Thow schalt do no pefte. (p. 51).

(8) Fals wytnesse pow noon beere (imperative) py neyjbore wyttyngly to dere. In the explanation of this commandment we find, however: pou schalt not speke fals wytnesse ageyns py neybore. (p. 53)

(9) Thy neyjbours wif coueyte (imperative) pou 1103!... (p. 55)

(10) Thy neygboris hows, wenche ne knaue Coueyte (imperative) hem no3t. ne his goodys to haue. Then Wycliffe explains that the meaning of the ninth and tenth commandments is: Thow schalt not coueyte py ney3borys wyf. ne his hows ne his seruaunt ne his maydyn./ ne his oxe ne his werk-best. ne ony thyng pat ys his (p. 55).

According to Mustanoja (1960: 489-490): 'At the beginning of the M(iddle) E(nglish) period the use of the periphrastic future with shall and will begins to gain ground, although it is often difficult to say whether these verbs are to be interpreted as auxiliaries of pure futurity or whether obligation or volition is implied. In the majority of instances a modal implication seems to be present.'

Perhaps I am relying too much on my native feeling for contemporary American English, but it seems to me that the Thou (Thow. pou) schalt construction is not only future, but also has at least a nuance of obligation which one might term as an imperative.

Whether Wycliffe was the person who introduced the use of the negative imperative in the vernacular translation of the Ten Commandments or not is unclear. The tides of reform were sweeping across Europe and it is surely difficult to be certain that one has the first attestation of any popular idea.4

None of the Czech decalogues which I have been able to locate show the use of the second singular imperative rather than the future, although there may exist some Czech catechisms which were unavailable to me. On the other hand the use of the negative imperative in the decalogues of Wycliffe, Malecki and Mažvydas is certainly striking.

It might be noted that neither in the Old Prussian Enchiridion (1561) nor in the Old Latvian Catechisms (1585 and 1586) do we find the use of the negative imperative in the Ten Commandments:

Old Prussian Enchiridion (Mažiulis 1981:106-116):

(The formula: Gedenck des Sabbaths das du jhn heyligest is usually given, but the earlier Luther's Catechism formula seems to fit the Old Prussian better.)

Latvian Catechismus Catholicorum (1585: 20-21):

1586 Latvian Protestant Catechism (Vanags 1995: 54-56):

Kalpe,	Kalpune,	Lope,	yeb	wuesse,	kas	tham	peder.
man-servant,	maid-servant,	cattle,	or	all,	what	to him	belongs.

According to Endzelms (1951: 572) the use of the infinitive with the dative is equivalent to the Latvian debitive. He gives the example: bus kungiem kafä igt 'the gentlemen will have to go to war.'

The conclusion is then that whereas Mažvydas' Decalogue resembles that of the English religious reformer John Wycliffe, the Old Prussian and the oldest Latvian catechisms do not.

* I should like to thank herewith Prof. Haim Rosėn of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dr. Peteris Vanags of Riga, Prof. L. M. Muntingh, Prof. J. M. Claassen, Prof. G. van Wyk Kruger of the University of Stellenbosch, Prof. Dirk Boutkan of the University of Leiden, Prof. Baruch Halpern, Prof. Philip Baldi, Prof. Ronald Buckalew and Prof. Ernst Schürer of the Pennsylvania State University for valuable help and advice with the writing of this paper. I personally am responsible, however, for whatever mistakes and misinterpretations which may remain.

FOOTNOTES

1 According to Luther's 1529 Enchiridion or Small Catechism all of the ten commandments begin with the Du solt (nit), thus (pp. 243-246 in Luthers Werke):
(1) Du solt nit ander götter haben.
(2) Du solt den name deines gottes nicht unnutzlich füren.
(3) Du solt den feyrtag heyligen.
(4) Du solt deinen vatter und deine mutter eeren.
(5) Du solt nit tödten.
(6) Du solt nit eebrechen.
(7) Du solt nit stelen.
(8) Du solt nit falsch zeugnis reden wider deinen nechste.
(9) Du solt nit begėrė deines nechsten hausz.
(10) Du solt nit begėrė deines nechsten weyb, knecht, magd vihe oder was sein jst.
This was similarly expressed in the large Catechism (Der grosse Katchismus, see Luthers Werke in Auswahl vol. 4, p. 2)
Now it seems, however, that it would have been possible in German to express these commandments with straight negative imperatives as in Polish:
*(1) Habe nit andere götter.
*(2) Führe nit den name deines gottes unnutzlich.
*(3) Heilige den feyrtag.
*(4) Ehre deinen vatter und deine mütter.
*(5) Töte nit.
*(6) Brich die Ehe nit.
*(7) Stiehl nit.
*(8) Rede nit falsch zeugnis wider deinen nechsten.
*(9) Begehre nicht deines nechsten hausz.
*(10) Begehre nicht deines nechsten weyb, knecht, magd vihe oder was sein jst.
I supply these forms with asterisks because I have never seen them, although it seems quite possible to me that they may exist somewhere or other.
Bahlmann (1894: 68) presents, however, the following commandments from Eine Tafel des christlichen Lebens (ca. 1480) (with an explanation that the order of the commandments is varied in the Middle Ages):
(1) Hebbet (imperative) gene vremde Gode.
(2) Nempt (imperative) Codes Namen niet ydel. 
(5) Du en salt geen Doetslager syn. 
(7) Du en salt niet stelen.
(6) En doe (imperative) gene Onkuyscheit. 
(8) En doe (imperative) gheen valsch Tuech. 
(10) En begheer (imperative) Nymants Bedgenoet. 
(10) En begheer (imperative) Nymants Guet.
(3) Vyre (imperative) die billigen Dage.
(4) Ere (imperative) dyne Olderen.
The language seems to be either an eastern-colored Middle Dutch or Middle Low German according to Prof. Dirk Boutkan of the University of Leiden.
Geffcken (1855) assembled 27 15th century catechetical writings in various languages, primarily Germanic dialects, but also other languages, and in the majority of these the negative commandments are expressed with the 'Du solt nit...' formula. Exceptions include: (2) Den namen gotes nym (imperative) nicht unnotczlichen yn deinen muth (Heidelberger Bilderhandschrift in Geffcken 1855: 4); (2) Nit gebrauch (imperative) eitel den namen deines gots (Der Spiegel des Sünders, ca. 1470, in Geffcken 1855: 54); (1) Hebbe (imperative) god leff bouen alle dink, (5) Sla (imperative) nemande doet, (6) Wes (imperative) nyn unkuscher, (7) Steel (imperative) nicht, (9) Beghere (imperative) nenes anderen echte vrowen effte [esste?] man (Speygel der leyen [Lübeck 1496] in Geffcken 1855:148).

2 Schwyzer (1966: 291) notes that the Greek simple future tense has a modal as well as a temporal aspect and gives some examples of the imperative use from the classical language. Similarly Humbert (1954: 152) who gives the example from Plato's Protagoras: hos oūn poiesete kai peisesthė moi 'Act then thus and believe me.' See also Burton (1930: 35) and Blass and Debrunner (1961:183).

3 There might be some objection to this particular transliteration scheme of the Hebrew text, see Pardee (1997: 70-71). On the other hand since I am not a Semiticist, I would hesitate to transcribe the Hebrew myself and in fact the transcription is unimportant with regard to the purposes of this paper which concentrates on Mažvydas' rendering of the Decalogue, rather than the phonological characteristics of early Hebrew.

4 It is interesting to note that Tyndale in his 1530 translation of the Pentateuch used the Thou shalt (not) formula, see the 1967 edition, pp. 224-225 and 542-543. Tyndale does not seem to have been significantly influenced by Wycliffe.
On the other hand the Old English version also shows negative imperatives for some of the commandments. Note from Exodus (see Crawford 1922: 262):
1. Ne wyrc ðu ðe agrafene godas...
    'Do not make graven images (gods)...'
2. Ne nemne ðu Drihtnes namą <n> on idel...
5. Ne sleh ðu.
6. Ne synga ðu.
7. Ne stel ðu.
8. Ne beo ðu on laesre gewitnesse [ne] ongean ðinne nextan.
9. Ne wilna ðu ðines nextan huses, ne ðu his wifes, ne his weales, ne his wylne, ne his oxan, ne his assan, ne nan ðæra ðinga þe his synd.

From Deuteronomy (see Crawford 1922: 340-341):
1. Nafa ðu fremde godas beforan me.
2. Ne nemne ge Drihtnes naman on idel...
5. Ne beo ðu manslaga.
6. Ne unrihthæme ðu.
7. Ne stel ðu.
8. Ne sege ðu lease gewitnessa.
9. Ne gyrn ðu ðines nextan wifes, ne his huses, ne his landės, ne nan ðæra ðinga þe his beo.

The Old English use of the negative imperative may be connected with the fact that there was only a two-term contrast in the verbal form, a past and a non-past. The 'non-past serves for durative and non-durative present and future reference' (Strang 1970: 311). Therefore there was no simple morphological way to distinguish the present from the future tense in Old English.

REFERENCES

Bahlmann, P. 1894. Katholische Katechismen bis zum Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts. Mit einer Beilage: Tafel des christlichen Lebens (ca. 1480). Münster. Druck und Verlag der Regensbergschen Buchhandlung.
Biblia Hebraica transcripta, ed. by Wolfgang Richter. Münchener Universitätsschriften. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 33.2 Band (Exodus, Leviticus). 1991a. EOS Verlag St. Ottilien.
Biblia Hebraica transcripta, ed. by Wolfgang Richter. Münchener Universitätsschriften. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 33.3 Band (Numeri, Deuteronomium). 1991b. EOS Verlag St. Ottilien.
Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita P. Michael Hetzenauer. 1922. Rastibonae et Romae. Sumptibus et typis Friderici Pustet.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. 1961. A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 
Brockelmann, Carl. 1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 2, Syntax. Berlin, Verlag von Reuther & Reichard. 
Burton, Ernest D. 1930. Syntax of the moods and tenses in New Testament Greek. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 
Catechismus Catholicorum = Latyšskij katexizisъ 1585 goda, pereizdannyj È. A. Vol'terormъ = Sbornikъ russkago jazyka slovesnosti imperatorskoj akademii naukъ Vol. 44, No. 2 (1915). Petrogradъ. 
Crawford, S. J. ed. 1922. The Old English version of the Heptateuch: Aelfric's treatise on the Old and New Testament and his prefaceto Genesis. London, New York, Toronto, Oxford University Press. 
Endzelīns, Jänis. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga, Latvijas valsts izdevniecība. 
Ford, Gordon Buell. 1971. The old Lithuanian catechism of Martynas Mažvydas (1547). Assen, Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. Frick, David A. 1989. Polish sacred philology in the reformation and the counter-reformation: Chapters in the history of the controversies (1551-1632) = University of California publications. Modern philology 123. Berkeley, University of California Press. 
Geffcken, Johannes. 1855. Der Bildercatechismus des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts und die catechetischen Hauptstücke in dieser Zeit bis auf Luther. Leipzig, T. O. Weigel. The Siebenundzwanzig Beilagen following the main text are paginated separately. 
Humbert, Jean. 1954. Syntaxe grecque. Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck. 
Kanizijs, Peters. Catechismus Catholicorum... Vilne, Pille.. 1585 -Facsimile Sbornik 94,2 [1915]. 
Kohlenberger - see The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. 
Loserth, Johann. 1884. Wiclif and Hus. English translation by M. J. Evans. London, Hodder and Stoughton. 
Luther, D. Martin. 1529. [Enchiridion.] Der kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarrherr und Prediger. In D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 30, Part 1. (1910) Weimar, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. 
Luthers Werke in Auswahl, ed. by Otto Clemen. 1959. Vol. 4. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Mažiulis, V. 1981. Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Vilnius, Mokslas. 
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part 1. Parts of speech. = Mémoires de la société néophilologique de Helsinki, XXIII.
The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. 1987. ed. by John R. Kohlenberger III. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House. 
Pardee, Dennis. 1997. Review of Wolfgang Richter's Biblia Hebraica transcripta. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56.70-71.
Richter - see Biblia Hebraica transcripta.
Rosen, Haim. 1984. East and West: Selected writings in linguistics. Part two: Hebrew and Semitic linguistics. Munich, Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
—— 1997. The lexical Semitisms of Septuagint Greek as a reflex of the history of the Hebrew vocabulary: Implications concerning lexical diachrony and historical lexicography. Pp. 301-318 in Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies: A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the occcasion of his 70-th birthday. Ed. by Hans Henrich Hock. Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter. 
Respond, Stanislaw. 1948. Druki mazurskie XVI w. (Mazurian printings of the 16-th century). Olsztyn, Wydawnictwo Instytutu mazurskiego. Septuagint - see Vetus Testamentum Graece. 
Sbornik otdelenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti imperatorskoj akademii nauk. Sanktpeterburg. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1966. Griechische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Vervollständigt und herausgegeben von Albert Debrunner. Munich, C. H. Beck. 
Simmons, Thomas Frederick and Nolloth, Henry Edward, eds. 1901. The Lay Folks' Catechism or the English and Latin versions of Archbishop Thoresby's Instruction for the People; together with a Wycliffite adaptation of the same, and the corresponding canons of the Council of Lambeth. With Introduction, Notes, Glossary, and Index. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. 
Stang, Christian S. 1929. Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo, I kommisjon hos Jacob Dywad. 
Strang, Barbara. 1970. A history of English. London, Methuen & Co. 
Tyndale, William. 1530. Five books of Moses called the Pentateuch. Ed. by F. F. Bruce. 1967. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press. 
Vanags, Peteris. 1995. Baltu filologija 5.52-62. 
Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, ed. by Valentinus Loch, 1866. Ratisbonae, Typis ac sumptibus Georgu Josephi Manz.
Vulgate - see Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max.
Vol'ter - see Catechismus Catholicorum.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1988. Lietuvių kalbos istorija: Senųjų raštų kalba. Vol. 3. Vilnius, Mokslas.