Towards an understanding of patterns of movement of people in relation to the translation of devotional literature in early modern Europe. Seventeenth-century German and Dutch translators of English devotional literature

ABSTRACT

This article expands on the generally accepted hypothesis in cultural history, that numerous migrants, exiles, or expatriates were among the most prolific translators in early modern Europe. It examines Dutch and German translators of English devotional literature in the seventeenth century in terms of the following framework: the extent to which these individuals were involved in migration, and the nature of the relationship between border crossings and translation. I will compare several highly mobile translators from the Hartlib circle, with the three most prolific Dutch and German translators of devotional literature during this period. My findings suggest that it was not migration but mobility that stimulated the collection and translation of devotional literature. Mobility, however, was not the only determinant.

KEYWORDS:

• Mobility
• migration
• translation
• cultural transfer
• devotional literature
• Hartlib's circle

Introduction

Cultural historian Peter Burke has found that numerous migrants, exiles, or expatriates were among the most productive translators in early modern Europe.¹ According to him, these people – caught up in the process of negotiating between cultures and languages – were obliged to make a career out of their displacement. In this sense then, migrants were important ‘cultural brokers’.² Most of these migrant translators were Protestants, who, for example, fled from the Southern Low Countries in the late sixteenth century; or from France in the late seventeenth century (the Huguenots). According to Burke, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 was ‘an epoch in the history of translation’³ in which migrants from 1500 onwards made a specific contribution, not only to translation, but to general knowledge. They did so by deprovincializing knowledge, that is, by making people more aware of alternatives to the way in which they thought and acted. Three processes contributed to this deprovincialization: mediation, where migrants informed people in their ‘host-land’ about the culture of the native land (and vice versa); distanciation, where they viewed both homeland and host-land through foreign eyes; and hybridisation, a process of engagement between two styles of thought, one associated with the migrants and the other with their hosts.⁴

That migrants made an important contribution to translation in early modern Europe seems at first glance to be self-evident, at least as far as translators of devotional literature at the time are concerned. Willem J. op ‘t Hof, in his dissertation, points out that most Dutch translators of English devotional writings around 1600 were Calvinists who, as a result of conquests by the Spanish army, had migrated from the Southern Netherlands to the Northern parts.⁵ My PhD research revealed that the German translators of English and Dutch devotional literature at the end of the seventeenth century included several descendants of migrants from the Southern Netherlands.⁶

These findings fit into a broader framework which addresses the contribution to culture of migrants in the early modern era (including book production), technology and innovation. Nicholas Terpstra, for instance, speaks of ‘The World the Refugees Made’.⁷ Burke, in turn, highlights the intellectual capital that migrants owned by their native language, in the sense that their displacement made many of them language teachers or translators.⁸ Moreover, Alisa van de Haar, following on in the footsteps of Pierre Bourdieu, emphasises the importance of the historical and geographical context in which cultural, social, professional, and economic values are immersed in each language: ‘Language skills thus represent linguistic capital that refugees can apply professionally or that they can use to generate social capital by expanding their network.’⁹

In addition, Johannes Müller stresses that later-generation migrants played an important role in processes of cultural transfer, such as trade, art, book publishing and translation. Müller points out that the individuals in question were embedded in networks from, not only their new society, but those of their parents and grandparents. In other words, a form of ‘translocality’ existed in the vacuum created by their displacement. ‘Being rooted both here and there, their bi-cultural upbringing and their socio-geographic outlook perfectly prepared them for a mobile lifestyle that offered them valuable career opportunities.’¹⁰ Similarly, Jesse Spohnholz highlights the economic, technological, communicational, artistic, and religious innovations that refugees brought to foreign lands.

However, there is general consensus that migrants did not have innovative potential in every area of occupation. For example, Spohnholz points to the role merchants played where, along with Jesse Sadler, he argues that for merchants there were ‘too many hurdles to trading in foreign lands to think that merchants in exile were anywhere close to more successful than those who were left unhindered to operate their business back home’. Obstacles included a lack of connections and reputation and the risks involved in transport and communication in times of war and persecution.¹¹

From this historiographical overview it can be seen that migration could not only contribute to cultural transfer but also that it presented obstacles. In the context of translation of texts, I have confined myself to German and Dutch translators of English devotional writings in the seventeenth century and have considered these by way of the following sub-questions. First, to what extent were they involved in migration? To what extent did these translators continuously reside abroad for long periods of time and live in isolation from their home country? Second, were migrants over-represented among the translators of this type of literature? Third, to what extent was their migration a determinant for translating?¹² After all, as I have shown in my dissertation, one could also get in touch with devotional literature through many other channels such as the presence of migrant communities in the country where the translation was produced/published; correspondence; study trips; trade connections; book trade links; and political-military contacts.¹³ Fourth, to what extent did migration act as an obstacle to translation? Fifth, in what ways did migrants contribute to cultural transfer?

To answer these questions, I will conduct a case study of a couple of ‘mobile’ collectors/translators of English devotional writings and of individuals who encouraged others to translate that literature. This group of ‘mobile’ collectors/translators came from the Palatinate or Wetteravia (both part of the Holy Roman Empire, hereafter: HRE) but had to leave for England and other countries as a result of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).¹⁴ The context for this lies in the strong ties between the Palatinate and England, especially after 1613 when the ‘Winter King’ Frederick V, Elector Palatine married the British princess Elizabeth Stuart.¹⁵

One thing in common too was that these collectors/translators participated in the correspondence network of the ‘great Intelligencer of Europe’, Samuel Hartlib¹⁶ (c. 1600–1662).¹⁷ Hartlib's circle was part of the so-called Republic of Letters, a virtual community of learned people in early modern Europe, which was, in principle, open to everyone and in which national and confessional boundaries were intended to be crossed.¹⁸ The Hartlib circle has been studied in intellectual history as, among other things, the philosophical cradle of the Puritan revolution. It was a think tank for the advancement of learning, the reformation of all knowledge (‘universal reformation’), and religious peace – all for the purpose of economic improvement.¹⁹ In a previous article, I demonstrated that some members of Hartlib’s circle were also active in collecting and translating devotional writings; or encouraging others to do so. I have also shown that with these activities they provide interesting data because they matched the goals and methods of the Hartlib circle, such as advancement of learning, communication of knowledge, structuring information properly, and the reconciliation of the Protestant confessions. The individuals concerned also instrumentalised these aims and methods for the benefit of their own objectives, including the dissemination of devotional literature.²⁰

To be more specific, this group being analysed involves an ‘intelligencer’²¹ and three ministers: Theodore Haak (1605–1690), Petrus Streithagen (1591–1653), Johannes Rulicius (1602–1666) and Petrus Gribius (1602/03–1666).²² These individuals are examples of the ‘Protestant refugees displaced by the endemic warfare and political upheavals of the mid-seventeenth century’ which populated Hartlib's circle.²³ A closer examination of these four people will reveal more about the nature of the connection between their migrations and collecting/translating activities. In my examination I have relied on handwritten and printed sources (including the Hartlib Papers)²⁴ as well as secondary literature. As an Appendix, I have included a table listing the places of residence of these translators and the date of origin and/or years and places of publication of their translations.

In order to obtain a more representative overview, I will compare these individuals with the top three of the most productive translators of English devotional literature from the German and Dutch language areas in the seventeenth century. The German language area has been chosen because it was the region of origin of the translators/collectors/stimulators at the centre of this article. The Dutch language area was chosen because some of them also lived in the Netherlands for shorter or longer periods of time.

In order to establish the context of translators/collectors from the Palatinate and Wetteravia, my analysis starts with a short sketch of Samuel Hartlib, his life, his network, and its goals. A discussion then follows to reveal more about the collection, translation and encouraging activities of the four persons of interest. I will then compare their activities with those of the most productive German and Dutch translators of English devotional writings in the seventeenth century, before finally presenting my concluding remarks.

Collection and (encouraging of) translation of devotional literature in Hartlib’s network

Hartlib, his network and its aims

Hartlib (born in Royal Prussia, part of the Kingdom of Polen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) collaborated closely with two other ‘foreigners’ (as referred to by Hugh Trevor-Roper): John Dury²⁵ (c. 1600–1680, born in Edinburgh) and John Amos Comenius²⁶ (1592–1670, born in Moravia). In 1642, just before the British civil wars, they entered into a ‘fraternal covenant’ for ‘universal reformation’. This ideal emerged partly against the background of their experience as migrants. In fact, all three had to flee their native countries as a result of the Thirty Years’ War. The nature of their mobility differed however as Hartlib migrated to England in contrast to the other two who travelled through Europe.²⁷ Due to their migratory experience all three were also committed to collecting collateral in England for, among others, the confessional migrants from the Palatinate and Bohemia.²⁸

Samuel Hartlib was born in a milieu where there were strong connections to England, a place he would later choose to settle in; and where he introduced influential ideas. His birth in Royal Prussia, viz. in Elbing (now Elblang in Poland) as the son of a German father and of a half-English mother who belonged to the Reformed Church, was beneficial in that he studied at Herborn Academy under the post-Ramist philosopher Johannes Heinrich Alsted, and briefly attended Emmanuel College in Cambridge, supported by the Puritan theologian John Preston. In 1628, he settled in England because of the Thirty Years’ War, and this is where he remained until his death in 1662. ‘He was half a stranger,’ notes Mark Greengrass, describing the perception that others had of him. Hartlib himself strategically exploited this perception to his advantage because it placed him in a unique position, standing, as he did, ‘outside the divisions and insularities of English society’.²⁹

As for his part in intellectual transfer, and much like Comenius, Hartlib brought post-Ramism from Central Europe to other areas, including England (as Howard Hotson has demonstrated). The post-Ramists did not consider canonical texts such as those of Aristotle, as teaching material but instead relied on ‘modern’ textbooks structured according to clear, methodical principles.³⁰

In the context of the intended ‘universal reformation’, Hartlib, and others, sought to establish a correspondence network which was consistent with the Republic of Letters's ideal of knowledge sharing. He spoke of a ‘duetie of Communication in Spirituall and Rationall matters’.³¹ After all, for Hartlib, knowledge was a heavenly gift that is not to be kept hidden, but bestowed upon all and to be passed on to posterity.³² The envisaged network was established at grassroots level and became known as the Hartlib circle, with members such as Robert Boyle, Gabriel Plattes, William Petty, John Milton, Theodore Haak (see below), and Henry Oldenburg. Several participants of the circle, excluding Hartlib himself, were later involved as forerunners to the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge.³³

In the context of the exchange of knowledge it was Hartlib and others from his network, such as Comenius, Boyle and Henry Oldenburg (the latter two were later active in the Royal Society) who translated spiritual and scholarly writings, or associated themselves with its translation, such as the Arabic translation of Hugo Grotius’s De veritate, the Turkish translation of the New Testament by William Seaman, and a Lithuanian Bible translation.³⁴

Correspondence occurred inside Hartlib’s circle on a wide range of themes ranging from natural philosophy to religion. The latter category included sub-themes such as the reunification of Protestant confessions, doctrine, and devotional literature. In his writings Hartlib was fond of manuscripts and with the Puritan, Thomas Goodwin, he agreed that ‘the best things are kept in human studies, in MS’.³⁵ Between the years 1640–1659, Hartlib's diary of information, Ephemerides gradually included fewer items on theology and religion at the expense of items relating to science and philosophy; but despite this, Hartlib’s research always remained driven by religious motives.³⁶ The scientific interest of Hartlib and his network, as well as the principles and ethics that underpinned their way of practising science, have been associated with Puritanism by scholars such as Robert K. Merton and Charles Webster. This view however has been rightly criticised.³⁷

Theodore Haak

Theodore Haak (born at Neuhausen near Worms)³⁸ was one of the earliest in the ‘exodus’ of the 1620s by persons of Hartlib's circle to England, to study and to get acquainted with English devotional writings originating from the Palatinate. Throughout 1625 and 1626 he studied theology and mathematics at Cambridge and Oxford and resided for some time with Puritan minister John White (1575–1648) in Dorchester.³⁹ In 1626, he went to Cologne and joined an underground Reformed congregation where he read to the members, on a daily basis, an extract of a German translation he was producing of The Mystery of Self-Deceiving (1615) by Daniel Dyke. This reading of the translation is understood to have served as a substitution for having a minister.

German translations of English devotional writings by Haak were also published in the 1630s and it is likely he located the source texts, having procured these during his trip to England. After all, around 1632, Haak was commissioned by institutions, including the Dutch Reformed Church in London, to collect money in England for the Reformed ministers from the Palatinate who had left their country due to the war. The London congregation played an important role in fund raising for suppressed Protestants on the continent. In his role as a collecting agent, Haak travelled through, not only England, but also the HRE and Dutch Republic. The result of his regular shuttling between England and the continent saw the emergence of five German editions of English Reformed devotional books; all translated by Haak and printed between 1635 and 1639. These included writings of Dyke as well as books of Henry Scudder and Henry Whitfield.⁴⁰ Given the fact that Haak read to members of the Reformed congregation in Cologne around 1626 from Dyke’s Mystery of Self-Deceiving, and bearing in mind the commissioning by others of his later translations, it is quite possible that his versions of the aforementioned devotional writings were also ordered and paid for by, for example, the Reformed merchants from Cologne. The reality is that Haak will not have earned much as a money collector and any remunerated translation commissions would therefore have provided valuable additional income.

Haak translated more widely than just devotional literature. There was, firstly, his research and correspondence on natural philosophy. In this, he became actively involved since 1638, when he settled in London and obtained English citizenship. And it was in London that Haak came into closer contact with Hartlib (with whom he had become acquainted some years earlier) and subsequently became an active member of Hartlib’s correspondence network. In 1645, Haak was involved in founding a scholarly group which became the precursor of the Royal Society, of which Haak was one of the founding members. As a member of the society Haak corresponded, translated, and experimented with topics ranging from optics, magnetism and musical instruments to the exploration of natural resources (the generation of crystals; the finding of amber), food production (the culturing of oysters; sugar refining), lighting (the phosphorus lamp), dyeing, and even astronomy (solar eclipses).

Secondly, Haak's broader translation activities can be seen in the context of his commissions for the English Parliament, beginning in the 1640s. One such task was a diplomatic journey to Denmark in 1643/44 which provided the context for his translation of the Solemn League and Covenant into German (1642). This represented a formal political alliance between the English Parliament and representatives of the Covenanters who were then governing Scotland.⁴¹ In 1645, Haak began to render the Dutch States’ Bible (Statenvertaling, 1637) into English, including its annotations. This project was completed in 1657 and was published under the title The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible.⁴² Haak undertook this project at the request of the Westminster Assembly. Clearly, there was at the time much interest among theologians and parishioners for a Bible with annotations, for example, the Geneva Bible (1560) and the ‘English Annotations’ or ‘Great Annotations’ (1645). Stationers and printers also played an influential role and, after these craft groups from London had made a request to the House of Commons, the English Annotations appeared soon afterwards.⁴³

The distribution of devotional literature soon became integrated with Haak’s secretarial duties for Parliament. This is evidenced in 1654 after Haak had organised the transfer of salary payments to his friend, John Pell, the mathematician. Pell, who was a fellow member of Hartlib’s circle and at the time an English resident of Zürich, also sent Haak other publications, including devotional books by the English ministers William Gouge and James Duport.⁴⁴ These had been requested by the minister Johann Heinrich Hummel of Bern, who had also studied in England and was in touch with Dury and his friends, having also translated English devotional books into German.⁴⁵

Haak’s last major translation project was a German version of John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost (1655), which he left uncompleted. Milton of course was also one of the participants of the Hartlib circle. In terms of Haak’s legacy after his death c. May 5, 1690, it is estimated that half of all his translations were of a religious nature, including the English devotional writings, The Dutch Annotations, and Milton's poem, while the remainder were of a scientific or political nature.

Petrus Streithagen

While Haak translated several individual English devotional books into German, there were also projects that aimed to transpose this literature into German in a more systematic way. These ventures were initiated in the 1630s and aimed at either a collection of commonplaces (Loci Communes) or a systematic ordering of practical divinity (Systema Theologiæ Practicæ). In the first project John Dury and German Reformed preachers, which included Petrus Streithagen and various acquaintances of Hartlib's circle, worked together. In 1632 and 1633 they sent a request to the Church of Great Britain and Ireland in which they expressed their high regard for English devotional writings:⁴⁶

For the Talent, which every one of us has received of God, is committed to our trust, that we being distributers thereof, should not hide it in the ground […] but employ it to the advantage of our Lord […] that ye would not suffer so precious a Talent to be hid and concealed any longer from the hands and eyes of Forreiners […]⁴⁷

This request (as outlined above) was printed in 1654 and reprinted in 1658.⁴⁸

The second project, which little was known about, was executed by Streithagen. Born at Aachen in 1591 to a Reformed family, Streithagen was constantly on the move. He studied in Heidelberg c.1610 and worked in the Christian ministry after 1618. After serving as pastor in the Palatinate for ten years, he had to flee from Spanish troops and became army chaplain for the counts of Nassau-Dietz. Thereafter he became court chaplain of the Winter King and his son Charles Louis, Elector Palatine. As servant of the latter, Streithagen accompanied his master on three voyages to England, the first from 1635 to 1637; the second from 1641 to 1642; and the third from 1645 to 1649.⁴⁹ Streithagen is mentioned In Hartlib's Ephemerides in 1634 and 1649 in which he is described as engaged in the process of translating commonplaces of English devotional books into German.⁵⁰ He died in 1654 but in 1656, a message from Theodore Haak in Hartlib's Papers reads: ‘The Collections out of so many Practical Divinity English Writers which Mr Streithagen brought together are with his wife in salvo and are going about to bee printed’.⁵¹ It can be presumed that the publication in preparation at the time was identical to a treatise on the regeneration of individuals (i.e. the work of the Holy Spirit in individuals leading to conversion to God and renewal of life) which had appeared in Heidelberg in 1658 under Streithagen’s name: Homo novus. Das ist: ein new, gelehrt vnd gottseliges Tractätlein, von deß Menschen Wider-Geburt, aus vnterschiedlichen der berümbtesten Englischen Theologen durch (…) Petrum von Streithagen (…) zusammen getragen. According to the title, this treatise on the ‘new man’ (Homo novus) was compiled from the writings of the most renowned English theologians.⁵² The work was brought out by several printers, including William Fitzer and Samuel Browne, who were both English by birth.⁵³ Four years later, in 1662, another translation from English made by Streithagen, was published. This was based on The way of life (1641), a work by the Puritan minister John Cotton (1585–1652), who ministered in Boston, Lincolnshire from 1612, and from 1633 in New England.⁵⁴

Johannes Rulicius

While Haak and Streithagen translated writings themselves, there were also individuals in Hartlib's circle who encouraged others to do so. One example is Johannes Rulicius, who grew up in the Palatinate and spent some time in Puritan circles during his studies in England.⁵⁵ Like Hartlib, he studied under Preston at Emmanuel College, probably between 1623 and 1628.⁵⁶ Preston then sent Rulicius to John Cotton where he stayed for at least a year in 1628 at Cotton’s household seminary. There he attended Cotton’s informal courses on the practice of the ministry where he also served as a copyist.⁵⁷ From 1628 to 1631, Rulicius resided (as Haak had done before him) for some time with White in Dorchester. Rulicius received financial support from the Dutch Reformed Church of London.⁵⁸

From 1633 until his death in 1666, Rulicius was in the HRE, England and the Dutch Republic. He served as a minister in two incumbencies in Heidelberg (1632–1633 and 1652–1654) which were interrupted by fundraising missions in England (1634 and 1635) and ministries to congregations in Amsterdam (1636–1652 and 1654–1666). He persuaded Niclaas van Turenout to translate Haak’s German translation of Whitfield into Dutch and this was published in 1655.

Petrus Gribius

Like Rulicius, Petrus Gribius from Wetteravia did not translate writings himself, but collected them and encouraged others to do so. The two may have met at Cotton’s household seminary which is where Gribius stayed from about 1626 to 1630. Gribius may also have had a connection to England by another channel, namely through his mother-in-law (Willem Teellinck's wife, who had been born in England) after 1633. .

In 1634, Rulicius gave Gribius a collection of manuscripts of Cotton’s writings which, as a reference in Hartlib’s diary shows, had been collected from Cotton’s archive.⁵⁹ In a letter from Gribius to Hartlib, dated on 11 February (year not stated), it is possible to gain glimpses of Gribius’ method of working. The letter must have been written sometime after March 1638⁶⁰ and was in all probability sent the next year, on 11 February 1639.⁶¹ In the letter, Gribius, among others, reported on his attempts to obtain certain manuscripts that Hartlib had requested, including Animadversiones Amesij in Logicam vnd Physicam.⁶² Animadversiones may be a work by William Ames, who had been Gribius’ teacher at Franeker.⁶³ Other manuscripts included writings by Cotton, namely, on the passions; on the fifth and sixth commandments; and on the first chapters of Genesis. Gribius related how trying to obtain these manuscripts could be bothersome because the English were extraordinarily cautious about their writings and did not even entrust them to their best friends.⁶⁴

From 1630 onwards, Gribius worked as a minister of several English and Dutch congregations in the Republic, but this was interrupted by a period abroad, in Brazil. As a pastor, he was involved in the translation of (devotional) literature. His last place of residence was the German Reformed congregation of Amsterdam (as Rulicius’ successor) where he persuaded an Amsterdam publisher and translator to translate a book by Thomas Goodwin, whom he had met in England, into Dutch, which was subsequently published in 1655.⁶⁵ Furthermore, from a dedication in Hendrik Uilenbroek’ translation of Dyke's Mystery of Self-Deceiving published in 1656, it can be seen that Gribius assisted Uilenbroek and others in translating difficult passages into English.⁶⁶ Finally, Gribius translated into English the forms of discipline, sacraments and the like, as well as the confessional writings of the Reformed Church in the Dutch Republic, which appeared in 1645.⁶⁷

Prolific German and Dutch translators of English devotional literature during the seventeenth century

Having mapped out the collecting, translating, and encouraging activities of the four mobile translators, all of whom were from the Palatinate, I will now give an overview of the work of the most productive German⁶⁸ and Dutch⁶⁹ translators of English devotional literature during the seventeenth century.

The most prolific German translator was Johann Christoph Salbach. He not only transliterated many books but was also very mobile. In total, he translated nineteen devotional writings, an itinerary from English, and several devotional and medical writings from Dutch into German. Salbach was born in 1637⁷⁰ in the principality of Nassau and studied in the HRE and the Dutch Republic. He then became a minister at Bergzabern in Palatinate-Zweibrücken, where he served from 1662 to 1669. During that period, he went on a study trip to England – presumably some time around 1662 because from 1663 onwards German versions were published of English devotional books translated by Salbach. In his second and third congregations, Obermoschel and Kusel respectively, he was forced to flee because of a French invasion. In his fourth congregation, Meisenheim, he was imprisoned on two occasions by the French. His last parish was at Wetzlar in Wetteravia, where he died in 1708. Some of his translations were commissioned by Wilhelm Ludwig, hereditary prince of Palatinate-Zweibrücken, who had secured the source texts from the Dutch Republic. Presumably, therefore, for at least some of his translations of what were originally English works, Salbach had used a Dutch translation as source material.⁷¹

The second most prolific translator was Johannes Deusing. He translated fifteen English writings, some devotional writings, a travelogue, and a country description from Dutch into German. He was likely born in Bremen around 1639, studied in that city from 1657 onwards, and worked at the court of Hesse-Cassel from 1666 until 1696 (at the latest). Deusing was probably encouraged to translate by the minister Theodor Undereyck and for most of his translations of originally English works he used a Dutch translation as source text.⁷²

The third translator, Johann Lange (d. after 1696), translated a very wide corpus of writings into German, viz. 13 English devotional works as well as hermetic, medical, physical, (al)chemical, artistic writings, etc. There are also accounts of travels and exotic countries which were translated into German. These translations all appeared in the years between 1673 and 1700. Lange was the first German speaker to translate the works of the well-known Baptist, John Bunyan, into German (for which he used Dutch translations as source texts).⁷³ He was a physician, lived in Hamburg, and translated mainly on behalf of booksellers. Nothing is known about his mobility.⁷⁴ What we do know is that Hamburg had trade connections with England and that the city hosted an English congregation.⁷⁵

As for the Dutch translators, Jacobus Koelman (1631–1695) was most active. He was also highly mobile, but within the confines of the borders of the Dutch Republic. Koelman translated 32 English devotional works into Dutch. In 1657 he served as chaplaincy for one year in an ambassadorial mission to Copenhagen and to the Dutch ambassador in Brussels. Thereafter he served as a minister at Sluis. In 1675, he was banned from that city, lived one year in Rotterdam, fifteen years in Amsterdam, and close to four years in Utrecht. From the year of his banishment, Koelman travelled around in the Republic to lead conventicles. Finally, important in Koelman's life were his close contacts with Scots Covenanters, whose writings he translated into Dutch.⁷⁶

Second on the list of prolific Dutch translators is Vincentius Meusevoet who spent his life in the Southern Netherlands, England, and the Northern Netherlands. He was born in the Southern Netherlands circa 1560, stayed in Norwich from 1568 to 1586, where he belonged to the Dutch Reformed congregation. Afterwards he studied in Leiden and was minister in various places in the province of North Holland until his death in 1624. He translated 31 English works into Dutch.⁷⁷

The third most important Dutch translator in this category was Johannes Lamotius, who was born into the Dutch migrant congregation in London and served as minister at several different locations in the Dutch Republic. He produced 26 translations, one of which was, published in 1626 as a combination of two writings: one by Joseph Hall, and one by Samuel Ward, who had both been delegated by the Church of England to the Synod of Dort (1618/19). It is fairly certain that Lamotius was in touch with both Hall and Ward in that assembly.⁷⁸

Conclusion

At the beginning of this article, I raised the question about the extent of migration among these translators. To begin with, my research shows that the length of stay abroad varied considerably. Haak and Gribius stayed abroad longer than Streithagen and Rulicius (who were continuously on the road), Salbach, Koelman, Meusevoet and Lamotius. Of Deusing and Lange, we do not know whether they went abroad. Moreover, it appears that the translators who lived for a long period in a new community were not isolated from their home countries. On the contrary, they kept in touch with their homeland and its community. Haak, for example, continued to translate writings into German; and Gribius served a German congregation in Amsterdam for a period. In both these cases my argument is (as Liesbeth Corens argues with regard to English Catholics) that the translators discussed in this article did not adhere to the static concept of ‘migration’, but to a more dynamic ‘mobility’.⁷⁹ There is also another reason to be cautious about the concepts of ‘migration’ or ‘exile’ in that they often reflect the memory culture of descendants of migrants more, and the perception of migrants by reform-oriented Protestants such as Puritans and Pietists.⁸⁰

The second question is, were mobile persons over-represented among translators of the type of literature mentioned? And thirdly, to what extent was their mobility a determinant for translating? The main question of this article focuses on the extent to which a relationship existed among the translators of English devotional writings – and the nature of that relationship – between mobility and collecting, translating, and encouraging. On the one hand, there were some translators where this relationship is obvious. For instance, Haak's translations into German originated during the time he travelled from England through the European continent and these translations were published at the same time or shortly after. On the other hand, once settled in London, Haak continued to translate, and also began to translate from German or Dutch into English. In Streithagen's case too, at least one of his translations originated during the time he travelled through England (which was from 1634 onwards). Salbach too will have encountered the texts during his trip to England, which he translated into German after returning to the HRE.

With Rulicius and Gribius, a direct relationship existed between mobility and devotional literature collection. These writings were gathered during their travels to England. However, in both their cases, the relationship between mobility and encouraging others was not directly linked to them in the sense that it was only years after they had been to England that they stimulated others to translate and/or publish books. This long interval between mobility and translation or related activities can also be found in the case of Meusevoet and Lamotius, whose translations were only published many years after their stays in England.

For Deusing, Lange, and Koelman, it was not mobility that led them to translate books but other factors that played a role. For them their general interest, available leisure time (Deusing, Koelman from the moment he was banned from Sluis), and/ or their need to supplement their income (perhaps true for Deusing and Haak).⁸¹ Other channels for gaining access to English devotional writings existed, such as relations with English speakers who stayed for various lengths of time on the continent (Lamotius, Koelman, and Gribius); persons who stimulated the translation of books (Salbach, and Deusing); being part of a correspondence network (Haak, Streithagen, Rulicius, and Gribius, who all belonged to Hartlib's circle and seem to have been closely aligned with the important goals of this network, such as advancement of learning and communication of knowledge); or living in locations that were communication hubs, for example, Lange in the trading city of Hamburg.⁸²

We may therefore conclude that patterns of movement in early modern times boosted the collection and translation of devotional literature because the people concerned had access to a translocal network (both in their home and host countries) and were multilingual.⁸³ In terms of the latter, Meusevoet, Lamotius, Haak, Rulicius and Gribius all mastered both Dutch and/or German in addition to English and spent parts of their professional lives in two or three of these language areas. Since Meusevoet and Lamotius grew up in a Dutch community abroad, they would have learned to switch continuously between Dutch and English from a very young age. This will have been one of the most compelling factors that made them the most prolific Dutch translators of English devotional literature. Moreover, the Dutch congregations in England, to which they belonged in their youth, also had an influencing role to play.⁸⁴

Fourth, to what extent was migration an obstacle to translation? Translocality and multilingualism were certainly advantageous but being a ‘foreigner’ also had disadvantages, for example, by way of restrictions in access to information, as Gribius experienced when collecting manuscripts. In addition, mobility was not the only factor in translating devotional books. It was not just frequent travellers who crossed borders ‘who made the world’, but also those who were less mobile. In their case, however, they needed access to the right people, networks, communication hubs, and languages to make this happen. In this regard, knowledge of English could also be acquired to a limited extent on the continent.⁸⁵ And it is indeed true that one did not always have to be proficient in English, because Dutch or French translations of some works were also available for use. Deusing, Lange, and perhaps also Salbach, all resorted to Dutch versions.

Fifth, in what ways did mobile persons contribute to cultural transfer? They were all, in Burke's terms, mediators. Of the other tendencies described by Burke, Gribius is the only example exemplifying the process of distanciation in his criticism of the extraordinary caution of the English in sharing their writings. In Haak's case, a process of hybridisation may have occurred because he worked with two styles of thought as he translated, while in England, into both German and English. A similar mechanism can be observed with Gribius who translated a text from Dutch into English and assisted in the translation from English into Dutch. Both individuals contributed in a reciprocal way, between German and Dutch on the one hand and English on the other.⁸⁶

In this article I have concentrated on collectors and translators of devotional texts from English into German or Dutch, as well as on people who influenced others to translate. To better address the core question of this article, a larger corpus of translators and translations is needed, including persons who also translated texts from and to another language (for example, the Huguenots who emigrated from around 1685 and started working as translators in their host country); from theology as a whole; and from other disciplines (for example, the non-theological works translated by Haak, Salbach, Deusing, and Lange). Moreover, the extent to which deprovincialisation and related processes were involved should be investigated further. Finally, the effect of mobility of people with other roles in the so-called ‘communication circuit’,⁸⁷ such as publishers, printers (like William Fitzer and Samuel Browne), and booksellers, should be investigated.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jan van de Kamp

Jan van de Kamp is an Associate Professor at the Hersteld Hervormd Seminary based at the Faculty of Religion and Theology of the Vrije Unversiteit Amsterdam. He is also director of the Research Center Puritanism and Piety (ReCePP) (Amsterdam/Apeldoorn). Jan specialises in church history, with his main areas of interest focused on the Reformation, Pietism, and the exchange of early modern devotional literature. Recent publications include Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur und die Rolle von Netzwerken am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts (2020), and ‘Practice of Piety Translated: The Dynamics of the International Circulation of a Devotional Book,’ Church History 92 (2023), 559–584.

Notes

1 This article is an elaboration of a paper I gave at the Society for Reformation Studies Annual Conference from 6 to 8 April 2021. My thanks go to the receptive audience who attended my lecture and to Simon Burton, Alisa van de Haar, Bert Koopman, Hanna Mazheika, Johannes Müller, and Thomas Pert, who commented on an earlier draft of this article, to Piet de Kock for correcting the English, Sara-Lynn Hofman for stylistic improvements.

2 On that topic, see Keblusek and Noldus (eds.), Double Agents.

3 Burke, Exiles and Expatriates, 70. Incidentally, some Catholic refugees also translated books. An example is Mateo Martinez van Waucquier, who came from Middelburg, fled to Antwerp and translated a couple of Catholic devotional writings into Latin, Burke, Lost (and Found) in Translation, 11.

4 Burke, Exiles and Expatriates.

5 Op ’t Hof, Engelse piëtistische geschriften, 613–6.

6 Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 435. The interest of Southern Dutch confessional migrants and their descendants in English Puritan piety and devotional writings has been explained by the migrants' experiences of loss. This would make them prone to orthodoxy in doctrine and radicalism in lifestyle, including a strong zeal for the sanctification of life, Op 't Hof, "Piety in the Wake of Trade," 250. More recent research, however, has argued that one cannot make a causal connection between confessional migration on the one hand and an orthodox theology and Puritan attitude to life on the other hand, Van de Kamp, “Pietismus und Ökonomie,” 172−4; Spohnholz, “Reformed Exiles and International Calvinism.”

7 Terpstra, Religious Refugees in the Early Modern World, 241–308. An even broader framework is that of adversity, as elaborated by Anton Blok. According to Blok, radical innovation from 1500 to 2000 came from people facing profound adversity through, for example, illegitimate birth, early loss of parents or other loved ones, social degradation of the household, poverty, minority status, illness, exile and imprisonment, Blok, De vernieuwers.

8 Burke, “Exiles and Expatriates in the History of Knowledge,” 165–6.

9 Quoted from Van de Haar, “Migrants’ Multilingual Coping Mechanisms,” 170; cf. Van de Haar, “The Linguistic Coping Strategies,” 193.

10 Müller, “Later Generation Migrants as Agents of Cultural Transfer.” Emphasis in the original. Cf. Müller, “Transmigrant Literature,” 15.

11 Spohnholz, Ruptured Lives, 23–25, quote on p. 24 referring to Sadler, “Family in Revolt.” Cf. the short discussion in Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 15n10. On diasporas in Europe between 1500 and 1800 and the tensions experienced by the exiles concerned, not only economically but socially and politically as well, see: Monge and Muchnik, Early Modern Diasporas.

12 Cf. the following article by Javier Pinedo on exiled Spanish American Jesuits in the eighteenth century and the books they wrote. According to Pinedo, the authors would probably have written these books even if they had not emigrated. On the other hand, he does relate their writing to migration, namely as a way of creatively coping with loss: Pinedo, “El exílio de los jesuitas latinoamericanos: un creativo dolor,” 47.

13 Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 36–40. Cf. Burke, Burke, Lost (and Found) in Translation, 10, who suggests that in addition to migrants, diplomats and political correspondents made an important contribution to translation in early modern Europe.

14 On this war, see: Wilson, The Thirty Years War; Schmidt, Die Reiter der Apokalypse.

15 Rüde, England und Kurpfalz; Pert, The Palatine Family.

16 Greengrass, Leslie, and Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation; Strazzoni, “Hartlib, Samuel”; Greengrass, Hotson, The Hartlib Papers and Cultures of Knowledge, “The Correspondence of Samuel Hartlib.”

17 Van de Kamp, "Knowledge Communication," 121–44.

18 Bots, De republiek der letteren.

19 Strazzoni, “Hartlib, Samuel.”

20 Van de Kamp, “Knowledge Communication.” For the heterogeneity of goals, angles and activities in Hartlib's circle, see also: Greengrass, Leslie, and Raylor, “Introduction,” 14; Yamamoto, “Reformation and the Distrust,” 375.

21 Indeed, Haak devoted a large part of his life to the communication of knowledge, including that of natural philosophy, theology, and religion. His biographer Pamela R. Barnett characterises him as follows: the ‘idea of communication provides the common motive behind all the major activities of his life and fits him equally for the roles of translator and of promoter of scientific discussion and experiment’, Barnett, Theodore Haak, 7.

22 For my discovery of this network, see van de Kamp, “Ein frühes reformiert-pietistisches Netzwerk,” 182–209.

23 Greengrass, Hotson, The Hartlib Papers and Cultures of Knowledge, “The Correspondence of Samuel Hartlib.”

24 Recognising that they are the remnant of the papers once owned by Hartlib himself; and that their composition and content is the result of the interventions of their owners in the centuries following Hartlib’s death; Greengrass and Penman, “L’ombre des archives,” 51–74; Penman, “Omnium exposita rapinae,” 1–65. For the papers, see: Greengrass, Leslie and Hannon (eds.), The Hartlib Papers.

25 Batten, “John Dury: Advocate of Christian Reunion”; Léchot, Un christianisme. The title of this book echoes Dury's tendency towards distanciation (see above); he wanted to be 'a peacemaker without partiality'. As regards Dury’s year of birth, I follow Léchot, Un christianisme, 43.

26 Blekastad, Comenius.

27 Trevor-Roper, “Three Foreigners,” 3–20; Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change, 237–93. Cf. Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius.

28 Greengrass, “Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism,” 471−3; Grell, Brethren in Christ, 178–228.

29 Greengrass, “Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism,” 467, 473−4.

30 Hotson, The Reformation of Common Learning; Burton, Ramism and the Reformation of Method.

31 HP, 47/10/18b.

32 Bots, De republiek der letteren, 54–71.

33 Webster, The Great Instauration, 58.

34 Henderson, “Faithful interpreters?”; Henderson, “Translation in the Circle of Robert Hooke”; Mazheika, “The Lithuanian Translation of the Bible.” Thanks to Dr Mazheika for sending her unpublished article.

35 Greengrass, Leslie, and Hannon (eds.), The Hartlib Papers. Emphasis removed by the author.

36 Clucas, “Samuel Hartlib’s Ephemerides,” 50.

37 Merton, “Puritanism, Pietism, and Science,” 1–30; Webster, The Great Instauration. For critiques of these theses, see: Cohen, ed., Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science; Brooke, Science and Religion, 109–16.

38 For this section, see: Barnett, Theodore Haak; Van de Kamp, “Networks and translation”; Cultures of Knowledge (ed.), “The Correspondence of Theodor Haak.” A list of all known residences of Haak and the other translators is given in the table in the appendix.

39 Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 165, 167. On White, see: Cornish, “White, John (1575–1648).” On Dorchester in those times: Underdown, Fire from Heaven.

40 The source texts are the following: Dyke, The Mystery of Selfe-deceiung; Dyke, A Treatise of Repentance; Scudder, The Christians Daily Walke; Whitfield, Some helpes. Cf. McKenzie, A Catalog of British Devotional and Religious Books; Damrau, The Reception of English Puritan Literature, 96–133.

41 Mullan, “Solemn League and Covenant,” 549–50.

42 On Haak’s translation of the Dutch Bible and its annotations, cf. also: Bremmer, “Historische achtergrond van de Haakbijbel.”

43 The Great/English Annotations refer to: Downame (ed.), Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament, cf. Lampros, “A New Set of Spectacles,”; Pederson, Unity in Diversity, 120−3. Thanks to Christaan Bremmer MA for sharing his thoughts on this aspect.

44 Barnett, Theodore Haak, 100–3. For Gouge, see n. 45.

45 See on Hummel: Ryter, “Hummel, Johann Heinrich”; Larminie, “Johann Heinrich Hummel.”. See on his translations: McKenzie, A Catalog of British Devotional and Religious Books.

46 Talentum enim quod à Deo singuli accepimus, fidei nostræ commissam est, ut illius dispensatores facti, non illud defodiamus, […] sed ad Domini emolumentum impendamus […] ne permittatis hoc Talentum tam pretiosum ulterius abscondi & occultari ab Exocitorum minibus & oculi […]

47 Quoted from Dury, An Earnest Plea. Cf. HP, 59/10/53A-60B, Copy of letters, Tossanus to Archb. of Canterbury, & Hanoverian divines to English divines, in Latin, 20/11/1632 and 15/11/1633.

48 Dury, An earnest plea; Dury, The Earnest Breathings of Forreign Protestants, 53–4; cf. Wing / D2855. In addition, see Batten, John Dury, 52–3, 92 and 132–3; Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius, 145–7, 153 and 353–4; Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England, 257–65; Pederson, Unity in Diversity, 99–102 and 127–8.

49 Van de Kamp, “Ein frühes reformiert-pietistisches Netzwerk,” 191–2; Gruch, Die evangelischen Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer, 300. Thanks to Dr Thomas Richter for the last reference.

50 Cf. HP, 29/2/36A, Ephemerides 1634 part 4; 30/4/77B, Ephemerides 1641.

51 HP, 29/5/63B, Ephemerides 1656, part 1. Streithagen is also mentioned at other places in the Hartlib Papers: 3/2/137B, John Dury to Samuel Hartlib on 7/7/1645; 9/1/32B and 9/1/33A, [Dury] to [Hartlib?] on 29/7/[1636?] and 6/8/[1636?]; 9/5/6A, J.J. Hausman to Hartlib on 3/11/1636; 9/5/9B, Hausman to Hartlib on 29/9/1637; 69/7/16A, Du Boys to Dury on 31/7/1634.

52 Streithagen, Homo novus, cf. VD17 23:270202L.

53 Weil, “William Fitzer,” 142–64; on Browne: Weil, “Samuel Browne,” 14–25; Keblusek, “Boekverkoper in ballingschap,” 73–6.

54 Cotton, Weg deß Lebens, cf. VD17 23:643396S. Cf. Sträter, Sonthom, Bayly, Dyke und Hall, 40–1. On Cotton, see: Emerson and Everett, John Cotton; Bush Jr., The Correspondence of John Cotton, 1–79; Bremer, “Cotton, John (1585–1652).”

55 Van de Kamp, “Ein frühes reformiert-pietistisches Netzwerk,” 197−8; Streiter, “Johannes Rulitius,”; Grell, Brethren in Christ, 186−7, 214, 226−8, 247−8; Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 146–8, 168, 170, 174. Both the surname and the first name vary in the sources: surname: Rulitius or Rulitus, and Rulizius (Latin); Rulice, Rulitz, Relitz, Rülz, Rulich, etc. (Dutch and German forms); Rulice or Ruliss (English forms); first name: Jan, Johann and Joannes; also John. In this article I use the Latinized first name (although shortened) and the surname as given in the matriculation register at Herborn (see below), as Latin was the common learned language in Europe in those times.

56 In 1623, Rulicius registered as a student of the Academy of Herborn (Persijn, Pfälzische Studenten und ihre Ausweichuniversitäten, 88) under the name “Johannes Nicolaus Rulicius Kirchpergensis”.

57 On Puritan househould seminaries, see Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 129–80.

58 Greengrass, “Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism,” 469.

59 “Gribius ingentem Thesaurum Secretiorum MS. Cottonianorum quæ Rulitius ipsi ex Dn. Cottoni Archivis communicavit stenographice descripta,” HP, 29/2/44B and 45A Ephemerides 1634, part 5. Gribius also appears elsewhere in the HP: 29/3/28A, Ephemerides 1635 part 3; British Library Sloane MSS 638 ff. 17A–23B, 20A, 22B, Desiderata in logica etc., part 2, in Hartlib’s hand.

60 Gribius mentions that God has given Rulicius a good wife, and from other sources we know that he married her on 26 March 1638: “Gott sey gheehrt der ihm eine gute weib verlihen”, HP, 27/28/1A-2. On Rulicius’ wedding, see Streiter, “Johannes Rulitius,” Hunsrücker Heimatblätter 149 (2012), 517.

61 With this hypothesis, I am revising my earlier assumption that Rulicius sent the letter in 1635, van de Kamp, “John Cotton en de Nadere Reformatie,” 43.

62 This may be “Demonstratio logicae verae”, “Theses logicae”, or Disputatio adversus metaphysicam, works which are part of the “Philosophemata” in vol. 5 of Ames, Opera, quae Latine scripsit, omnia, cf. Reuter, Wilhelm Amesius, 156.

63 Op ’t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 144.

64 “vber das [deletion?] sindt die Engländer der massen sorgfältig vber ihre geschriebene sachen, das sie balt ihren besten freunden nichts vertrawen durfen”, HP, 27/28/1A–2.

65 Cf. Van de Kamp, “John Cotton,” 36 and 41–43; Van de Kamp, “Ein frühes reformiert-pietistisches Netzwerk,” 198−9; Van de Kamp, “Petrus Gribius,” 296−7; Op ’t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 106−7, 138, 143−5, 147, 168–70, 173−4, 255.

66 Dyke, Zelfs-bedrieglykheyt van 's menschen hart, *4r-v. The first edition of this translation was published in 1656. Both editions include a dedication by Uilenbroek to a couple of Amsterdam ministers including, among others Gribius and Rulicius. Cf. Op ’t Hof, “Hendrik Uilenbroek (?-1681),” 418.

67 Corpus disciplinae. Cf. Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, 323n16.

68 Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 439–40.

69 Op ‘t Hof, “De internationale invloed van het puritanisme,” 324.

70 According to an e-mail dated 18th August 2023 from Jochen Gruch, the editor of Die evangelischen Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer, vol. 4, No. 11043. This year of birth is an update compared to the Pfarrerbuch edited by Gruch and to other sources, which speak of 1640.

71 Cuno, "Salbach, Johann Christoph," 199–200; Op ‘t Hof, “De internationale invloed van het puritanisme,” 350−2; Gruch (ed.), Die evangelischen Pfarrerinnen und Pfarrer, vol. 4, No. 11043.

72 Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 109–252.

73 Sann, Bunyan in Deutschland.

74 l. u., "Lange, Johann," 639; McKenzie, “British Devotional Literature,“ vol. 1, 221−2, 238–40, 246; idem, A Catalog of British Devotional and Religious Books, nos. 43, 66, 89, 103, 432, 462, 467, 485, 1077−9, 1312, 1325, 1706, 1778. On the wider context, see: Grell and Cunningham (eds), Medicine, Natural Philosophy and Religion.

75 Baasch, “Hamburgs Seeschiffahrt und Warenhandel,” 295–420; Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, 233–61.

76 Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. II, 61–114.

77 Burke, Lost (and Found) in Translation, 19; Burke, “Cultures of Translation in Early Modern Europe,” 13; Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. II, 115–36.

78 Burke, Lost (and Found) in Translation, 19; Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. II, 34, 137–55.

79 Corens, Confessional Mobility and English Catholics.

80 Müller, Exile Memories and the Dutch Revolt.

81 Cf. for similar reasons to undertake translating: Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 342, 442.

82 Van de Kamp, Übersetzungen von Erbauungsliteratur, 36–40; Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 129–250, 287–306; idem, The Ice Broken, vol. II, 15–60.

83 Mazheika also highlights the importance of transnational networks, in her case for the creation of a Lithuanian Bible translation and raising money for the distressed Reformed Church of Lithuania, Mazheika, “The Lithuanian Translation of the Bible.”

84 Likewise, the Dutch churches in England, to which both belonged in their youth, served as channels for Dutch translations of English devotional writings, Op ‘t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. I, 181–250.

85 In the Dutch Republic, for example, there were some English schoolmasters, Loonen, For to Learne to Buye and Sell; Van de Haar, “The Linguistic Coping Strategies” 196−7. Moreover, one could learn English from British soldiers, preachers, merchants, and other English speakers who stayed in the Netherlands, Op ’t Hof, The Ice Broken, vol. II, 341−2; Koopman, Het voorbereidend werk, 263−5.

86 In this context, it should be noted that there was not only influence from English devotional literature in the Dutch and German languages, but also vice versa, Flügge, Devotion translated; Op ’t Hof, Willem Teellinck, 581–582.

87 Darnton, “What is the History of Books?”

Appendix

Translators, places of residence or stay, translations and place of publication thereof (if published)

Explanatory notes:

• – For each translator, there are two rows:

  • In the first one, name and per time period of 20 years year, place, country, birth, death and possibly activities are mentioned

  • In the second one, the years in which translations of English devotional literature emerged (if known) or were published and the authors of the source texts are mentioned. Places of publication are also mentioned as much as possible

• – For some persons, years of birth and periods of certain activities are estimated

• – If certain activities overlap two or more periods, they are mentioned in all the relevant time frames

• – The data have been taken from the literature and reference works referred to in the article for the respective persons. In addition, the VD17 catalogue was used (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts, a retrospective German national bibliography for the period from 1601 to 1700, http://www.vd17.de/)

Abbreviations
a.o.	=	among others
Denm.	=	Denmark
devot.	=	devotional
Dutch Republic	=	Rep.
Engl.	=	England
HRE	=	Holy Roman Empire
NL	=	Netherlands
publ.	=	publication
transl.	=	translation

Table

	1560–1579	1580–1599	1600–19	1620–39	1640–59	1660–79	1680–1699	1700–19
Vincentius Meusevoet	c.1566?, Eeklo, Southern NL 1568–86 Norwich, Engl.	1568–86 Norwich, Engl. 1586–90 Leiden, Rep. 1590–8 Zevenhoven, Rep. 1598–1624 Schagen, Rep.	1598–1624 Schagen, Rep.	1624 Schagen, Rep. dead
		1598–1622 transl. W. Perkins, James I, T. Bilson, J. Downame, G. Downame, J. Dod & R. Cleaver, J. Brinsley, R. Rogers, T. Brightman, R. Yarrow, R. Linaker + several anonymous writings, published, a.o., in Amsterdam, Rep.
Johannes Lamotius	c.1568 London, Engl.? Born c.1568-1582 London, Engl.	c.1568-1582 London, Engl. 1582–4 Gent, Southern NL 1588–91 Heidelberg, HRE 1592–3 Gorinchem, and Giessen-Nieuwkerk, Rep. 1593–5 ‘s-Gravenzande, Rep. 1595–1604 Kampen, Rep.	1595–1604 Kampen, Rep. 1604–27 The Hague, Rep. 1618/18 contact with J. Hall and S. Ward during Synod of Dort?	1604–27 The Hague, Rep. 1627, Rep. dead
			1612–1628 transl. W. Cowper, J. Dod & R. Cleaver, J. Hayward, T. Howes, N. Byfield, D. Dyke, S. Smith, J. Udall, J. Abernethy, P. Baynes, J. Wing, J. Sprint, J. Hall & S. Ward (1626), J. Sprint. publ. in, a.o., Delft, Arnhem, Rep.
Petrus Streithagen		1591 Aachen, HRE: born	Around 1610 Heidelberg, HRE 1618–20 Schriesheim, HRE	1618–20 Schriesheim, HRE 1620–2 Dossenheim, HRE 1622–3 Germersheim, HRE 1623–30 army preacher of the counts Ernst and Wilhelm von Nassau-Dietz, HRE 1630–1 Emmerich, HRE 1631–2 army preacher of the Palatinate 1632 Schriesheim, HRE 1632–3 Dirmstein, HRE 1633 Heidelberg, HRE 1635–1640 court preacher in The Hague, NL [accompanied Charles Louis, Elector Palatine, on his travels] 1635–7 Engl.	1640-53/54 court preacher Heidelberg, HRE 1641–2 Engl. 1645–9 Engl. 1654 Heidelberg, HRE dead
				From at least 1634: emerge transl. commonplaces	1658 Heidelberg, HRE publ. Homo novus [commonplaces?]	1662 Heidelberg, HRE: publ. transl. J. Cotton
Johannes Rulicius			1602 Kirchberg, HRE	1623 Herborn, HRE 1623–8 Cambridge, Engl. 1628-9? Boston, Engl. 1628–31 Dorchester, Engl. 1632–3 Heidelberg, HRE 1634 Engl. 1635 Engl. 1636–52 Amsterdam, Rep.	1636–52 Amsterdam, Rep. 1652–4 Heidelberg, HRE 1654–66 Amsterdam, Rep.	1654–66 Amsterdam, Rep. 1666 Amsterdam, Rep.: dead
				1634: gave P. Gribius manuscripts from J. Cotton’s archive	Around 1655: persuased N. van Turenout to translate H. Whitfield, published 1655 Amsterdam, Rep.
Petrus Gribius			1602/3 Münzenberg, HRE: born	1624ff. Franeker, Rep. c.1626-30 Boston, Engl. 1630–2 Amersfoort, Rep. 1632–8 ’s-Hertogenbosch, Rep. Interrupted by 1633 Gorinchem, Rep. 1638–42 Bruinisse, Rep.	1638–42 Bruinisse, Rep. 1642–52 Middelburg Interrupted by 1646–8 Recife, Brazil 1652–66 Amsterdam, Rep.	1652–66 Amsterdam, Rep. 1666 Amsterdam, Rep. dead
				1634 received from J. Rulicius manuscripts from J. Cotton’s archive c.1639 tried to obtain manuscripts for S. Hartlib, a.o., writings by W. Ames and J. Cotton	c.1655 persuaded W. van Beaumont to publish, and J. Grindal to translate a book by T. Goodwin, published Amsterdam, Rep. 1655
Theodore Haak			1605 Neuhausen, HRE born	1625–6 Engl.: Cambridge, Oxford, Dorchester 1626 Cologne, HRE 1632 Engl., HRE, Rep. 1639 definitive settlement in London, Engl.	1643–4 Denm. – 1645–90 London, Engl.	1645–90 London, Engl.	1645–90 London, Engl. 1690 London, Engl. dead
				1626 Cologne, HRE. – emerge transl. D. Dyke 1635–7 publ. transl. H Scudder, and D. Dyke at Frankfurt/Main, HRE 1638 publ. transl. H. Whitfield at Amsterdam 1639 publ. transl. unknown author at Basel, Switzerland 1643–4 Denm.: translated, a.o., Solemn League 1645ff. London, Engl.: transl. texts on natural philosophy, and of Dutch State’s Bible 1654 London, Engl.: distribution of devotional texts to J. Pell 1655ff. London, Engl.: transl. J. Milton 1657 London, Engl.: publ. transl. Dutch State’s Bible
Jacobus Koelman				1631 Utrecht, Rep. born 1631–57 Utrecht, Rep.	1631–57 Utrecht, Rep. 1657 Copenhagen, Denm. 1658ff. Brussels, Southern NL	1662–75 Sluis, Rep. 1675 Utrecht, and Rotterdam, Rep. 1676–91 Amsterdam, Rep. Interrupted by travels through the Rep.	1676–91 Amsterdam, Rep. Interrupted by travels through the Rep. 1691–5 Utrecht, Rep. 1695 Utrecht, Rep. Dead
					1656–1696 transl. C. Love, J. Ussher, T. Goodwin, N. Byfield, E. Reyner, J. Symonds, W. Guthrie, S. Rutherford, R. MacWard, J. Brown, H. Binning, T. Hooker, F. Rous, J. Durham, D. Dickson, G. Burnet, S. Clark and unknown authors., published in, a.o., Utrecht, Middelburg, Amsterdam, Vlissingen, Rotterdam, Rep.
Johannes Deusing				c.1639 Bremen, HRE: born	1657ff Bremen, HRE	1666-c.1696 Cassel, HRE
						1671–1697 transl. R. Baxter, W. Guthrie, R. Sibbes, and R. Bolton, published at, a.o., Cassel, HRE
Johann Christoph Salbach				1637 Runkel, HRE born	1649–55 Herborn, HRE 1655 Bremen, HRE 1658 Groningen, Rep. 1659 Franeker, Rep.	1662–9 Bergzabern, HRE Interrupted by trip to Engl. 1669–80 Obermoschel, HRE	1669–80 Obermoschel, HRE 1680-3, Kusel HRE 1683–90 Meisenheim, HRE, temporarily Böckelheim, HRE 1690–1706 Wetzlar, HRE	1690–1708 Wetzlar, HRE 1708 Wetzlar, HRE dead
						1663–1708 transl. R. Allestree, D. Dyke, J. Dyke, T. Gataker, J. Hall, R. Harris, J. Preston, E. Reynolds, T. Sorocold, J. Wellbrooke, and unknown authors, published in, a.o., Frankfurt/Main, HRE
Johann Lange							after 1696 Hamburg? dead
					at latest c.1650: born (HRE?)	1673-1700, mostly at Hamburg transl. J. Hayward, J. Bunyan, E. Pearse, R. Wilkinson, T. Adams, J. Collinges, and R. Brownrig