The main aim of this paper is to present and analyse an ode by the Flemish Jesuit Sidronius Hosschius (Sidronius [or Syderoen] de Hossche, 1596–1653) to “the Sarmatian Horace”Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius (Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, 1595–1640). This eulogy has often been viewed as a masterpiece. In addition, it has two distinct versions: one published in a collection of poems in honour of Sarbievius (the socalled Epicitharisma), first printed in an edition of his oeuvre in 1632, and one in the collective volume of Hosschius’s own works issued posthumously in 1656. Both versions were first published by the famous Plantin-Moretus printing house in Antwerp. 

The paper consists of three sections. The first one focuses on the relationship between Hosschius and Sarbievius and on the Nachleben of Hosschius’s ode. The second section offers a general analysis of the poem. Tracing the contents of Hosschius’s ode and its sources of inspiration, it argues that Hor. Carm. IV 2 is central to the poem’s understanding. The third section discusses the differences between the two versions, in an attempt to disclose why the poem was altered and how the changes influence the ode’s meaning. A number of larger changes affect the poem’s central message: while in the earlier version Sarbievius is said to outdo Pindar and even Horace, the later version is more cautious. All it does is admit that Sarbievius could perhaps equal Pindar and Orpheus. 

Hosschius’s eulogy and the reception of Sarbievius through his composition have two different traditions: 1) the one found in most editions of Sarbievius’s works, where the poem basically proclaims him to be the best Latin lyricist of all time, thereby tying in with other laudatory contributions and promoting both Sarbievius’s oeuvre and the editions themselves, and 2) the one added to Hosschius’s own poetry, where the adjusted version—which contains more references to ancient literature and which could be called more personal, as well as, perhaps, more realistic—became a fan favourite.

In both instances, however, the reinterpretation of the psychological effect of poetry—the translation of furor poeticus from the author to the reader—and the re-evaluation of the concept of aemulatio could be the main reason why Hosschius’s ode was so highly valued.

The paper deals with six poems of three 18th-century English women poets—Lady Mary Chudleigh, Mary Masters, and Anne Steele “Theodosia”—inspired by the works of the greatest Polish Neo-Latin poet Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski. The aim of the study is to present the three authors, their biographies and literary oeuvres, and to attempt an analysis of the poems in question within this context.

The biographies, social position—Chudleigh was the wife a baronet, the two others belonged to the middle class—and education of the three authoresses differ and yet they all shared the limitations resulting from the fact that they were women in 18th-century England, and were therefore denied access to academic education. The analysis of the texts and biographies has proven that it is highly improbable that either of the three women poets could translate the poems from Latin originals. All of their translations are based on earlier renditions; in the case of Chudleigh it is possible to identify the source text, that is the translation by John Norris.

Inasmuch as it can be ascertained from the available biographical and critical sources and the results, the attitudes of the three poetesses towards their work varied. Only Masters acknowledged the source material in her publications. Although the current concepts of translation are different, her two poems: On a Fountain. Casimir, Lib. Epod. Ode 2 and Casimir, Lib. I. Ode 2—qualify as translations by the standards of her times. They are analysed here in detail. Neither Chudleigh nor Steele mentioned Sarbiewski in their publications. Their decision can be justified by the fact that their poems, even if clearly (though most likely indirectly) inspired by his lyrics, must be classified as free adaptations or even original poetry influenced by Sarbiewski or earlier translations and adaptations of his works.

The main purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it presents the edition of a Latin ode written by Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski SJ (1595–1640) dedicated to Janusz Skumin Tyszkiewicz (1572–1642), Voivode of Trakai, after the death of his beloved wife, Barbara née Naruszewicz (1580–1627). A new Polish translation of this text and a commentary are also provided. Secondly, the first part of the paper, or the invitation to close reading, aims at giving more detailed information about the rhetorical architecture of the ode, particularly its composition, arguments, and figures.

Sarbiewski, regarded as the most brilliant imitator of Horatian lyrical discourse in early-modern Europe (“Christian Horace”), used the established schemes and formulas to create a Christian consolation based on reinventing the lyrical arguments. The persuasive power of his ode is strongly related to vivid, evocative, and meaningful images. The correlation between divine inspiration and poetic perfection allowed him to refashion the rhetorical patterns of epicedium. Sarbiewski wanted to demonstrate his ability to use various modes of linguistic expression. Thus, in the heart of his consolation there is a story about “the cracks”(rimae) in heaven’s gate and a poet who can take a short glimpse into “the heavenly city”(urbs caelestis).

The consolation is to confirm the belief that, following departure, a deceased can live in the realm of eternal joy and happiness. Paradoxically, he or she can be happier there than during his or her earthly life. Despite its rhetorical refinement and poetical elaboration, it always serves the same purpose. Moreover, its realisation only becomes possible due to literary mediation. The poet appears to be the mediator between the world of the living and the world of the dead. The final verses of the poem bring a moral lesson best epitomized in a brief appeal “do not want more”(nec tu plura velis), addressed not only to Tyszkiewicz, but also to the poet himself and the readers.