Continued from part 1.
The first to use the Pater Noster to compare languages seems to have been Schiltberger, who, returning after thirty years captivity at the hands of the Turks, added right after his story specimens in Armenian and Tartar. Neumann's 1859 edition omits them, calling them in a footnote, überflüssig 'superfluous', but still giving credit there for priority. The English translation, by Telfer, includes them and adds modern Armenian and Tartar versions from a Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff of Shousha for comparison.
Hakhoumoff's Modern Armenian is recognizably standard, up to transliteration.
hatz meyr anhabas tur mies eis or
zhatz mer hanapazort tour mez aisor
Զհաց մեր հանապազորդ տո՛ւր մեզ այսօր։
bread our daily give-thou us this-day
Armenian and the Lord's Prayer leads to even more interesting script encounters. MS. Laud Or. 21 has Latin Prayers, the Ave Maria and Pater Noster, written in Armenian characters, only partially digitized. Mingana Syr. 44, f. 132r has an Armenian-Garshuni version.
ܙܗܵܐܬܣܬ ܡܝܪ ܗܵܐܢܵܐܒܵܐܙ ܙܘܪܬ / ܕܘܪ ܡܝܙ ܐܰܝܣܵܪzhá’tst myr há’ná’bá’z zwrt / dwr myz ’aysor.
That is from Takahashi. The catalog just says various notes (elsewhere, it lists Persian 299 G, f. 118b and Turkish 350, ff. 110-111 versions in Syriac characters); it has not been digitized, either. (A single Index of Digitized Armenian Manuscripts sounds very useful, but searching for Birmingham only gives a record with ID NaN and a dead link, so a work-in-progress.)
According to this paper, Schiltberger's Tartar is Cuman and Hakhoumoff's is Azeri. The author standardizes the spelling and includes, by way of comparison, an Ottoman Turkish version from The Turkish Interpreter; and then analyzes the vocabulary.
wer wisum gundaluch otrnak chumusen wougû
ver bizim gündälik ötmäk- imiz-in bugün
ver byza gyounluk georagymuz
ver bizə günlük čörek-imiz
give to-us daily bread-our today
هر كونكه اتمكمزي بزه بو كون ويرhehr guiunkih etmekimizy bizeh boo guiun vir
As might be hoped, the most interesting part of these versions of the verse is the Turkic 'bread' words. The modernized ötmäkimizin is more or less identical to the word in the Lord's Prayer in the Codex Cumanicus (that Wikipedia page transcribes the prayer and gives a comparison to another Tatar language, but it does not list sources, so the Citation Police might remove it at any time), øtmɑkimiſni. A digital scan of that page is here; a critical edition by Kuun Géza with notes (in Latin) is here; the entry in the Komanisches Wörterbuch (Kaare doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but his father Vilhelm does) is here. Sir Gerard Clauson's Etymological Dictionary Of Pre Thirteenth Century Turkish, says, s.v. etmek / ötmek, “the oldest of three similar words for 'bread', the others being epmek and ekmek.” čörek / çörək / чөрәҝ cognates are, in some places, the general word for 'bread', and others, a specific kind: Turkish, one of the latter, çörek — with recipe videos and all — tends to dominate search results.
As Renaissance missionary activity progressed, the number of languages, and particularly exotic languages, available for collecting expanded. (I do not believe that anyone has covered in, say, the Journal of the History of Collections the parallels between these prayer collections and physical Wunderkammer, but someone really should.) Prodromus Coptus which includes various other prayers, in a wide variety of languages and scripts, does have a Coptic Oratio Dominica Ægyptiacè at the very end. China Illustrara has several pages of Devanagari, from Roth, concluding with transliterations of the Latin Pater Noster and the Ave Maria.
Roth's text from Kircher is included in Müller as Brachmanica with a note in place of the reading.
Superior Typus non verſio eſt Orationis Dominicæ, ſed ipsissima versio vulgata, Brachmanicis notis expreſſa. Itaque legendi ratio nulla alia hîc locum obtinet. Verſio verò Orationis Dominicæ in Linguam Brachmanicam autori nondum, ut videtur, innotuit.
The above specimen is not a version of the Lord's Prayer, but the very same Vulgate version, expressed in Brahmin characters. Therefore, no other way of reading applies here. The real translation of the Lord's Prayer into the Brahmin Language is not yet, it would seem, known to the author.
Things are even more confused, though, because, at least in the two copies that have been scanned, the script on that page is Tamil and the copy from “Kirch. Chin. Illuſtr. 162.” is actually pasted onto the previous page, as Malabarica. When copied into Chamberlayne as Brachmannice it just has the Latin as the reading and no further explanation.
The Encyclopédie as well, on Pl. XVII of Alphabets Anciens et Modernes, Alphabet Nagrou ou Hanscret, explains the script and then gives, by way of example, the Latin Pater Noster transliterated. Pantographia uses this for Nagari 2. The sample does not extend as far as the 'daily bread' verse, however.
M. V. La Croze, who will feature below several times — and who was the first to point out the similarity between Persian and Indian languages and between Latin and Indian numbers — in a letter to August Hermann Francke, wrote seeking real translations into Hanſcrit / Kirendum.
Quin etiam ſi quidem id fieri poſſet peropportunum mihi foret ſi Orationem Dominicam ea lingua ſcriptam obtinere poſſem una cum illius linguae alphabeto:
Furthermore, if possible, it would be very convenient for me if I could obtain a translation of the Lord's Prayer, together with the alphabet of that language. (tr. Van Hal)
Together with some doubt about Kircher's version. And, indeed, Sanskrit translations did come about due to the work of Protestant missionaries. Schultze, in his diary for the end of 1729 recorded that he, “made or procured to me made, translations of the Our Father …” Sprachmeister includes ones from him and Bayer, with pasted-in fold-out hand-written scripts. Specifically, in addition to reproducing Brachmannica from Kirch. Chin. Illuſtr, 162., it has three Sanskrit versions. Dewa-Nagaram ſ. Hanscret (a), with fold-out Dewa-Nagricè in Devanagari, and Samscrutamica (g), with fold-out Samſcrutamicè in Telugu, are substantially the same, just in different scripts.
अनुदिनम मत्भोजनम अस्माक अद्य देहि
Anundinam mat pod ſanam asmakam addia dehi
అనుదినమ మత భొజనం అస్తంకం అద్య దెహి
Anudinam mat podſanam aſtmakam áddia déhi
quotidinam nostrum cibum nobis hodie date
daily our food to-us today give
And a somewhat different Granthamica (k), with fold-out Granthamicè Kirendum in Grantha. (If a font is needed, try Noto.)
Aharaharwidiamanam asmátu bodſanam asmakammidanim práitſcha
𑌅𑌹𑌰𑌹𑌰𑍍𑌵𑍀𑌦𑍍𑌯𑌮𑌾𑌨𑌮 𑌅𑌸𑍍𑌮𑌤𑍁 𑌭𑍋𑌜𑌨𑌮 𑌅𑌸𑍍𑌮𑌾𑌕𑌮𑍍𑌮𑍀𑌦𑌾𑌨𑍀𑌂 𑌪𑍍𑌰𑌧𑌛𑍍𑌶
quotidinam nostrum cibum nobis hoc die date
daily our food to-us this day give
These were used in collections for a while, with only the transliterations: Hervás 79. Samscrutamica. and 81. Grantamice., with word-for-word glosses; Marcel Granthamice and Hanscretice Dewa-Nagarica Dialecto, “Ex Schultzio”; Bodoni XXXVI Grantamice and XXXVIII Hanscretice, Dewa-Nagarica Dialecto; Mithridates 15. Sanscrit from the Grantha; Sulzer 15. Sanscrito, likewise; Marietti XXII Granthamice and XXIII Devanagarice.
There followed translations of the Bible by Baptist missionaries. The first Sanskrit New Testament was published in 1808 and was the work of William Carey. “The Lord's Prayer in Sanskrit,” by George Gispert-Sauch, a study of a dozen translations, available in Google Books as snippets, mistakenly assumes that the 1808 translation was the same as the 1878 edition the author had. “The Lord's Prayer in the Sanskrit Bible,” from a few years later, transliterates the 1808 text and gives a literal translation. And this is nearly identical with a couple versions in later collections: Serampore 2. In Sungskrita. and Brill Sanskrit.
asmākaṁ jīvanārhaṁ bhakṣyamasmābhyamadya dehi.
Our life-supporting food give us this day.
अस्माकं जीवनार्हं भक्ष्यमस्मभ्यमद्य देहि
asmākaṁ jīvanārhaṁ bhakṣyamasmabhyamadya dēhi.
अस्माकं जीवनार्हं भक्ष्यमस्मभ्यं अद्य देहि
asmākaṁ jīvanārhaṁ bhakṣyamasmabhyaṁ adya dēhi
Except … when looking at scanned copies of this translation, that is not what Matthew 6:11 has. Moreoever, what is there looks more like Hindi. The starting phrase, हमींको जीने लायक खोराक hamīṅkō jīnē lāyak khōrāk 'to-us life worthy ration', matches Carey's 1812 Hindi translation. I am not sure what is going on. The English title page matches, “The : New Testament : Of Our Lord and Saviour : Jesus Christ : Translated into the : Sungskrit Language, : from the : Original Greek : By the Missionaries at Serampore. : Serampore. : 1808.” The Devanagari title page matches,
ईश्वरस्य सर्व्ववाक्यानि
यन्मनुष्याणां त्राणाय कार्य्यसाधनाय च प्रकाशितं।
तदेव
धर्म्मपुस्तकं
तस्यान्तभागः।
अर्यादस्मत्प्रभुतारकयिशुख्रीष्टविषयकः
मङ्गलसमाचारः
यावनिकभाषात आकृष्य संस्कृतभाषया लिखितः
श्रीरामपुरे मुद्रितः
१८०८
īśvarasya sarvvavākyāni : yanmanuṣyāṇāṁ trāṇāya kāryyasādhanāya ca prakāśitaṁ. : tadēva : dharmmapustakaṁ : tasyāntabhāgaḥ. : aryādasmatprabhutārakayiśukhrīṣṭaviṣayakaḥ : maṅgalasamācāraḥ yāvanikabhāṣāta ākr̥ṣya saṁskr̥tabhāṣayā likhitaḥ : śrīrāmapurē mudritaḥ : 1808
A scan of a different copy is the same. There is no mention of multiple early editions in bibliographies or the mission's Memoir. Perhaps most importantly, the Luke 11:3 translation does match what the paper quotes.
भक्ष्यमस्माकं दैनिकं देहि अस्माभ्यं प्रतिदिनं
bhakṣyamasmākaṁ dainikaṁ dēhi asmābhyaṁ pratidinaṁ
Our daily food give us day by day.
Leaving aside that mystery, what is interesting about the Sanskrit text is the use of जीवन jīvana 'life-giving'. for epiousion.
The translation work then passed on to William Yates and then John Wegner. As expected, revisions to the translation continued.
1839 Gospel by Matthew
अस्माकमावश्यकं भोज्यमद्यास्मभ्यं देहि
asmākamāvaśyakaṁ bhōjyamadyāsmabhyaṁ dēhi
1841 New Testament
अस्माकमावश्यकमाहा रमद्य देहि
asmākamāvaśyakamāhā ramadya dēhi
1844 Four Gospels, 1851 New Testament, Second Edition
अस्माकं प्रयोजनीयम् आहारम् अद्य देहि
asmākaṁ prayōjanīyam āhāram adya dēhi
our necessary food today give
1878, 1886, 1910 New Testament, Third Edition
श्वस्तनं भक्ष्यमद्यास्मभ्यं देहि
śvastanaṁ bhakṣyamadyāsmabhyaṁ dēhi
give us for the morrow our daily food
Apostolides Sanskrit and Gilbert & Rivington, 300 Sanskrit are the Second Edition. Gilbert & Rivington, 500 Sanskrit is the Third Edition, given in six scripts: Nagari, Roman, Bengali, Malayalam, Oriya, and Telugu.
Alphabetum Brammhanicum seu Indostanum, after explaining the alphabet, again gives as an example the Latin Pater Noster transliterated into Devanagari, but this time followed by a Hindi version.
Quotidianum panem nobis da
प्रतीदीन रोटी हम लोगों को दीजिवो
Pratidin rotì ham logon ko digivo
This latter is given in Hervás as 88. Indostana, detta Hindua, e Brammhana and by Marcel as Brammhanice. Note that an ordinary 'bread' word, roti, was chosen.
The Tagalog versions in Hervás, 56. Lingua Tagala, and 57. Lingua Tagala dell'anno 1593, are copied (with some one letter differences) in Mithridates as 98. Tagalisch von 1593 and 99. Heutiges Tagalisch. The older version comes from a translation of the Doctrina Christiana. For some reason, the only online copy of this is the Project Gutenberg one, though since it has page scans of the facsimile, I guess it's all good. Besides orthography, these differ from another, and from a modern Bible, in the 'bread' word.
bigian mo cami ngaion nang [c]amin cacanín para nang sa arao.
bigian mo camin ngaion nang amin[g] canin sa arao-arao
bigyãmo cami ng̃aion nang amin cacanin. para nang sa araoarao.
ᜊᜒ ᜌ ᜋᜓ ᜃ ᜋᜒ᜶ᜅ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜃ ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜈ ᜐ ᜀ ᜇ ᜀ ᜇ᜶
bigyan mo kami ngayon ng aming pagkain sa araw-araw
give may us now the our food/rice of day-day
The Wikipedia page on Filipino orthography natually uses the Lord's Prayer to illustrate the changes, though in transcribing from the Doctrina Christiana it substitutes ng for nang. In modern Tagalog, pagkain is 'food', kanin 'cooked rice', and kakanin 'snacks'. “Give Us Today Our Daily Rice” discusses whether the earlier translation would have been understood as 'food' or 'rice' and the extent to which either choice differs intentionally from 'bread'. Some of this seems to be related to questions of whether kakanin is related to kanin 'rice' or kain 'eat' (or both).
At some point, the collecting becomes a numerical competition, with many of the titles directly giving the number of languages / translations included. Starting at the dawn of the 19th century, the works are as much collections of type specimens as language. This is further spurred by a rivalry among the various imperial state presses. Immediately after Marcel produced 150 for Napolean's, Pius VII persuaded Bodoni to do 155. Auer's Austrian version, rather than having page after page of the various version, covers several large sheets with them. This is a moderately valuable rare book find: a copy sold about twenty years ago at Christies for $1200. Note also that it is 552x390mm. By contrast, a Vaterunser in Sieben Sprachen, claiming to be das kleinste Buch der Welt, and still sold in gift shops, is 100x smaller, only 5mm.
The title page of the second (1847) volume of Auer's Sprachenhalle has engraved portraits of his predecessors: Christoph Crinesius 1629, Joh. Wilkins 1668, Joh. Chr. Adelung 1806, Joh. B Bodoni 1806, Nicol. Witsen 1692, Hieron. Megiser 1592, Conrad Gesner 1555, Bonav. Vulcanius 1597, Thoed. Bibliander 1548, Paul Merula 1605, Franz Junius 1660, Wilhelm Postel 1538, Andreas Thevet 1575.
For Germany, a single page printed in Berlin in 1847, Sprachproben der Akademischen Buchdruckerei, also has an unusual layout in the shape of a cross. But a contemporary notice points out,
Für das Persepolitanische, Hetrurische und Zend ist aber nicht eine Uebersetzung des V.-U. gegeben, sondern es sind anderweite kurze Stücke abgedruckt.
For the Old Persian, Etruscan and Avestan, however, no translation of the L. P. is given, but other short pieces are printed.
Russian followed and the Vatican's own. The Dutch, English, and American offerings were still by private commercial presses.
Gilbert and Rivington had previously published, in 1875, Specimens of Some of the Oriental and Foreign Type Now in Use for the British and Foreign Bible Society, using the arguably more apt John 3:16. So, too, the United Bible Society's The Book of a Thousand Tongues, revised in 1972 from an earlier American Bible Society edition of 1938, chose to use various representative Bible verses, only occasionally choosing the Lord's Prayer. It is understandable that those in the business of Bible translations, or at least the New Testament or the Gospels, should wish to show more than just the single prayer.
Continued in part 3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment