Continued from part 2.
Russell's brief polyglot history, mentioned above, called out Chinese in the timeline. A paper from earlier this year, “East Asian languages in Lord’s Prayer collections, ca. 1600–1900,” by Sven Osterkamp gives more detail.
Rocca was the first of the collections to include Chinese, in transliteration, as the last specimen. The Chinese characters for this were never included in a collection. But they come from pages added to some copies of Michele Ruggieri's 1584 Chinese Catechism 天主實錄 Tiānzhǔ shílù 'True Record of the Lord of Heaven', including, in particular, the copy in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, which they have digitized (and stored in the Internet Archive), Jap. Sin. I-189. In addition to copies without the extra page, there is the later revision, 天主聖教實錄 Tiānzhǔ shèngjiào shílù, which is rather different, as well as the more generally accepted 天主實義 Tiānzhǔ shíyì, by Matteo Ricci, who is correspondingly better known than Ruggieri. In fact, it was for a while supposed that some of Ruggieri's translations were really Ricci's work. But a new edition and translation from last year (2023) by Daniel Canaris aims to correct all that.
我願大父賜我衣食
Ngo iuon ta fu ssi ngo yi ciè
Wǒ yuàn dà fù cì wǒ yīshí
I wish, great father, give us sustenance.
Within the framework of these posts, there is the expansion of 'bread' to 'sustenance', literally 'clothes and food'. This version was also included in last place by Megiser in the 1593, XL Chiniacè vel Sinenſium lingua, and in second to last in 1603, XXXVI, (see below for what came last); and by Gramaye as Sinenſes.
The first inclusion of Chinese script was J. Wilkins, reproducing handwritten characters with phonetic readings next to them, except that these get out of sync: two are missing before we get to the 'daily bread' petition and one in the middle of it. Properly aligned, it is:
我等望爾今日與我我日用糧
ngò teng ŭwáng úʼul kyn zié jûn ngò ngò zié jong leang
Wǒděng wàng ěr jīnrì yǔ wǒ wǒ rìyòng liáng
I hope today you will give us our daily food.
Several years before Oratio Orationum, Müller had published Oratio Dominica Sinice dealing with these two versions in detail. It redraws Wilkins's characters in a grid, gives a word-for-word translation of each version, and adds notes. For the fuller collection, this was condensed into two pages, the chart followed by transliterations of both. The London reprint does this similarly; the Augsburg squeezes onto part of a page and loses the transliterations; the Leipzig separates out some figures: the Göttingen scan of this doesn't manage to include any figures, only the text; the Dresden scan, which is otherwise not as clear, has text and then figure at the end. Among the several scans of Chamberlayne's rendering in Google Books, 1 2 3 4, half don't do the fold-out page properly and for the others that do as a single image, the result is not entirely legible. There are no translations in Müller's polyglot collection, only transliterations. Consequentaly, Hervás has the two versions as 66. & 67. Altro dialetto Cinese, but without a literal translation. Marcel for the Sinice transliteration, shows the different tones as markers on a staff, that is, which of the five each syllable has. In Mithridates, these two versions are moved to first place, 1. Mandarinen-Siniesisch. and 2. Dasselbe.. But Müller had misconstrued yi cie as dies qui, so that becomes Tag welcher / diesen Tag and there is only an ellipsis for what the petition wants today. Müller's citations for Rocca's version also mention August Pfeiffer's Fasciculus dissertationum philologicarum, p. 135; later editions of this piece insert the second version as well. Pfeiffer's own collection gives them as LX. Die Sineſiſche. and LXI. Eine andere Gattung deſelben. Both Wilkins and Pfeiffer had interesting agendas in putting together their translation collections, which will be considered a bit more below.
As the nineteenth century progressed, a major source of new translations was Protestant missionaries, including to China. It is worth, therefore, running quickly through the Sinitic versions in the Gilbert & Rivington, 500 collection. It is possible to track down most of their sources; just as with the Gilded Age mottoes, there are a few dead ends remaining. As pointed out in Rost's preface to the 300 collection, the aim of these works was to show the scope of Scripture translation, chiefly by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the publisher's own Oriental Printing Establishment. Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture, by Darlow and Moule, is an annotated bibliography of the Bible Society's library. This seems to be the librarian cataloguer go-to source; it is sometimes abbreviated D&M and will so be in what follows. A shorter Translations of the scriptures into the languages of China gives a less detailed overview. The American Bible Society version is Translation of the Bible: A Chronology of the Versions of the Holy Scriptures Since the Invention of Printing. Extending to more modern times, there is also a Wikipedia page and The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in China. Here is a Brief Overview in table form. When the Bible Society moved out of town in 1985, they arranged for the library to be deposited at Cambridge, which consequently has the best Worldcat entries. There are also some in the NLA, Harvard, and Yale. There was apparently an effort to catalog the Bodleain Chinese holdings; we only have one side of what happened then, but that incomplete result is available online as well. I have to imagine that there is some comprehensive Chinese language site linking to all the available scans, but I have not found it.
所需之糧、今日賜我。
I believe that this is some revision of the Delegates' Version. It matches an 1872 Delegates' Version (D&M 2568) except that 賜 cì is replaced by 錫 xí there and the 日 is miscut. Also an 1851 commissioned(?) translation, with the same substitution. Rather earlier Wenli versions, such as from 1840 (D&M 2484) have differences like 吾日用糧、今日賜余。 The 1863 Delegates' Version adds an explicit pronoun, 我儕所需之糧、今日賜我。
Chinese (Easy Wenli), also called Low Wenli, making the previous High Wenli; Literary Chinese as might be used by government.
賜我等今日日所用糧
Tszʼ wo tang kin jih jih so yung liáng; give us food for today
This is the same as in Apostolides Chinese, which means it must have existed in 1871. This one verse matches an 1848 Book of Common Prayer, though other verses are different. It completely matches the physical woodblock that this blog post describes.
It is fairly substantially different from Bible versions that I have managed to find calling themselves “Easy Wenli.” The translation by Griffith John, in 1884 (D&M 2627), has 我所需之粮、求今日賜我。, as do the 1885 (D&M 2628) and 1889 (D&M 2637) revisions. The Burdon-Blodget translation of 1886 (D&M 2633) has 我等日用之飲食、今日賜我等。 An 1895 ABS translation is like that except that the 'food' word is liáng instead of yǐnshí: 我等日用之糧、今日賜我等。 A 1903 Union version (D&M 2656) slightly changes the pronouns, wǒděng to wǒchái or just wǒ: 我儕日用之糧、今日賜我。 The version in Bergholtz as Chinese changes rìyòng 'daily' to suǒxū 'necessary', which seems like a doctrinal change: 我儕所需之糧、今日賜我、 bible.com says that is the Bridgman-Culbertson translation.
我們日用的飲食、今日賜給我們。
O-men rïh-iong-tih in-shïh, kin-rïh tsʽï-kih o-men.
wǒmen rìyòng de yǐnshí, jīnrì cìgěi wǒmen.
Matches the 1872 version (D&M 2676). This paper compares the Union Version to the 1872 Peking Mandarin. An 1899 ABS bilingual English and Mandarin edition is also the same, except for some added 了s (an almost stereotypical uncertainty). The transliteration likely comes from an 1888 edition (D&M 2706), although that Google Books scan isn't actually available.
我們需用的糧食、求你今日給我、
Medhurst and Stronach supervised Wang Tao in translating the Delegates' Version into the Nanjing topolect, beginning with a 1854 Matthew (D&M 2744). A contemporary review called it “undignified” and specifically objected to the use of 殺 'kill' for the superlative. Although I am not certain that character is used generally that way, versus in specific dialect words, such as 嚇殺 xiàshā 'scared to death', how the people of Jerusalem felt after Herod heard from the Wise Men in Matt 2:3. Morrison, when he learned of the plans for vernacular versions, had written in his journal that Medhurst aimed for a “parlour-book.” Matches the Nanjing Mandarin version online
só˙ tio̍h-ēng ê bí-niû kin-â-jit hō˙ goán
I believe that this 1894 New Testament is a reprint of the 1873 one (D&M 2765).
我哋需用嘅糧，今日賜我。
1882 Revised Union version (D&M 2790). It says there that the translators included Henry V. Noyes, brother of Harriet, though this recent paper on Cantonese and Protestant missionaries says — quoting Spillett's Catalog, another standard bibliographic work, but not found online or nearby libraries — that the New Testament was the work of Immanuel Gottlieb Genähr and Au Fung-Chi. Also matches this 1910 bilingual English and Cantonese.
Cantonese or Punti.
Ṅo˗́ sůiˎ yuṅ˗̀ ke̱ˋ lo̤uṅ yat yat piˊ ṅo˗́.
That is the Lepsius Standard Alphabet adapted for Cantonese and for its tones in particular. Which suggests it must be from the 1867 Luke, transliterated by Ernest Faber (D&M 2777). I have not found any scans of this work, which also includes a description of how the transliteration scheme works.
Fuh-Chow, Fuzhou, Eastern Min.
日用其糧草求汝今旦賜奴
Nĭk-ê̤ṳng gì liòng-chō̤ giù nṳ̄ gĭng-dáng sé̤ṳ nù.
Nik˒̱ ëüngʾ̵ ˓̱ki ˓̱liong ʿchʻó ˓̱kiu ʿnü ˓king tangʾ sëüʾ˓̱nëng ˓ka˓̱nu.
Nih⁸-ëüng⁷ki⁵ liong⁵-ch'ò² [kiu⁵ nü²] king-tang⁵ sëü³nëng⁵-kanu⁵.
Mostly matches the version given in a couple of descriptions of the topolect: here and here (at the very end). The differences seem to be politeness: 奴 nù 'humble' becomes 𠆧家 = 儂家 nàng-gă 'us', and additionally in the second case 求汝 giù nṳ̄ '(we) beseech you' is removed. That first looks to match this 1869 New Testament (D&M 2828). So an exact match might be another revision that I have not found scanned yet. The scheme for marking the tones with half-rings with optional underlines rather than numbers originates with Williams for Cantonese.
Vá-nâg tó dióh jōg kâi ví-liô, khiû jít-jít ioh-khù vá-nâg.
Might be the 1891 Matthew (D&M 2857), based solely on there not being any others listed. The brief description of the translator, C. C. Jeremiassen, “Danish Customs official in China who, began work as an independent missionary in Hainan,” there does not do his life story justice. He was hired by Customs as a sea captain to fight pirates in the South China Sea; having accomplished that, he apprenticed in medicine to learn enough to settle down and set up a dispensary in Hainan and work as a missionary out of a converted shrine.
Ṅaiˏ̱ mui-nyitˏ̰ soˊ yuṅˋ kaiˋ heuˊ-lyoṅˏ̱ khyuˏ̱ ṅiˏ̱ kimˏ-nyitˏ̰ sz̥ˋ-pinˏ ṅaiˏ̱.
Another transliteration using the Standard Alphabet, by Rhenish missionaries, like Cantonese above: 1860 Matthew (D&M 2867).
Hang-chow, Hangzhou, Northern Wu.
Ngo-men me-zeh in-yong-tih liang-zeh, kyin-zeh s ü ngo-men.
Should be G. E. Moule (the M of D&M) 1880 Matthew (D&M 2889). This verse matches his earlier portions of the Book of Common Prayer, as do some others, but the rest are only similar.
Kienning, Jian'ou, Northern Min.
Uòi-gŏ̤-nêng nì-nì gâ̤ liông-chǎu géng-diáu nă uòi.
1896 New Testament (D&M 2893), translated by Louisa Jane Bryer and other members of the Church of England Zenana Missionary Society. Zenana is a good Hobson-Jobson word, betraying their Indian start. They specialized in ministering to other women, both spiritually and physically, as they had basic medical trainining.
Iao kyʽüoh go kʽeo-liang kyih-mih speh ah-lah.
1868 New Testament (D&M 2909). The revisions from the earlier 1853 Matthew (D&M 2902), which was printed from woodblocks, seem to be minor, in this case just dropping the ah-lah 阿拉 'we' at the start of the verse. I am reasonably sure that is supposed to be s-peh 賜畀 'give', the hyphen being at the end of the line and so misunderstood.
日日用个飯糧，求儂今朝撥拉我伲。
The Union version, either the 1893 Matthew (D&M 2955) or the 1897 New Testament (D&M 2958). The HathiTrust scan of Princeton's copy of the latter is upside down. Harvard has a 1895 reprint (the page is identical) of the former.
Swatow, Shantou, Southern Min.
今日賜給我們所用的糧食
This paper discusses the reprinting of the 1898 New Testament (D&M 3002) and includes a table (p. 38) comparing the Lord's Prayer (it says 1897, but that is probably a typo as it does not reference that date anywhere else), and verse 11 differs substantially. Which seems to only leave the 1882 Matthew (D&M 2972).
Tai-chow, Taizhou, Southern Wu.
Iao kyʽüoh keh kʽeo-liang kying-nying s-peh ngô-he.
Somewhat similar to the 1897 New Testament (D&M 3015), which I believe indicates that it comes from the earlier 1880 Matthew or 1881 New Testament by the same translator, W. D. Rudland.
None of the collections include Korean written in Hangul. We know that Gilbert & Rivington did have the type, because three (not six) specimens of part of John 3:16 in “Japanese, Corean, and Chinese” are included among those in a British Printer report on a visit there. This was in 1895, after the 300 collection and before the 500. Furthermore, the Korean version in a number of collections, as Mithridates pointed out, is not Korean per se, but rather Classical Chinese in a Sino-Korean reading. This is especially evident in Marcel, where Coreanice comes right before a matching Sinice, which is the same as Müller. There is a Hangul rendering of that version reproduced in a conference paper on Korean by Léon de Rosny, from a ethnologic congress held to coincide with the 1878 Paris Exposition.
我等望爾今日與我我日用糧
wǒ děng wàng ěr jīnrì yǔ wǒ wǒ rì yòng liáng
a dent mang y kem il ye a, a il yong niang
아등망이금일여아아일용냥
The Korean version given earlier on that same page, taken from Dallet, p. LXXX, matches a modern version after updating the spelling a little.
오늘날 우리게 일용할 냥식을 주시고
o-năl-nal ou-ri-ké ir-iong-hăl niang-sik-eul tsou-si-ko
오늘날 우리에게 일용할 양식을 주시고
oneulnal uriege iryonghal yangsigeul jusigo
aujourd'hui nous à quotidienne nourriture donner,
The Wikipedia page breaks down versions by denomination. Many match if 'today' 오늘날 oneulnal is shortened to just 오늘 oneul. The only substantive difference is for epiousion, where some on that page have 필요한 pilyohan 'necessary' rather than 일용할 ilyonghal 'daily'. The 'food' word, 양식 yangsig, common to all, is still etymologically Sino-Korean, 糧食 liángshí.
In Müller (and the several reprints), Japanese is not just absent, but replaced by an explanation. Under the heading Japanica & Tungkingensis is,
Haberi non potuerunt. Neque novas Auctori cudere placuit, quòd alienas tantummodo collegiſſet. Alioqui-procul dubio Notas Sinicas vocibus Japanicis, Tungkingicis, Kochinchinicis & ſimilibus facilè exprimere potuiſſet & ad artem Grammaticam disponere.
These could not be had. Nor did it please the Author to forge new ones, because he only collected others. In any case, there is no doubt that he could easily express Chinese characters with Japanese, Tungking, Kochinchi, and the like words, and arrange them according to the art of Grammar.
That is, do what had elsewhere been done for Korean. In Chamberlayne, the catchwords don't line up for a few pages because the order changed and there is a stray JA.
Mithridates is only able to gather some stray Japanese vocabulary from places like Reland's Dissertationum miscellanearum. Matthias Norberg had a lifelong project to show that all Asian languages descended from what we would call Semitic. Methodologically, he took versions of the Lord's Prayer from Mithridates, laid them out with parallel translations and annotated select words with Arabic / Hebrew etymologies / cognates. Some of this was published posthumously, and so we can see that he even did it for Japanese. The result does not really look like Japanese, lacking enough particles. Still, there was no explicit intent to deceive; it is just that the prayer was used as a convenient source and layout for his speculations.aki mochi fureru konjits
diurnum cibum da hodie
mochi 糯 'glutinous rice', narrowed to the sense of rice cakes, as now found in every supermarket, is enough of an English word for the OED. Presumably this is the sense intended in giving it as a Panis / Brot word.
Auer's Sprachenhalle has four versions, 80-83, in Sino-Japanese, Old Japanese from Yamato, and the modern Edo dialect, all due to August Pfizmaier. Pfizmaier was among those who contributed reports on Auer's work to the Academy of Sciences; he explains that he had based the Literary Japanese 80 on his Chinese contribution 2. He also points out a printing error and a mistake in the Modern Japanese version. Here are 2, 80, and 82.
tsìng kiûn ji ji tsêng ngò ngò schi yèn
請君日日贈我我食焉
bitten du täglich schenken uns Speise (Endpartikel.)
aga katewo figotoni fodokositamaje
アガ カテヲ ヒゴトニ ホドコシ玉ヘ
我之食請君日日贈
unsere Nahrung täglich schenke
fijonna fajokumiwo mainitsinitsi dozo woataje
ひほんな はごくゐを まい日日 どぞ をあたへ
nothwendige Nahrung täglich uns gib
As can be seen, neither the katakana nor the hiragana were immune from a Kanji slipping in. More importantly, Pfizmaier points out that fiyonna, which he intended to mean nothwendige 'necessary', really means eilig 'urgent'.
Marietti has a Jesuit translation, CCXLVIII Iaponice, only in transliteration.
Konnithiwa konnithino iachinài o warerani on ataïetamaï
Then once more Bible translations by Protestant Missionaries appear. First is Bettelheim's 1855 translation of Luke into Ryukyuan (D&M 5799). The library metadata for this book says that it is that, but I believe it to be the edition with the Chinese added in parallel (D&M 5803). This translation is included in Gilbert & Rivington, 300 as Japanese.
ニチく 當有 ノ カラヲ ワレラニ タマヘヨ
An adaptation of this version had been included, with corrections by H. Ichikawa, in Dalton 8. Japanesisch and so the Russian collection На Японскомъ.
クガ 、ニチヨウノ、カテヲ、コンニチ、 クレラ 二、 アタ へ。
There is a different Ryukyuan version in the Gilbert & Rivington collections: 300 has it as Luchu and 500 as Loochoo; I do not know where this comes from. The bigger collection also has a different Japanese, given in four scripts. Bergholtz has Japanese transliterated by J. C. Hepburn, into his form of Romaji.
我儕の日用の糧を今日も與へ給へ、
ワレラノ ニチヨウノ カテヲ ケフモ アタヘタマヘ 、
われらの にちようの かてを けふも あたへたまへ 、
warerano nitiyowuno katewo kefumo atahetamahe :
Warera no nichi yō no kate wo kiyō mo ataye tamaye.
A subsequent revision to the transliteration scheme would replace kiyō with kyō, as we are used to today. The transliterated version matches Hepburn's 1880 New Testament (D&M 5759). The kanji version might be the “Standard Edition,” of the same year (D&M 5757); I have not found a scan of it yet. Somewhat later revisions, the 1887 Reference Testament (D&M 5774) and the 1889 Holy Bible. References (D&M 5780; I cannot figure out deep links in the viewer: want image 758/967) are spelled a little differently at the end: 與へ給へ becoming 與たまへ.
Müller's explanation for the missing Japanese also included Tonkinese, that is, Vietnamese. The 1618 annual letter from the Jesuit residence at Pulocambi reported:
Imperoche egli ha vn figlio d'anni ſedici il più viuo, & ingegnoſo, che ſia in tutto il luogo, ſcrittore di caratteri Cineſia marauiglia, che fra loro è vn vanto ſegnalato.
For he has a son of sixteen years of age, the most intelligent and clever in the whole place, a writer of wondrous Chinese characters, which among them is highly regarded.
… Queſto giouane battezzato ſotto nome di Pietro, ha dato al Padre noſtro grande aiuto per volgarizzare in lingua materna il Pater noſter, l'Aue Maria, Credo, & il Decalogo, chei Criſtiani già ſanno a mente.
This youth, baptized under the name of Peter, gave great help to our priest in translating into his mother tongue the Pater noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo, and the Decalogue, which Christians already have committed to memory.
(This is the cleaned up report as published as few years later. The same passage from the original manuscript in the Jesuit archives is quoted by Roland Jacques in a paper on the Portuguese and Vietnamese romanizaation.) The priest whom the young man helped was Francisco de Pina. As far as I know, these translations do not survive.
In his 1651 Vietnamese dictionary, in a section on equivalents for relative pronouns, Alexandre de Rhodes constructs / quotes a translation of the Pater noster opening address. (A French translation of that is given in a thesis by Thi Kieu Ly Pham on Vietnamese grammars. Though I am not sure it quite captures the intended distinction between Cha chúng toi ở tlên blời Pater noster qui eſt in cœlis and lạy Cha chúng toi ở blên blời Pater noster qui es in cœlis. Perhaps that distinction is not very real.) La Croze had seen this and noted it in his copy of Müller. Rhodes never gives the rest of the prayer.
The first version in a collection is Hervás 68. Lingua Tonchinese, from Onofre Villiani. This is copied by Mithridates 8. Tunkinisch and Marietti CCXLIX Tonchinice.
Chung-toi xin cha rai cho chung-toi hang ngay dun du
[Chúng tôi xin cha rày cho chúng tôi hàng ngày dùng đủ]
The circumstantial evidence seem pretty strong to me that the version in Gilbert & Rivington, 500 Annamese comes from Jean Bonet's Vietnamese translation of Luke (D&M 1630), done from Ostervald's French Bible, even though there is no sign of that online. There just aren't any other B.F.B.S, or Protestant of any sort, choices. (I suppose someone with Yale credentials could get a scan of the relevant page from their copy.) Bonet also wrote a Vietnamese-French dictionary.
xin Cha cho chúng tôi mọi ngày ăn đủ
Another treasure in the Jesuit Archive is Epistola P. Andr. Palmeiro, Macao 8/V 1632, cum paradigmate Orationis Dominicae Pater Noster in lingua Sinica, Japonica, Annamitica (ARSI MS Jap. Sin. 194, 7-11v), a letter from André Palmeiro to Vitelleschi. It has not been scanned online, but there is a facsimile included in a paper on it by Otto Zwartjes and Paolo De Troia from the Tenth Conference on Missionary Linguistics. It arranges the prayer in four (five, if you prefer) columns: Latin, Japanese, Chinese character and transliteration, and Vietnamese.
panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.
uareraga nicinicino uonyascinaiuo connicimo ataye tabi tamaye.
我等望爾今日與我我日用糧。
ngó tém üãm lh´ kin gẽ yú ngó ngó gẽ yũm leam̀.
[Wǒděng wàng ěr jīnrì yǔ wǒ wǒ rìyòng liáng.]
ciúm toi tlom cia raì cio ciúm toi hàm ngäì dum đũ.
[chúng tôi trông cha rày cho chúng tôi hàng ngày dùng đủ.]
The Chinese is the same as Müller and others covered above. The Japanese is pretty similar to that in a 1592 Jesuit Romaji Catechism, Nippon no Iesus, reproduced here. In the copy of a transcription of that work digitized from the University of California, someone has written in characters. Which are also given in Wikipedia, though there appear to be some differences.
Vareraga nichinichino von yaxinaiuo connichi varerani ataye tamayeto,
我等が 日々の おん 養ひを 今日 我らに 與へ 給へと
我等日々の御養ひを今日与へ賜び給へ。
The Vietnamese, like the ones above, seeks 'enough' đủ to eat. dùng is a formal word for 'eat'; ăn the regular word. đồ ăn, literally 'things to eat' is thus, 'food'. The Wikipedia page, in addition to giving the Hervás version, has a modern Catholic with lương thực 'provisions'.
Continued in part 4.
0 comments:
Post a Comment