Bibliographie
Primary sources
Abel-Rémusat, Jean-Pierre. 1820. Recherches sur les langues tartares. Tome Ier. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1806. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde. Erster Theil. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung.
Adelung, Johann Christoph (continued by Johann Severin Vater). 1817. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde. Vierter Theil. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung.
Akademische Buchdruckerei. 1847. Sprachproben der Akademischen Buchdruckerei. Berlin: W. Vogt.
American Bible Society. 1885. Specimen verses from versions in different languages and dialects in which the Holy Scriptures have been printed and circulated by the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society. Second edition, enlarged. New York: American Bible Society.
Anonymous. 1859. Vie de Monseigneur Pierre-André Retord. Lyon: Louis Perrin.
Anonymous. 1876. The Lord’s Prayer in Japanese. Bible Society Record 21(4). 52.
Anonymous. 1885. The Lord’s Prayer in Corean. Bible Society Record 30(5). 71.
Anonymous. 1897. The Lord’s Prayer in Korean. The Korean Repository 4. 71-73.
Auer, Alois. 1844. Sprachenhalle, pt. 1 = Das Vater-Unser in mehr als sechshundert Sprachen und Mundarten. Wien: K. K. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerei.
Auer, Alois. 1847. Sprachenhalle, pt. 2 = Das Vater Unser in mehr als 200 Sprachen und Mundarten mit Originaltypen. Wien: K. K. Hof- und Staats-Druckerei.
Baird, William M. 1895. Romanization of Korean sounds. The Korean Repository 2. 161-175.
Bayer, Theophil Siegfried. 1730. Museum Sinicum. 2 vols. Petropoli: Ex typographia academiae imperatoriae.
Bergholtz, Gustaf Fredrik. 1884. The Lord’s Prayer in the principal languages, dialects and versions of the world. Chicago.
Bodoni, Giambattista. 1806. Oratio dominica in CLV. linguas versa et exoticis characteribus plerumque expressa. Parmae: Typis Bodonianis.
Chamberlayne, John. 1715. Oratio dominica in diversas omnium fere gentium linguas versa et propriis cujusque linguae characteribus expressa. Amstelaedami: Typis Guilielmi & Davidis Goerei.
Collado, Diego. 1632. Ars grammaticae Iaponicae linguae. Romae: Typis & impensis Sac. Congr. de Propag. Fide.
Conneau, Henri. 1874. Oratio dominica. Manuscript, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat.lat.15356 (1)-(3).
da Cruz, Gaspar. 1569. Tractado em que se cõtam muito por estẽso as cousas da China. Évora: André de Burgos.
Dallet, Charles. 1874. Histoire de l’Église de Corée. 2 vols. Paris: Victor Palmé.
Dalton, Hermann. 1870. Das Gebet des Herrn in den Sprachen Russlands. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
de Rhodes, Alexandre. 1651. Linguae Annamiticae seu Tunchinensis brevis declaratio. Dictionarium Annnamiticum [!] Lusitanum, et Latinum. Romae: Typis, & sumptibus eiusdem Sacr. Congreg.
Furet, Louis-Théodore. 1860. Lettres à M. Léon de Rosny sur l’archipel japonais et Ia Tartarie orientale. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie.
Geßner, Christian Friedrich. 1748. Orientalisch- und Occidentalischer Sprachmeister. Leipzig: Christian Friedrich Geßner.
Gramaye, Jean-Baptiste. 1622. Oratio dominica centum et amplius diversis expressa linguis seu dialectis. Bruxellae: Apud Ioannem Pepermanum.
Hensel, Gottfried. 1741. Synopsis universae philologiae. Norimbergae: In commissis apud heredes Homannianos.
Hepburn, James Curtis. 1880. Warera no shu Iyesu Kirisuto no shin yaku zen sho. The New Testament in Japanese transliterated by J. C. Hepburn, M.D., LL.D. Yokohama: American Bible Society.
Hervás, Lorenzo. 1787. Saggio pratico delle lingue. Cesena: Gregorio Biasini.
Hoffmann, Christian. 1667. Umbra in luce. Jenae: Charactere Bauhofferiano.
Hoffmann, Christian. 1680 [1667]. Umbra in luce, Editio secunda. Jenae: Sumtibus Johannis Jacobi Bauhoferi.
Hooke, Robert. 1688. Some Observations, and Conjectures Concerning the Chinese Characters. Philosophical Transactions XVI(180). 63-78.
La Croze, Mathurin Veyssière (de). 1713. Lettre d’un sçavant de Berlin à un ami d’Utrecht, où l’on trouve une piéce Chinoise assez curieuse. Histoire critique de la république des lettres 3. 272-276.
Marcel, Jean-Joseph. 1805. Oratio Dominica CL linguis versa, et propriis cujusque linguae characteribus plerumque expressa. Parisiis: Typis Imperialibus.
Marietti, Pietro. 1870. Oratio dominica in CCL. linguas versa et CLXXX. characterum formis vel nostratibus vel peregrinis expressa. Romae.
Mauer, Georg Pistorius. 1621. Pater Noster. Oder das allerheiligiste Gebett/ Vater Unser/ in viertzig unterschiedlichen Sprachen. Ollmütz: Pauli Schramm.
Megiser, Hieronymus. 1593. Specimen quadraginta diversarum atque inter se differentium linguarum & dialectorum. Francoforti: Ex typographéo Ioannis Spiessij.
Megiser, Hieronymus. 1603. Specimen quinquaginta diversarum atque inter se differentium linguarum, et dialectorum. Francofurti ad Moenum: Apud Ioachimum Bratheringium.
Müller, Andreas. 1672. Monumenti Sinici […] lectio seu phrasis, versio seu metaphrasis, translatio seu paraphrasis. Berolini: Ex Officina Rungiana.
Müller, Andreas. 1674. Hebdomas observationum de rebus Sinicis. Coloniae Brandenburgicae: Ex Officinâ GeorgI SchultzI.
Müller, Andreas. 1676. Oratio Dominica Sinice. S.l.
Müller, Andreas. 1680a. Oratio Orationum. SS. Orationis Dominicae versiones praeter authenticam ferè centum. Berolini: Ex Officina Rungiana. — slightly modified reprints appeared in London (1700, 1713, 1736: Oratio Dominica πολύγλωττος, πολύμορφος), Augsburg (ca. 1710, seen with two variant title pages: Oratio Dominica πολύγλωττος καὶ πολύμορφος) and Leipzig (1740: Orationis dominicae versiones fere centum)
Müller, Andreas. 1680b. Besser Unterricht von der Sineser Schrifft und Druck/ als etwa in Herrn Doct. Eliæ Grebnitzen Unterricht […] enthalten ist. Berlin: Christoff Runge.
Müller, Andreas. 1685. Speciminum Sinicorum Andreae Mülleri Greiffenhagii decimae de decimis. S.l.
Norberg, Matthias. 1827. Specimina Orat. Dominicae lingua Sinensi etc. cum dialectis Hebraea, Arabica etc. collata. Nova acta regiae societatis scientiarum Upsaliensis IX. 205-290.
Pfizmaier, August. 1848. Bericht des Herrn Dr. Pfizmaier. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1. 160-164.
Psalmanazar, George. 1704. An historical and geographical description of Formosa. London: Dan. Brown.
Rocca, Angelo. 1591. Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana a Sixto V. Pont. Max. in splendidiorem, commodioremq. locum translata. Romae: Ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana.
Rosny, Léon de. 1855. Notice sur la langue annamique. Paris: Just Rouvier.
Rosny, Léon de. 1863. Recueil de textes japonais. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie.
Rosny, Léon de. 1872. L’oraison dominicale en Japonais. Traduction nouvelle. Les Corluis-du-Perreux.
Rosny, Léon de. 1881. L’idiome vulgaire de la Corée. Congrès international des sciences ethnographiques, tenu à Paris du 15 au 17 juillet 1878. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 584-594.
Rost, Reinhold. 1891. The Lord’s Prayer in three hundred languages. Second edition. London: Gilbert and Rivington.
Rost, Reinhold. 1905. The Lord’s Prayer in five hundred languages. New and enlarged edition. London: Gilbert & Rivington.
Serampore Mission Press. 1818. Specimens of editions of the sacred scriptures in the Eastern languages. Serampore: Mission Press.
Sharpe, Gregory, ed. 1767. Syntagma dissertationum quas olim auctor doctissimus Thomas Hyde S.T.P. separatim edidit. 2 vols. Oxonii: E typographeo Clarendoniano.
Strahlenberg, Philipp Johann von. 1730. Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia. Stockholm: In Verlegung des Autoris.
Sulzer, Giuseppe Giorgio. 1855. Poliglotto dell’ orazione dominicale diviso in sistemi, elementi e dialetti. Dell’origine e della natura dei dialetti comunemente chiamati romanici. Trento: Tipogr. fratelli Perini. 211-261.
Типографія Императорской академіи наукъ. 1870. Образцы шрифтовъ типографіи и словолитни Императорской академіи наукъ. Санктпетербургъ: Типографія Императорской академіи наукъ.
Vigenère, Blaise de. 1586. Traicté des chiffres, ou secretes manieres d’escrire. Paris: Abel L’Angelier.
Wilkins, John. 1668. An essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language. London: Sa: Gellibrand, John Martyn.
Secondary literature
Ben-Tov, Asaph. 2021. Johann Ernst Gerhard (1621–1668). The Life and Work of a Seventeenth-Century Orientalist. Leiden: Brill.
Canaris, Daniel, ed. 2023. Michele Ruggieri’s Tianzhu shilu (The True Record of the Lord of Heaven, 1584). Leiden: Brill.
Cohen, Doron B. 2013. The Japanese Translations of the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill.
Daniels, Peter T. 2016. Writing in the World and Linguistics. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 6–7, 2010. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 61-90.
Dudink, Adrian. 2002. Tianzhu jiaoyao, The Catechism (1605) Published by Matteo Ricci. Sino-Western Cultural Relations Journal 24. 38-50.
Duyvendak, J. J. L. 1936. Early Chinese Studies in Holland. T’oung Pao (2nd Series) 32(5). 293-344.
Garstein, Oskar. 1992. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. Jesuit Educational Strategy 1553–1622. Leiden: Brill.
Hildebrand, Bengt & Birgitta Lager. 1956. Erik Falck d. y. Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, vol. 15. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers. [https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/15018, consulted 11 October 2023]
Ke, Hui 柯卉. 2016. “Tianzhu jing” wenyan yiben kaoshu 《天主經》文言譯本考述. Daofeng: Jidujiao wenhua pinglun 道風:基督教文化評論 44. 249-267.
Keevak, Michael. 2004. The Pretended Asian. George Psalmanazar’s Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Klöter, Henning. 2011. The Language of the Sangleys. A Chinese Vernacular in Missionary Sources of the Seventeenth century. Leiden: Brill.
Kuiper, Koos. 2005. The earliest monument of Dutch Sinological studies. Justus Heurnius’s manuscript Dutch-Chinese dictionary and Chinese-Latin Compendium Doctrinae Christianae (Batavia 1628). Quaerendo 35(1–2). 109-139.
Laures, Johannes. 1957. Kirishitan Bunko. A Manual of Books and Documents on the Early Christian Mission in Japan. Third edition. Tōkyō: Sophia University.
Mensink, B.A. 1958. Jan Baptist Stalpart van der Wiele. Advocaat, priester en zielzorger 1579–1630. Bussum: Paul Brand.
Osterkamp, Sven. 2009 (recte 2010). Selected materials on Korean from the Siebold Archive in Bochum. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 33. 187-216.
Osterkamp, Sven. 2010 (recte 2011). A Brief History of Western Knowledge about the Korean Language and Script—from the Beginnings to Pallas (1786/87–89). Studia Orientalia Slovaca 9(1). 7-43.
Osterkamp, Sven. 2015. Lorenzo Hervás (1735–1809) and the account of the Japanese and Korean scripts in his Paleografía universal. Scripta 7. 1-57.
Poole, William. 2015. The Letters of Shen Fuzong to Thomas Hyde, 1687–88. The Electronic British Library Journal 2015. Article 9.
Radway, Robyn Dora. 2023. Portraits of Empires. Habsburg Albums from the German House in Ottoman Constantinople. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Schurhammer, Georg. 1928. Das kirchliche Sprachproblem in der japanischen Jesuitenmission des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens.
Tong, Clement Tsz Ming. 2016. The Protestant Missionaries as Bible Translators: Mission and Rivalry in China, 1807–1839. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Toomer, Gerald J. 2023. Christianus Ravius. An Intellectual Biography. 1 The Wanderjahre. Leiden: Brill.
Van der Loon, Piet. 1967. The Manila incunabula and early Hokkien studies. Part 2. Asia Major 13. 95-186.
Walravens, Hartmut. 1977. Zu zwei katholischen Katechismen in mandjurischer Sprache. Monumenta Serica 31 (1974–1975). 521-549.
Zwartjes, Otto & Paolo De Troia. 2021. André Palmeiro’s Epistola (Macau 8/V 1632) cum paradigmate Orationis Dominicae Pater Noster in lingua Sinica, Japonica, Annamitica. A linguistic analysis. Missionary Linguistics VI: Missionary Linguistics in Asia, ed. by Otto Zwartjes & Paolo De Troia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-76.
Haut de page
Notes
Rocca (1591: 376), Megiser (1593: no. XL), Megiser (1603: no. XXXXVI), Mauer (1621: no. 39), Gramaye (1622), Müller (1672: E3v, 1676: [A]4r–v, 1680a: 26), the slightly modified reprints of Müller (1680a) from London (1700, 1713, 1736: 30), Augsburg (ca. 1710: 6) and Leipzig (1740: 26), Geßner (1748: 112), Hervás (1787: 133–134, no. 66), Adelung (1806: 58–59, no. 1; 1817: 22–23, no. 1; based on Müller 1676 and 1672, respectively), Auer (1844: nos. 1, 6).
Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI), Jap Sin I, 189. This copy of the catechism appears to have arrived together with the additional sheets as an attachment to a letter dated 20 October 1585, sent by missionary Matteo Ricci SJ (1552–1610) to Superior General Claudio Acquaviva SJ (1543–1615). See Canaris (2023: 11, 13).
The title (T), opening address (O), the seven petitions (P1–P7), and the doxology (D) are abbreviated as indicated here in brackets.
Wilkins (1668: 450). According to “The Epistle Dedicatory,” most of the copies of Wilkins’s book that had already been printed as well as most of the original manuscript suffered the same fate and were destroyed by the Great Fire.
Hooke (1688: 66).
Romanizations are missing for ge 格, yan 焉, and the first instance of ri 日.
“tsi áy” and “tsi ay” should read “tsiáy” and “tsiay” (zhai 債), “chi eu[!]” is an error for “chien” (xian 陷).
According to Ke (2016: 258–259) Müller treats on the Lord’s Prayer in his Hebdomas observationum de rebus Sinicis (Seven Observations on Things Chinese; Müller 1674), but this is incorrect. Judging from the references to pp. 183 and 185 of some unspecified electronic version, Ke relied on the Google Books pdf (ID 5gdHAAAAcAAJ) of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, call no. 4 L.as. 278 n – a volume which indeed contains the Hebdomas observationum, but together with several other works by Müller, including Monumenti Sinici (1672) and Oratio Dominica Sinice (1676). The pages referred to belong to these latter two works.
Plans for such a collection appear to go back further, cf. Müller (1676: Br, no. 4). Also, in a volume comprising a number of works by Müller with his autograph notes and additions, the title of Oratio Dominica Sinice is continued in manuscript as follows: “Charactere Sinico et secundum rationem legendi Mandarinicam alterâ jam vice in Europa, sed correctius edita, eâdem q[ue] opera notis philologicis et theologicis illustrata et quinquaginta versionibus aliis aucta ab Andreâ Müllero Greiffenhagio” (The Lord’s Prayer in Chinese, in Chinese characters and according to the Mandarin reading, already published elsewhere in Europa but [given here] more correctly, and in the same work illustrated with philological and theological notes and augmented by fifty other versions, by Andreas Müller of Greiffenhagen).
For the volume see Princeton University Library, Special Collections – Rare Books, 2014-0585N. The author would like to thank Martin J. Heijdra, Director of the East Asian Library at Princeton, for bringing this volume to his attention and for having taken care to make it digitally available (for the above, see image no. 671).
Among the Chinese manuscripts in Müller’s private library there are two described as containing Christian prayers as well as a catechism (see the “Catalogus librorum Sinicorum” in Müller 1685, nos. 8–9 and 11).
See Adelung (1806: 58–59).
The variant of the Lord’s Prayer with cheng sheng 成聖 for sanctificetur “be hallowed” in P1 and she 赦 for dimittimus “we forgive” in P5 appears to go back to the catechism published by Matteo Ricci in 1605, Tianzhu jiaoyao 天主教要 (cf. Dudink 2002: esp. 45, n. 37; also Ke 2016: 254–255). The same variant is seen, e.g., in Tianzhu shengjiao qimeng 天主聖教啟蒙 (Bibliothèque nationale de France [BnF], Chinois 6861, fol. 10r) and Tianzhu shengjiao rumen wenda 天主聖教入門問答 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [BAV], Borg.cin. 344.1, fol. 30r).
“Müller. Greiff. Mon. Sin. fin. & Orat. Dom. Sin.” – i.e., the final page of Müller (1672) as well as Müller (1676).
Müller (1676: B2r, no. 17).
Jesuit prints from the 17th century usually give its title as tianzhu jing 天主經 (Scripture of the Lord of Heaven) instead. Besides Müller, the shorter title zhu jing is, for instance, also seen in Bodleian Library, MS. Marsh 456, fol. 223r, 223v.
Müller (1676: Bv, no. 15).
On Heurnius, see Duyvendak (1936) and especially Kuiper (2005).
See, e.g., Biblioteka Jagiellońska (BJ), Ms. sin. 14, fol. 121r or Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (SBB), Diez A fol. 27, fol. 121r.
See, e.g., BJ, Ms. sin. 10, images 438–439, 554, 556, 559–560 in the digitized version viewable via SBB.
“Oratio Dominica in sermonem Sinicum conversa et characteribus ejusdem gentis descripta a Cl. viro Jacobo Golio. Ex museo Cl. viri Hadriani Relandi.”
For a clear reference to its printing, there is a letter from Paul Émile de Mauclerc (1698–1742) to La Croze, dated 20 July 1714 (BJ, Berol. Ms. Gall. Qu. 26, fol. 136r–v): “Monsieur Reland […] m’a donné pour Vous une oraison Dominicale en Chinois qu’il a fait graver” (fol. 136r).
The following two letters could as well refer to manuscript copies in theory. First, we have a letter from Reland to Jean-Paul Bignon (1662–1743), dated 13 June 1714 (BnF, NAL 1554, fol. 151r–v): “Addidi orationem Dominicam a me editam, ut inseratur Sylloge orationum Dominicarum in variis linguis quam edere parat in Britannia Chamberlainius” (fol. 151v). Secondly, Chamberlayne addresses the Royal Society in a letter dated 15 July 1714 (The Royal Society Archives, EL/C2/40), saying: “Not being able to attend the Society this afternoon, I beg you to make the inclos’d Specimen of the Lord’s Prayer in the Chinese Language acceptable to them, tis one of ab[ou]t 140 versions of the s[ai]d Prayer which I am going to Publish” (fol. 1r). Michel de la Roche likewise refers to the plate in his Memoirs of Literature (4.8 [August 1714]: 155): “I have by me a Curious Specimen of Mr. Chamberlayne’s Work. ’Tis the Lord’s-Prayer translated into Chinese, and attended with Chinese Characters,” followed by the title of the plate. The specimen in question, or at least a similar one, appears to have been preserved in British Library, Harley MS 6841.
See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3r.
The shared oddities between Wilkins (1668: 451), Chamberlayne (1715) and two Heurnius-related manuscripts – namely Bodleian Library, Marsh 456, fol. 53r–v and Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf. 117a Extrav., fol. 2r–v – include the following: For some of the instances of wo 我 they have “ong-o” / “ong-ò” / “ong-ò” / “ong-ò,” for wang 望 “ŭwáng” / “uwáng” / “u’wáng” / “u’wáng,” and for gan 感 “caan” / “caàn" / “caan” / “caan.”
Part of the Miscellanea overlap with the 1632 letter treated in Zwartjes & De Troia (2021). Further study is needed, but it appears that the Golius manuscript is now at the Museum of Literature in Moravia, Rajhrad, R 249 (D/K.II.aa.23).
See Toomer (2023: 97, 312).
See Chamberlayne (1715: 13; also cf. p. **4v). This version had been provided by La Croze (cf. his copy of Müller’s collection in SBB, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21, fol. 55r–v), who in turn had taken it from the correspondence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) with missionary Joachim Bouvet SJ (1656–1730); for the latter, see Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek, LBr. 105. It is repeated in Geßner (1748: 111), Hervás (1787: 151, no. 94) and Adelung (1806: 524–525, no. 79; 1817: 216, no. 52). Marcel (1805: no. 25) features a later Jesuit version – cf. the section on Korean below –, which is also found in Bodoni (1806: XLVI), Adelung (1817: 221–222, no. 54) and Auer (1847: no. 79). Yet another version, said to be taken from a Jesuit catechism, is given by Adelung (1806: 527, no. 80; 1817: 219, no. 53). A century later, it is still copied by Rost (1891: 49; 1905: 97) in its uncorrected 1806 version. These three versions correspond to [B], [L] and [V] in Walravens’s (1977: 527–536) comparison of a total of seven versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Manchu.
Two versions not covered by Walravens are found in Dalton (1870: 53, no. 6). The first, in original script, is from the 1835 translation of the Gospel of Matthew by Stepan Lipovcov (1770–1841), who had been to China with the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, and George H. Borrow (1803–1881) – which is markedly different from Lipovcov’s 1822 version, Walravens’s [M]. It later also appears in Rost (1905: 97). The second is given in Cyrillic script and was provided by Friedrich Wilhelm Radloff (1837–1918).
Repeated in Geßner (1748: 113), Hervás (1787: 133, no. 65), Adelung (1806: 61–62, no. 4; 1817: 25, no. 4), Bodoni (1806: LV). Also see Bayer (1730, 1: 161–162).
The manuscript is now at the British Library, Add. 25317 (see Van der Loon 1967: 98–108).
See SBB, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21, fol. 33r.
See Klöter (2011) for an in-depth study of the grammar and dictionary contained in the manuscript Add. 25317 as well as for the context of their creation.
Repeated in Bodoni (1806: XLIX–LII), Marietti (1870: 313–316, no. CCXLVII, in two variants). Adelung (1806: 60–61, no. 3, 1817: 24, no. 3) gives two romanized versions from informants in St. Petersburg, which agree with the Jesuit version in Marcel (1805). Besides the absence of the doxology, note “tsian”/”kien” (jian 見, not cheng 成; P1) and “myan”/”mien” (mian 免, not she 赦; P5).
For Jesuit prints giving the variant with jian/xian 見 and mian 免, see, e.g., Tianzhu jiaoyao jielüe 天主教要解略 (BnF, Chinois 6855, fol. 1r–v; preface dated 1615, not identical with other copies likewise said to belong to the “third printing,” such as ARSI, Jap-Sin I, 57) and Tianzhu shengjiao zongdu neijing 天主聖教總牘內經 (BnF, Chinois 7346, fol. 1r–v).
Note furthermore that there are (at least) two variants of Marcel (1805). In some copies, guo 國 “(thy) kingdom (come)” is printed upside down in no. 27 while the Korean version in no. 26 starts with “Tsai” in small capitals (as also seen in various other language versions), whereas other copies lack the former error in no. 27 while no. 26 starts with “Tsai,” accompanied by an unexpected indentation.
Adelung (1806: 57) refers to Sharpe as well, but neither of the two appears to have noticed that the text given in Chamberlayne (1715) was different in several respects (P1, P5, D).
See Poole (2015: 2) for details, also on the extant manuscript witnesses.
Based on the versions in Roman script in Adelung (1817: 23–24, nos. 2–3). Pfizmaier’s choice of characters in both no. 3 and no. 4 diverges from the Jesuit model in cheng 承 > cheng 成 (P3, maybe inspired by no. 1), ru 如 > yu 與 and yi 亦 > ye 也 (both P5), yu 於 > yu 于 and gan 感 > kan 坎 (both P6); in no. 4 we may additionally note you 誘 > ai 隘 (P6).
See the notice in the Literarische Zeitung (14.39 [12 May 1847]: col. 623, no. 1203).
Cheng 承 (P3), xu 許 (P6) and meng 孟 are misprinted as wei 未, yin 𧥸 and yu 盂, respectively.
Laures (1957: 36–37, no. 7).
See the [1591] edition (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb.or.153.pt.A), fol. 14v–15r, and the 1592 edition (Tōyō Bunko, PB-32), pp. 16–17.
See the 1600 editions in Japanese script (Biblioteca Casanatense, CCC L.VII.39), fol. 10r, and in Roman script (Tokugawa Museum), fol. 10v.
See Doctrinae Christianae rudimenta (Tenri Central Library), fol. 2r. Note also the transcription of the Latin version of the prayer into Japanese script on fol. 1v–2r.
The furigana seen in the prints of 1600 are given here in round brackets.
Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag, inv. no. 132 G 42, fol. 33v–35r. See especially Mensink (1958).
The text has “uoboscimesu” (P3) as well as “ukeuoytaru” (i.e., uke-oitaru instead of just oitaru) and “uoi tatematsuru cotouo” (P5). Further note that “tentationi” (P6) here reflects Latin tentatio “temptation” rather than Portuguese tentação.
See p. 153 and pp. 316–317 in the album, kept at Västerbottens museum, Umeå (formerly at Umeå läroverks bibliotek). The author would like to thank Robyn Dora Radway (Central European University) for bringing this album and its Japan-related entries to his attention in September 2022 (see also Radway 2023: 232). The same entries had – as it later turned out – already been noted by Garstein (1992: 77), but the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer is not even mentioned here.
Compare the account of Falck’s life in Hildebrand & Lager (1956) with the travels of the embassy.
Transcriptions for “Jesu Christo” and “Sancta Maria” are found as Jezu Kirishito 世主貴理師渡 and Santa Maria 讃多麻理阿 respectively on fol. CCCXXXVIr of the additions to Vigenère (1586; some copies give 1587 instead as the year of publication). In Falck’s album, they are written slightly differently as 世主貴リ師渡 and 讃多摩リア.
See besides Müller (1680a: 27) the London collections of 1700, 1713 and 1736 (p. 62), the Augsburg collection of ca. 1710 (p. 21) as well as the Leipzig collection of 1740 (p. 27).
Also quoted by Hervás (1787: 241) and Adelung (1806: 574), even if the former does not explicitly attribute it to Collado’s grammar.
De Rhodes (1651: 21) likewise only gives the opening address, even if in two variants. La Croze was aware of this partial version, see his copy of Müller (1680a) in SBB, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21, fol. 40r.
The earliest appearance of a Vietnamese version in a printed collection is in Hervás (1787: 134, no. 68). It derives from materials provided by Onofre Villiani SJ (fl. 1750–1780s) for which see ARSI, Opp. NN. 342, fol. 356r–365v (likely also the source for BJ, Berol. Ms. Coll. ling. fol. 44, which does not, however, comprise the Lord’s Prayer in full). Based on Hervás, this is also found in Adelung (1806: 88–89, no. 8) and Marietti (1870: 318, no. CCXLIX). Sulzer (1855: 224, no. 12) quotes a similar version from the Annali della propagazione della fede (27: 14), provided by Pierre-André Retord MEP (1803–1858). It is again found in an account of Retord’s life (Anonymous 1859: 270–271). At the same time, a markedly different version due to Jean Chamaison MEP (1813–1880) is rendered in sinographic script (chữ Nôm) by de Rosny (1855). While Conneau quotes it in his manuscript collection (BAV, Vat.lat.15356 (3), fol. 254r), printed collections before and after him only feature renderings in Roman script (quốc ngữ).
See also Osterkamp (2010: esp. 12) for a number of other early sources featuring similar claims.
This is explicitly expressed, e.g., in Müller (1680b: 18).
The presence of the catchword “JA-” as such has been noted by Keevak (2004: 86).
Besides the cases listed in the table, catchwords are also missing on pp. 5, 7, 16, 33, 56 and 79, while further non-matching catchwords are found on pp. 9 and 31. The catchwords on pp. 38 and 59 furthermore contain misprints.
See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3v.
Lambeth Palace Library, MS954.027a. For reproductions, see Keevak (2004: 67–69).
Note also that what Daniels claims to read “characters previously unknown to us that were exhibited at Strassburg” stems from a partial misreading of Hensel’s “Characteres Scytico Tatarici nobis adhuc incogniti a Stralenbergio exhibiti.” This is a reference to Strahlenberg (1730: 312–313 and Tab. I), with Hensel’s script specimen being adapted from the first line of page A of the Tibetan manuscript reproduced by Strahlenberg.
From right to left, the three specimens of Chinese script are: 1) Under the heading “Chinica,” the title and beginning of the Lord’s Prayer, taken from Müller or a derivative collection: 主經在天/我等父者/我等願. 2) To the left of this, the characters 人皇氏 glossed as “Gin Hoam xi” and “Hominum augusta Familia.” This is based on Bayer (1730, 2: 261 and Tab. VI). 3) Below “Usbecki,” the characters 孔夫/子大/學, again taken from Bayer (1730, 2: Tab. II).
“Bontiorum Characteres in Iaponia” and “Scribunt haec secundum methodum Brachmannianam.”
On Hoffmann, his Umbra in luce and its context, see Ben-Tov (2021: esp. 187–207).
The assumption that Hoffmann’s work served as Hensel’s ultimate source for his script specimen is reinforced by the fact that Hensel’s (1741: 107) book contains a paragraph on writing in Japan that is taken almost verbatim from Hoffmann (1667: Bb4r–v or 1680 [1667]: 196).
Hervás (1787: 241).
Apart from no. 82, these versions had already been published in Wiener Zeitung (310 [9 November 1846]: [4], [10]).
Bagster (1851: pl. X, 1860: pl. IX). Instead of a Japanese version, John 1 from Karl Gützlaff’s (1803–1851) translation of John, Yoannesu-no tayori yorokobi 約翰福音之傅 (1837), is provided as a specimen.
See Furet (1860: 118).
See its 1868 edition, fol. 20r–v (with some admixture of colloquial elements that is neither present in 1870 nor in 1872, most notably kudasarimase “bestow.rsp.pol.imp” besides literary tamae “bestow.rsp.imp”) as well as its 1872 edition, fol. 33v.
See Roka yorokobi utozuri-o (i.e., otozure-o) tsutau-no shomotsu 路加傳福音書, fol. 46v.
On the committee, see Cohen (2013: 37–38).
See Rost (1891: 46) and Rost (1905: 91), based on Luke 11:2–4 in Bettelheim’s Ruka-nu yurukubi tayui tsitē-nu shumutsi 路加傳福音書, fol. 42v–43r.
Rosny (1863: 145), based on no. 81 in Auer (1847).
See, among others, tamō “bestow.rsp,” nakaran “will not exist” or waruki “evil.adn” for the former, and watakushi(domo) “I (we.hum),” anata “you” or -masu(ru) “pol” for the latter.
See Osterkamp (2010) for an overview of the first two centuries of Western knowledge of Korean.
See Osterkamp (2009: 198, n. 22; 2015: 3, n. 3). To the sources mentioned there we may now add a further manuscript copy in Korean script plus romanization transmitted by Denis Chaumont MEP (1752–1819) to the London Missionary Society. It accompanies a letter to the society by later missionary to China Robert Morrison (1782–1834), dated 27 December 1805 (SOAS University of London, CWM/LMS/South China/Incoming correspondence/Box 1A; see Tong 2016: 88–89, 146). The heading “Coréen” is miscopied as “Cozéen,” and Morrison could not identify the script as what it is. In the letter he states: “What the writing is, which you put into my hand as the Lord’s Prayer, I really cannot say.”
See Rémusat (1820; the plate in question is absent from most copies, however) and de Rosny (1881: 593).
See BAV, Vat.lat.15356 (3), here fol. 313r and 314r, said to be based on an unidentified manuscript signed by Abel-Rémusat.
Note especially hyŏn 현 (P1) and myŏn 면 (P5), corresponding to xian 見 and mian 免, respectively. The Sino-Korean version thus agrees with the Jesuit version as given by Marcel (1805: no. 27).
Marcel (1805: no. 26), Bodoni (1806: XLVII), Adelung (1817: 226, no. 56), Abel-Rémusat (1820), Sulzer (1855: 223–224, no. 11), Marietti (1870: 288, no. CCXXV), Rost (1891: 41), Rost (1905: 85).
Dallet (1874, 1: pl. LXXX).
The author would like to thank Heo Inyeong (Inha University) for drawing his attention to the version recorded in the Ch’ŏnju sŏnggyo konggwa.
The “Chino-Corean” version (i.e., Literary Chinese with kugyŏl glosses) of Matthew 5:3 provided in American Bible Society (1885: 36) derives from Yi’s glossed Matthew of 1884 (p. 7).
For a detailed treatment of Marcel’s collection, see Fabien Simon, this volume.
Haut de page