Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros46-1Dossier thématiqueEast Asian languages in Lord’s Pr...

Dossier thématique

East Asian languages in Lord’s Prayer collections, ca. 1600–1900

Sven Osterkamp
p. 89-119

Résumés

Cet article présente un aperçu des versions du Notre Père traduites dans plusieurs langues d’Asie de l’Est, telles qu’elles sont attestées dans les collections depuis la fin du xvie siècle. C’est à cette époque qu’apparaît le premier échantillon pertinent, à savoir une version chinoise littéraire fournie par un missionnaire jésuite. Les différentes versions sont contextualisées afin d’analyser leur création et leur diffusion, qui impliquent souvent, mais pas toujours, des missionnaires chrétiens, et les relations intertextuelles entre ces versions sont examinées. Les langues abordées ici sont principalement le chinois littéraire (et, plus tard, d’autres langues sinitiques), le japonais (et plus tard les langues ryukyu) et le coréen.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

The author would like to thank Fabien Simon, the two anonymous reviewers as well as Sophie Takahashi and José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente for their numerous and helpful comments and corrections. All remaining shortcomings are his own. Thanks are also due to (in the order of appearance) Martin J. Heijdra, Robyn Dora Radway and Heo Inyeong for the information they have provided on specific sources addressed in this paper, as detailed in the footnotes.

Introduction

1The Lord’s Prayer has a long history of serving as a specimen of languages. With Christian missionary endeavors around the globe, translations into different languages came to be assembled in ever-increasing numbers. Eventually, this culminated in specialized Lord’s Prayer collections. Not the first such collection, but the first to carry the name of the prayer in its title was compiled by polymath Hieronymus Megiser (1553?–1618?): Specimen quadraginta diversarum atque inter se differentium linguarum & dialectorum; videlicet, Oratio Dominica, totidem linguis expressa (A Specimen of Forty Different and Mutually Divergent Languages and Dialects, or: The Lord’s Prayer Expressed in as Many Languages; Frankfurt 1593). Apart from the Biblical languages, the selection of languages centered on Europe and nearby regions, with hardly an exception yet from the Americas or East Asia, for instance.

2It is precisely at this time, however, that the first translations of the prayer into the languages of East Asia become available in Europe. The newly founded Society of Jesus became active both in China and Japan in the middle of the 16th century, followed by Vietnam in the early 17th century. The Dominican Order played a similarly important role in East Asia, while Protestant missionaries typically figure only much later in the record, with a notable early exception to be treated below. Yet, as will be seen in the following, missionaries were by no means the only actors involved in the production of East Asian versions of the Lord’s Prayer in the decades and centuries to come. Increasingly, and to some degree parallel to the development of Chinese and Japanese studies as academic disciplines in their own right, we also meet with orientalists or scholars of language in more general terms. While the role of the prayer as a linguistic specimen diminished significantly during the course of the 19th century, similar collections kept being published – be it out of religious motives or as a display of the typographic capabilities of a printing office.

3As a first step towards the study of East Asian versions through time, the present paper seeks to provide an overview of the known sources, ranging from about 1600 to 1900. The languages covered are chiefly Literary Chinese and other Sinitic languages in section 1, with an aside on Manchu; Japanese and Ryukyuan in section 2, with an aside on Vietnamese; and finally Korean (section 3). While this overview naturally includes numerous well-known sources, it also extents to lesser known and even hitherto unknown ones. Some sources are therefore presented here for the first time – including, for instance, the earliest witness of the Lord’s Prayer in Japanese.

1. Literary Chinese and other Sinitic languages

  • 1  Rocca (1591: 376), Megiser (1593: no. XL), Megiser (1603: no. XXXXVI), Mauer (1621: no. 39), Grama (...)
  • 2  Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI), Jap Sin I, 189. This copy of the catechism appears to hav (...)
  • 3  The title (T), opening address (O), the seven petitions (P1–P7), and the doxology (D) are abbrevia (...)

4The earliest East Asian version of the Lord’s Prayer to appear in a European collection dates to the end of the 16th century and is in Literary Chinese, following a Mandarin pronunciation. It initially appears, in romanization only, in Angelo Rocca’s (1545–1620) Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana (1591), and is included in numerous later collections as well1. Among his informants, Rocca as the head of the Vatican printing office lists the name of missionary Michele Ruggieri SJ (1543–1607), who had left China to return to Rome in 1588. Indeed, the text of the prayer that Rocca quotes coincides with the translation of the prayer found in Chinese script on an additional sheet appended to one of the copies of Ruggieri’s catechism Tianzhu shilu 天主實錄 (True Record of the Lord of Heaven; 1584) kept in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu2. The latter rendition in original script never appeared in a Lord’s Prayer collection, but is given in Table 1 in addition to Rocca’s romanized version for intelligibility. As will be apparent, the translator took some liberties in his translation of the prayer3.

Table 1. Literary Chinese version in Rocca (1591) and ARSI, Jap Sin I, 189

O

Sci gin ta fu ciu zai tien tin.

世人大父住在天庭

Great father of the people on earth, residing in the heavenly court.

P1

Ngo iuon ta fu min ie hhien iam

我願大父名益顯揚

I wish that the name of the great father be praised evermore.

P3

ngo iuon su [= sci] gin ciuon scieu cui chiai

我願世人遵守規誡

ye giu tien gin suō [= sciõ] zum ta fu

亦如天人順從大父

I wish that the people on earth observe [your] commandments,

just like the people in heaven follow the great father.

?

ngo iuon ta fu fo in chu ngo.

我願大父福蔭乎我

I wish, great father, bless and protect us.

P4

Ngo iuon ta fu ssi ngo yi ciè

我願大父賜我衣食

I wish, great father, bestow upon us clothes and food.

P5

ngo iuon ta fu cio ngo ci zui

我願大父赦我之罪

gin gio hai ngo ngo ie ciè ci.

人若害我我亦赦之

I wish, great father, forgive us our sins;

if people do harm to me, I likewise forgive them.

P6

Ngo iuon ta fu ieu ngo guei scien

我願大父祐我爲善

pu mi zui hoh.

不迷罪惡

I wish, great father, help us to do good,

and not to go astray in sin and evil.

P7

Ngo iuon ta fu chien [= chieu] ngo cu nan.

我願大父捄我苦難

I wish, great father, save us from suffering.

Amin.

亞明

Amen.

  • 4  Wilkins (1668: 450). According to “The Epistle Dedicatory,” most of the copies of Wilkins’s book t (...)
  • 5  Hooke (1688: 66).
  • 6 Romanizations are missing for ge , yan , and the first instance of ri .
  • 7 “tsi áy” and “tsi ay” should read “tsiáy” and “tsiay” (zhai ), “chi eu[!]” is an error for “chien (...)

5It took more than half of a century until a Chinese version in original script became available. John Wilkins (1614–1672), one of the founding members of the London-based Royal Society, included it as a specimen of “the China Character and Language so much talked of in the world” (p. 450) in his Essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language (1668; see Figure 1). According to Wilkins, the underlying manuscript had been communicated to him by Francis Lodwick (1619–1694), another fellow of the Royal Society with an interest in universal languages, but was lost in the Great Fire of London in 16664. It seems likely that this is the same manuscript as the one referred to two decades later by yet another fellow of the same society, namely polymath Robert Hooke (1635–1703), to whose circle Lodwick belonged5. In his list of 51 versions of the Lord’s Prayer (pp. 435–439), Wilkins quotes a romanized “Chinish” version as no. 42. It is later also given separately in Chinese script, together with a romanization (p. 451). Leaving aside the many divergences between the two romanized versions, chiefly concerning the presence or absence of diacritics, it is also noteworthy that the two versions on p. 451 rarely match. Several characters are omitted in the pronunciation glosses6, whereas other glosses are erroneously split into two halves7. For the doxology, no romanization at all is provided.

Figure 1. The first Chinese version in original script in Wilkins (1668)

Figure 1. The first Chinese version in original script in Wilkins (1668)

Source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Res/2 Graph. 47, p. 451 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb10867019?page=475 (NoC-NC)]

6Table 2 gives only the version in original script, noting differences to related versions treated in the following. As the translation is fairly literal, a rendering into English seemed dispensable. Note, however, that where Ruggieri’s version follows Luke 11:4 (peccata) and speaks of zui “sins,” this version adheres to the wording of Matthew 6:12 (debita) and has zhai “debts” instead in P5.

Table 2. Literary Chinese version in Wilkins (1668), compared with Müller (1676/1680a), Chamberlayne (1715), Sharpe (1767) and Marcel (1805)

T

主經 (1676/80), 天王[=] (1767),

absent in 1668, 1715, 1805

O

在天我等父者

P1

我等𩔊爾名

𩔊: 願 (1676/80, 1805)

成: 見 (1767, 1805)

P2

爾國臨格

P3

爾旨承行於地如於天焉

P4

我等望爾今日與我我日用

糧: 粮 (1767)

P5

而免我債如我亦負我債者

赦: 免 (1767, 1805)

P6

又不我許陷於誘感

P7

乃救我於

㐫: 凶 (1676/80, 1805)

D

是爾於無窮世之世

國能福: 國能福 (1715)

absent in 1767, 1805

亞孟

  • 8  According to Ke (2016: 258–259) Müller treats on the Lord’s Prayer in his Hebdomas observationum d (...)
  • 9  Plans for such a collection appear to go back further, cf. Müller (1676: Br, no. 4). Also, in a vo (...)
  • 10  Among the Chinese manuscripts in Müller’s private library there are two described as containing Ch (...)
  • 11  See Adelung (1806: 58–59).

7As one of the chief proto-sinologists, Andreas Müller (1630–1694) published Chinese versions of the Lord’s Prayer on several occasions8: First on the final page of his Monumenti Sinici […] lectio seu phrasis, versio seu metaphrasis, translatio seu paraphrasis (A Reading, Literal and Free Translation of the Chinese Monument; 1672), but especially in his Oratio Dominica Sinice (The Lord’s Prayer in Chinese; 1676) and his Lord’s Prayer collection of 1680 that appears to have grown out of the 1676 publication9. While the first of these is based on Rocca (1591) alone, the later two take both Rocca and Wilkins (1668) into account, together with an unidentified Jesuit manuscript in Müller’s possession10. Noteworthy is Müller’s (1672, 1676) attempt at adding tone marks to Rocca’s version. However, he failed to notice the misprints in Rocca’s book, and in the end Müller gets a lot of syllables wrong, leading to numerous misidentified and misinterpreted words – which were later all carried over into Adelung’s adaptation of Müller’s version11.

  • 12  The variant of the Lord’s Prayer with cheng sheng 成聖 for sanctificetur “be hallowed” in P1 and she(...)
  • 13  “Müller. Greiff. Mon. Sin. fin. & Orat. Dom. Sin.” – i.e., the final page of Müller (1672) as well (...)

8Ke (2016: 261) claims that Müller (1680a) explicitly identifies the translator of this version as missionary Martino Martini SJ (1614–1661). This not only seems rather unlikely, as the same version is found in various Jesuit publications from the beginning of the 17th century onwards, whereas Martini’s arrival in China dates to the 1640s12. It is also factually wrong. On p. 26 as referred to by Ke (2016: 262, n. 34), Müller merely refers to earlier Lord’s Prayer collections and two of his own works (1672, 1676)13. Much later, Adelung (1806: 59) indeed introduces that version as “Von dem Jesuiten Mart. Martinius” (which could mean either that it is “from” or “by” him) – but he is more cautious on p. 56, where he states that the version derives from Martini “from whom Jacobus Golius got it, and presumably from him in turn Andreas Müller.”

  • 14  Müller (1676: B2r, no. 17).
  • 15 Jesuit prints from the 17th century usually give its title as tianzhu jing 天主經 (Scripture of the L (...)
  • 16  Müller (1676: Bv, no. 15).
  • 17  On Heurnius, see Duyvendak (1936) and especially Kuiper (2005).

9Now, Müller himself noted that his Jesuit manuscript differed from Wilkins’s version in two respects14: The former included a title for the prayer (zhu jing 主經, or Scripture of the Lord)15, but not the latter. Furthermore, the Jesuit version lacked the doxology at the end whereas it was included in Wilkins’s version. He thus concluded that the catechism used by Wilkins must have derived from reformed missionaries16. The only plausible candidate here is Dutch Protestant missionary Justus Heurnius (1587–1652)17. As the Heurnius version of the prayer is identical to what we find in Jesuit sources apart from the presence of the doxology, it seems that Heurnius and the Chinese assistant he was working with adopted the Jesuit version and merely added the doxology (cf. already Ke 2016: 266). As a result, the text is somewhat heterogeneous in nature: Grammatically, the Jesuit original follows Literary Chinese usage, but the doxology contains a colloquial element (shi for sunt “are”).

  • 18  See, e.g., Biblioteka Jagiellońska (BJ), Ms. sin. 14, fol. 121r or Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (SBB (...)
  • 19  See, e.g., BJ, Ms. sin. 10, images 438–439, 554, 556, 559–560 in the digitized version viewable vi (...)

10By Müller’s proto-sinological successor in Berlin, physician and botanist Christian Mentzel (1622–1701), a modified version of the Jesuit translation – “correctius elaborata” as he himself styles it – has been preserved in his unpublished Clavis Sinica (The Key to Chinese)18. In fact, the Lord’s Prayer in Chinese appears again and again in his other papers, as well. In part, this is based on his correspondence with Louis Picques (1637–1699)19, librarian at the Bibliothèque Mazarine in Paris and a scholar of oriental languages, who – like Mentzel himself – was in contact with missionary to China Philippe Couplet SJ (1623–1693).

  • 20  “Oratio Dominica in sermonem Sinicum conversa et characteribus ejusdem gentis descripta a Cl. viro (...)
  • 21  For a clear reference to its printing, there is a letter from Paul Émile de Mauclerc (1698–1742) t (...)
  • 22  See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3r.
  • 23 The shared oddities between Wilkins (1668: 451), Chamberlayne (1715) and two Heurnius-related manu (...)
  • 24  Part of the Miscellanea overlap with the 1632 letter treated in Zwartjes & De Troia (2021). Furthe (...)
  • 25  See Toomer (2023: 97, 312).

11Another version of the Lord’s Prayer related to Wilkins’s appeared in John Chamberlayne’s (1666?–1723) collection of 1715. It occupies a foldout plate of its own and is, somewhat misleadingly, entitled “The Lord’s Prayer translated into Chinese and written with the characters of the same people by the famous Jacobus Golius, from the library of the famous Adriaan Reland”20. Utrecht-based orientalist Adriaan Reland (1676–1718) already had it printed separately by mid-171421. More importantly, while Leiden professor Jacobus Golius (1596–1667) had indeed been in the possession of materials on Chinese and other East Asian languages deriving from Martino Martini, it is unlikely that he received this version of the Lord’s Prayer from him as claimed in the preface to the 1715 collection22. It clearly belongs to the same lineage as Wilkins’s version and goes back to his compatriot Heurnius. They all feature the doxology absent in Jesuit sources, and they further show striking parallels in their romanizations23. The confusion is probably simply due to the circumstance that the “Miscellanea quaedam Sinica” (Miscellany on Things Chinese) among the papers of Golius featured materials both by Jesuits and by Heurnius24. Incidentally, orientalist Christian Raue (or Ravius; 1613–1677), who had earlier studied under Golius, also received a Lord’s Prayer in Chinese together with the Decalogue and Apostles’ Creed from Heurnius in 165425.

  • 26  See Chamberlayne (1715: 13; also cf. p. **4v). This version had been provided by La Croze (cf. his (...)
  • 27  Repeated in Geßner (1748: 113), Hervás (1787: 133, no. 65), Adelung (1806: 61–62, no. 4; 1817: 25, (...)
  • 28  The manuscript is now at the British Library, Add. 25317 (see Van der Loon 1967: 98–108).
  • 29  See SBB, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21, fol. 33r.
  • 30  See Klöter (2011) for an in-depth study of the grammar and dictionary contained in the manuscript (...)

12Chamberlayne’s collection was moreover the first to include a Manchu version26 as well as another Sinitic version of the Lord’s Prayer, namely in romanized Hokkien: “Sinice Provinciae Chincheo” (p. 94)27. It is only given in romanization, just as it had been provided by Mathurin Veyssière de La Croze (1661–1739), royal librarian in Berlin. He himself had copied it from a manuscript then at the Royal Library in Berlin28, also adding it to his own copy of Müller’s 1680 collection (Figure 2)29. The version was published before in La Croze (1713), a letter sent to a recipient in Utrecht, apparently the rather elusive figure of Philippe Masson (dates uncertain), known for his inquiries into Chinese–Hebrew parallels. In contrast to the Jesuit-related cases treated so far, this Hokkien version derives from the context of Dominican activities in the Philippines30.

Figure 2. Hokkien version added by La Croze to his copy of Müller (1680a)

Figure 2. Hokkien version added by La Croze to his copy of Müller (1680a)

Source: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21 [http://resolver.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/​SBB0001D6A100000067 (PD)]

13The romanized version in Table 3 is taken from Chamberlayne’s collection (p. 94), noting differences between it and La Croze’s handwritten version (L) as well as the manuscript (ms.) as given in Van der Loon (1967: 144). The version in Chinese characters never made any appearance in a Lord’s Prayer collection. It is supplied here from the Doctrina Christiana en letra y lengua China (Christian Doctrine in Chinese Script and Language; [1593]: 1r), printed by the Dominicans in Manila. Note that the verse breaks in the romanized version are not always correct, with Chamberlayne reflecting errors already present in La Croze’s manuscript copy, and also seen in his 1713 letter. Mid-verse breaks in the romanization are indicated by slashes “/”.

Table 3. Hokkien version in Chamberlayne (1715) and Doctrina Christiana ([1593])

O

Lan tia lu tu ti’ chiŏ̃.

俺爹你在天上。

L: “tĩ chiǒ̃”; ms.: “t‘i chĭõ

P1

Lu su kir guan chang [!] suan lu mia.

你賜乞阮称羡你名。

L, ms.: “cheng

P2

Lu cog su lay kir guan.

你囯賜耒乞阮。

P3

Lu su kir guan chi tey chio

你賜乞阮只地上。

sun sui [= siu] lu beng

順守你命。

chin chio tu ti’ / Chio

親像在天上。

L: “sui”; ms.: “siu

L: “ti~” (?); ms.: “t‘i

P4

j̃it j̃it sei ong je [= ge] mi

日々所用箇物。

kin toa j̃it lu sú kir guan.

今旦日你賜乞阮。

L: “jĩt jĩt”, “je”; ms.: “ỹit ỹit”, “ge

L: “jit”, “sǔ. / Kir guan”; ms.: “ỹit”, “

P5

Lu ya[ ]sia guan chue

你亦赦阮罪。

chin chio guan sia teg chue guan lang.

親像阮赦淂罪阮人。

L: “Kir guan lu ya sia”; ms. “ya sia

P6

Mo cuy po bee guan sim. / Chun

魔鬼卜迷阮心𢙨

lu bo pang kir guan cho

你莫放乞阮做。

P7

leng quiu guan cou[ ]lan.

寧救阮苦難。

L, ms.: “cou lan

Amen.

唖民西士

ms.: “Amen Jesus

  • 31 Repeated in Bodoni (1806: XLIX–LII), Marietti (1870: 313–316, no. CCXLVII, in two variants). Adelu (...)
  • 32  Adelung (1806: 57) refers to Sharpe as well, but neither of the two appears to have noticed that t (...)
  • 33  See Poole (2015: 2) for details, also on the extant manuscript witnesses.

14Following Chamberlayne’s collection, the versions treated above are for the most part merely repeated for almost a century. In Marcel (1805: no. 27), another slight variant of the Jesuit version known since the 17th century is given31. The textual variant as such had, however, already made an appearance elsewhere, in original script together with a transcription and Latin translation. Sharpe (1767, 2: 515 and plate III) included it in his edition of the writings of Oxford orientalist Thomas Hyde (1636–1703) – claiming that the version in Chamberlayne “abounds with errors.”32 Hyde owed the prayer to his acquaintance with the Chinese convert Michael Shen Fuzong 沈福宗 SJ (ca. 1658–1691), who had visited Oxford in 1687 in the company of the aforementioned Philippe Couplet, and he originally had the intention of including it in a book to be entitled Adversaria Chinensia (Notebook on Things Chinese)33. The book as such was, however, never published.

  • 34 Based on the versions in Roman script in Adelung (1817: 23–24, nos. 2–3). Pfizmaier’s choice of ch (...)

15In a way, Jean-Joseph Marcel’s (1776–1854) version of 1805 marks the beginning of a new era: As the editor and director of the Imperial Printing Office in Paris proudly notes at the end, it represents “the first specimen of a Chinese text printed by movable type in Europe.” Another – and the foremost – example of a 19th-century Lord’s Prayer collection that was rife with typographic ambitions is certainly the second part of the magnificent Sprachenhalle (Hall of Languages; 1847). It was printed at the Imperial Court and Government Printing Office in Vienna under its director Alois Auer (1813–1869), who himself had compiled it. It begins with no less than five different Chinese versions (nos. 1–5). The first is taken from the Specimens published by Serampore Mission Press in 1818 and is likely related to Baptist missionary Joshua Marshman’s (1768–1837) translation of the New Testament that was printed at Serampore at the time. The remaining four are indicated to have been “corrected” (nos. 3–4)34 or otherwise provided (nos. 2, 5) by August Pfizmaier (1808–1887), member of the newly founded Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Pfizmaier is well-known as a prolific translator from Chinese and Japanese into German, but at times, he also translated into these two languages, or composed texts of his own in them. Nos. 2 and 5 only differ in script style, with no. 5 being the same as no. 2 but given in cursive script. They are of interest as Pfizmaier’s attempt at his own new translation of the Lord’s Prayer, carried out as a scholar of East Asian languages, not as a missionary. On 3 May 1848, several scholars presented reports on Auer’s collection to the Academy of Sciences, including Pfizmaier (1848). Besides discussing the difficulty of translating the Lord’s Prayer in general, he points to issues both in pre-existing and his own versions. (See below for the Japanese versions in the same collection. No. 80 is Pfizmaier’s own Chinese version together with a translation into Japanese.)

  • 35  See the notice in the Literarische Zeitung (14.39 [12 May 1847]: col. 623, no. 1203).
  • 36 Cheng (P3), xu (P6) and meng are misprinted as wei , yin 𧥸 and yu , respectively.

16If we turn from Vienna to Berlin, we may also note a single sheet with specimens of printing types available at the printing office of the Royal Academy of Sciences in the same year (Akademische Buchdruckerei 1847). Simply entitled Sprachproben der Akademischen Buchdruckerei (Language Specimens of the Academic Printing Office), it contains a number of versions of the Lord’s Prayer arranged in and around a cross, including a Chinese version that had been provided by Wilhelm Schott (1802–1889)35, professor of Chinese in Berlin and member of the Academy since 1841. Where Pfizmaier was creative and somewhat bold, Schott did not take any chances and stuck to the well-known Jesuit translation, possibly via Marcel (1805). Either Schott or his printer introduced several misprints, however36.

17Non-literary versions in Sinitic languages beyond Hokkien only become common towards the end of the 19th century, with the collection of 1905 featuring no less than 15 versions in total (Table 4).

Table 4. The growing number of Sinitic languages in 19th-century collections

Collection

Script(s)

Languages

Dalton 1870

Chinese

(Mandarin) “Chinese”

Bergholtz 1884

Chinese

(Literary) “Chinese”

Roman

“Amoy Colloquial”

Rost 1891

Chinese (7)

“Canton,” (Literary) “Chinese,” “Fuh-chow,”“Nankin,” “Pekingese,” “Shanghai,” “Swatow”

Roman (2)

“Hang-chow,” “Ningpo”

Rost 1905

Chinese (5)

“Fuh-chow,” “Nankin,” “Shanghai,” “Swatow,” “Wenli”

both (3)

“Cantonese,” “Chinese (Easy Wenli),” “Pekingese”

Roman (7)

“Amoy (Vernacular),” “Hainanese,” “Hakka,” “Hang-chow,” “Ningpo,” “Tai-chow,” “Wenchow”

2. Japanese and Ryukyuan

2.1. Late 16th to early 17th c.: Early Jesuit versions

  • 37  Laures (1957: 36–37, no. 7).
  • 38  See the [1591] edition (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb.or.153.pt.A), fol. 14v–15r, and the 1 (...)
  • 39  See the 1600 editions in Japanese script (Biblioteca Casanatense, CCC L.VII.39), fol. 10r, and in (...)
  • 40  See Doctrinae Christianae rudimenta (Tenri Central Library), fol. 2r. Note also the transcription (...)

18In theory at least, some variety of Japanese could have appeared in printed collections of the Lord’s Prayer as early as Chinese did. The missionary endeavors of the Jesuits extended not only to China, but likewise to Japan, and accordingly we do find Japanese versions of the Lord’s Prayer in this context. The earliest extant examples comprising the entire prayer date from shortly after 1590. This was the year when a printing press arrived in Japan that had been brought from Europe by the returning Tenshō embassy (1582–1590), chiefly formed by four young Japanese Christians. Thus, there is a single printed leaf comprising the Lord’s Prayer, Ave Maria and Credo in Japanese script, thought to date from 159137. As expected, the prayer is also found in the Japanese adaptations of the Doutrina Christam (Christian Doctrine) by Marcos Jorge SJ (1524–1571), which was printed both in Japanese script ([1591]) as well as in Roman script (1592)38. A slightly modified translation is later found in the Doctrina’s two later editions printed in 1600 (separately again in Japanese as well as Roman script)39, and another work from earlier in the same year, entitled Doctrinae Christianae rudimenta, cum alijs pijs Orationibus (The Elements of Christian Doctrine, with Further Pious Prayers; in Japanese language and script)40. All of these prints are known in a single copy each, however, and there is nothing to suggest that they were more readily available in Europe at any time. In addition, without further explanation only the prints in Roman script would have been feasible sources for inclusion in European collections, which in effect reduces the options from five prints to a single one: the 1592 Doctrina in Roman script. The single known copy of this work was then in the possession of Teotónio de Bragança SJ (1530–1602), archbishop of Évora, who had received it from Visitor to the East Alessandro Valignano SJ (1539–1606) himself. In contrast to this, the 1600 Doctrina in Roman script may never have reached Europe. These six witnesses found in prints of the Jesuit mission press are contrasted in Table 5.

Table 5. Literary Japanese version in the Doctrinas of 1591/92 and 1600, compared with the prayer leaf and Doctrinae Christianae rudimenta (1600)

  • 41 The furigana seen in the prints of 1600 are given here in round brackets.

O

Ten ni maximasu va[r]eraga von voya (1592)

天に御座ます我等が御をや ([1591])

Tenni maximasu vareraga von voya (1600)

てんにましますわれらが御おや (1600)

Rudimenta: 天, 我等

P1

mi na uo tattomare tamaye:

御名をたふとまれたまへ

prayer leaf: たつとまれ給へ

minauo tattomare tamaye:

御名(な)41をたつとまれたまへ

Rud.: 御名, 給へ(たまへ) [!]

P2

miyo qitari tamaye.

御代来りたまへ

miyo qitari tamaye.

御代(みよ)きたりたまへ

Rud.: 御代([みよ])

P3

Ten ni voite go Vontade no mama naru gotoqu,

chi ni voite mo araxe tamaye.

天にをひて御をんたあでのまゝなるごとく

地にをひてもあらせたまへ

pr.: おひて, 御をんたあて, 給へ

Tenni voite voboximesu mamanaru gotoqu,

chini voi[t]emo araxe tamaye.

てんにをひておぼしめすまゝなるごとく

にをひてもあらせたまへ

Rud.: ,

P4

Vareraga nichinichi no von yaxinai uo connichi ataye tabi tamaye.

我等が日々の御やしなひを今日与へたびたまへ

pr.: あたへ

Vareraga nichinichino vo[n] yaxinaiuo connichi varerani ataye tamaye.

われらが日〻の御やしなひを今日われらあたへたまへ

Rud.: 我等 (2×), 与へ

P5

Varera yori voitaru fito ni yuruxi mǒsu gotoqu:

varera voitatematçuru coto uo yuruxi tamaye.

我等よりおひたる人にゆるし申ごとく

我等おひ奉る事をゆるしたまへ

Varera fitoni yuruxi mǒsu gotoqu

vareraga tog[a]uo yuruxi tamaye:

われら人にゆるし申ごとく

われらとがをゆるしたまへ

Rud.: 我等 (2×),

P6

Varera uo Tentaçã ni fanaxi tamǒ coto nacare:

我等をてんたさんにはなし給ふ事なかれ

pr.: われら

Varerauo Tẽt[a]çanni fa[na]xi tamǒ [coto n]acare.

われらをてんたさんにはなし給ふ事なかれ

Rud.: 我等

P7

varera uo qeôacu yori nogaxi tamaye.

我等をけうあくよりのがしたまへ

pr.: 給へ

V[a]rerauo qe[ôacu yori] nogaxi tamaye.

我等をけうあくよりのがしたまへ

Amen.

あめん

Amen.

あめん

19Leaving spelling issues and other minor divergences aside, we notice two changes (given in roman type in Table 5): First, voluntas “will” in P3 is rendered by the Portuguese loanword vontade in 1591/92, whereas the versions from 1600 replace it with a native Japanese equivalent. Second, P5 follows the wording of Matthew 6:12 in 1591/92, but that of Luke 11:4 with toga “sins” in 1600.

  • 42  Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag, inv. no. 132 G 42, fol. 33v–35r. See especially Mensink (1958).

20Another potential route on which a Japanese version could have found its way into early printed collections are personal encounters with Japanese converts in Europe. While few in number and hitherto unstudied in this context, reflections of such encounters can still be found in alba amicorum today. A case in point is the album of Jan Baptist Stalpart van der Wiele (1579–1630), which contains a lengthy entry written by Petrus Antonius Araki42. The two probably met around 1610 while in Rome. The entry starts with some Latin verses and then continues with the Ave Maria (in Latin, but given both in Roman script and a transcription into Japanese hiragana) and the Lord’s Prayer. A Japanese version of the latter is given both in hiragana (with P7 missing) and Roman script (with P6 missing), as shown in Figure 3. Textually, it is situated in between the earlier (1591/92) and the later (1600) variants seen in the aforementioned prints: P3 follows the newer translation, but P5 still reflects the older wording in accordance with Matthew 6:12.

Figure 3. Lord’s Prayer written by Araki in the album of Stalpart van der Wiele

Figure 3. Lord’s Prayer written by Araki in the album of Stalpart van der Wiele

Source: Koninklijke Bibliotheek, inv. no. 132 G 42, fol. 34v–35r [https://www.europeana.eu/​de/​item/​92065/​BibliographicResource_1000056111563 (PD)]

  • 43  The text has “uoboscimesu” (P3) as well as “ukeuoytaru” (i.e., uke-oitaru instead of just oitaru) (...)

21Incidentally, there is another yet later witness of the same in-between stage. It is found in a 1632 letter by missionary André Palmeiro SJ (1569–1635) kept in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (formerly Jap. Sin. I 200, now Jap. Sin. 194, fol. 7r–11v) that contains the Lord’s Prayer in Literary Chinese, Vietnamese as well as Japanese. The Japanese version was already introduced, albeit with some errors, by Schurhammer (1928: 95), whereas the entire letter has recently been reproduced and studied in detail by Zwartjes & De Troia (2021)43.

  • 44  See p. 153 and pp. 316–317 in the album, kept at Västerbottens museum, Umeå (formerly at Umeå läro (...)
  • 45  Compare the account of Falck’s life in Hildebrand & Lager (1956) with the travels of the embassy.
  • 46  Transcriptions for “Jesu Christo” and “Sancta Maria” are found as Jezu Kirishito 世主貴理師渡 and Santa (...)

22Of greater interest yet is the album of Swedish diplomat Erik Falck (ca. 1554–1606) with its two entries related to the aforementioned Tenshō embassy44. The entries are undated, but are most likely set in Italy in 158545. The latter entry shows a portrait of Itō Mancio SJ (1570–1612), one of the four young Japanese Christians and head of the embassy, together with his signature on the facing page. Above that, the names of Jesus and Mary are transcribed in Japanese script, evidently in the same hand as the one seen in the additions to Vigenère (1586)46. The former contains, first and foremost, the opening address of the Lord’s Prayer. It is a significant source in so far as it predates all other attestations of the prayer in Japanese. Furthermore, it is markedly different in wording from the later versions discussed above. Leaving aside the names (not signatures) of the four Japanese noblemen in the lower third of the page, we read (slightly rearranged here):

In lingua Giaponese

Pater

Walerancha

Noster

Wonwoia

qui

Tenno

es

Vienni

in coelis

Oaschimas

23The orthography is likely Falck’s own and influenced by Swedish. It is quite unlike the chiefly Portuguese-based romanizations of Japanese as seen in Jesuit sources. In a modern rendering, “Walerancha Wonwoia Tenno Vienni Oaschimas” would yield warera-ga on-oya ten-no ue-ni owashimasu “our august parent deigns to be in heaven.” Already here we see the use of oya “parent” rather than a word meaning “father” in specific, which is true for all other Jesuit versions as well. As for the overall structure, however, we may note that there is no clear-cut attempt at imitating the relative clause of the Latin version. Instead, a full-fledged sentence was opted for.

2.2. Late 17th to early 19th c.: The struggle for a Japanese version in Lord’s Prayer collections

  • 47  See besides Müller (1680a: 27) the London collections of 1700, 1713 and 1736 (p. 62), the Augsburg (...)

24The earliest Lord’s Prayer collection to explicitly refer to Japanese in some way is Müller’s of 1680. Here we find the following comment under the heading “Japanica & Tungkingensis,” which is likewise found verbatim in a number of subsequent collections that owe most of their contents to Müller47.

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 were impossible to get. Neither was the author pleased to make up new ones, as the others he would only have collected. Otherwise it would without doubt have been easy to express the Chinese characters in their Japanese, Tonkinese, Cochinchinese and similar pronunciations and arrange them in accordance with the rules of grammar.]

  • 48  Also quoted by Hervás (1787: 241) and Adelung (1806: 574), even if the former does not explicitly (...)
  • 49  De Rhodes (1651: 21) likewise only gives the opening address, even if in two variants. La Croze wa (...)

25Müller had several Jesuit sources from China at his disposal, but none from Japan. His only glimpse at a Japanese version will have been due to missionary Diego Collado OP (ca. 1587–1638) and his grammar of Japanese. As the only early grammar of that language to have been printed in Europe, namely by the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Rome, it was readily available to scholars like Müller. Collado (1632: 17), however, merely quotes the opening address in a wording corresponding to the Jesuit version seen from the 1590s onwards48. The situation with reference to Vietnamese was not much different49.

  • 50  See also Osterkamp (2010: esp. 12) for a number of other early sources featuring similar claims.
  • 51  This is explicitly expressed, e.g., in Müller (1680b: 18).

26To fully understand Müller’s comment we have to recall the claim seen already in da Cruz (1569: g2r–v), and countless times ever since, that while the inhabitants of China and various adjacent countries speak mutually unintelligible languages they are able to communicate by means of Chinese characters, acting as some kind of universal script50. Much in line with this, Müller believed that Chinese characters could simply be read out in any language51, also for instance in Japanese or Vietnamese. This is best illustrated by his Specimen Sinicum (A Specimen of Chinese; in Müller 1685), in which a passage from book 42 of the Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 (Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance) is quoted, together with its pronunciation and a translation into Latin. For each character used in writing this Literary Chinese text, Müller provides an equivalent in Japanese and Vietnamese. The result, however, was nothing but detached glosses that do not form a coherent text in these latter two languages. Versions of the Lord’s Prayer produced in the same manner would have been barely intelligible, and in any case not well-formed.

  • 52  The presence of the catchword “JA-” as such has been noted by Keevak (2004: 86).
  • 53  Besides the cases listed in the table, catchwords are also missing on pp. 5, 7, 16, 33, 56 and 79, (...)

27The various collections from the first half of the 18th century have nothing more to say about Japanese than Müller, whose comment on Japanese and Vietnamese is often repeated. Chamberlayne’s collection does not include that comment, but the catchword “JA-” at the bottom of p. 20 suggests that there had been plans to include something in or on Japanese after all52. In fact, there appear to have been some last-minute changes, as the list of languages to be covered in the collection that was published in the Memoirs of Literature in August 1714 lists in this order “Malaica” > “Brachmanica” > “Formosana” > “Japanica” > “Siamica” – which corresponds to the order suggested by the catchwords in the published version (Table 6)53. It is unclear why “Japanica” was dropped in the end, and what exactly this entry might have comprised.

Table 6. Catchwords in Chamberlayne (1715)

Page

Contents

Catchword

18

“Malaice.”

19

“Malaice. alia Dialecto.”

“Brach-” [!]

20

“Formosane.”

“Ja-” [!]

21

“Brachmannice.”

“For-” [!]

22

“Siamice.”

“Mala-” [!]

23

“Bengalica.”

“Ma-”

24

“Malabarice.”

“Ma-”

  • 54  See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3v.
  • 55  Lambeth Palace Library, MS954.027a. For reproductions, see Keevak (2004: 67–69).

28The preface to the same collection incidentally briefly alludes to the fake “Formosan” version of the Lord’s Prayer as fabricated by the impostor George Psalmanazar (ca. 1679–1763)54. Now, this “Formosan” version as included in Psalmanazar (1704: 271) is already found in a manuscript dating from the preceding year 1703 among the papers of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Tenison (1636–1715). Here, it is still claimed to be the “Oratio Dominica in Lingua Japonica”55.

  • 56  Note also that what Daniels claims to read “characters previously unknown to us that were exhibite (...)
  • 57 From right to left, the three specimens of Chinese script are: 1) Under the heading “Chinica,” the (...)
  • 58  “Bontiorum Characteres in Iaponia” and “Scribunt haec secundum methodum Brachmannianam.”
  • 59  On Hoffmann, his Umbra in luce and its context, see Ben-Tov (2021: esp. 187–207).

29Chronologically next are the well-known polyglot maps by Gottfried Hensel (1687–1765) as included in his Synopsis universae philologiae (Outline of a Universal Philology; 1741). While this is not a Lord’s Prayer collection per se, the majority of languages and scripts on these maps are illustrated by the beginning of the corresponding version of the Lord’s Prayer. There are, however, also some exceptions to this general rule. Daniels (2016: 63) notes: “In Asia […] we find […] unreliable-looking Chinese, and what seem to be pure invention for Uzbek and Japanese.” This is not quite accurate56. The script specimen next to “Usbecki” is another specimen of Chinese, even if it is similarly “unreliable-looking” as the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer in Chinese and a further specimen to the left of it57. In fact, the script covering the islands of Japan (Figure 4) is no “pure invention” either. The specimen is labelled as “characters of the Bonzes [i.e., Buddhist monks] in Japan,” adding further that “they write according to the manner of the Brahmans”58. The source for these characters has long been elusive. However, whether with some intermediary or not, this script specimen recently turned out to go back to Christian Hoffmann’s (1634–1674) Umbra in luce (Shadow in Light; 1667: Bb4v or 1680 [1667]: 196), who reproduces it as a specimen deriving from “the Bonzes”59. It is actually a snippet from a text in Tamil (including several repeated syllables which were omitted by Hensel). Hensel therefore did not invent anything here – even if the specimen does not necessarily relate to the Lord’s Prayer and it is at any rate not even in Japanese.

Figure 4. Hensel’s “characters of the Bonzes in Japan” and the specimen of Tamil in Hoffmann (1680 [1667])

Figure 4. Hensel’s “characters of the Bonzes in Japan” and the specimen of Tamil in Hoffmann (1680 [1667])

Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, GE BB 565 (1, 30) [https://gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/12148/​btv1b5971461z]; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Diss. 3284,19, p. 196 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb10960281?page=236 (NoC-NC)]

  • 60  Hervás (1787: 241).

30From the late 18th century onwards we may note several attempts at remedying the lack of a Japanese version – without, however, arriving at such a version. Despite having access to a plethora of Jesuit materials on other languages, the best Jesuit scholar Lorenzo Hervás (1739–1809) could do in the case of Japanese was to include the opening address from Collado’s grammar60. Adelung (1806: 575–577) gathered Japanese equivalents for as many words occurring in the prayer as possible, making use of the works of Collado, among others. Later, Adelung’s fragments make an odd reappearance in Norberg (1827: 277–278) – odd, because they are used to piece together what must have appeared to his readers as a continuous text.

2.3. Mid-19th c. onwards: Full versions in Lord’s Prayer collections

  • 61  Apart from no. 82, these versions had already been published in Wiener Zeitung (310 [9 November 18 (...)

31The situation changes significantly in the middle of the 19th century. Auers’s Sprachenhalle (1847) contains no less than four different Japanese versions (nos. 80–83; Figure 5), printed with movable type. All of these were the products of August Pfizmaier61 – who was not as hesitant as Müller (1680a: 27) “to make up new ones”. No. 80 is based on his Chinese version under nos. 2 and 5 (on which see above), but is glossed here to also yield a translation into Literary Japanese. Nos. 81 and 83 are quite successful attempts at rendering the Lord’s Prayer in “the old dialect of Yamato” – and indeed the result is reminiscent of Old Japanese (chiefly 8th century) in both grammatical and lexical terms. No. 82 attempts the same, with less success, for contemporary colloquial Japanese as spoken in the capital city of Edo. Its deficiencies notwithstanding, it is remarkable as the earliest decidedly colloquial rendering of the prayer into a variety of Japanese, notably by a non-missionary. Pfizmaier’s aforementioned report of 1848 is also of interest here, as he, for instance, points to a misprint in no. 80 as well as to an error in no. 82.

Figure 5. Pfizmaier’s Japanese versions in Auer’s Sprachenhalle (1847)

Figure 5. Pfizmaier’s Japanese versions in Auer’s Sprachenhalle (1847)

Source: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Sub tab.38 ALT PRUNK [http://data.onb.ac.at/​dtl/​9175856]

  • 62 Bagster (1851: pl. X, 1860: pl. IX). Instead of a Japanese version, John 1 from Karl Gützlaff’s (1 (...)
  • 63  See Furet (1860: 118).

32In the middle of the 19th century we also for the first time encounter a Ryukyuan version of the Lord’s Prayer in print. While the first Western sources on Ryukyuan stem from non-missionary contexts, missionaries started their work on the Ryukyuan islands from the 1840s onwards. The first published version, in 1851, was then also provided by Bernard Bettelheim (1811–1870) of the Loochoo Naval Mission, who is known for having translated portions of the Bible into Ryukyuan62. Another version is found among the letters by Louis Furet MEP (1816–1900), a missionary who had arrived in the Ryukyus in early 1855, to Paris-based Japanologist Léon de Rosny (1837–1914) as published in 186063.

  • 64  See its 1868 edition, fol. 20r–v (with some admixture of colloquial elements that is neither prese (...)

33In 1870, we finally see the first appearance of a Jesuit translation of the prayer into Literary Japanese in a Lord’s Prayer collection – at least in a sense. As no. CCXLVIII (p. 317), Pietro Marietti (dates uncertain), then head of the polyglot printing office of the Propaganda Fide, included what is clearly a slightly modified version of a Jesuit translation. Probably due to lack of printing types in Rome, it is given in romanization only. While no provenance is indicated, this version is presumably due to missionary Bernard Petitjean MEP (1829–1884), Vicar Apostolic of Japan, who took part in the First Vatican Council at the time. Petitjean made extensive use of the works the early Jesuits had produced in Japan and which he found in Manila and Rome: The single known copy of the Confessionarium (Confessionary) of 1598 kept in the Biblioteca Casanatense was republished by him in 1869. His bilingual re-edition of the Dictionarium Latino Lusitanicum, ac Iaponicum (Dictionary of Latin, Portuguese and Japanese; 1595) was issued by the Propaganda Fide in 1870, based on a copy he received from the library of the Franciscans in Manila. The 1870 version of the prayer is close to the one in Petitjean’s Seikyō shogaku yōri 聖教初学要理 (A Fundamental Catechism of Christian Doctrine), published around the same time64. It is likely based on the Doctrina Christam of 1600 (quoted again in round brackets in Table 7), the only known copy of which is likewise kept in the Biblioteca Casanatense where it could thus be consulted by Petitjean.

Table 7. Literary Japanese version in Marietti (1870: 317)

O

(Tenni maximasu vareraga von voya) (1600)

Tenni[ ]machimasu wareraga on oïa, (1870)

P1

(minauo tattomare tamaye:)

Mi nawa tattobaritamaï;

P2

(miyo qitari tamaye.)

mi kuni o kitarachetamaïe;

P3

(Tenni voite voboximesu mamanaru gotoqu,

chini voitemo araxe tamaye.)

tenni oitewa obochimesu[ ]mama naruga gotoku,

t’ hini [!] oïte mo arachetamaïe.

P4

(Vareraga nichinichino von yaxinaiuo connichi varerani ataye tamaye.)

Konnithiwa konnithino iachinai o warerani on ataïetamaï[e];

P5

(Varera fitoni yuruxi mǒsu gotoqu

vareraga togauo yuruxi tamaye.)

hitoni iurusuga gotoku

warerano toga o on iuruchitamaï[e];

P6

(Varerauo Tẽtaçanni fanaxi tamǒ coto nacare.)

tentoni hanachimosu[ ]koto nakare,

P7

(Varerauo qeǒacu yori nogaxi tamaye.)

kio akuni nogachitamaïe.

(Amen.)

Amen.

  • 65  See Roka yorokobi utozuri-o (i.e., otozure-o) tsutau-no shomotsu 路加傳福音書, fol. 46v.
  • 66  On the committee, see Cohen (2013: 37–38).
  • 67 See Rost (1891: 46) and Rost (1905: 91), based on Luke 11:2–4 in Bettelheim’s Ruka-nu yurukubi tay (...)

34In the same year, another major collection was published in St. Petersburg in two variants (Типографія Императорской академіи наукъ 1870 and Dalton 1870). The Japanese version of the Lord’s Prayer it contains (no. 8) was taken from Bettelheim’s translation of Luke published in 185565, supplemented by interpreter and later diplomat Ichikawa Bunkichi 市川文吉 (1847–1927), who was in St. Petersburg as a student at the time. This is therefore the first time a Japanese version in a collection is based on a contemporary translation (of portions) of the New Testament, which becomes the norm in subsequent collections: Rost (1891: 35) is based on Bettelheim’s Luke. Bergholtz (1884: 98–99, nos. 88–89) relied on Matthew in more recent translations. Thus, no. 88 is likely based on Anonymous (1876), reproducing a version that had been provided by Daniel Crosby Greene (1843–1913), a missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who belonged to the Yokohama-based committee for the translation of the New Testament66. No. 89 is identical with the romanized New Testament by Presbyterian missionary James Curtis Hepburn (1815–1911) of the same committee, published in Yokohama (Hepburn 1880). The text in Rost (1905: 72–73), given in four orthographic variants, is based on a revised version that is seen from 1892 onwards (now with oime “debts” instead of tsumi “sins” in P5). While there are only few actual Lord’s Prayer collections to include a Ryukyuan version, the few that do so similarly take it from Bettelheim’s translation of Luke67.

  • 68  Rosny (1863: 145), based on no. 81 in Auer (1847).
  • 69  See, among others, tamō “bestow.rsp,” nakaran “will not exist” or waruki “evil.adn” for the former (...)

35Before closing this section, it seems worthwhile to consider Japanologist Léon de Rosny as well, in a sense the Paris counterpart of Pfizmaier in Vienna. About a decade after reproducing one of Pfizmaier’s translations in a reader for students of Japanese68, he presented his own translation (de Rosny 1872). It is of interest here chiefly for its hybrid nature, combining literary and colloquial elements69.

3. Korean

  • 70  See Osterkamp (2010) for an overview of the first two centuries of Western knowledge of Korean.
  • 71  See Osterkamp (2009: 198, n. 22; 2015: 3, n. 3). To the sources mentioned there we may now add a f (...)
  • 72  See Rémusat (1820; the plate in question is absent from most copies, however) and de Rosny (1881: (...)
  • 73  See BAV, Vat.lat.15356 (3), here fol. 313r and 314r, said to be based on an unidentified manuscrip (...)

36The Korean language was vaguely known in Europe since the late 16th century, and Jesuit missionaries to Japan even had the opportunity to receive at least a glimpse of it. It is doubtful, however, whether a Korean translation of the Lord’s Prayer was attempted at the time, and in the end, nothing but some isolated words were available until the 19th century70. The scarcity of data in Europe is to be seen in the context of the circumstance that large-scale missionary endeavors chiefly set in only in the second half of 19th century. Accordingly, Korean is absent from all early Lord’s Prayer collections, making its first appearance only in Marcel (1805: no. 26). Likely owing to a lack of printing types, it is given in romanization only. As indicated at the bottom, it was addressed to orientalist and librarian Louis-Mathieu Langlès (1763–1824) by the French missionaries in Beijing in 1790. It formed part of a multilingual Lord’s Prayer, comprising besides Latin also versions in Chinese, Manchu and Korean, and had been put together in China with the help of later Korean martyr Yun Yuil 尹有一 (1760–1795)71. A version written in Korean script circulated in manuscript, and while it was later published (Figure 6)72, it never made it into a printed Lord’s Prayer collection. It only appears in the collection compiled in manuscript by Henri Conneau (1803–1877) under the simple title Oratio dominica (The Lord’s Prayer; Conneau 1874)73.

Figure 6. Version in Korean script as provided by de Rosny (1881)

Figure 6. Version in Korean script as provided by de Rosny (1881)

Source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Anthr. 222 x-5, p. 593 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb11551188?page=607] (NoC-NC)

  • 74  Note especially hyŏn (P1) and myŏn (P5), corresponding to xian and mian , respectively. The (...)
  • 75  Marcel (1805: no. 26), Bodoni (1806: XLVII), Adelung (1817: 226, no. 56), Abel-Rémusat (1820), Sul (...)

37As was already pointed out by Adelung (1806: 533, 676), however, this version is not actually in Korean as such. Instead, we are dealing here with a Jesuit rendering in Literary Chinese, but read out in Sino-Korean instead of Mandarin74. This version was reproduced countless times, and in fact it remained the only version to be included in any collection during the next one hundred years75.

  • 76  Dallet (1874, 1: pl. LXXX).
  • 77  The author would like to thank Heo Inyeong (Inha University) for drawing his attention to the vers (...)
  • 78  The “Chino-Corean” version (i.e., Literary Chinese with kugyŏl glosses) of Matthew 5:3 provided in (...)

38Several actual Korean-language versions of the Lord’s Prayer were published during the second half of the 19th century, but always as part of specialized publications. Charles Dallet MEP (1829–1878) was the first to include one on a plate to his church history of Korea76. If we disregard some orthographic details, Dallet’s version is identical to the one found a decade earlier in the Ch’ŏnju sŏnggyo konggwa 天主聖敎功課 (Offices in the Holy Teachings of the Lord of Heaven; 1862–1864) printed in Korea77. Other versions appeared in missionary and Korea-related journals: One in “the handwriting of the translator,” Yi Sujŏng 李樹廷 (1842–1886), is provided in Anonymous (1885). Yi was in Japan at the time (hence the Japanese rendering of his name as “Rijutei” in contemporary sources), working with Presbyterian missionary Henry Loomis (1839–1920). Yi added kugyŏl glosses for Korean readers to the Literary Chinese text of the Four Gospels and Acts, all of which were printed in Yokohama in 1884, followed by a Korean version of Mark in 188578. Other Korean versions of the prayer are found in The Korean Repository (Baird 1895: 174–175, Anonymous 1897). The last of these derives from the Board of Official Translators of the Korean Bible and includes commentary by another Presbyterian missionary, Horace Grant Underwood (1859–1916), on choices made in the translation. Unlike Dallet’s version, these three later versions all comprise the doxology.

Concluding remarks

  • 79  For a detailed treatment of Marcel’s collection, see Fabien Simon, this volume.

39Lord’s Prayer collections are, in many ways, children of their respective time. This is seen, e.g., in the misconception of Chinese characters as some kind of “universal script” (see Müller 1680a on Japanese and Vietnamese), but also in the state of diglossia reflected in the coverage of some languages: With few exceptions such as the Dominican version in Hokkien, early East Asian translations typically opt for literary and thus prestige rather than colloquial varieties. We may also observe fluctuations in the nature and aims of such collections. Whether the motivation behind a collection is religious, philological or typographic in nature is typically echoed in its overall design. Versions may thus be provided in romanization only, in original script only, or in both. For original script, the need for copper plates (as with Müller 1680a and his successors) is rendered obsolete by an increasing availability of movable type, much to the pride of the printers and printing offices behind some of the collections (Marcel 1805, Auer 1844, 1847)79.

40At the same time, a number of cases discussed above raise issues concerning the reliability of certain versions of the Lord’s Prayer. Some are language-wise simply not what they claim to be (such as Hensel’s Japanese or Marcel’s Korean). Others do represent the languages they are supposed to, but were ‘corrected’ or even translated entirely without the involvement of native speakers, as in the cases of Pfizmaier, Schott and possibly also de Rosny. Notably, neither of these scholars had a missionary background, and at least Pfizmaier and de Rosny were at the same also more welcoming to colloquial language. The treatment of isolated word-for-word glosses as a continuous text (as in Norberg 1827) is a no less serious issue.

41Finally, the interrelatedness of different versions deserves our attention and needs to be studied in more detail. In East Asia, the Greek or Latin model is often supplanted – or at least supplemented – by a (Literary) Chinese model. Walravens (1977: 535) notes that some of the Manchu versions are under the influence of Chinese ones, and this can likewise be demonstrated to be true for some of the Japanese and Korean versions, for instance. This may be on the level of language, e.g., regarding the choice of words, but is similarly found on the level of script, or the mode of inscription. To give just one example, the version quoted in Rost (1905: 72) renders mikuni-o kitarasetamae “make thy kingdom come” as 爾國を臨せ給へ. In writing, this is clearly motivated by Chinese renderings of P2 going back to the Jesuit versions of the 17th century, i.e., er guo lin-ge 爾國臨格 “thy kingdom come.” Considering the fact that, especially in the 19th century, Bible translations into (Literary) Chinese played a significant role also in the production of other language versions, such as Japanese, this is hardly surprising. It is hoped that the materials assembled in this paper will help investigate these and further aspects of translations of the Lord’s Prayer into East Asian languages.

Haut de page

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

1  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).

2  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).

3  The title (T), opening address (O), the seven petitions (P1–P7), and the doxology (D) are abbreviated as indicated here in brackets.

4  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.

5  Hooke (1688: 66).

6 Romanizations are missing for ge , yan , and the first instance of ri .

7 “tsi áy” and “tsi ay” should read “tsiáy” and “tsiay” (zhai ), “chi eu[!]” is an error for “chien” (xian ).

8  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.

9  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).

10  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).

11  See Adelung (1806: 58–59).

12  The variant of the Lord’s Prayer with cheng sheng 成聖 for sanctificetur “be hallowed” in P1 and she 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).

13  “Müller. Greiff. Mon. Sin. fin. & Orat. Dom. Sin.” – i.e., the final page of Müller (1672) as well as Müller (1676).

14  Müller (1676: B2r, no. 17).

15 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.

16  Müller (1676: Bv, no. 15).

17  On Heurnius, see Duyvendak (1936) and especially Kuiper (2005).

18  See, e.g., Biblioteka Jagiellońska (BJ), Ms. sin. 14, fol. 121r or Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (SBB), Diez A fol. 27, fol. 121r.

19  See, e.g., BJ, Ms. sin. 10, images 438–439, 554, 556, 559–560 in the digitized version viewable via SBB.

20  “Oratio Dominica in sermonem Sinicum conversa et characteribus ejusdem gentis descripta a Cl. viro Jacobo Golio. Ex museo Cl. viri Hadriani Relandi.”

21  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.

22  See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3r.

23 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 they have “ong-o” / “ong-ò” / “ong-ò” / “ong-ò,” for wang “ŭwáng” / “uwáng” / “u’wáng” / “u’wáng,” and for gan “caan” / “caàn" / “caan” / “caan.”

24  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).

25  See Toomer (2023: 97, 312).

26  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).

27  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).

28  The manuscript is now at the British Library, Add. 25317 (see Van der Loon 1967: 98–108).

29  See SBB, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21, fol. 33r.

30  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.

31 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 , not cheng ; P1) and “myan”/”mien” (mian , not she ; P5).

For Jesuit prints giving the variant with jian/xian and mian , 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 “(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.

32  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).

33  See Poole (2015: 2) for details, also on the extant manuscript witnesses.

34 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 > cheng (P3, maybe inspired by no. 1), ru > yu and yi > ye (both P5), yu > yu and gan > kan (both P6); in no. 4 we may additionally note you > ai (P6).

35  See the notice in the Literarische Zeitung (14.39 [12 May 1847]: col. 623, no. 1203).

36 Cheng (P3), xu (P6) and meng are misprinted as wei , yin 𧥸 and yu , respectively.

37  Laures (1957: 36–37, no. 7).

38  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.

39  See the 1600 editions in Japanese script (Biblioteca Casanatense, CCC L.VII.39), fol. 10r, and in Roman script (Tokugawa Museum), fol. 10v.

40  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.

41 The furigana seen in the prints of 1600 are given here in round brackets.

42  Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag, inv. no. 132 G 42, fol. 33v–35r. See especially Mensink (1958).

43  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.

44  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.

45  Compare the account of Falck’s life in Hildebrand & Lager (1956) with the travels of the embassy.

46  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.

47  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).

48  Also quoted by Hervás (1787: 241) and Adelung (1806: 574), even if the former does not explicitly attribute it to Collado’s grammar.

49  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).

50  See also Osterkamp (2010: esp. 12) for a number of other early sources featuring similar claims.

51  This is explicitly expressed, e.g., in Müller (1680b: 18).

52  The presence of the catchword “JA-” as such has been noted by Keevak (2004: 86).

53  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.

54  See the “Praefatio” by David Wilkins, p. ***3v.

55  Lambeth Palace Library, MS954.027a. For reproductions, see Keevak (2004: 67–69).

56  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.

57 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/, again taken from Bayer (1730, 2: Tab. II).

58  “Bontiorum Characteres in Iaponia” and “Scribunt haec secundum methodum Brachmannianam.”

59  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).

60  Hervás (1787: 241).

61  Apart from no. 82, these versions had already been published in Wiener Zeitung (310 [9 November 1846]: [4], [10]).

62 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.

63  See Furet (1860: 118).

64  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.

65  See Roka yorokobi utozuri-o (i.e., otozure-o) tsutau-no shomotsu 路加傳福音書, fol. 46v.

66  On the committee, see Cohen (2013: 37–38).

67 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.

68  Rosny (1863: 145), based on no. 81 in Auer (1847).

69  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.

70  See Osterkamp (2010) for an overview of the first two centuries of Western knowledge of Korean.

71  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.”

72  See Rémusat (1820; the plate in question is absent from most copies, however) and de Rosny (1881: 593).

73  See BAV, Vat.lat.15356 (3), here fol. 313r and 314r, said to be based on an unidentified manuscript signed by Abel-Rémusat.

74  Note especially hyŏn (P1) and myŏn (P5), corresponding to xian and mian , respectively. The Sino-Korean version thus agrees with the Jesuit version as given by Marcel (1805: no. 27).

75  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).

76  Dallet (1874, 1: pl. LXXX).

77  The author would like to thank Heo Inyeong (Inha University) for drawing his attention to the version recorded in the Ch’ŏnju sŏnggyo konggwa.

78  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).

79  For a detailed treatment of Marcel’s collection, see Fabien Simon, this volume.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. The first Chinese version in original script in Wilkins (1668)
Crédits Source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Res/2 Graph. 47, p. 451 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb10867019?page=475 (NoC-NC)]
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 618k
Titre Figure 2. Hokkien version added by La Croze to his copy of Müller (1680a)
Crédits Source: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Libr. impr. c. n. mss. qu. 21 [http://resolver.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/​SBB0001D6A100000067 (PD)]
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 503k
Titre Figure 3. Lord’s Prayer written by Araki in the album of Stalpart van der Wiele
Crédits Source: Koninklijke Bibliotheek, inv. no. 132 G 42, fol. 34v–35r [https://www.europeana.eu/​de/​item/​92065/​BibliographicResource_1000056111563 (PD)]
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 490k
Titre Figure 4. Hensel’s “characters of the Bonzes in Japan” and the specimen of Tamil in Hoffmann (1680 [1667])
Crédits Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, GE BB 565 (1, 30) [https://gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/12148/​btv1b5971461z]; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Diss. 3284,19, p. 196 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb10960281?page=236 (NoC-NC)]
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 748k
Titre Figure 5. Pfizmaier’s Japanese versions in Auer’s Sprachenhalle (1847)
Crédits Source: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Sub tab.38 ALT PRUNK [http://data.onb.ac.at/​dtl/​9175856]
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 888k
Titre Figure 6. Version in Korean script as provided by de Rosny (1881)
Crédits Source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Anthr. 222 x-5, p. 593 [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/​de/​view/​bsb11551188?page=607] (NoC-NC)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hel/docannexe/image/5015/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 398k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sven Osterkamp, « East Asian languages in Lord’s Prayer collections, ca. 1600–1900 »Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 46-1 | -0001, 89-119.

Référence électronique

Sven Osterkamp, « East Asian languages in Lord’s Prayer collections, ca. 1600–1900 »Histoire Épistémologie Langage [En ligne], 46-1 | 2024, mis en ligne le 03 juillet 2024, consulté le 08 juin 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/hel/5015 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/11y0s

Haut de page

Auteur

Sven Osterkamp

Ruhr University Bochum

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search