« הקודםהמשך »
सथ विष्णु घोडानाम चावधे चिन्नये हिज्यु। भोजनेच जनाईनं । श्यने पद्मनाभच विवाहेच प्रजा पति। युरे चक्रधरं देवं प्रबासेच विविक्रम । नारायचं ननुत्यागे श्रीधरं प्रिय सङ्गमे। दुःखने अरगोविन्दं। शहटे मधुसूदनं । कानने नरमिंहत। पर्वते रष नन्दनं जसमध्ये बराच पावके जन्मशायिनं। गमने वासुदेवच सर्वकार्येषुमधवं । एतानि षोडश नामानि प्रातरत्याय य पठेत् सर्व पाप विनिमको विष्णु लोके महीयते इति श्रीविष्णु षोडश नाम समाप्नं ।।
qu faray GTA #R: नमो ब्रह्मण देवागोवाण बितायचजगद्विय कृष्णाय गोविन्दाय नमो नम ।
(To be continued.)
V.-On Barbarisms in Translations of the Sacred Scriptures.
Referring to my last paper, on the subject of Idiotisms, which occur in some of our oriental translations of the Scriptures, I proceed, as there proposed, to notice next the subject of Barbarisms.
Barbarism is the use of a foreign word.
I am far from asserting that all barbarisms are objectionable : they are more admissible in European than in oriental translations : and in the latter they are sometimes necessary and convenient. It has often been found difficult to translate the word Battibw: because as very much importance is attached to this word by many, and as they differ much in the precise meaning of it, it is seldom practical to find a word in another language, which shall satisfy all parties : and the Society which publishes the greater part of these translations is obliged to satisfy all parties: the consequence is, that the word BanTI5W has been most sadly barbarized, if I may be allowed the expression: but yet these barbarisms seem to have had the happy effect of satisfying most parties : as each person could interpret the word according to his own idea of its meaning.
It is very needful to distinguish such places from those where there does not exist this necessity for foreign words, always bearing in mind this maxim, that if possible, barbarism should be avoided : partly because it greatly obscures the meaning; and partly because it often needlessly offends the prejudices of the reader.
Let us notice particularly the mode of rendering the names of Scripture coins : which will pretty well illustrate the subject : and we will confine our attention principally to Matthew's Gospel.
The principal coins are these.
Matt. xxv. 18, 27 ; xxvi. 15; xxvi. 3, 5, 6, 9; xxviii. 12, 15. ασσαριον
Matt. x. 29. 3. διδραχμον
Matt. xvii. 24, bis. 4. κοδραντης
Matt. v. 26.
6. ταλαντον Matt. xviii. 24; xxv. 15, 16, bis. 20 ter. 22, 24, 25, 28, bis.
7. δηναριον Matt. xviii. 28; xx, 2, 9, 10, 13; xxii. 19.
Before I proceed farther, I should mention, that among the people who speak the language, to which my attention is principally directed, only two modes of money exist : one is a weight, for silver, rather more than an ounce troy, and the other a small brass coin, something similar to an English farthing, but of less value.
Here let us notice an observation of Campbell's, very much to our purpose.“ It sometimes happens, that accuracy in regard to the value of the coins is of importance to the sense--secondly, it sometimes happens that the value of the coin is of no consequence to the import of the passage—thirdly, it happens also sometimes, that though the real value of the coin does not affect the sense, the comparative value of the different sums mentioned is of some moment for the better understanding of what is said.” Let us then classify the passages above-mentioned accordingly.
1. Matt. xxvi. 15; xxvii. 3, 5, 6, 9; x. 29; v. 26; xx. 2, 9, 10, 13.
2. Matt. xxv. 18, 27; xxvii. 12, 15; xvii. 24, bis. xvii. 27; xxii. 19.
3. Matt. xviü. 24 ; xxv. 15, 16, bis. 20 ter. 22, 24, 25, 28, bis. xviii. 28.
The places in the 26th and 27th Matt., in the first division, are all alike, because they allude to precisely the same thing, namely, the price for which Judas sold his master. Our English translation renders them" thirty pieces of silver." Accuracy in regard to the coin intended by the word apyupia is so far needful (and only so far) that the idea of a small sum is to be conveyed to the reader. Now, if in the translation alluded to, it should be said that Judas betrayed the Saviour for 30 L. (calling the weight of silver of rather more than an oz. troy L. for the sake of argument), an erroneous idea would be conveyed : because the conclusion would be drawn, that Christ was sold for more than twice the actual sum. But then in that language, we have no other mode of expressing the sum, unless we say, as in the English version, “thirty pieces of silver.” This is indefinite, while apyupia is definite, meaning the shekel. But rather than convey the certainly erroneous idea of thirty L. it is better to convey the indefinite one of thirty pieces of silver, and by no means employ a barbarism and say “thirty arguria,” because we cannot exactly express the meaning of the word
appupia. The next place is Matt. x. 29. Here a certain degree of accuracy only is necessary; the scoaploy was quadruple the value of the xodparons, and this again, double the value of the herov. Now although the brass coin spoken of above agrees well with the Greek
detetov, yet no erroneous idea is conveyed by saying are not two sparrows sold for one C?” (calling the brass coin above referred to C), because this as aptly as the Gr.conveys the idea intended, “ that although sparrows are almost nothing worth, yet God's providence extends to them.” Now, although C is only the kth part of accapcov, it is a fair translation, because it conveys the idea intended to be conveyed. And, inasmuch as that C is a coin of exceedingly small value, it is as accurate as it need be. But to say that “ two sparrows are sold for one assarion," is a barbarism, which we should think needless in any language.
We proceed to Matt. v. 26. Here accuracy is thus far needed ; namely, that the translation express the idea of paying the very last fraction :' we can easily perceive that C is a fair rendering of xodpavens in this place, as well as of accaplov in the former: at least it conveys no erroneous idea, and is far preferable to saying, “ till thou hast paid the very last kodrant,” which should be a needless barbarism.
The last places under the first division are in Matt. xx. Here accuracy is so far necessary, that as the Gr. Onaplov conveys the idea of a fair compensation for a day's work (in those times, and in that country), so likewise the translation should do the same. Our English translation is certainly incorrect, and conveys an awkward idea, namely, that the householder paid his labourers very badly, which is not hinted at in the Gr.- What is to be done then in the language proposed: to say that the householder agreed with the labourers for an L, or for a C, would be more erroneous than the English penny.” We are constrained to admit, that in this particular language, a barbarism scems needful in this place; thus “ when he had agreed with the labourers for a denarius per day,” but a note should always accompany the word denarius, intimating that it is a coin, and expressive of its value.
We next come to the places in the second division, and first Matt. xxv. 18, 27. Here no accuracy is needed, and money or • silver" will do in the translation.
Again, Matt. xxviii. 12, 15; these places are very similar to the former: “ money” or “ silver" will do in the translation. Again, Matt. xvii. 24. Here there is some accuracy in the Gr. because did poxpa was the name of that tribute which was exacted for the support of the temple : but it does not appear absolutely necessary that the reader in the present day should understand the exact value of the tribute: it is sufficient that he have a general idea : and to render the word “ tribute money” seems far preferable to “ didrachma,” even though it should be accompanied with a note.
Almost the same may be said of the next place, Matt. xvii. 27; with this exception, that as the cramp was to be given as the tribute of two persons, it is desirable if practicable to express the two words, in such a way, that the latter may be understood to be
about double the value of the former. This is not always practicable : and in such cases it seems better to say in the translation, “ thou shalt find a piece of money,” than to say, “ thou shalt find a stater.” For in the former case the reader cannot much mistake the meaning; in the latter, the meaning would be obscured.
The last place under this division is Matt. xxii. 19; here no accuracy is needed in the translation ; it is enough in my opinion to say they brought unto him a coin: nothing is lost by saying “ coin;" nothing is gained by being more specific; much is lost in an oriental language by saying, they brought unto him a denarius.
We now proceed to the next division : and first of all, we notice Matt. xviii. 24. In this place there is a comparative value between μυριων ταλαντων And εκατον δηναρια in ν. 28th, and so long as this comparative value is retained in the translation, it is not necessary to be precise as to the sums. Now, ten thousand L is a suffiently large sum to denote a person's being immensely in debt ; and one hundred C aptly expresses a comparatively small debt: I should indeed prefer a word which would express the idea of a man's being involved beyond the remotest possibility of payment; but what is to be done when the largest denomination is L? unless the quantity be altered from ten thousand to ten millions. Query ; is this proper ? In my humble judgment “ ten thousand L” is preferable to “ten thousand talenta,” and “one hundred C” preferable to “ one hundred denarii.”
The only remaining places are Matt. xxv. 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28. Here the comparison is between duo and ev, and the idea that “ou” is a sufficient sum to trade with, must not be lost: if this idea be preserved in the translation, and also the comparative sums—five, two, and one, the exact amount given to each servant seems of little consequence. I am inclined to think in the particular language under consideration, it would be well
“ five thousand L” for five talents : “ two thousand L" for two talents, and “ one thousand L” for one talent. Thus we come tolerably near to the value of the talent (say frd less), and I should suggest that this is much better than to say “ five talenta,” &c.
In the compass of 27 verses, and in one or the other of two versions now before me, I count 31 distinct barbarisms; while, if the above observations be correct, only four are needful, viz. in Matt. xx. 2, 9, 10, 13.
I am greatly afraid that I have been rather prolix : but I hope not dogmatical. I shall be truly glad if any of your readers will take up the subject, and correct any error into which I may have fallen, and aid the cause of revision by their remarks. I am,
Bilo * * * *
VI.--A Representation in Roman Character of the principal
Alphabets in Eastern India, with Notices of Dialectic Peculiarities, Specimens of the mode of applying the Letters in Practice, and Answers to Objections.
The scheme developed in the last Observer for representing the Deva Nágari and Persian alphabets in Roman characters has excited a warmer interest, and secured a more general acquiescence, than could well have been anticipated. It has led in some quarters to frequent conversations and repeated discussions, and drawn forth from others various communications of a nature at once friendly and instructive. Every thing around us seems decisively to prognosticate the ultimate triumph of our designs.
When “the scheme” was put forth, observations were solicited from all whose course of study might qualify them to form a practical judgment on the subject. Nor was the solicitation fruitless. While approbation of by far the greater part has been expressed, a few, and only a very few, alterations have been proposed. These it is proper now briefly to notice. They may be divided into two classes : -those that may, and those that cannot, well be adopted.
1. The latter class, or that which includes the alterations that cannot well be adopted, refers exclusively to certain letters, which, though originally identical in sound, and though still retained in the original form, yet, in consequence of the mutations to which all things human are liable, have become, in different alphabets, somewhat changed in phonic power. To exemplify what is meant, take the first letter in every Indian alphabet, the Deva Nágarí or short a. “ This,” says Sir William Jones, " is the simplest element of articulation, or vocal sound. The word America begins and ends with it. In our own anomalous language, we commonly mark this elementary sound by our fifth vowel (or short u). The Nágarí letter is called acár ; but it is pronounced in Bengal like our fourth vowel (or short o); and in the west of India like our first.” In Hindústánỉ, our short u, as in up, sun, &c. would exactly represent this letter. Hence it is so represented by Dr. Gilchrist. Our short u being thus pre-occupied, the Dr. was obliged to express Band , or our short obtuse and long obtuse u, as in push, cube, by the symbols 0 and 00. Now, if we had to do only with Hindústání, this
probably might be the most appropriate notation. But our object is totally different, we have to provide for all the Indian alphabets. The question is not, what will suit best one particular alphabet; but what, so far as we can judge, will suit every alphabet best, so as to secure the nearest possible approximation to a universal confor. mity? How, for instance, would Dr. Gilchrist's short u, as in up, answer in the Bengali, where the letter is sounded like our short 0? How would it suit in those dialects where it is pronounced likeour a? Would it, in these several instances, answer the purpose better than