CC BY
9ORNITHOLOGICAL DETAILS OF THE GOSPEL TRANSLATIONS INTO RUSSIAN AND ROMANI: SPARROW (PASSER DOMESTICUS)
Shapoval V.
Candidate of Philology, associate professor of Institute of Humanities of Moscow City University
Abstract
There are few lines of development in the Bible translations. The last decades bring us many new Bible translations into various Romani dialects. Independent translators into Romani have usually chosen as a sample one concrete Bible of the country where they dwell. Some translated versions depend on the Russian tradition. Their choice of a term for the sparrow is very significant and informative for their textual history.
Keywords: Bible, Russian, Romani translations, textual criticism, ornithonym sparrow.
The last decades have given us a lot of new translations of the Bible into different Romani dialects. Numbered initiatives in the Gospel translations taken by the Romani intellectuals in the end of the 20th century started to get a global scale. There are several lines of development in the Bible translations. Independent Romani translators usually take as a model the specific Bible of the country of residence. In this way new secondary Romani translations on the basis of one of the national Bible translations appear nowadays. Some versions of translations rely on the Russian tradition. The choice of the translation equivalent for the word sparrow is very revealing and informative for the textology of these translations. The sparrow was well known to all translators. Nevertheless, the translations reflected marked fluctuations just in those places where the sparrow or probably another widely known bird was originally mentioned. It looks like the Russian Bible tradition is inclined to avoid the word sparrow in some contexts and use the neutral description like a small bird instead, because the question of edibility of this bird had been discussed in that (19th midcentury) time very actively. Romani translations of the present time partly reflect this choices of the past in some contexts, though the whole picture is more intricate, because of possible choice between few borrowed names of the birds in Romani dialects.
Missionary translations of the Gospels into some dialects of the Gypsies had been published before, as far back as in the 19th century, but the situation of the late 20th century had a number of vivid social differences. The Romani intelligentsia formed in the last third of the 20th century declared itself at the international level. Cultural initiatives began to acquire an European and even a global scale. For instance, in 1984 the translation of the New Testament into a dialect of Vlach type was published under the title "E Lashi Vi-asta" (Good News); it is still available today [17]. Romani translators are usually little connected with each other, which is explained with differences in dialects, as well as the variety of Christian denominations. Enthusiasts as a rule rely on the version of the translation that is popular in the country of their residence. Naturally translators from CIS countries (former USSR) take as the basis the Russian synodal translation. For example, the New Testament [11] in the Belarusian dialect of the Romani language and the first, as far as we know, the complete Bible [3] in a Baltic dialect spread
with some variations to the Far East are due to their appearance to Valdemar Kalinin. In these translations the original orientation to the synodal translation was gradually overcome to a considerable extent by reference to the originals and comparison with translations into other languages. However we usually deal with secondary Romani translations on the basis of one of the national Bible translations.
The textology of Romany translations of the Bible is hardly developed yet [13]. More than two thousand years of written tradition includes hundreds of languages. With all the striving for accuracy the number of variants and their relationship is a tree of a complex structure (stemma). Today Romani translations of the Bible emerge as fresh branches from different branches of originally single tree. It turns out that the textology of modern Romani translations must take into account the complexity of the real situation, in which the diversity of the living Romani dialects is also influenced by one of several lines of development of the translational traditions of this most important Christian text developed in Europe during the entire period of the spread of Christianity.
Birds of heaven occupy an important place in the conceptual apparatus of the New Testament. We will only address one ornithological object, in the choice of a suitable transferable equivalent for which, one could suppose, both a change in the notions of ordinary things and the specificity of lexical resources of languages manifested themselves. Several species of sparrows are widespread in a vast territory mainly in the Northern hemisphere. Unlike many exotic birds of the Bible, among which, for example, are the pelican [14, p. 2931] and the phoenix [15, p. 240-241], the sparrow was well known to all translators. Nevertheless, the translations reflected marked fluctuations just in those places where the sparrow or probably another widely known bird was originally mentioned.
In the Gospels we read: "Не пять ли малых птиц продаются за два ассария?" (Luke 12, 6); "Не две ли малые птицы продаются за ассарий?" (Matthew 10, 29). This is the solution of the synodal translation [12]. In both of these cases, the Greek original contains cxpouBia 'sparrows': "Aev nraXouvxai nevxe cxpouBia 5ia Suo accapia;" ("oux nevxe cxpouBia nraXouvxai accapirav Suo..."), "ouxi Suo cxpouBia accapiou nraXeixai ..." [ibid.]. In the Vulgate, the same birds are called directly sparrows - passeres: "Nonne quinque passeres veneunt dipundio?" (Luke 12, 6); "Nonne duo
passeres asse veneunt?" (Matthew 10, 29) [20]. These places are also translated more precisely in Russian, for example: "Не пять ли воробьев продаются за два ас-сария?" (Luke 12, 6); "Не два ли воробья продаются за ассарий?" (Matthew 10, 29) in Bishop Cassian (Be-zobrazov)'s translation [3].
Probably there are several reasons for these fluctuations. First of all we ought to note that the Church Slavonic translation testifies to their venerable age, where it is also chosen the general word птица, but not the specific one врабии: Не пять ли птицъ ценится иЬнязема двЪма (Luke 12, 6); Не двЪ ли птицЬ цЬнитЬся единому ассарш (Matthew 10, 29) [18].
In addition, literalism in translation in some cases could be avoided because of pretty uncertain assessment of the sparrow's edibility. Before (during the creation of the corresponding texts), the purchase of non-decorative and not singing birds was primarily intended for gastronomic use. However by the 19th century, the time of completing the Russian synodal translation, this use of the sparrow was already highly controversial in different strata of society.
The commentary to the Old Testament explains the question of the edibility of the sparrow the following way: "Researchers, however, believe that the dror (mm) is the house sparrow, a bird that in some Jewish communities is still considered "clean ", that is fit for consumption" [5]. Obviously in this capacity the sparrow was brought to temples in the past. In modern Hebrew the name of the sparrow remains the same, but the tradition of its temple application is not so relevant.
In the 19th century it was already possible to assert that edibility of the sparrow in Russia was becoming a quite controversial question. Speaking of gourmets of Pushkin's time, E. Lavrentyeva points out the production of dishes from passerine meat as an exceptional fact: "Such mean birds as jackdaws and sparrows were also used as a food" [10, p. 82]. Actually the culture of feasting in any era along with the generally acceptable norm includes various extremes. Probably in this extreme interest in the sparrows was an element of shocking, a demonstrative violation of certain rules, even the discussion of which went beyond the bounds of decency. Against a background of this urgent polarization of positions, it was a rather risky choice for translators to write frankly in the translation of the Bible that the heroes of the New Testament traditionally continued to use sparrows for gastronomic purposes, like some contemporaries condemned by the public of that time. It was the reason why searching for a compromise solution they addressed variant readings of Church Slavonic translations.
However in the peasant culture of Russia the question of edibility of the sparrow had long been discussed and received polarized assessments: "In some regions (Tula, Vilno...) sparrows were eaten, sometimes in the form of ritual food for Christmas (Orenburg...). However, in other places eating sparrows was considered as the greatest sin along with the consumption of crows and other impure birds (Nizhny Novgorod...). This con-tradictoriness of food prohibitions among the Eastern Slavs was noted by G.I. Kabakova [9, p. 175]. In the system of values there is always some tension between
tradition and expediency. The fact that in Orenburg the sparrow remained only a ritual dish for a strictly limited calendar event may indicate its wider use before. A complete ban, like that among Nizhny Novgorod peasants, also suggests that a fairly wide gastronomic use of sparrows has been overcome relatively recently and had not been forgotten yet. It is important to take into account that inedibility of birds with bitter, hard or otherwise inedible meats is usually discussed a little, since the ban in this case does not need special cultural reinforcement.
G.I. Kabakova thus explains the reason why the sparrow is considered to be an inedible bird: "The prohibition is the sparrows stem from the disloyalty of the bird at the time of the crucifixion" [9, p. 179]. This aspect of the traditional national world outlook has already been explained in detail by A.N. Afanasyev: "The swallows even tried to steal the nails prepared by the torturers, and the sparrows sought them and brought them back. Therefore the Lord cursed the sparrow, its meat was forbidden to eat... " [1, p. 378]. This kind of justification involves a categorical ban: you can not even try.
As a result these fluctuations led to compromises in the accuracy of the synodal translation in the given place. The fluctuations in Russian translations of the New Testament are also reflected in new Romani translations based on them. So Valdemar Kalinin in this matter is inclined to greater accuracy: "Хай на дуй варобЧ бикнэнапэ пал екх асарие?" (Luke 12, 6) [11, p. 123]; "Хай, на' дуй шпаки бикнэнапэ пал екх асарие?" (Luke 12, 6) [4, p. 1354]. The error in the number of birds is caused here by the repetition of the following passage: "Хай на дуй вароб'и бикнэнапэ пал екх аса-риё*?" (Matthew 10: 29) [11, p. 25]; " Ц на дуй шпаки (вороб'и) бикнэнапэ пал екх асариё*?" (Mt 10: 29) [4, p. 1254]. (Note from [*] to the word асариё 'ass, assarius', an ancient Roman copper coin, is not explained in the book). The choice of Belarusian шпако 'starling', which is unexpected and contradicts the original, or Russism воробьё 'sparrow' indicates the interpreter's desire for detail and orientation on the Greek text. It should be noted that actually the widespread and original name of the bird in the Northern Russian Romani dialect contradicts this accuracy: чирикло (m.) "bird, little bird" [2, p. 146], but without specification this word is usually understood as a 'sparrow'. This understanding among Russian Gypsies is often due to a random similarity with the tweet. In a situation of such ambiguity the borrowed names of the sparrow were chosen.
The last name primary for the Romani (with a different grammatical gender) is also represented in translations into the dialects (for example, Vlach) that have been formed outside the zone of influence of the Slavic languages: "Na bichin de panzhe chiriklian pa dui teli-ara?" (Luke 12, 6) [17, p. 66]; "Nai bichinde dui chiri-klia pe iek pena ..." (Matthew 10, 29) [17, p. 10], where chirikli = чирикли / cirikli (f) 'bird' [7, p. 169]. Here we can also speak about a potential ambiguity, since the general name of the bird chirikli (f) was chosen instead of the "sparrow" of the Gospel original. However this
did not happen under the influence of the Russian synodal translation, but because in this Romani dialect the general Romani chirikli is understood as a sparrow, cf. Romanian vrabie 'sparrow' as a translation equivalent of Romani chirikli in this and similar dialects.
Some vagueness with sparrows in translations have deeper historical roots and date back to the Old Testament. Another place where the sparrow is just a bird, we find in Psalm 83 (or 84). 'The synodal translation says: «И птичка находит себе жилье, и ласточка гнездо себе, где положить птенцов своих...» ("And the bird finds shelter, and the swallow a nest for itself, where to put his nestlings ...") (Psalm 84, 3 or 83, 4), but in Greek here in the beginning is not a 'bird', but definitely cxpouBiov 'sparrow' (in the original not so definitely ~пэх [ципор] 'bird, little bird, sparrow), and then xpuyrav turtle-dove' (and in the original we have already mentioned above [dror], but interpreted here as 'a bird: a swallow or a dove') [12]. In the Vulgate we have passer 'sparrow' and turtur 'turtle-dove' [20]. In the Romani translations we can see the orientation toward different solutions: "Дыкх! И жриблё лаця кхэр пэскэ и бахирка* гнязда пэскэ... "(Psalm 84, 3) where *bakhirka means 'swallow' [11, p. 469]. However in a later edition the same translator solves this question differently: "Дыкх! И чириклы' латхя' кхэр пэскэ и бахирка (ласточка) гнязда (ку'фо) пэскэ... "(Psalm 84, 4) [4, p. 787]. In the first translation in the initial position the lituanism жвирблё 'sparrow' is represented (cf. Lithuanian zvirblis), in the second the original name of the female gender чириклы 'bird'. The word бахирка 'swallow' is difficult to explain etymologi-cally. The rare word куфо (m) also needs commenting. In the meaning of 'nest' it is ambiguously lemmatized on the basis of a single form куфёнца (instrumental plural). Previously it was presented just in the only folklore text: "32. The meaning of some dreams. 4. Tearing nuts in a dream means to get some money. А дыкхём мэ ящо' сунэ': со мэ кустём пэгенда' о лузга'нцы, ящо куфенца рискирдём. "I saw another dream: I tore nuts - "Luzgantsy", and I tore them "kufami" (with nests)" [8, p. 41]. The matter is not about bird nests, but about triple fruits, which is not taken into account in the dictionary attached to the Bible: "куфо куфы гнязда" [4, p. 1661]. Probably it is comparable with купа (Купой расти, to grow as a bush, together. Pereyaslavl', Vladimir, 1848). [16, p. 96; 19, p. 418-419], but the origin of the form with -ф-raises some questions: judging by its consonantism it is certainly not from Germanism in Polish in the meaning 'detachment': "huf ... from German Haufe 'heap, pile' " [6, p. 178].
The same fluctuations are revealed in the Book of Proverbs, where with the fragment in the synodal translation "Как воробей вспорхнет, как ласточка улетит, так незаслуженное проклятие не сбудется" ("As a sparrow will fly like a swallow will fly away, so an undeserved curse will not come true") [12] in different versions of the Romani translation corresponds: "Сыр жриблё, со вурняла дорик и палэ и сыр ластачка, со вурняла, и сави на бэшэла, адякэпаць и бипричына-киро прокошыбэн на рисёла дро чачипэн" (Prov. 26, 2) [11, p. 544]. In the later version of the translation
there are the same substitutions as in the afore-cited psalm: "Сыр чириклы, сави вурняла дорик и палэ и сыр бахирка (ласточка), сави вурняла, и сави на бэшэла, адякэ-паць и бипричынакиро прокошыбэн на рисёла дро чачипэн" (Proverbs 26, 2) [4, p. 858]. The Vulgate also has a general avis 'bird' and a specific hirundo 'swallow' [20]. Apparently this decision was directly or indirectly reflected in the second version of the Romani translation.
The most intriguing fact is that the Greek translation of the former bird corresponds to plural from öpveov 'bird', but not 'sparrow'; just the opposite, the latter word is plural from the already familiar root схроибо^ 'sparrow', and not the 'swallow', but in the original we find rhyming [tsipor] and [dror], already commented above as the source of a pair sparrow and swallow. Thus, it is rather difficult to speak about achieving absolute accuracy when choosing translation equivalents for biblical names of birds even in the distant perspective.
The unresolved nature of these issues leads to fixing alternative versions in new translations into languages that were not previously covered by this or that biblical translation tradition. It is notable that in these cases it is often impossible to make a choice in favor of a single decision because of different interpretation of authoritative versions already established in various translation traditions.
Many thanks to Mr. Mikhail Dyachok for translation of this article into English.
REFERENCES:
1. Афанасьев, А. Н. Поэтические воззрения славян на природу. Ч. 2. Москва: К. Солдатенков, 1869.
2. Баранников, А. П., Сергиевский, М. В. Цыганско-русский словарь: около 10 000 слов с приложением грамматики цыганского языка. Москва: Изд-во иностранных и национальных словарей, 1938.
3. Труд епископа Кассиана (Безобразова) «Новый Завет (перевод под ред. еп. Кассиана (Безобразова)).
(http://kratovo.cerkov.ru/files/2015/11/Novyj-Zavet-perevod-pod-red-ep-Kassiana-Bezobrazova.pdf).
4. Библия. Пэ Балтитко Романи чиб (Романэс). Bible. Baltic Romani Language (Baltic Romanes). Belarus-Lithuanian (Balt-Slavic) Romani dialect / Valdemar Kalinin and Distribution of Christian Literature. ISBN 978-2-940059-20-1. Printed in Belarus, 2014.
5. Библейский бестиарий: mm 'дрор'. (http ://ja-tora. com/bibleiskii-bestiarii-dror).
6. Brückner A. Slownik etymologiczny j^zyka polskiego. Krakow: Krakowska Spolka Wydawnicza, 1927.
7. Деметер Р. С., Деметер П. С. Цыганско-русский и русско-цыганский словарь (кэлдэрарский диалект). Москва: Русский язык, 1990.
8. Добровольский В. Н. Киселевские цыгане. Вып. 1. Цыганские тексты. СПб.: ИАН, 1908.
9. Кабакова Г. И.. Пищевые запреты восточных славян и их обоснование // Толстая С. М. (Ред.) Категория оценки и система ценностей в языке и культуре. Москва: Индрик, 2015. С. 167186.
10. Лаврентьева Е. В. Культура застолья XIX века. Пушкинская пора. Москва: Терра, 1999.
11. Нэво завето. Псалмы. Притчы. GBV-Dillenburg, 2001.
12. Параллельная русская Библия. (http://www.godrules. net/para7).
13. Шаповал В. В. Лексические лакуны двух цыганских переводов Евангелия // Перевод Библии как фактор сохранения и развития языков народов России и стран СНГ. Москва: Институт перевода Библии, 2010. С. 250-262.
14. Шаповал В. В. О названиях животных в ранних славянских словарях // Вестник Московского городского педагогического университета. Научный журнал. - Серия «Филология. Теория языка. Языковое образование». 2017. 3 (27). С. 28-34.
15. Шаповал В. В. О границах имен собственных в ранних славянских словарях //
Ономастика Поволжья: материалы XVI Международной научной конференции, посвященной 50-летнему юбилею первой Поволжской ономастической конференции и памяти ее организатора В. А. Никонова. I. Ульяновск: ФГБОУ ВО «УлГПУ им. И.Н. Ульянова», 2017. С. 238-242.
16. Словарь русских народных говоров. Вып. 16. Москва; Ленинград: Наука, 1980.
17. The Holy Bible NT: Romani (E Lashi Viasta) / Ruth Modrow (1984). 234 p. // Jesus Army Online Multilingual Bible (http://www.jesus-army.com/bible/Romani+NT/40/10).
18. Церковнославянский. Евангелие на церковнославянском языке. (https ://azbyka. ru/biblia/?Lk. 12 https://azbyka.ru/biblia/?Mt.10:29-30).
19. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Т. 2. Москва: Прогресс, 1986.
20. Vulgata
(http ://w2 .vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/docu ments/ nova-vulgata_novum-testamentum_lt.html).
