Correspondence on Literary Matters

Mention has been made in some of the preceding chapters of literary work of various kinds. Such work, as has been shown, fitted in anywhere it could, between other engagements. It was the same with the conventions and missions to different parts of India; they were interwoven as it were with the life ordinary, not fenced off into little fields of their own. It is partly this which made it difficult, if not impossible, to pull them out of their settings and arrange them in orderly sequence. If in the life written they are mixed up with everything else, it is because they were just that in the life lived.

That life was full of correspondence on subjects of interest at least to C.M.S. missionaries. For example, it often fell to him to safeguard the young Church from what he regarded as error; one such attempt which was successful is related to the publication and use of a certain book whose general trend may be gathered from the following criticism upon it:

“I think it would be best to say that the book is written throughout from a standpoint which, as an Evangelical Body, we cannot accept, and which we should not feel justified in allowing our agents to study; and that, therefore, the number of passages requiring alteration would be legion.

“Why should we submit our opinions to ’ his judgment ‘? [The reference is to a certain Bishop.] Say also that translations will not properly represent the force of the original, and that the sense given depends largely on the personal equation of the translator.

“If he still presses, then the book must be re-read, and time must be given.

“Perhaps things are coming to a head, and a casus belli may arise. If so, let us sit tight and shoot straight.”

Later:

“I have been through Q.’s book again. You had better run through ray marks and jottings, and do as you like with them.

“1. I have marked with red the chief passages to which certain of our Nonconformist brethren might fairly take exception. In some cases it is a word or phrase or allusion which is dis courteous and unkind, and everything will then depend on a proper translation. In other cases, the whole sentence is objectionable. The passages in question are [pages follow]. If the Bishop has any doubt, let him put the Tamil book into the hands of an intelligent and godly Nonconformist missionary who speaks Tamil (say Chandler or Jones).

“2. His attention should also be called to the following passages, which are objectionable to others than Nonconformists:” (a) Marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is denounced as a gross sin against the law of God. Now, while we are prepared to accept the rule against it as a whole some rule of the Church, we are not convinced that the offence is one against the law of God, and Q.’s words are unwarranted.

“(6) He states that the remarriage of presbyters is forbidden
in 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 6, in a quite dogmatic
way. We protest against such statements in the
name of scholarship and fairness. They are both
inaccurate and unkind.

“(c) We also protest against his introducing extraneous
titles for the Holy Communion, e.g. ‘Mass,’ and
assuming their correctness. This is not expounding
the Church Catechism, and is departing deliberately
from Prayer-Book phraseology in the interests of a
party.

“(d) We also protest against his introducing a sort of

Supplemental Catechism which is not in the Prayer

Book, and that in words which claim for it some

kind of Church authority. Our only hope of unity

is in adhering strictly to the Prayer Book.

“3. The book claims all through, that Episcopacy is absolutely

necessary to the esse of a Church, and its teaching is founded

on that dictum. Now, while we Evangelicals are convinced

that Episcopacy is essential to the bene esse of a Church, we

know too much of Church History, and are too well acquainted with the opinions of the Reformation period, to accept the dictum that the Church of England has bound herself to the esse doctrine. We cannot therefore teach our people what we do not conscientiously believe, and what we hold, in company with scholars of Bishop Lightfoot’s stamp, to be historically incorrect.

“4. Neither can we accept Q.’s teaching on the Sacraments, though we do accept that of the Church Catechism.

“5. I think it would be well, therefore, to tell the Bishop again that the book assumes what is known as the sacerdotal position all through, and therefore cannot possibly, even with emendations, be acceptable to Evangelical Churchmen. Its sanction as a Bishop’s Prize Text Book would therefore be regarded as sanctioning a controversial book, making against our Evangelical teaching; and the Bishop could not expect us as honest men to do anything but discourage it in every way.”

Another subject of interest to all who have to do with the translation of ancient literature for young churches, is the correspondence connected with the revision of the Tamil Prayer Book. A memorandum written in 1900, and recently privately printed at the suggestion of the late Bishop Williams of Tinnevelly, sets forth the argument upon which he held an extremely strong opinion. He thought that the translation of ecclesiastical terms, whenever possible, should be rendered in the vernacular; failing that, by transliteration from the original language, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin; of all things, he considered transliteration from English most objectionable. The memorandum, somewhat condensed and deleted of local names, is as follows:

“In 1872 the Tamil Prayer Book was revised by a strong Committee. It may be said without hesitation that it would be impossible nowadays to form so strong and capable a Revision Committee. The fact that the later Revision Committee only altered its wording in a very few particulars is a sufficient proof of the excellence of this book. I think I am correct in stating that the wish for any further revision was dictated chiefly by a desire on the part of a very small minority for the transliteration of certain ecclesiastical terms, and not from any belief that serious revision was needed.

fi Be this as it may, in 1890 (thel Bishop of Madras appointed a new Revision Committee. The Committee carefully considered all the suggestions which had reached them, and they went thoroughly through the whole book on their own account. They were also in constant communication with Bishop Caldwell, and referred every important matter to him for opinion. Bishop Caldwell approved of nearly all their decisions, including the retention of the Tamil words already in vogue for ecclesiastical terms. The proposed changes were then submitted through the Bishop of Madras to the Metropolitan, who objected to some of the alterations suggested, and who further called attention to a resolution passed by the Bishops of India in Synod in previous years, requiring such ecclesiastical terms as ‘Bishop,” Priest,” Deacon,’ etc., to be transliterated; adding, however, ‘The utmost that I can say is that if the Bishop of any Diocese should signify to me that the general feeling, in which he concurred, is that the vernacular equivalent, hitherto in use, should be retained, I should be disposed to consent, and I would confer with the other Bishops of the Province on the subject.’ He referred the proposed changes back to the Kevision Committee, with his own criticisms, for reconsideration.

“In the meantime, the Rev. W. T. Satthianadhan, Tamil scholar and chairman of the Revision Committee, had died, and I was appointed by the Bishop of Madras to take his place. I joined it, therefore, just at the juncture when it was about to reassemble to reconsider the whole question. Except one (now retired to England), I am the only member of the Committee still in the land of the living, and so the only person now in India who can speak as to what actually took place at its Sessions.

“We met again in 1892, passed some new suggestions which had been recently made by the then Bishop of Colombo on grounds of scholarship, and decided with reluctance to abandon certain verbal changes objected to by the Metropolitan. We also went thoroughly into the matter of transliterating the ecclesiastical terms in question, with the result that, taking advantage of the Metropolitan’s words as quoted above, we decided to press for the retention of the Tamil words already in vogue. I am witness to the fact that our deliberations on this question were singularly harmonious, and that we were all but unanimous.

“Unfortunately, as I think, the Bishops in Synod declined to sanction the retention of the Tamil terms in question, and insisted on transliteration. The further question then arose, ‘Should the transliterations be made from the original languages or from the English? ‘The Bishop of Madras [then Bishop Cell] was in favour of transliterations from the original, and in a conversation I had with him in Ootacamund, assured me that he should insist on this for the Tamil Prayer Book. The matter was referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who gave it as his decided opinion (I myself saw his letter) that the transliterations should be from the original languages, and not from what he called ’ the truncated English forms.’

“At this stage I was suddenly summoned to England by reason of my wife’s serious illness there.

“I heard no more of Tamil Prayer Book matters till my return to India ten months later, in the autumn of 1893. I was prostrate with illness for some time after returning, but heard with astonishment that the Tamil Prayer Book was going through the Press with the ecclesiastical terms transliterated not from the original, but from the English. Though a member of the Revision Committee, I had not been informed that any fresh action was being taken. I found also that none of the Tinnevelly C.M.S. missionaries knew anything about the matter. I therefore applied to Mr. W. for information, and found that, in my absence, he had circulated the question among the members of the Revision Committee, and he allowed me to see the ’ opinions ’ received. The only C.M.S. opinion was from the Rev. S. Paul [a Tamil pastor], and ran to the effect that ‘The English words sounded sweeter to Tamil ears than Greek words ‘! No wonder, since he was ignorant of any foreign language except English. None of the ‘opinions’ approached the questions of scholarship, etc., involved, and a united Session would probably have entirely altered the vote, as it would have given opportunity for facing the principles involved.

“There was no course open to me except to record my strong protest, and I accordingly wrote to the Bishop of Madras.

“I received no written reply to this letter; but when I met the Bishop of Madras a few weeks later at Ootacamund, he admitted my contentions and expressed regret, promising that, though it was too late to prevent the issue of the new Prayer Book then, the matter should be fully reconsidered when a new edition was called for. It has never, however, been reconsidered, to the best of my knowledge. The Prayer Book, with transliterations from the English, duly appeared in 1895. Bishop Gell’s increasing infirmities compelled him to resign his Diocese in 1898; and the matter was left in statu quo.

“Such, in fact, is the history of the last Prayer Book revision. I have not at hand a copy of the Resolutions passed at the next ensuing Synod of Bishops in Calcutta; but I recollect reading something to the effect that a copy of the new Tamil Prayer Book was presented, but that, for some reason unstated, formal approval was withheld.

“I find that, in a letter written from London and dated October 25, 1895, the Secretary of the S.P.C.K., Madras, says, ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury has forwarded to us a lengthy correspondence which he has received in regard to the renderings and transliterations adopted in the Tamil Prayer Book. The Committee have agreed to make it the rule in future versions printed at their expense, that transliteration shall be made direct from the languages of the original as nearly as the genus of the language into which transliteration is made will permit. This will exclude for the future all transliterations from English equivalents.’ A comparison of the dates will show that this letter was received after the revised Tamil Prayer Book had been published.

“It also shows that those who contend for transliterations from the originals can claim the clearly expressed opinions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the S.P.C.K. as supporting their view of things. The S.P.C.K. Committee’s Resolution referred to in the Secretary’s letter was plainly the outcome of their negotiations with the Archbishop on the question.

“With these facts before us, it can hardly be a matter of surprise that many of us have felt unable to welcome the Prayer Book of 1895. There ought to have been a further Session of the Revision Committee to consider all the matters involved. The Archbishop’s opinion ought to have been placed before that Committee, and thoroughly weighed. And suggested transliterations from the original ought to have been submitted for approval to the Bishop of Madras and the Metropolitan. As it was, however, the matter was hurried through without due consideration, and without the knowledge of one at least of the members of the Committee.

“If any further action is now proposed to be taken, may I beg earnestly that the following considerations may be given due weight:

“Is it for the real welfare of the Indian Church to insist, by authority, on transliterations? Had the Revision Committee been left to decide the matter for themselves, they would have resisted such transliterations; and Indian members were in the large majority. I urge, in all humility and sincerity, certain facts which ought, I venture to think, not to be lost sight of.

“Are we not in danger of presenting both the Gospel and our own Church polity in too foreign a guise to a land like India? Is it wise or really necessary to increase the use of foreign terms? Already the cry is going forth for something more Indian in the presentation of the Gospel? Should we not aim at diminishing, rather than increasing, all that sounds foreign and alien in our religious phraseology?

“Does Apostolic practice warrant the usage of transliterated religious terminology in such matters as those under question? Did not the Apostles adopt Greek words for ‘Church,” Bishop,” Presbyter,” Deacon,” Holy Communion,’ etc., which were already in current use, generally with a different etymological meaning, trusting the new usage and the work of time to con note a Christian and theological meaning? It is often objected that words which have been adopted in translations do not carry, etymologically, the exact ecclesiastical or theological significance intended. Exactly so; but would not the same objection lie to the first adoption by the Apostles of Greek words to express Christian ideas? In time the connotation of the new idea with the old word becomes an accomplished fact. Etymology alone would hardly justify the application of a word originally meaning ’ elder man ’ to a young clergyman only twenty-three years of age.

“I confess to feeling jealous of the introduction of a foreign phraseology into a land like India, especially in view of the fact that we are all too foreign already in the eyes of the people. The Indian languages, with the help of the classic Sanskrit, ought to be as well able to furnish us with Indian terms as Greek, which has so many affinities with Sanskrit, and was found capable of furnishing suitable expressions to the first Missionaries of the Gospel. Will the Bishops kindly excuse my laying stress on this point.

“If, however, the decision to transliterate certain terms be irrevocable, may I suggest that it is only fair to infant churches to go to the original source, and so avoid, as far as possible, the introduction of, and emphasis on, our Anglican controversies? Even in England, Hooker (Ecclesiastical Polity, v. lxxviii. 2, 3) had to labour at some length to defend the retention of one of the terms in question, and admits his personal preference for the more original form of the word.

“It appears to me that, if translation be forbidden (which

414 WALKER OF TTNNEVELLY [CH. xxxv.

I most earnestly and humbly deprecate), the best possible source of agreement is to be sought and found in transliteration from the original.”

A memory with a happy little human touch in it lies buried among these records of a controversy keen enough though so calmly set forth in the printed page: the time, some years later, the occasion, the meeting together of men of diverse views belonging to the two societies S.P.G. and C.M.S. to consider several thorny questions connected with the translation or transliteration of certain ecclesiastical terms. A list of names selected for the small sub-committee was read aloud, and the name of the one whom all recognised as the strong man among them was not on the list. At once a younger man on the S.P.Gr. side, divining, as all present did, the cause of the omission, stood up and asked that it should be included. It touched the one concerned very deeply, and when he came home to Dohnavur he told it, cheered to the heart by the generous brotherliness of it.

Afterwards, when he was taken, some of the warmest words of appreciation spoken in all India, came from those with whom he had often had occasion to contend. Verily it is true that kindred souls meet and touch in Heavenly Places.

‘One lesson, Nature, let me learn of thee,
One lesson which in every wind is blown,
One lesson of two duties kept at one
Though the loud world proclaim their enmity —

Of toil unsever’d from tranquillity 1
Of labour that in lasting fruit outgrows
Far noisier schemes, accomplish’d in repose,
Too great for haste, too high for rivalry.”

MATTHEW ARNOLD, Quiet Work.