The Lesser Eastern Churches/Preface

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

PREFACE

 

This book forms a continuation, or second part, of The Orthodox Eastern Church by the same author.^[1] Its object is to describe the lesser separated Eastern Churches in the same way as that described the greatest. "Greatest" and "lesser," by the way, are only meant to qualify their size. No opinion is thereby expressed as to their relative merit (see p. 446).

There is a difference in the subject of this volume, which affects its treatment. These smaller Churches are much less known. There is a vast literature on the Orthodox Church, so that the only difficulty in writing the former book was that of selection and arrangement. Moreover, Orthodox official documents and service-books (at least in their original form) are in Greek, which it is no great merit to know. Much of the matter treated here is rather of the nature of a land, if not unknown, at least difficult of access. There is far less information to be had about the other Eastern Churches. And their native literature is contained in many difficult tongues. So to write this book was a much more arduous task, and the result may be less satisfactory. On the other hand, it has the advantage of greater originality. Concerning the Orthodox I said nothing which could not be found fairly easily in European books already. Here I think I have been able, in certain points, to bring what will be new to anyone who has not made some study of Eastern matters and languages. Part of this is gathered from notes made by myself in their lands, interviews with prelates and clergy of these rites, observations of their services, and information supplied by friends in those parts.

As for literary sources, I have, of course, read many books on Eastern Churches by modern writers. But, as will be seen from my references, I have compiled my own book, as far as I could, from original sources. It is perhaps hardly necessary to say that all my quotations are at firsthand. Where I refer to Al-Maḳrizi, Severus of Al-Ushmunain, Shahrastani, Barhebræus, and so on, I have gathered my information from their works. Only in the case of Armenian books am I unable, through ignorance of the language, to consult any. Fortunately, Langlois' collection of Armenian historians in a French version to some extent compensates for this.

One of the great practical difficulties was how to spell proper names. Without any wish to parade scientific transliteration, it seems nevertheless clear that one must have some system for writing names from so many languages, at least enough system to spell the same name always in the same way. The most obvious suggestion would perhaps seem to be to spell each name in the usual, familiar way. As far as there is such a way this plan has been adopted. Names which have a recognized English form, such as John, Peter, Gregory, are left in this form. So also when the Latin form seems universally familiar in English—Athanasius, Epiphanius. But there are many names which have no recognized spelling. Nothing can make such as Badr alǵamālī, Ḥnanyešuʿ, Mšīḥâzkâ, Sbaryešuʿ look familiar to an English reader. The old-fashioned way was to make the nearest attempt one could at representing the sound of these names, according to the use of the Roman letters in the language in which the book is written. This has many inconveniences. First, to anyone who knows how such names are written in their own letters it is as irritating as to see a well-known French writer called "Bwalo." Secondly, the Roman letters represent different sounds in different languages. A German writes "Dschafar," an Italian "Giafar," a Frenchman "Djafar" for the same name. In English, particularly, the same letter represents often a multitude of sounds. "Ptough," used in the translation of Ormanian's book,^[2] represents no particular sound to an Englishman. Thirdly, Semitic languages have letters of which the sound cannot be even approximately indicated by any combination of ours. And, lastly, the same names are pronounced differently in different places. East and West Syriac, Egyptian and Syrian Arabic, have notable differences of pronunciation.

The only reasonable course, then, seems to be transliteration into conventional combinations, which always represent, not the same sounds, but the same letters of the original alphabet. Then anyone who knows the language can put the word back into its own letters. He who does not will be puzzled as to how it should be pronounced; but this is the case always when we do not know the language in question. Now, the first principle of exact transliteration is to use one Roman letter for one letter of the original alphabet. The reason of this is plain. In English we use combinations of letters to represent one sound, such as sh, th, ph. In Semitic languages (and Coptic and Armenian) these sounds have each one letter. But the two separate sounds may also follow one another, each represented by its own letter (as in mishap, anthill, uphill). If, then, we use several letters for one sound, how are we to write these? Supposing, then, this essential principle of one letter for one letter, it follows (since we have not nearly enough Roman letters to go round) that we must differentiate them by various dots and dashes. This is not pretty, and it gives trouble to the printer; but it is the only way of saving the principle, that anyone who knows the original letters may be able to put words back into them with ambiguity. As a matter of fact, there is a system, already very commonly accepted, at least in scientific books, by which this may be done. It is simple and easily remembered. Shortly, it comes to this: for our sh sound (in "shop") use š, with a wedge above:^[3] for the softened Semitic "begadkefath" letters put a line below; for "emphatic" letters (ḥ, ṣ, ḍ, ṭ, ẓ, ḳ^[4]) put a point below; for Arabic ǵīm put a dash above. The strong Arabic guttural ḫā has a curve below. ‘Ain is ʿ; and the stronger Arabic form of the same sound ġ (ġain). Hamza, when wanted, is ʾ.^[5] Consonantic i and u are y and w. In this way all possible sounds may be represented, each by one symbol. In the manuscript of this book, despairing of the inconsistencies of other systems, I first adopted this one throughout. To Semitic languages it can be applied easily and regularly. Coptic has Greek letters, except seven, which may be represented by similar differentiation. In Armenian, too, I found how the names which occur are spelled in their own letters, and so transliterated them on the same plan, differentiating by the accepted points and dashes. Then, on reading the manuscript again, I saw more clearly the difficulties of the plan. It involves very considerable labour to printers. Also, in a merely popular book, perhaps such exactness is superfluous. It demands much of the reader of such a book as this. He would have to learn that t with a bar beneath it is our th, that p with a bar is our f, and so on. So I have changed most of the spellings back to an easier form. ph is always superfluous, since we have f. But I have restored sh and th, dropping the principle of one letter for one letter. Even the ugly kh appears sometimes for the third (strongest) Arabic ḫ sound. But I have kept the point beneath for the emphatic letters. One must make some difference between "ḳalb," which means a heart, and "kalb," a dog. I have left ai and au for diphthongs.^[6] Syriac doubled letters are generally not marked. Since their theoretic tashdīd is neither written nor (at least in Western Syriac) pronounced, it seems superfluous to note it.^[7] So with this rather unsatisfactory compromise I leave the proper names, with the hope that they will not too much irritate anyone who knows how they are spelled in their own characters, and that he will excuse the compromise, considering how difficult it is to carry out a consistent plan in this matter.

In so great a mass of details I cannot hope that there are no inaccuracies. But I have taken pains to verify statements, especially about modern practice, and I think I have given my authority for everything.

For information about what is now done and believed in these Churches I am indebted to many people, to their own clergy and Catholic missionaries. More than to anyone else I owe thanks to the French Jesuit Fathers at Beirut. To their guest they were the kindest and most hospitable of hosts, in their "Faculté orientale" most capable teachers. Since my return to England they have kept up cordial relations, and have always answered the many questions I have sent them. In answering these questions, and in procuring photographs for illustration, Father Louis Jalabert, S.J., has been more than kind. To him and to his colleagues in Syria every Catholic must wish God-speed in the work of educating and converting Eastern Christians, undertaken by them according to the noble tradition of their nation and their order.

I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. W. A. Wigram and the Rev. F. N. Heazell, of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the Assyrian Christians, for corrections and photographs of Mâr Shim‘un and Ḳudshanis; also Mr K. N. Daniel, editor of the Malankara Sabha Tharaka paper at Kottayam, for information contained in the paragraph at pp. 368–375.

There is no bibliography in this volume. Most books on these Churches treat also of matters which concern the Uniates. Rather than repeat the same titles in both volumes, it seems convenient to reserve them for the next, which will be the last of the series. In it there will be a fairly complete list of books on all these lesser Churches.

And, lastly, I hope that nothing in this book will seem to argue anything but sympathy for the people who, isolated for centuries, have still kept faithful to the name of Christ; sympathy and regret for the lamentable schisms which are not so much their fault as those of their fathers, Bar Ṣaumâ, Dioscor, Baradai, in the distant 5th and 6th centuries.

 

Letchworth, St. Peter and St. Paul, 1913.

 

1. London: Catholic Truth Society, 3rd edition, 1911.
2. The Church of Armenia (Mowbray, 1912), p. 148.
3. This form is borrowed from Czech.
4. ḳ is better than q, since it applies to the k sound the same difference for its emphatic form as have the other emphatic letters.
5. The signs ʿ and ʾ are chosen arbitrarily to represent sounds for which we have no equivalent. All that can be said for them is that printers have them in their founts, and that they will do as well as any other arbitrary symbols. The latest plan (in Germany) is to use a figure like a 3 turned the wrong way for ʿAin (suggested by the shape of the Arabic letter). This has advantages. It looks more like a real, whole letter (which of course ʿAin is); and its strong form can be made, according to the general rule, by a point under it. But its use means casting a special type.
6. Ay and aw are right, but look odd.
7. Of the softened "begadkefath" letters, p becomes f and t becomes th. The softening of b, g, d, and k is not noted. v looks too odd, kh suggests rather another letter (Hebrew Heth). bh, gh, dh do not suggest any particular sound to an English reader. After all, Greek β, γ, δ are softened too, yet we do not mark the softening.