Article #603-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from Letters of George Borrow to the British and Foreign Bible Society, by George Borrow

                                      WILLOW LANE, ST. GILES, NORWICH,<br />
                                                  _Feb._ 10_th_, 1833.

REVD. AND DEAR SIR,--I have just received your communication, and
notwithstanding it is Sunday morning, and the bells with their loud and
clear voices are calling me to church, I have sat down to answer it by
return of post. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that I was
rejoiced to see the Chrestomathie Mandchou, which will be of no slight
assistance in learning the Tartar dialect, on which ever since I left
London I have been almost incessantly occupied. It is, then, your
opinion, that from the lack of anything in the form of Grammar I have
scarcely made any progress towards the attainment of Mandchou; perhaps
you will not be perfectly miserable at being informed that you were never
more mistaken in your life. I can already, with the assistance of Amyot,
translate Mandchou with no great difficulty, and am perfectly qualified
to write a critique on the version of St. Matthew's Gospel, which I
brought with me into the country. Upon the whole, I consider the
translation a good one, but I cannot help thinking that the author has
been frequently too paraphrastical, and that in various places he must be
utterly unintelligible to the Mandchous from having unnecessarily made
use of words which are not Mandchou, and with which the Tartars cannot be
acquainted.

What must they think, for example, on coming to the sentence . . . apkai
etchin ni porofiyat, i.e. the prophet of the Lord of heaven? For the
last word in the Mandchou quotation being a modification of a Greek word,
with no marginal explanation, renders the whole dark to a Tartar. [Greek
text]; apkai I know, and etchin I know, but what is porofiyat, he
will say. Now in Tartar, there are words synonymous with our seer,
diviner, or foreteller, and I feel disposed to be angry with the
translator for not having used one of these words in preference to
modifying [Greek text]; and it is certainly unpardonable of him to have
Tartarized [Greek text] into . . . anguel, when in Tartar there is a
word equal to our messenger, which is the literal translation of [Greek
text]. But I will have done with finding fault, and proceed to the more
agreeable task of answering your letter.

Explanation

Detailed Explanation of George Borrow’s Letter to the British and Foreign Bible Society (February 10, 1833)

1. Context of the Letter

George Borrow (1803–1881) was a British traveler, linguist, and writer best known for his works on Romany (Gypsy) culture and his missionary efforts in distributing Bibles. This letter is part of his correspondence with the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), an organization dedicated to translating and disseminating the Bible worldwide. Borrow was deeply involved in linguistic work, particularly with Manchu (Mandchou), the language of the Manchu people (whom he refers to as "Tartars," an outdated term for Central Asian and Siberian peoples, including the Manchus).

At the time of this letter (1833), Borrow was in Norwich, working on translations and critiques of biblical texts in Manchu. The BFBS had sent him a Manchu Chrestomathy (a collection of texts for language learning), and he responds with a mix of gratitude, scholarly critique, and linguistic pedantry.

2. Summary of the Letter

Borrow writes on a Sunday morning, ignoring the church bells (a subtle hint at his unconventional, independent nature) to immediately reply to the BFBS. He:

Expresses joy at receiving the Chrestomathie Mandchou, which will aid his study of Manchu.
Defends his progress against an implied criticism that he lacks a proper grammar book, boasting that he can already translate Manchu with ease (using Amyot’s dictionary) and even critique the Manchu translation of St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Criticizes the translator for:
- Being too paraphrastic (deviating from the original text).
- Using Greek-derived words (e.g., porofiyat for "prophet," anguel for "angel") that would be unintelligible to Manchu speakers, when native Manchu equivalents exist.
Shifts to a more conciliatory tone, promising to move on to answering the rest of the letter.

3. Key Themes

A. Linguistic Purism & Translation Ethics

Borrow’s primary concern is the accuracy and cultural appropriateness of biblical translations. He argues that:

A translator must avoid unnecessary foreign borrowings (like Greek-derived terms) when native equivalents exist.
The goal should be clarity for the target audience, not linguistic showmanship.
His critique reflects a broader 19th-century debate on whether translations should adapt to local languages (dynamic equivalence) or stay literal (formal equivalence).

B. Scholarly Pride & Defensiveness

Borrow bristles at the suggestion that he hasn’t made progress due to lacking a grammar book.
His boastful tone ("I can already translate Mandchou with no great difficulty") reveals his intellectual confidence and desire for recognition.
This aligns with his self-image as a linguistic genius—a theme in his other works (e.g., Lavengro, The Bible in Spain).

C. Cultural & Religious Mission

Borrow’s work was part of Protestant missionary efforts to spread the Bible in non-European languages.
His frustration with poor translations stems from a belief that misunderstood scripture could hinder conversion.
The Manchu Bible was particularly important because the Qing Dynasty (Manchu-ruled China) was a major target for missionaries.

D. The Tension Between Faith & Scholarship

Borrow ignores Sunday church services to write this letter, suggesting his prioritization of intellectual work over ritual.
His meticulous linguistic critique contrasts with the spiritual urgency of Bible distribution, highlighting a duality in his mission.

4. Literary Devices & Stylistic Features

A. Irony & Humor

"Notwithstanding it is Sunday morning, and the bells... are calling me to church" → Borrow playfully acknowledges his neglect of religious duty while engaging in religious work (Bible translation).
"You were never more mistaken in your life" → A sharp, almost mocking rebuttal to the BFBS’s implied doubt in his abilities.

B. Rhetorical Questions & Direct Address

"What must they think, for example, on coming to the sentence..." → Borrow puts himself in the Manchu reader’s shoes, making his critique more vivid.
"Now in Tartar, there are words synonymous with our seer, diviner, or foreteller..." → He lectures the BFBS, asserting his authority.

C. Parallelism & Repetition

"I know, and I know, but what is..." → Emphasizes the confusion a Manchu reader would face, reinforcing his argument.

D. Shift in Tone

Starts defensive and combative ("you were never more mistaken") but softens toward the end ("I will have done with finding fault").
This mirrors his personality—passionate but pragmatic, eager to prove himself but also willing to collaborate.

5. Significance of the Excerpt

A. Insight into 19th-Century Bible Translation

Borrow’s letter illustrates the challenges of translating religious texts into non-European languages.
His insistence on cultural accuracy foreshadows modern translation theory (e.g., Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence).

B. Borrow’s Character & Legacy

The letter reveals his fiery, independent spirit—traits that made him both admired and controversial.
His linguistic rigor contrasts with his adventurous, almost rebellious lifestyle (as seen in his travelogues).
Later writers (e.g., Robert Macfarlane) have celebrated Borrow as a pioneer of cultural immersion.

C. Colonial & Missionary Context

The BFBS was part of British imperial religious expansion, and Borrow’s work reflects the era’s mix of scholarship and evangelism.
His frustration with poor translations highlights the power dynamics—Western missionaries imposing their texts while struggling to adapt to local languages.

D. The Manchu Language’s Decline

Ironically, Manchu was already in decline by Borrow’s time (replaced by Chinese under Qing rule).
His efforts to perfect a Manchu Bible were somewhat quixotic, but they preserved linguistic knowledge that might otherwise have been lost.

6. Close Reading of Key Passages

A. The Opening: Defiance & Urgency

"notwithstanding it is Sunday morning, and the bells with their loud and clear voices are calling me to church, I have sat down to answer it by return of post."

Imagery: The church bells symbolize traditional religion, but Borrow chooses intellectual labor over worship.
Tone: Defiant yet dutiful—he is serving God through scholarship, not ritual.

B. The Critique of the Translator

"the author has been frequently too paraphrastical, and that in various places he must be utterly unintelligible to the Mandchous..."

"Too paraphrastical" → Accuses the translator of taking liberties with the text.
"Utterly unintelligible" → Strong language, suggesting theological danger—if the Bible is unclear, its message fails.

**C. The Example of porofiyat (Prophet)**

"apkai etchin ni porofiyat, i.e. the prophet of the Lord of heaven? For the last word in the Mandchou quotation being a modification of a Greek word... renders the whole dark to a Tartar."

Etymological Critique: The word porofiyat comes from Greek prophētēs (προφήτης).
"Renders the whole dark" → Metaphorical language—the translation obscures meaning like darkness.
His alternative suggestion (using native Manchu words for "seer" or "diviner") shows his preference for indigenous terms.

D. The Shift to Conciliation

"But I will have done with finding fault, and proceed to the more agreeable task of answering your letter."

Tone Shift: From criticism to cooperation, showing his pragmatic side.
"More agreeable task" → Suggests he enjoys debate but knows when to move on.

7. Conclusion: Why This Letter Matters

Borrow’s letter is more than a scholarly complaint—it is a window into:

The intellectual and spiritual tensions of 19th-century missionary work.
The challenges of cross-cultural communication.
Borrow’s own complex personality—brilliant, combative, and deeply committed to his linguistic mission.

His insistence on linguistic precision was not just pedantry but a moral and theological imperative: if the Bible was the word of God, it had to be understandable to those who read it. In this sense, his critique of the Manchu translator was also a defense of the sacred text’s power.

Today, his letters remain valuable for historians of religion, linguistics, and colonialism, offering a raw, unfiltered glimpse into the passions and contradictions of a man who dedicated his life to bridging cultures through language.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s depiction of Borrow’s reaction to the implied criticism of his progress in Mandchou most strongly suggests that he views his linguistic achievements as:

A. a private triumph, best kept from the scrutiny of institutional authorities like the BFBS.
B. the result of divine inspiration, rendering formal grammatical study unnecessary.
C. evidence of an intellectual autonomy that resists external assessments of his method.
D. a collaborative effort with the BFBS, despite his initial defensiveness.
E. a secondary concern to his primary role as a missionary, though he engages with it rigorously.

Question 2

Borrow’s critique of the translator’s use of Greek-derived terms in the Mandchou Bible is fundamentally rooted in a belief that:

A. the Manchu language is inherently superior to Greek in expressing theological concepts.
B. the integrity of a translation depends on its accessibility to the target audience’s linguistic and cultural framework.
C. the BFBS’s mission would be better served by abandoning Manchu entirely in favor of more widely spoken languages.
D. the translator’s primary error was a lack of fluency in Greek, not an insufficient grasp of Manchu.
E. biblical translations should adhere strictly to the original Hebrew and Aramaic, avoiding all intermediary languages.

Question 3

The rhetorical effect of Borrow’s statement, “you were never more mistaken in your life,” is best described as:

A. a performative assertion of intellectual dominance, undermining the BFBS’s authority while elevating his own.
B. an ironic understatement, softening his rebuttal to maintain diplomatic decorum.
C. a literal accusation of incompetence, implying the BFBS lacks basic linguistic insight.
D. a humorous exaggeration, intended to amuse rather than to chastise.
E. a strategic concession, acknowledging minor errors to deflect attention from larger deficiencies in his work.

Question 4

The passage’s structure—moving from Borrow’s defensiveness about his progress to his critique of the Mandchou translation—primarily serves to:

A. establish his credibility as a linguist before launching into a scholarly dispute, thereby strengthening his argument’s persuasiveness.
B. demonstrate the BFBS’s flawed priorities by juxtaposing their skepticism with his tangible achievements.
C. highlight the futility of his efforts, as even his expertise cannot overcome the inherent difficulties of Manchu.
D. create a narrative of personal growth, where initial frustration gives way to constructive engagement.
E. underscore the irrelevance of grammatical study, as his success proves intuition supersedes formal training.

Question 5

Borrow’s decision to write his response on a Sunday morning, despite the church bells, most plausibly reflects:

A. a rejection of organized religion in favor of a more personal, scholarly spirituality.
B. an urgency to correct the BFBS’s errors before they could cause further damage to the missionary project.
C. a calculated attempt to emphasize his dedication by sacrificing a conventional act of piety.
D. the prioritization of intellectual labor as an act of devotion, albeit one that transcends ritualistic observance.
E. a subconscious resistance to the societal expectations imposed by his role as a clergyman.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: C

Why C is most correct: Borrow’s response to the BFBS’s implied criticism is not merely defensive but actively assertive, framing his progress as self-directed and beyond external validation. His phrase “you were never more mistaken in your life” is a direct challenge to institutional authority, suggesting he operates by his own standards. The passage emphasizes his independence—he works “almost incessantly” without a grammar book, relying on his own methods (e.g., Amyot’s dictionary). This aligns with C’s focus on intellectual autonomy, as his achievements are presented as evidence of his self-sufficiency, not a plea for recognition.