Recently I have written a blogpost about vols. 10 and 11 in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin 34981 ROA, a 20-volume manuscript falling under what I call the “literary miscellany” genre of Manchu-Chinese bilingual manuscripts. On a separate occasion and for the Manchu Studies Group blog I wrote about a grammatical text in a student’s notebook in the S. A. Polevoj collection, appended to a common nineteenth-century pedagogical text titled Untuhun hergen-i ucun 虛字歌 that circulated in both manuscript and print. Both are interesting examples, I think, of nineteenth-century Manchu manuscript culture, and in different ways they disclose the processes of literacy and literature in the multilingual banners.
Today I found that, interestingly enough, Manchu pedagogy surfaces very explicitly in a later volume of 34981 ROA, namely vol. 19 titled “窓課.” The volume collects various short bilingual texts of various registers (from heavily classical to heavily colloquial), usually no more than five pages in length, and is probably intended in a private classroom setting. (In general, I should note that extant manuscript evidence increasingly point us to the systematic and complex methods of private Manchu instruction in nineteenth-century Qing, which has been very much overlooked by earlier historians of Manchu education who focused exclusively on court-produced or printed evidence.) The short texts in the manuscript don’t have individual titles, although generally a text begins with a new column and is often adorned, in the top margin, by a circle or triangle added by the reader. Many of these short texts mention the study of Manchu explicitly, and four in particular are worth quoting at length.
The first is the eighth text in the volume, beginning on fol. 30r.
Yaya manju bithe hūlara niyalma oci, urunakū gargata gisun be labdukan-i ejeme, untuhun hergen-i ucun be ureshūn-i hūlambi, neneme foholokon-i buya meyen be ubaliyambuci acambi, ubaliyambuhangge lamdu oho, ulhiy[e]n-i getukelehe manggi, uthai hergen be baitalame bahanaci ombi. Aika wesihun de amuran goro be baiki seci, udu gūnin mujilen be wacihiyame baibuha seme, inu gisun-i ici de acanarakū, yadalinggū niyalma ujen jaka be guribure gese, hūsun fakjilahai tukiyeme muterakū [. . .]
Everyone who studies Manchu should memorize plenty of “single sentences” (gargata gisun), fluently recite the “Song of Empties” (untuhun hergen-i ucun), and begin by translating short sayings (buya meyen). When they have translated many [such short sentences] and slowly clarified the process, they will be able to use the language [correctly]. If one is overly ambitious, then despite the great exertion of mental energy the flow of language is improper. Like a weak person lifting something heavy, it will unsuccessful regardless of the effort [. . .]
Fols. 30r–31r
This text is interesting because it tells us the sequence a student moves through various types of pedagogical materials we have through commercial prints and manuscript notebooks, including notebooks titled “gargata gisun” in the Solevoj collection, various versions of the “Song,” and texts such as Tanggū meyen. It highlights, in particular, the importance of short texts–the “meyen” whose Chinese text is often heavily colloquial–in the introductory stages of Manchu language pedagogy.
The second is the ninth text of the volume, beginning on fol. 32r.
Manju bithe hūlara niyalma oci, urunakū nikan bithe be ambula tacimbime, nomun suduri be labdukan-i hūlaci acambi, nikan bithe be hafume ohode, manju gisun-i dorgi gūnin-i ici baitalarangge jelen akū ombi. Nomun suduri de urehe manggi, nikan bithei dorgi koolingga baita ubaliyamburengge oihori akū obi. Tuttu ofi nikan bithe-i nomun suduri, geren dz-i bithe tanggū boo bithe, urui labdukan-i hūlame ambula tuwaci acambi, manju bithe be teile tacire gocime, uthai nikan bithe be baitakū ton obuci ojorakū, aika erebe bahacibe terebe waliyafi, nikan bithe be inenggi goidatala onggoro oci, simnere nerginde dosime muterakū oho de, saliyaha seme amcaburakū kai, tuttu ofi manju bithe be taciki seci, urunakū nikan bithe be neneme hūlara be oyonggo obuci acambi.
Those who study Manchu should study Chinese intensely, reading Classics and Histories broadly. If the Chinese text is thoroughly understood, then the flow of the Manchu will be without hindrance. If Classics and Histories are familiar to the mind, then the references in the Chinese text can be translated without being lost. Thus, Chinese Classics and Histories, the thoughts of the Hundred Schools should all be read often and extensively. Do not only focus on learning Manchu and considering Chinese to be useless. If the former is favored at the expense of the latter, and one fails on the day of the examination as a result, regrets would come too late. Therefore, those who want to study Manchu should take the study of Chinese to be a priority.
Fols. 32r–33v
I will hold off the discussion of this text until the fourth text has been introduced.
The third is the seventeenth text of the volume, beginning on fol. 46r.
Sikse meni adaki tungken toksire niyalma de udu tebtelin manju bithe be udaha. Ai bithe ni. Manggai gisun-i meyen-i bithe dabala. Ubaliyambuhangge antaka. Kemuni sain, damu emu hacin de jiha salirakū, fe gisun jaci labdu, ineku i udara majige dulemšehe turgunde, tuttu tede hūbilabuha.
Yesterday my neighbor bought some Manchu books from the translating drum-beater (?). What kind of books? Mostly short sayings (meyen). How are the translations? Pretty good, but it’s overpriced for one reason: too many old sayings. He was not careful when buying, so he was tricked into paying too much.
Fol. 46r–v
A snapshot into the local book market for Manchu students–the short sayings, or meyen, is a recognizable genre in itself, but there is also the concern of sources: a certain degree of novelty is valued, in addition to the quality of the translation itself. Given the degree to which the printed “meyen” genre in the Qing is known to recycle a lot of material, this is perhaps unsurprising.
Finally, the fourth text I will highlight is the twenty-third (and final) text of the volume, starting from fol. 54r.
Ubaliyambure doro yargiyan-i mangga, nikan bithe be tacire niyalma fuhali ja seme gisurerengge, ere tacirakū uthai sarkū ofi kai, ainci ubaliyamburengge, hergen aname manju gisun-i ubaliyamburengge waka, aika emu nikan hergen bici, uthai emu manju hergen-i ubaliyambume, untuhun yargiyan dergi fejergi-i ilgabun be bodorakū oci, niyalma tome gemu bahanaci ombi. Tuttu nikan bithe udu ele mila saikan baibun-i ferguwecuke ba bicib[e], manju bithe de ele lali surhūn-i kūbulime ubaliyambure faksi babi, ele tacici ele šumin, ele ubaliyambuci ele narhūn, terei ferguwecuke mohon akū. Nikan bithe be tacire niyalma, ere doro de dosikakū ofi, tuttu manju bithei dorgi šumin narhūn babe sarkū kai. Gabtan niyamniyan manju nikan bithe, musei manjusai umesi oyonggongge kai. Ere duin hacin be gemu fafuršame faššame šanggabuci acambi, uttu oci teni manju sere juwe hergen de yertecun akū [. . .]
The Way of translation is truly difficult, but those who only study Chinese texts say it is quite easy. It is because they do not study translation, and therefore they do not know. Translation is not translating a Chinese text to Manchu word-by-word. If for every Chinese word we provide a Manchu word, disregarding the use of Empties and issues of word order, then everyone can do it. More than the brilliancy and genius of Chinese texts, the Manchu translation often has its own succinctness and intelligence (lali surhūn). The more one studies, the deeper [translation] becomes. The more one translates, the more profound it becomes. The wonders of translation is without end. Yet those who study Chinese texts do not enter into this path, thus they do not know the depth and subtlety of the Manchu language. Mounted and unmounted archery, Manchu and Chinese learning: these are the most important skills of us Manchus. It is only by exerting oneself and achieving in all four domains that we are worthy of the name “Manchu.”
Fols. 54r–56r
This, crucially, is different from the Qianlong Emperor’s “國語騎射” dictum often cited as a top-down norm for Manchu identity. Instead of a kind of purism that tries to rid itself of influences from the outside, Manchus saw themselves as experts in both Manchu and Chinese languages–this was the content of the second text I translated earlier–whose skills are additions rather than alternatives to those of the Chinese monolingual literatus. This kind of constitutive bilingualism, a kind of more-than-Chinese literacy, is what I think Manchu literacy is really about, and I am glad these anonymous essays from the nineteenth century tend to agree with me there.
Barbarism as Method 