愛國百人一首 歌曲集 第一輯

日本音楽文化協会, 1944.

  

Advertisement

漢詩譯愛國百人一首

漢詩譯愛國百人一首 Kanshiyaku Aikoku Hyakunin Isshu
田村位岳 Tamura Igaku
No place: no publisher, no date.
Probable publication: Tokyo: by the author, 1943.

愛國百人一首附早取法 (1943)

Aikoku Hyakunin Isshu tsuketari hayatorihō (Nagoya: Hōbundō Shoten, 1943), 24, 100 pp., 40 sen.
愛國百人一首附早取法. 名古屋: 朋文堂書店, 昭和十八年. 四十銭.

Hutchinson’s Cantonese translation (1877-78)

聖公禱文. The Book of Common Prayer. St. Stephen’s Church, Hongkong, 1877.

This is a translation, in Cantonese Colloquial and in the Chinese character, of the Morning and Evening Prayers, the Athanasian Creed, the Litany, the Prayers and Thanksgivings, by the Rev. A. B. Hutchinson. The whole reads remarkably well and a comparatively low class of Colloquial having been aimed at by the translator, we really believe there are very few passages or sentences in it which would not be perfect intelligible to every man or woman on being read aloud. As a translation also the book is better than any other Cantonese version of the Book of Common Prayer that has been attempted yet. A few expressions however require emendation. For instance 聖明衆嘅先知 is an awkward way of rendering “the goodly fellowship of the prophets;” 閏女 used throughout for “the Virgin” does not necessarily imply the idea of virginity; 君宰 for “the Queen” and 君王臣宰 for “our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria” are manifestly not translations, especially the latter term which we would suppose meant rather “our Sovereign and his Ministers.” The latter phrase may indeed be intended to designate “the Emperor of China and his Ministers” or “all princes and rulers.” We see no objection to including the Emperor of China in the prayers of the church; but is it possible that the native members of St. Stephen’s Church in Hongkong, being British subjects and enjoying the protection of H.M. Government, exclude all mention of the Queen from their version of the Common Book of Prayer. The titles applied to the Queen in the Treaties of Nanking and Tientsin (君主) or in the Convention of Peking in 1860 (大君主) would have been far preferable. Again 我国皇家 for “all the Royal Family” is probably based on a mistake, unless there is a printer’s error here. As to the term question, the following example will show Mr. Hutchinson’s way of dealing with it. He gives 上帝系大嘅神、係極大嘅王、高出諸神之上 as a translation for “the Lord is a great God: and a great King above all gods.” On this showing both the Shangti-ites and the Shin-ites might consider Mr. Hutchinson as on their side. We wonder he did not include the term 天主 likewise in his ingenious compromise.

From The China Review, Or, Notes and Queries on the Far East, Volume Six, 1878, pp. 204-205.

---

聖公禱文. The Book of Common Prayer. St. Stephen’s Church, Hongkong, 1878.

This is the continuation of the Rev. A. B. Hutchinson’s new translation, in Cantonese Colloquial, of the Book of Common Prayer, comprehending the communion and baptismal services. It is on the whole equal in execution to the preceding part, although in certain passages we noticed the translator frequently falling into a higher style, so that the class of colloquial here given is rather uneven and does not exhibit the same uniformity which distinguished the volume we reviewed before.

From The China Review, Or, Notes and Queries on the Far East, Volume Six, 1878, p. 271.

---

聖公禱文. The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England; the Psalter or Psalms of David; and the form and manner of making, ordaining and consecrating Bishops. Priests and Deacons. Translated into Cantonese, by the Rev. Arthur B. Hutchinson, Church Missionary Society. Hongkong, 1878.

We have on former occasions noticed detached portions of this work, as they appeared from time to time. The whole is now complete, and we have before us a good-sized volume of 940 pages, forming the first complete translation of the whole Book of Common Prayer into Chinese. We need not new repeat the trifling objections we have raised regarding details of style and expression noticeable here and there. It is on the whole a very creditable performance, and though the number of Cantonese Christians likely to use this volume is not very large, yet it is decidedly on the increase and it will be a great convenience to them to have at last a complete edition of the Book of Common Prayer, translated, as it is, for their benefit in a style which pre-supposes but a very moderate extent of knowledge of the Chinese character and which area admits of reading aloud the prayers of their Church in a way which can scarcely fail to be intelligible to the simplest Christians, men, women or children.

From The China Review, Or, Notes and Queries on the Far East, Volume Six, 1878, p. 414.

Hutchinson’s Cantonese translation (1878)

The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Bites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; the Psalter, or Psalms of David; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons.—Translated into Cantonese by the Rev. Arthur B. Hutchinson, Church Missionary Society. Hongkong: 1878.

THIS is a bulky volume of 221 Chinese pages, equal to 442 foreign pages. It contains all that a Chinese Episcopal Church needs in the way of liturgical service. Mr. Hutchinson has done a good service for Cantonese Episcopalians in giving them the prayer book in their own language. The colloquial dialects are the language of the people—the speech in which parental instruction is given to childhood, the speech in which all business transactions are carried on, the living language of all classes and conditions. One of the deadest performances imaginable is that of Chinese congregations repeating prayers and singing hymns in Wên-li. It is hardly extravagant to say that an English congregation might as well say its prayers in Latin, as a Chinese congregation in Wên-li. It is well, therefore, that a Cantonese church, using a liturgy, should have that liturgy in the Cantonese dialect. We are not qualified to judge how well Mr. Hutchinson has done his work; we are assured by friends, whose knowledge of Cantonese justifies them in expressing an opinion, that it is exceedingly well done, and will be very useful. The book is a very good specimen of neat and clear printing from blocks. From a cursory examination, we think it would not be difficult to make the necessary changes required by the different dialects; and thus use the book as a basis of colloquial translations of the Book of Common Prayer wherever they are needed.

From The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, May-June, 1878, pp. 242-243.

Syrian Cemetery Consecrated

ON THE EVE of St. James’ day, July 24, at North La Crosse, the Bishop of Milwaukee consecrated the burial ground for the Syrian Catholics of that community, lately secured by them for their own purposes. He was assisted by the Rev. C. Moller, the rector of La Crosse. These Syrian Catholics are a little community of some 20 families, lately settled in North La Crosse, and coming originally from the neighborhood of Mount Lebanon, near Damascus, in Syria. They use, with the Bishop’s permission, St. Peter’s Church in North La Crosse, having two lay readers of their own, under license from the Bishop of Milwaukee, and have the sacramental and other parochial ministrations of the Rev. Mr. Moller, rector of La Crosse. At this benediction of the cemetery, which they had specially solicited, the Syrians in attendance sang their processional in their own tongue as they proceeded around the grounds; after which the Bishop, vested in cope and mitre, said the Office of Benediction. The ceremony was an interesting one, and made an evident impression upon these Eastern Christians.

From The Living Church, August 1, 1903, p. 490.

ANGLICAN RELATIONS WITH THE ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND (1903)

THE Bishop of Dunedin, as acting Primate, has informed the Greek Patriarch that many members of the Greek Church were resident in the parish of St. Matthew’s, Dunedin, and for the past seven years had been ministered to by the parish clergy. No formal reply has as yet been received, but in February Father Athanasios Kantopoulos, chief priest of the Greek Orthodox Church residing in Melbourne, visited Dunedin. The following description of his visit is taken from the New Zealand Guardian:—

“The Victoria Chapel in St. Matthew’s was placed at his disposal for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. This chapel is so constructed that the Greek rite could be administered with every detail of ritual, which could not have been followed had the service been at the high altar. Fortunately, the construction of the chapel, and its position in relation to one of the vestries, and its relation to the rest of the church, enabled the Orthodox Greeks to have their Holy Eucharist in a building suited to all their requirements, as though it had been built for the purpose. It is further interesting to note that the position of the font enabled the Greek Baptism to be performed in accordance with strict rites requiring the godparents’ oath to be taken outside the church door, which was done at the west door without any passers-by gazing on the shrubs protecting the congregation. There were three Baptisms requiring trine immersion. Every worshipper present holds a lighted candle. A little water from the Jordan was poured into the font, and some left for use on future occasions. It is interesting to note that, as the children were one boy and two girls, they could not all be baptized in the one water. Such a Baptism would have created an affinity. So after the consecration of the water, some of the water was taken out and reserved for the Baptism of the girls, whilst more water was added to that in the font for the Baptism of the boy—the unconsecrated water being consecrated by contact with the consecrated. Then the children, after Baptism, were duly anointed with holy oil, which is the administration of the chrism, answering to our Confirmation. They received the Holy Communion on the next day, as the Orthodox Greeks administer to children as well as adults. The holy oil is consecrated i n large quantities by a board of consecrators, consisting of the Patriarch of Constantinople and twelve Bishops, during Holy Week, and is then forwarded to the Greek Orthodox priests. The various children baptized by the Anglican clergy were accepted as validly baptized, and were given the chrism; whilst a youth baptized by a Roman priest was rebaptized, as the Greek Orthodox Church does not acknowledge the validity of Roman Catholic Baptism. . . . The celebration of the Divine Liturgy—that is, the Holy Communion—took one back to ancient times. On the first celebration the Chief Priest invited the vicar (the Rev. W. Curzon-Siggers) and the curate (the Rev. F. Tubman) to places at the altar, and on a subsequent date the Warden of Selwyn (the Rev. A. Nield) and the vicar were again so honored. They were thus present within the veiled enclosure during the consecration. The act of consecration is performed behind closed doors—the priest performing the act with the appointed office, whilst the people outside recite their own appointed suffrages, in which the Kyrie Eleison forms a chief part. In the mixing of the chalice hot water is poured cruciform-wise into the cup in which the wine has already been placed, and then, after prayers, a few drops more of the hot water are added. When both elements are consecrated, the priest receives in each kind. The people, after the opening of the doors, are, however, communicated in both kinds at once by means of a spoon, after the consecrated bread has been broken up into small pieces and placed into the chalice. The ritual throughout is very elaborate, and what is noted most is that at times and often the priest’s office is one, whilst that recited by the people is another—both proceeding simultaneously, and without confusion. There can be no celebration according to the Greek Orthodox rite except the altar have upon it the Holy Cloth, which is blessed by the Patriarch; this the priest brought with him from the Melbourne Church, to which it belongs. On Thursday, February 12th, the Victoria Chapel was prepared for the Greek Orthodox celebration at 9 A. M. whilst the Anglican one was at 8 A. M.; thus the vicar celebrated on the Holy Cloth, and used the holy vessels of the Greek Church for the Anglican communicants. The service held by Father Athanasios was partly Greek and partly Arabic, the latter being the tongue of his congregation. A most interesting incident of the service was the way in which the fathers and mothers brought and placed their children at the priest’s feet during the reading of a Gospel, so that they might touch his robes, reminding one of the Gospel story, and showing how conservative the Greek Church is. No picture or books could take one back to Christ’s life so well as this ceremony. The Greek priest was in the sanctuary in his robes at the Anglican Sunday service. Thus in Dunedin was enacted that recognition of the oneness of the two Churches for which the Bishop of Dunedin has been seeking an official declaration. Daily celebrations were performed for the six days of the priest’s visit, and all his people attended them. A celebration means about two hours’ service, standing all the time. Perhaps Anglicans might learn something thence. Father Athanasios was taken in hand by the Patriarch Gerosmios, of Jerusalem, when only five years old, and from that time trained in his house for the priesthood. He is a priest of a family of priests of seven generations. His love of the Anglican Church is inherited from his life with the old Patriarch, who loved our Church.”

From The Living Church, June 27, 1903, p. 312.

Oratory at Pomfret (1904)

 TOO many Christian people take a vacation from their religion as well as from their labors when they go into the country, and pattern themselves after the invited guest who had bought a piece of ground and was going to see it, praying, therefore, to be excused from the banquet.

It is interesting, therefore, to note a recent festivity at a New England country-seat, when a beautiful new oratory was solemnly opened with a service of benediction and a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Bishop of the Diocese approving.

On Friday, June 17th, being the feast of St. Alban, the Oratory of Our Lady, adjoining “Dunworth,” the country home of Mr. and Mrs. William Viall Chapin of Pomfret, Conn., was set apart as a place of prayer by the Rev. William Harman Van Allen, D.D., rector of the Church of the Advent, Boston, the Ven. Lucius M. Hardy, rector of Pomfret, assisting.

The little chapel is beautifully fitted for divine worship, under the direction of the well-known Church architect, Mr. Howard Hoppin of Providence, R.I., and will hold twenty-five persons. The altar is deeply recessed, and is adorned with antique ornaments collected in various parts of Europe. A shrine of the Blessed Virgin is on the Epistle side and one of St. Raphael the Archangel on the Gospel side. The vaulted ceiling bears the legend “Domus Orationis,” many times repeated, in the Florentine fashion. The prevailing tint is blue, in honor of the Blessed Virgin; and the little sacristy adjoining is fitted with all things necessary for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, as well as for the performance of the other rites of the Church. A special service of blessing preceded the celebration of the Holy Communion, the immediate household and a few close friends being present. The proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel appointed for the consecration of a church were used, with memorial of St. Alban the Martyr.

Pictures of many saints adorn the walls, and among them it was good to see Blessed William Laud the martyr of Canterbury, and his royal master, who had learned from him how to endure even unto the end.

The occasion also had a special interest in that it was the tenth anniversary of the ordination to the diaconate of the officiating priest.

The gracious hospitality of “Dunworth” is so often extended to the clergy that its master and mistress may frequently enjoy the special privilege of a domestic celebration, the Bishop having authorized this at times not conflicting with the service in the parish church.

Mr. Chapin is a graduate of St. Paul’s School and of Trinity College, and Mrs. Chapin is an associate of the Community of St. John Baptist.

There are many Church people who could emulate this good example if they desired to; and we doubt not that the blessings drawn down by prayers and intercessions offered before such a household altar would avail much for the advance of the Faith in our land.

From The Living Church, July 9, 1904, pp. 357-358.

Canterbury and Moscow (1950)

WE report in our news columns this week an interesting and significant exchange of correspondence between the Patriarch of Moscow and the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are several factors that make this correspondence especially noteworthy.

First of all, it is significant that, at a time when diplomacy is deadlocked and the avenues of peaceful communication between the Kremlin and the nations of the West are strewn with roadblocks, the heads of the Russian Orthodox and Anglican Churches are still able to communicate with each other in Christian fellowship. There is more than stereotyped formality in the Archbishop’s salutation: “Beloved Brother in Christ.” There is genuine recognition of Christian brotherhood in the mutual agreement that it is the duty of Christians-to “rise above all that divides peoples” and to “pray and work together for the triumph of true peace over the realm of disorder and discord.”

It is significant, too, that the Orthodox Patriarchs of Moscow and of Georgia and the Armenian Patriarch have been able to overcome the differences that have separated their Churches since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. to join in a common plea to the Churches of the West—Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant—to give common consideration to the overarching problem of the peace of the world. We should not overlook the importance of this move, nor dismiss it too lightly as propaganda.

Third, the exchange of letters has given the Archbishop of Canterbury the opportunity to quote the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference on peace, and on the control of atomic energy; and at the same time to indicate the conviction that this is only one aspect of the problem, the core of which is that war Itself should be abolished. To this end, the Archbishop makes a very important contribution when he says that, at the first indication of a willingness on all sides to “speak the truth in love,” he will find himself very willing to join with the Patriarch in “an appeal for a general disclosure of armaments and reduction of armaments under effective international supervision, in which the control of atomic energy and the banning of the atomic bomb would be included.”

It is when the so-called “Stockholm Manifesto” is discussed that the basic difference of opinion is revealed. Here the Archbishop speaks diplomatically, but plainly. Instancing the support of the peace movement before World War II by the Nazis “In the hope that it would encourage an attitude of appeasement . . . and thus leave Hitler and his accomplices a free hand to do as they liked in Europe,” he suggests that “There is some evidence that the present Stockholm Manifesto, too, may be used by some persons for political purposes, and I have therefore felt bound to advise my clergy not to associate themselves with it.” Thus, with characteristic British understatement, he gently turns back against the Russian Orthodox the charge they made at the time of the Amsterdam Assembly In 1948, that the Churches of the West were engaging in matters of political controversy.

Here we may digress a moment to express our own regret that some of the clergy of the American Episcopal Church, including one or two bishops, have failed to see that the Stockholm Manifesto is not an innocent “World Peace Appeal,” as its title indicates, but that it brands their own country “as a war criminal” for first using the atomic bomb, while making no mention of the Communist cold war of aggression, now become an exceedingly hot war in Korea, which is the real contemporary crime against humanity.

Returning to the Archbishop’s letter, we believe he has made a real contribution to clarification of Christian thought in the paragraph in which he outlines the “important and definite part” that should be played by Christian Churches in “creating the atmosphere in which the peace which we desire may grow.” This atmosphere requires three things: understanding, fellowship, an4 prayer. “It is here,” says the Archbishop, “that Christians can make their most effective contribution, since they learn from the love of God how to love their brethren.” In this knowledge, Christians of different traditions can and should “show by their love and fellowship in our Saviour Christ an example of true brotherhood to the rest of mankind.”

This is a lesson that we Christians of the free West need to learn just as much as the Christians of the lands behind the Iron Curtain. It calls for Inspired leadership on the part of our bishops and other spiritual guides—a leadership that has been sadly lacking in our own country during the past three months. (One wonders whether Isaiah would have maintained a discreet silence, if the Assyrian wolf had descended upon the sheep of the Israelite fold during the time he was officially on vacation!). And it calls for an overwhelming response of love and prayer.

The Archbishop of Canterbury assures the Patriarch of Moscow that he and his people “are constantly in the prayers of many Anglicans.” It is for us to make that assurance a reality; and to extend it beyond the boundaries of one Church or country until it becomes a veritable tide of petition to Almighty God to “guide . . . the nations of the world into the way of justice and truth, and establish among them that peace which is the fruit of righteousness, that they may become the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

From The Living Church, September 3, 1950, p. 7.

RUSSIAN COURTESIES TOWARD THE AMERICAN CHURCH (1903)

To the Editor of The Living Church:

ALLOW me to inform your readers, who esteem so highly that untiring apostle of the Catholic movement in the United States—the Rt. Rev. C. C. Grafton, D.D., Bishop of Fond du Lac—that during his recent visit to Moscow and St. Petersburg, the Moscowski Viedmosti published a series of articles touching upon the learned prelate’s visit and possible intercommunion. The great daily in St. Petersburg, Novoe Vremia, published a photograph of the venerable Bishop. While the Church Messenger—the organ of the St. Petersburg Academy—treated in detail with some of the vital questions brought forward by the Doctor of the American Church, the Church News—the organ of the Most Holy Governing Synod—referred to the distinguished visitor in most sympathetic terms, desiring for him God-speed in his holy work and great undertaking.

Sincerely,

ABBOT SEBASTIAN. December 16th, 1903.

Orthodox Russian Cathedral,  San Francisco, Calif.,

From The Living Church, December 26, 1903, p. 276.