Translating Baihua Grammatical Elements in a Fifteenth-Century Korean Buddhist Text: Linguistic and Cultural Notes on the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae

Abstract

This article examines the fifteenth-century Korean ŏnhae 諺解 exegesis of the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok 蒙山和尙法語略錄 to determine the translation strategies used to render so-called baihua or vernacular Sinitic in vernacular Korean. In particular, the article aims first to clarify the linguistic features of the baihua materials from the late Southern Song period found in this text, and then to clarify the baihua comprehension and translation abilities of a fifteenth-century Buddhist intellectual who was not a trained specialist in spoken Chinese. It finds that, because Korean Buddhist temples were no longer bilingual Korean-Chinese spaces by early Chosŏn, and Korean Buddhist monks no longer had exposure to spoken Chinese, the Korean translator approached the baihua materials as if they were written in orthodox Literary Sinitic. As a result, he made a number of errors and mistranslations, especially when it came to translating vernacular Sinitic tense-aspect particles in vernacular Korean. The article concludes by briefly comparing and contrasting glossing strategies in Japan and Korea.

1. Introduction

1.1 Goals of This Article

The majority of Sinitic texts translated or annotated (provided with an ŏnhae 諺解 exegesis) in Korea since the fifteenth century are orthodox Literary Sinitic (wenyan 文言; henceforth LS) materials, a category that includes Buddhist materials in LS. LS is a language particularly devoid of grammatical morphology, and for this reason, the elements of tense, aspect, and mood in the translated Late Middle Korean (henceforth LMK) texts have been researched on the basis of meaning without reference to the Sinitic originals, using only the internal context of the vernacular Korean.

However, the sixteenth-century Pŏnyŏk Nogŏltae 飜譯老乞大 and Pŏnyŏk Pak t'ongsa 飜譯朴通事 from the Interpreters' Bureau are written in spoken Ming-period Chinese and therefore include many tense, aspect, and mood elements. Moreover, insofar as they are conversational texts, the setting of the spoken utterances is emphasized. The compiler Ch'oe Sejin 崔世珍 (1468–1542), who was fluent in the spoken Chinese of the time, translated the Sinitic texts in their entirety but also left behind his commentary (Tanjahae 單字解), which incorporates the elements of tense, aspect, and mood, making it possible to study the tense, aspect, and mood elements of LMK in this case by comparing the vernacular and Sinitic texts.¹

But translations of so-called baihua 白話 materials into Korean can also be found from the fifteenth century, as seen in the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae 蒙山和尙法語略錄諺解, which is the focus of this article. This text differs from the Pŏnyŏk Nogŏltae and Pŏnyŏk Pak t'ongsa in two respects. First, the Pŏnyŏk Nogŏltae and Pŏnyŏk Pak t'ongsa use Ming-period spoken Chinese, whereas the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae uses spoken Chinese from the late Southern Song period. Second, the translator of Pŏnyŏk Nogŏltae and Pŏnyŏk Pak t'ongsa—Ch'oe Sejin—was fluent in spoken Chinese and was an interpreter who had the opportunity to visit China and come into direct contact with spoken Chinese. By contrast, Hyegak Sinmi 慧覺信眉 (1405?–1480?), the translator of the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae, was a monk in the Chosŏn period and was therefore unable to visit China or to come into direct contact with spoken Chinese.

This study of the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae aims to demonstrate three things. First, an examination of these baihua materials from the late Southern Song period will clarify their linguistic features. Second, an analysis of the text can clarify the baihua comprehension and translation abilities of a fifteenth-century Buddhist intellectual who was not a trained specialist in spoken Chinese. Third, by comparing the particularities of the Korean translated version with other translated materials from Chosŏn (as well as Japanese Zen materials), we can gain insights into the recording and translation of Chan/Sŏn materials in Chosŏn from the standpoint of cultural history.

1.2 Background to the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae

Written vernacular Sinitic or baihua first came to the Korean peninsula during the Koryŏ period (918–1392). After Koryŏ became a tributary to the Yuan, the Altaicized creole Han'er yanyu 漢兒言語 in use at the time in northern China came into use. The Kubon Nogŏltae 舊本老乞大, excavated in Taegu in 1998, testifies to the spread of this form of spoken Chinese in Koryŏ. Moreover, the written language version of Han'er yanyu—Mongmun chigyŏk 蒙文直譯, used in legal and penal codes beginning with the Yuan-period Yuandianzhang 元典章—also came into use in Korea. This written form was studied under the name of imun 吏文 through the Chosŏn period.

The study of spoken Chinese in the Chosŏn period was carried out continuously until the end of the nineteenth century at the Interpreter's Bureau (Sayŏgwŏn 司譯院). At first, the target language was called Han'er yanyu but later it came to be referred to as guanhua 官話. Chinese baihua literature was also read and glossaries were compiled early on for works of vernacular fiction like the Water Margin (Shuihu zhuan 水滸傳). Confucian scholars studied baihua in order to read the Categorized Conversations of Zhu Xi (Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類), and for that reason the specialist glossary Ŏrokhae 語録解 was compiled. As pointed out by Sugiyama Yutaka (2011), some Confucian scholars in late Chosŏn also wrote in a register similar to baihua.

Aside from these, Zen recorded sayings (Chan yulu 禪語録) were yet another genre of baihua materials that needed to be read. In the Chan Buddhism that gained currency after the Tang dynasty, the words of Chan masters were transmitted directly, with some part of those becoming indispensible to later Chan/Zen study in the form of koans.

Among the numerous Zen sayings, it is probably coincidence that certain collections of sayings became widely read in certain geographical areas. Mumon Ekai/Wumen Huikai's 無門慧開 (1183–1260) Mumonkan/Wumenguan 無門関 was not particularly popular in China but continues to be widely read in Japan even in the present, and Mengshan Deyi's 蒙山德異 (1232–?) sayings, the Mongsan pŏbŏ 蒙山法語, are widely read on the Korean peninsula even today. Each of these collections came to be popular in Japan and Korea, respectively, according to chance occurrence.²

As is recorded in Pak t'ongsa (among other sources), the Koryŏ monk Pou 普愚 (1301–82) held Buddhist services at Yongning Temple 永寧寺 in Dadu in 1347. Naturally, Han'er yanyu was the likely means for the sermons. Prior to this, the Indian monk Zhikong 指空/Dhyāna-bhadra 提納薄陀 (?–1363), who was staying in Yuan, visited Koryŏ. Zhikong came into contact with numerous monks from Koryŏ in Dadu, and their exchanges are recorded. Let us examine one example, an exchange between Zhikong and the esteemed Naong Hyegŭn 懶翁慧勤 (1320–76), the Koryŏ monk responsible for compiling the Mongsan pŏbŏ. The conversation is from 1358, when Hyegŭn first met Zhikong at Fayuan temple 法源寺 in Dadu.

The first underlined section, 見來也未 (“did you see?”) and the second 這裏 (“here”) are prototypical baihua, and there are many examples like this in other Koryŏ materials as well.

Because Zen temples in Japan received many monks from China at the end of the Southern Song and beginning of the Yuan, Zen temples in Japan functioned as bilingual spaces where both Japanese and spoken Chinese were used.³ At the end of the Ming and beginning of the Qing, too, many monks seeking asylum were received from China, and at temples like Ōbaku-san Manpuku-ji in Uji, Chinese monks were invited generation after generation to serve as head priest, an example of Chinese continuing to be used in the Edo period.

After Hyegŭn entered the priesthood, his first enlightenment experience happened upon meeting the Japanese monk Sekiō 石翁 (dates unknown) who spent time in Hoeŏm temple 檜嚴寺 in Koryŏ from time to time. As was the case in Japan with Zen temples, Sŏn temples on the Korean peninsula in the Koryŏ period must have been spaces where spoken Chinese was in popular use. A letter addressed to the monk Pou from the high priest Paegun Kyŏnghan 白雲景閑 (1353–?), born in North Chŏlla, contains the following expression:

Here we see the baihua grammatical markers di3 底 (nominalizer) and zuo4 ma2 sheng1 作麼生 used in written correspondence between two Koryŏ monks.

After Hyegŭn met Zhikong in Dadu, they went on foot to Jiangnan, and in 1360 celebrated vassa at Pingjiangfu 平江府 in Jiangnan. This was when Hyegŭn had the opportunity to read the sayings of Mongsan Deyi. Hyegŭn took notes on the main points and returned to Koryŏ. It is thought that this summary was the basis for the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae examined in this article.

Why was it that Hyegŭn summarized the sayings of Mongsan Deyi, a Southern Song monk from nearly one hundred years earlier? The following record can be found in Yi Nŭnghwa (1918: ha 864):

The Koryŏ royal family had a close relationship with Mongsan Deyi, and this may have been one motive for having Hyegŭn summarize Mongsan's sayings.⁴

Hyegŭn's dharma was inherited by Muhak Chach'o 無學自超 (1327–1405). Muhak Chach'o was the royal priest to King T'aejo (r. 918–43). Muhak Chach'o's dharma was succeeded by Hamhŏ Kihwa 涵虚己和(1376–1433). Later the Korean translation of Mongsan's sayings by Hyegŭn, that is, the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae, was written by Hyegak Sinmi, who, according to Yi Nŭnghwa (1918: ha 876) and Kamata Shigeo (1987: 221), was connected to Hamhŏ's reception of the dharma.⁵ Because the base text of this work was already an “abbreviated sayings” 略錄, it was—just as the Mumonkan was popular in Japan as a “compact sayings that practicioners could keep in their pocket to encourage their sitting meditation”—widely and popularly read in Chosŏn.⁶ What must be carefully considered is that when the translator Hyegak Sinmi lived, Sŏn temples in Chosŏn were no longer bilingual spaces, and unlike monks in the Koryŏ period, Chosŏn monks were no longer able to travel to China or interact with Chinese monks.

As is well known, from the inception of the Chosŏn period Confucianism was esteemed and Buddhism was suppressed. Conversely, in the royal family, Buddhism was practiced until the middle of the fifteenth century, and among historical kings, Sejo (世祖, r. 1455–68) in particular venerated Buddhism most of all. In 1459, five years after his accession, the Wŏrin Sŏkpo 月印釋譜 was published, and in the same year a royal office of Buddhist publishing, the Kan'gyŏng togam 刊經都監, was established for the translation and printing of Buddhist documents. This publishing office was not in the king's palace but out on the public streets, and with exclusive rice fields in Hwanghae Province set up as its source of funding, it continuously employed nearly two hundred monks. The primary missions of the Kan'gyŏng togam were threefold: publication of the Chinese translation of the Great Treasury of Sutras 大藏經, editing of Ŭich’ŏn's 義天 (1055–1101) collected materials, and translation of the Buddhist canon. The commoner Kim Suon 金守温 (1409–81) and the monks Hyegak Sinmi, Hagyŏl 學悦, and Hakcho 學祖 were the primary individuals charged with the Korean translation of the Buddhist canon. However, due to the tenacious opposition of Confucian ministers, in 1471 the Kan'gyŏng togam was abolished. Still, Sinmi, Hagyŏl, and especially Hakcho continued to be venerated until the reign of Sŏngjong and continued their translation of the canon. The Sŏngjong Sillok calls them the “three preceptors” 三和尙.⁷

Ever since Moguja Chinul 牧牛子知訥 (1158–1210) started the Chogyejong sect 曹溪宗 at Songgwang Temple in Sunch’ŏn, Korean Buddhism has supported sectarian customs that value both the silent reading of sutras and recitation of the Buddha's name. But for monks in the Chosŏn period, was it indispensible to be able to read and understand the baihua in Sŏn sayings? This is not the case.

As discussed in Itō (2004a, 2011), the examination subjects for the state examination for Buddhist monks in the Chosŏn period were stipulated as follows.

The founder's koans required for sitting meditation were given to each practicioner by their masters and existed for the practitioners to contemplate their meaning. There was no need to memorize these in baihua; rather it was important for them to correctly understand the “contents” of the subject. Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae was translated into Korean to meet this particular need.

2. Philological Observations

2.1 The Text of the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae

According to Shibu Sōhei (1983), the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae was compiled from 1459 to 1461. The oldest manuscripts of the T1 type are the T'ongmun'gwan facsimile, the Simwŏnsa-bon 深源寺本 (1525), and the Yujŏmsa-bon 楡岾寺本 (1521). In the next T2 type are the Kounsa-bon 孤雲寺本 (1517) and the Pingbaram-bon 氷鉢庵本 (1525), and in the later T3 woodblock variety there is the Songgwangsa-bon 松廣寺本 (1577). Concerning variant texts, there is an article by Pak Pyŏngch'ae (1980) and an examination and comparison by Takekoshi Takashi (2004). Details on the particularites of the Korean in the ŏnhae section are provided by Tamotsu Nakamura (1963). This article uses the explication of the base text by Yi Kimun ([1978] 1996).

The base text includes hyŏnt'o 懸吐 or “appended grammatical glosses,” and the hyŏnt'o sections include pitch-accent dots (pangchŏm 傍點). These are features held in common with ŏnhae texts of the Buddhist canon from before the Amit'a kyŏng ŏnhae 阿彌陀經諺解, printed in ŭlhae typeface 乙亥字本 and estimated to have been printed in 1461, and thus they differ from the characteristics of the Buddhist ŏnhae issued by the Kan'gyŏng togam in the 1462 printing. The readings for sinographs in T1- and T2-type texts use the artificial Tongguk chŏngun 東國正韻 pronunciations, but the Songgwangsa-bon includes traditional sinograph readings.

For the contents of the base text, the sections “示古原上人” (1–10), “示覺圓上人” (10–20), “示准正上人” (20–30), “示聰上人” (30–50), “無字十節目” (50–63), and “休休庵主座禪文” (63–69) were brought by Hyegŭn from China, whereas “示覺悟禪人法語” (69–70) was written by Hyegŭn himself. The sections “休休庵主座禪文” and “示覺悟禪人法語” are in LS and thus fall outside the scope of this examination.

3. Characteristic Features of the Chinese Language in the Mongsan pŏbŏ

As seen above, the Mongsan pŏbŏ are sayings that were not particularly reflected on in China. For previous research on the baihua in Mongsan pŏbŏ, see Takekoshi (2004) and Itō (2004b, 2005).⁸ Here I generally follow Takekoshi (2004) and stop at a cursory examination of a few particularities, taking up four concrete examples of sections translated into Korean for examination in detail.

There are eight examples of the second-person pronoun {你 ni3} and two of {汝ru3}. This is the same as in the Zutangji 祖堂集 and Wumenguan. For interrogative personal pronouns, there are four examples of {阿誰 a1-shui2}, and for proximal demonstrative pronouns there are seven examples of {者箇 zhe3ge4} and one of {者裏 zhe3li3}. This is very close to Wumenguan. Takekoshi (2004) claims that on the whole Mongsan pŏbŏ resembles Wumenguan in terms of vocabulary and grammatical form, but as characteristics not seen in Wumenguan, he raises the usage of the measure word 介,⁹ the adverbs {未有 wei4you3} and {無有 wu2you3}, and the adverb {不要 bu4yao4}. He also finds that the adverb {地 di4} is rare in the Wumenguan but frequently used in Mongsan pŏbŏ, and conversely, that {却 que4} and the counter {向 xiang4} appear in the Wumenguan but are rare in Mongsan pŏbŏ (among other observations).

In terms of aspect markers, there are seven examples of the continuative {著 zhuo2}. However, as I will discuss later, {著 zhuo2} is not only a continuitive but was also used to indicate experience as a perfective. This will be raised in section 4.

4. Aspects of Korean Translations of Baihua Grammatical Morphemes

4.1 Translations by Sŏn monks during the Monolingual Period

As seen in section 1.2, unlike the Chinese as a living language seen among monks in the Koryŏ period, temples in the Chosŏn period when the translators of Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae lived were monolingual Korean spaces.¹⁰ Sinmi had no travel experience in China, nor was he a specialist in spoken Chinese. Among Korean language translations of baihua materials in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this text, which was translated by nonspecialists of Chinese, displays the following aspects of baihua grammatical elements in Korean translation.

4.2 Affixation

4.2.1 Prefixes

As stated by Takata Tokio (1988: 232) and Song Shaonian (2002: 165–73), the prefix {阿 a1-} is already present in the Sanguozhi 三國志 and also in the materials from Dunhuang. Here {阿誰 a1-shui2} is always translated as {nwu}, whereas nom for the third-person pronoun 他 is a mistranslation.

4.2.2 Suffixes

{生-sheng1} is a suffix that derives the meaning of a certain state, and appears frequently in the Zutangji and other texts.¹¹ In our text, {作麼生 zuo4ma2-sheng1} is the only example seen. As in 6′, this is translated as a verb with {ho-}, but as an adverb when it accompanies another verb as in 7′.

4.3 Resultative Verb Compounds

4.3.1 破–po4

The verb {破 po4} has the present-day meaning of “destroy,” but when functioning as a resultative it means “to do something incessantly or completely.”¹² This meaning is not reflected in the LMK translations in examples 8′ and 9′. Conversely, in 10′, it is translated using the adverb {kus} to mean “completely.”

4.3.2 盡–jin4

The verb {盡 jin4} originally means “exhaust,” but as a resultative, it means “to do something completely,” similarly to {破-po4}.¹³ The base sentences for examples 11 and 12 are exactly the same, but whereas the resultative meaning is not reflected in 11′, examples 12′ and 13′ use kocang as an adverb thereby incorporating the meaning of {盡-jin4}.

4.4 Potentiality

As seen in Li and Thompson (1981: 56–57), {得 de2} with the meaning of “to get” ended up functioning as a kind of infix to mean possibility. This is the type A of the pattern V + 得 + N noted by Ōta Tatsuo (1988: 179).

The {得-de2} in 14 and 16 is not reflected at all in the Korean translation, and it is impossible to see from the translation that the element of potentiality is included in the original. Next, observe how this works in the negative.

{透不得 tou4-bu4-de2} is the only example seen of a negative usage, but at any rate the meaning of nonpotentiality is faithfully translated.

4.5 Complex Stative Construction

The complex stative construction (CSC) is a form that includes {得 de2} while also incorporating potential. As Ōta (1988: 179) has stated, this construction is not seen in the Zutangji, and naturally, this construction does not occur in LS. An example of a prototypical complex stative construction as seen in Li and Thompson (1981: 623) is as follows:

The examples seen in Mongsan pŏbŏ are of the type V + 得 + ADJ. In order to translate elements that do not exist in LS, the translator used three differing methods.

In 20 and 21, the same baihua construction is used, but 20′ renders {V 得} as N, whereas 21′ translates {V 得} as a verb with accessive –wotoy, translates the adjective 端正 that comes later as an adverb, and changes the word order.

4.6 Aspect Markers

4.6.1 却–que4

In the examples below, I examine how aspect markers that had already grammaticalized in early baihua or alternatively had been present in that process are expressed in translation. First, I take up {却 –que4}.

There are numerous theories about the grammaticalization of {却-que4}, but comparing examples 23′ and 24′ above, we can see that the Korean translator was oblivious to the existence of {却-que4}.

4.6.2 也–ye3

On the other hand, the perfect marker {ye3} is seen in the translation.¹⁴

Because the patterns in {-e poli-} and {-Ge-} that express the perfect in fifteenth-century Korean are used together here, the perfect as seen in the original is translated accurately.

4.6.3 了也–liao3ye3

As seen in Itō (2008), in the Pŏnyŏk Nogŏltae Ch'oe Sejin translates the perfect maker as seen below, but the translator of Mongsan pŏbŏ, as will be discussed later, mistranslates this formal element.

4.6.4 了–liao3

The construction in {V 了} expresses a state of completion. In the translation, by using an adverb that shows posterior taxis, it succeeds in translating the original.

4.6.5 Frequentative

The method of expressing frequency by using V来V去 is, according to Ōta (1988: 179), seen in the Zutangji. This pattern in the two examples below is mistranslated:

4.6.6 Durative

The string 築著磕著 does not clarify the verbs 築 and 磕 in telicity, and here can be taken as durative. The translator states the following in an intercalary note:

This gloss manages to capture the meaning of 著 in translation across the whole passage.

The verb 切 (“cut”) is telic, and 著 here is a method for expressing experience. The translator translates this correctly.

4.6.7 Experiential

The verb {過-guo4} is a resultative that expresses completion, but in the process of grammaticalization, it became an aspect marker for experience in the Song period.¹⁵

Here the {過-guo4} is ignored. With LMK adverb :ta “all; in its/their entirety,” only the meaning of completion is reflected.

4.7 Sentence Final Particles

4.7.1 Intensive {在 zai4}

In baihua, there is a sentence-final particle that expresses modality and does not exist in LS. According to Cao Guangshun (1994: 172), this is a sentence-final particle that appears in the Zutangji and in Zen sayings.

For some reason the future prefinal ending {-li-} is used here, and no intensive or emphatic meaning is reflected in the Korean.

4.7.2 Interrogatives

There are four unique sentence-final interrogative particles used in baihua: {也無 ye3 wu2}, {也未 ye3 wei4}, {否 fou3}, and {麼 ma2}.¹⁶

Excepting {麼 ma2}, everything in the translation is translated as additional interrogative sentences. This pattern is frequently seen in the sixteenth-century texts Nogŏltae and Pak t'ongsa, and it can be assumed that Chinese interrogative sentences translated into Korean were done so using this one fixed and literal (albeit etymologically accurate) translation method.

4.8 Nominalizers

In this work, examples of the nominalizer {底 di3} are all translated using an adnominal ending.

4.9 Prepositions

The preposition {将 jiang1} can serve as either the instrumental or the accusative case. As it originally had the meaning of “to hold,” it is continuous with the following serial verb construction.

Here {將 jiang1} is translated in LMK as {have-CVB} with the stems tini- and kaci-. This contrasts with {以 yi3} in LS usually being translated as instrumental. It is fairly common cross-linguistically for verbs with the meaning “hold” to undergo grammaticalization to serve as instrumentals or accusatives (cf. modern Korean kaciko, which would work well in example 43′), but no judgment here is made on whether this is a parallel development in both Korean and Chinese or translation borrowing.¹⁷

4.10 Serial Verb Construction

The serial verb construction, which uses independent words in sequence, is translated into Korean using a chaining structure.¹⁸ In ŏnhae exegeses of Buddhist texts it is conventional to translate the previous verb into an adverbial structure word for word, but in this translation, there are also cases where it is omitted.

In this and other examples, the translation is of the general impression of the original (here omitting 去 in the Korean). Next is a composite sentence using 有, but it is not translated word for word.

The 有 above is a marker that introduces “doubts” and “wind” as new/focused information, and the translated sentence matches the meaning of the original.

4.11 Causative Construction

The baihua marker {教 jiao4 (lit. “teach”)} is translated correctly.

4.12 Classifiers

The measure word {箇 ge4} need not be translated in most instances, and indeed, the Korean translation here typically omits it.¹⁹

5. Characteristic Features of Hyegak's Translations

5.1 Mistranslations

As seen above, while some translations of baihua elements are correct, there are other cases of mistranslation in this work.

This baihua 他 obviously functions as the third-person pronoun “he,” but Hyegak translates it as “an other; somebody else.” The same mistranslation appears in 20b.

First, while everything up through 雖然趙州道無 is a subordinate clause, meaning that 雖然 modifies everything up to 無, 雖然 is taken in Korean as pilwok kuleho-na (“Even if that is the case”) and only modifies up to 然. Second, the V + O construction 道無 is mistranslated as “spoken nothing” in an attributive modifying construciton. This is already mistranslated at the hyŏnt'o glossing stage that preceded the ŏnhae:

This suggests that 雖然 was understood as two words in the manner of LS. Ōta (1987: 305) has argued that 雖然's loss of its original lexical meaning and lexicalization as a single compound dates from after the Tang period. Hyegak and Sinmi applied hyŏnt'o glosses in the style of LS, thereby rendering the ŏnhae as pilwok kuleho-na. Thus, in order to float 趙州道無, 道無 was understood as an attributive modifying construction.²⁰

In the next example we also see the the misconstruing of something as a compound due to a lack of knowledge of the final particle aspect makers of baihua, and the section that ends up floating is taken again as an attributive modifying construction. This is a repeat of the saying in 26 and 26′.

Because the translators did not understand the final particle {了也-liao3-ye3}, the phrase 錯了 is translated as an adverb + verb construction, “mistakenly understood.” Originally, the final particle 也 in the following sentence was omitted in order to modify 瞎漢, and 錯了也瞎漢 ended up being understood as an attributive modifying construction.

The extreme lack of knowledge about baihua aspect markers is also seen in the following example. This is a repeat saying of the section from 28 to 29′.

The aspect markers from the Zutangji as seen above do not exist in LS and this likely caused the mistranslation.²¹

These mistranslations reflect that Hyegak and Sinmi were monks in the fifteenth century when contact with China had ended, unlike in the Koryŏ period. With the exception of the sections that had been transmitted from master to disciple, when they translated Mongsan pŏbŏ, they relied on their knowledge of LS when it came to translating grammatical constructions.

5.2 Literary Style

As seen above, and despite the mistranslations, this work is a translation of Mongsan pŏbŏ into reasonably clear Korean. Concerning Sŏn question-and-answer exchanges during the Chosŏn period, the author believes that, like this translated text, simple Korean was used. This was a manual for training, and use converged on Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae, among the numerous Sŏn sayings, because this clear Korean translation functioned as a religious manual that tended toward a vernacular “translation.”

6. Concluding Thoughts: Baihua, LS, and hanmun hyŏnt'o Style in Korea

This article has examined some of the linguistic particularities in the vernacular translations of baihua grammatical elements in the Mongsan hwasang pŏbŏ yangnok ŏnhae. Chosŏn dynasty Buddhists, because of their loss of exposure to spoken Sinitic/baihua, were unable to properly grasp baihua tense-aspect markers, treating them instead as if they were LS or simply misunderstanding them entirely. Whereas Japanese Zen-style kundoku “rarely” reordered the Chinese original, and everything—including grammatical markers—was glossed and vocalized, yielding a peculiar reading method among the various types of Japanese kundoku, in sixteenth-century Chosŏn, the Chinese original was never reordered. The method of chiktok 直讀 or sundok 順讀—reading the original aloud, following the LS word order but inserting Korean grammatical glosses—began with Confucian materials and became the method for reading LS texts. This is called hyŏnt'o mun 懸吐文 or hyŏnt'o hanmun 懸吐漢文, and was remarked on by Amenomori Hōshū 雨森芳洲 (1668–1755), who stated the following concerning the differences between Japanese kundoku and Korean chiktok (by which he means Korean-style sequential glossing, or sundok):

For civil service examinations, ŏnhae exegeses were not needed at all, as it was hyŏnt'o-glossed materials that were the target of memorization.

As Itō (2018: 173) has shown, the “voice inscribed on the body” of officials in the Chosŏn period was hanmun hyŏnt'o.²² Itō compares the opening, middle, and final sections of the article “Today I lament 是日也放声大哭” by Chang Chiyŏn 張志淵 (1864–1921), which appeared in 1905 in the editorials of the Hwangsŏng sinmun 皇城新聞:

• (a) 曩日伊藤侯가韓國에來 . . .

• (b) 彼犬豚不若 . . .

• (c) 嗚呼라痛矣라 我二千万為爲人奴隷之同胞여 生乎아 死乎아 四千年國民精神이 一夜之間에猝然滅亡而止乎아 痛哉라痛哉라 同胞아 同胞아 . . .

In (a) “when Marquis Itō first came to Korea” we find Korean word order, but (b) then uses a hanmun style that ignores Chinese word order (LS would have 彼不若犬豚). In the conclusion (c), if we remove the t'o 吐 grammatical markers it is orthodox LS. As Saitō Mareshi (2007) has noted, the rhythm inscribed on the body (the voice of kundoku in Japan) was, in the case of Chosŏn, not ŏnhae but hundok hyŏnt'o 訓讀懸吐—vernacular reading by means of appended Korean glosses—that is to say, it came from chiktok based on the sounds of hanmun. According to Sassa Mitsuaki (2012), this document was not written by Chang alone but together with his friend Yu Kŭn 柳瑾 (1861–1921). As the two shared a large bottle of alcohol in the editing room while drinking and lamenting heavily, they wrote this document in a state of inebriation. With the exception of Yu Kilchun 兪吉濬 (1856–1914), for the generation of students who had prepared for the civil service examination at the end of the Chosŏn period it was not yet possible to write Korean as they wished. In this editorial, the beginning is in Korean word order, the middle morphs into Korean-style hanmun, and the end shifts to pure hanmun. Thus, in their drunkenness and excitement, the authors gravitated toward the words that were easiest, most familiar, and longed for. In vino veritas! In any case, Japanese Zen-style kundoku and Korean hanmun hyŏnt'o both emphasized “reverence for the original text,” and insofar as translations into their respective languages completely sacrificed natural expression, there is an especially similar particularity.

Immediately after the creation of the Hunmin chŏngŭm, it was Buddhist documents that were translated as ŏnhae, and it took more than a century for ŏnhae exegeses of Confucian materials to appear in print. In Buddhism, the tradition of translation into Korean had existed since the “interpretive reading” (sŏktok 釋讀) glossing methods of the Koryŏ period, and after the establishment of the ŏnhae exegeses for Confucian materials, what students preparing for the civil service examinations had to memorize was how to vocalize—including grammatical markers—an unnatural Korean hanmun hyŏnt'o style. Meanwhile, students who wished to study at Zen temples in Japan memorized texts, including all of the grammatical markers, creating a certain similarity to the Korean case, which resulted in an unnatural Zen-style kundoku for Japanese.

Future research will need to clarify the use of language and associated writings for old sayings in Korean Sŏn temples, the differences in the cultural value of Zen in Japan and Sŏn in Korea and how these affected the study and translation of different varieties of Sinitic, and whether or not the Sinophilia that existed in Japanese Zen (ever) existed in Korean Sŏn, or, rather, in Korean culture more generally.

Notes

References

Abbreviations

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources