One of the suggested causes for the extinction of the Kaifeng community as a Jewish community, is that they failed to either translate their Hebrew books to Chinese, or create new works about Judaism in Chinese. The Hui Muslim minority group in China, who in many cases had the same ancestry as the Kaifeng community, translated Islamic works into Chinese, as well as penning original books. Why didn't the Kaifeng Jews? At a later time, we will pick up this topic. Suffice to say, it is technically untrue that the Kaifeng community did not write in Chinese about their religion. Some of their extant manuscripts have rubrics in Chinese. We will examine those here.
So what is a rubric? A rubric are written instructions in a manuscript to "draw attention to important parts of the text, such as section headings or initial capitals. This practice was known as rubrication, and it helped in the organization and readability of a manuscript."
As we will see, this definition does not quite fit what the Chinese notes found in the Kaifeng books. Here are the examples:
HUC 925, Chinese 3, Rosh Hashanah prayers, page 44, has four discernable Chinese characters:
HUC 927, Chinese 5, Haggadah, page 79, one character:
Page 87, two characters:
HUC 939, Chinese 20, Prayers for Festivals, page 20:
First we much translate these Chinese symbols. Second, we must establish if, and how, these Chinese symbols interact with the texts. When can then understand if these are genuine "rubrics."
In his list of prayer books, HUC Manuscript 925, Leslie notes that Chinese manuscript 3, the Musaf, or additional prayers for Rosh Hashanah, contains rubrics in Chinese in the Kaddish prayer. This is indeed the case. Here is the page with Kaddish, and the rubrics:
We must first get a sense of the layout and condition of the manuscript to understand the role of the Chinese rubrics. Please note that the pages are inconsistently numbered, so I am using the scan numbers provided by the HUC.
This is manuscript in several different hands, in different styles, and various degree of legibility. Pages 1 to 10 are in one hand, without vowel points. Page 1:
While page 12 is in another hand. Due to age or use, the letters get progressive lighter from page 11 to 27. It is consistently pointed, except for the first two pages. Page 12:
On page 28, we resume the hand of the original scribe, not pointed:
And we continue in this hand until page 31. Page 32 to 37 appears to be the second hand. Page 32:
Pages 38 to 43, which are essentially pointed, are a third hand. Page 38:
Page 44 contains the four Chinese rubrics. This page is in at least two hands (three?), and is reworked a number of times. Page 44:
The manuscript ends in this basic style. Perhaps the dominant hand on the rubric page finishes the manuscript?
This is a confusing manuscript, in many hands, and page 44 to the end is particularly convoluted. Is the role of the rubric to help eliminate some of the accrued difficulties in this text?
There is not much information to build on from other sources.
I have not found any writings about the Chinese rubrics except in The Haggadah of the Kaifeng Jews of China, by Fook-Kong Wong and Dalia Yasharpour. They make note of the Chinese characters in manuscripts. We will examine those 3 characters in the context of the Haggadah next in the next entry.
Donald Leslie references HUC Manuscript 925, on page 92 and 93 in his Survival of the Chinese Jews. When he examines the rituals and liturgy of the Kaifeng community, Leslie sheds some light on prayer customs. He starts with a description of certain movement the Kaifeng community may have enacted during prayers. He quotes their 1663a stone inscription:
"During the acts of worship, the Law which is recited is sometimes chanted aloud, and in this the honoring of the Way is manifested. Sometimes here is silent prayer, and thus the way of is honored in secret. Advancing, the worshipper sees It in front of him; receding, It is suddenly behind him. Turning to the left, It seems to be to the left; turning to the right, It seems to be to the right... Moreover, the worshiper in his movements forward and backward, ascending or descending, kneeling or bowing, thinks only of conforming to to the ritual. (1663a)"
Leslie adds that the 1489 stele description is similar: "It mentions three paces backward and five paces forward, bending and standing erect; turning to the left, he bends, "which is good for the Way is then on his left," and turning to the right, he bends, "which is not so good, for Way is on his right."
Leslie is not overly interested in these movements. He writes that "these posturings are of no great interest [!]" But he offers a interesting suggestion that body posture during Kaifeng worship may have involved such movements, and it is documented in a Chinese rubric:
"...it is fascinating to discover, twice, in the Kaifeng Hebrew liturgy two Chinses characters hsi tung [Xī dōng] 先東," (or possibly mien tung [Miànxiàng dōng] 面東 toward east) at the end of the the kaddish."
He further explains as the Kaifeng Jews faced west during prayer, "this seems to imply a forward stepping, followed by a return backwards. But since this instruction is only found at this particular place in the prayers, we may suppose an identical ritual to that known elsewhere, i.e. stepping backwards three paces, followed by a return to one's previous position. The 1489 inscription has, in fact three steps back followed by five steps forward, as compared to the 1663 stepping forward first."
It is not at all clear what Leslie is discussing here. At a future time we will explore these movements and possible parallels to both Jewish and Chinese customs. It is interesting that Leslie believes there movement are not of great interest, as he appears to tie them to the Chinese rubric in HUC manuscript, and page 44:
However, he does not reference the liturgical manuscript directly! This page is the only Chinese rubric of its kind, and is part of the Kaddish prayer. So, are these rubrics instructions to make he requisite turns to the east and west during the prayer? The Chinese characters are not very clear. Is that why Leslie only suggests that arrangement? There is ritual movement during the kaddish, but it is only in this part of the prayer:
The requisite motions are:
Step backward and bow: When reciting "Oseh Shalom Bimromav" ("He who makes peace in his high places"), take three steps backward and bow to the left.
Bow to the right: For "Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Aleinu" ("may He make peace upon us"), bow to the right.
Bow forward: During "V'al Kol Yisrael" ("and upon all of Israel"), bow forward.
Step forward: Finish by taking three steps forward to return to the original position.
Are these the motions that were enacted in Kaifeng? The Chinese characters are not near the "oseh shalom" portion of Kaddish, therefore it is difficult to know with certainty. Was some other movement involved for the Jews of Kaifeng during kaddish? From the time of the first stone inscription in 1489 to when the last of the services in the Kaifeng Synagogue was performed by 1810, when and how were body movements made in kaddish?
We would need to know a great deal more about the origins of the Kaifeng community, and the liturgical influences they absorbed, both from Jewish and even Chinese sources. But for all the uncertainly about this rubric, Leslie's suggestion is interesting. Perhaps the kaddish, which delineates the main sections of Jewish prayer but is also the prayer said in special memory of the dead, played a far larger part in the Kaifeng Jewish practices because of its connection to the veneration of the dead - at that time, as now, both a popular Chinese folk and religious practice.
The next entry will examine Chinese rubrics in a Kaifeng Haggadah.
Comments
Post a Comment