Talk:Thomas Henry Sparshott

Anjili kwa Luka

Storye book, I don't think the hook is correct, as according to the bibliography, Anjili kwa Luka is the Gospel of Luke and was edited by Sparshott, rather than written by him. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That is an error. He edited the dictionary (his other book-collaboration), but was a co-writer of this book, i.e. the translation. Of course, if you consider a translation to be an editing job, then that is a matter of terminology. In this context, I would consider editing to mean that he contributed no content to the dictionary, but just tidied up or put in correct order the work of others. However in this book he contributed content, in his capacity as linguist and clergyman. Luke is a very spiritual gospel, and Sparshott as a defender of low-church liturgy and ritual would have wanted to keep a tight hold on how Luke was presented in other languages. The 17th-century committee which produced the King James Bible went through a similar process, fixing it so that Anglicanism could sit comfortably on the fence regarding transubstatiation. Sparshott, on the other hand, hated Catholics, so you can bet that he kept a tight hold on every word of this book. Church politics makes some people very predictable. Amazon correctly lists him as one of the authors. But I can see that there may be a problem with the sources. If you like, I can suggest an ALT which says contributed to, rather than co-wrote?Storye book (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am arguing that the article and the hook appear to be wrong based on the references provided. Generally a published bibliography should be more reliable than an Amazon listing. Do you have sources other than references 47 and 48? I have added a trans-title to the Publications section to help non Swahili speakers and changed Anjili kwa Luka to a translation of the Gospel of Luke for clarity in the lead. Do change it again if you disagree. I would accept that the editor of an ancient text has an important role.

I am not volunteering to review the hook, so I don't want to tell you exactly what to say.

P.S. This reminds me of the old joke "What's the matter with the good old King James version? ... That was good enough for St. Paul, and it's good enough for me." TSventon (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, you are right. The British Library catalogue has him listed as editor. I have updated the article accordingly. I'll now have a look at the nom and see what I can do with that. Thank you for your patience and assistance in this. Storye book (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I found some background in Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Volume II, 3 via Google books, which says that Rebmann's translation was published in 1876, however Though J. L Krapf had modified J. Rebmann's spelling , yet the orthography remained so irregular that the book proved of little use. (pages 1484 to 1485). The 1881 translation is on page 1487 but does not mention Sparshott. TSventon (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for going to so much trouble over this. I guess Sparshott re-edited then, to correct and update it. It was early days for European understanding of African languages, and they were still learning. Sparshott had had to speak some of those languages to do his job, for some years, so maybe the earlier writers were less immersed in Swahili than he was - who knows. But all that is speculation. I guess no-one will argue with the British Library catalogue listing. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the text, I think it is fine now. Rebmann, Krapf and Steere were clearly immersed in African languages, but the introductio to the Nika-English Dictionary shows that it still needed substantial work to bring it to publication. Speculatively, the translation of Luke may have needed a similar amount of work. The spelling of the Swahili language was complicated by the different dialects and being written in unmodified Arabic script. TSventon (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am certainly impressed by Sparshott's handling of the written script, if he had to read Swahili via Arabic script. He came from unsophisticated beginnings - a cooper whose family had been in the workhouse just before he was born (he himself might have been born in the workhouse - I have a researcher checking that out at the moment). He presumably attended a modest local school, before Board Schools were introduced, left at age 14 if not before, then did his cooper's apprenticeship with his father. He attended a college for poor theological students (if I understand correctly), so presumably he had Latin and maybe Greek - but Arabic as well? The Mechanics' Institutes deserve more recognition than they get today, and my guess is that he used them. I have come across quite a few people who pulled themselves up by their boot straps that way. Storye book (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Storye book, I would expect that the gospel was written in Latin script, as Krapf's Swahili dictionary was. I found a JSTOR paper about the Islington college around 1900 and added it to the college article. It explores the limited information available about the intake and curriculum at the college. Apparently the college opened a "Preparatory Institution" in 1868, which most students had to go to, so the Islington course would have started at a lower level before then. The Centenary Volume of the Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East, 1799-1899 on Google books says "In 1868 the standard of education for entrance to the College was raised and the curriculum was extended." TSventon (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. That is really useful information. I knew that the theological colleges for poor boys taught them well, but that is better than I expected. Perhaps that explains why he gave his eldest daughter a good education. When creating biographies, one of my major questions is - did they fall or were they pushed, i.e. did they just fall into achievement due to having moral/financial support from childhood, or did their personality push them to fight against all odds to achieve? That question seems to be applicable to most positive achievers, in my opinion. The villains, interestingly, need different questions. Of course I cannot pursue those questions in an article, because that would be OR, synth, and all the rest of it. But finding citations for whether their family was in the same trade, or rich/enlightened enough to pay for education, sometimes goes some way to answering that unspoken question. Storye book (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I will be interested to see if you make more progress with your research into Sparshott's background. It probably involved both having moral/financial support from childhood, and having to fight against the odds to achieve. You are probably aware of the 1859 Newcastle Commission as relevant background. TSventon (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Signature

To editors: please do not replace the faithful jpg reproduction of the genuine signature with a fake svg vector creation. Note that 19th-century writers and early 20th-century writers used dip pens and fountain pens, which showed variations in pressure (i.e. dark and light bits, thick and narrow bits), and they naturally created subtle curves - not straight lines. They did not use modern felt pen, and they did not create fake-looking signatures like the kind of fake handwriting that you see on commercial packaging. I accept that the faithful reproduction of Sparshott's original signature may not be pretty enough for everyone's taste, but at least it is real, and gives us some insight into the individual hand of the writer. The original jpg version looks like the handwriting of an experienced man. The svg version looks like an attempt at forgery by a schoolkid. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)