Share this:

1Tim. 5:23 Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας.

The two Georgian recensions differ little, most importantly in იმსახურე vs. იჴუმიე.

AB

ნუ ხოლო წყალსა ჰსუამ, არამედ ღჳნოჲცა მცირედ იმსახურე სტომაქისათჳს და ზედაჲ-ზედა უძლურებისა შენისათჳს.

CD

ნუ წყალსა ხოლო ჰსუამ, არამედ ღჳნოჲცა მცირედ იჴუმიე სტომაქისათჳს და ზედაჲზედა უძლურებისა შენისათჳს.

Vocabulary and gramm. remarks

• წყალი water
• ჰ-სუამ pres 2sg O3 სუმა to drink
• ი-მსახურ-ე aor impv 2sg მსახურება to use (also, to serve; მსახური servant)
• ზედაჲსზედა one after another, often, frequently (< ზედა on)
• უძლურებაჲ weakness, sickness (უძლუერი weak, sick)
• ი-ჴუმი-ე aor imv 2sg ჴუმევა to use [the added -ი- (the second one) marks the verb as a so-called strong aor.]

Share this:

The name of the later fourth-century author and bishop Nemesius of Emesa may not often pass the lips even of those closely interested in late antique theology and philosophy, but his work On the Nature of Man (Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου, CPG II 3550), to judge by the evident translations of the work, attracted translators and readers in various languages. What follows are merely a few pointers to these translations and some related evidence in Greek, Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, and Latin (bibliography below), with renderings of the book’s incipit in the versions.

For Arabic, I don’t have any texts ready to hand, but with attribution to Gregory of Nyssa, Isḥāq b. Ḥunayn (d. 910/911) translated it into Arabic (GCAL I 319, II 130), and Abū ‘l-Fatḥ ʕabdallāh b. al-Faḍl (11th cent.) apparently writes in connection to the work in chs. 51-70 of his Kitāb al-manfaʕa al-kabīr (GCAL II 59). (Note also the latter’s translation and commentary to Basil’s Hexaemeron and its continuation by Gregory of Nyssa [GCAL II 56].)

Greek

Morani, Moreno, ed. Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1987.

Older ed. in PG 40 504-817.

(ed. Morani, as quoted in Zonta, 231):
Τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ ψυχῆς νοερᾶς καὶ σώματος ἄριστα κατεσκευασμένον

Armenian

See Thomson, Bibliography of Classical Armenian, 40. The Venice, 1889 ed. is available here.

title: Յաղագս բնութեան մարդոյ

Զմարգն ի հոգւոյ իմանալւոյ եւ ի մարմնոյ գեղեցիկ կազմեալ

• մարդ, -ոց man, mortal, human being
• իմանալի intelligible, perceptible; intelligent
• մարմին, -մնոց body
• գեղեցիկ, -ցկի, -ցկաց handsome, agreeable, proper, elegant, good
• կազնեմ, -եցի to form, model, construct, arrange

Latin

C. Burkhard, ed. Nemesii Episcopi Premnon Physicon sive Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου Liber a N. Alfano Archiepiscopo Salerni in Latinum Translatus. Leipzig: Teubner, 1917. At archive.org here.

It was translated into Latin by Alfanus of Salerno (fl. 1058-1085), and in the Latin tradition it is known by the Greek title πρέμνον φυσικῶν, “the trunk of physical things”. This seems to be the usual title (spelled variously in Latin letters, of course), and a marginal note has “Nemesius episcopus graece fecit librum quem vocavit prennon phisicon id est stipes naturalium. hunc transtulit N. Alfanus archiepiscopus Salerni.” The text begins thus:

A multis et prudentibus viris confirmatum est hominem ex anima intellegibili et corpore tam bene compositum…

Georgian

Gorgadze. S. ნემესიოს ემესელი, ბუნებისათჳს კაცისა (იოანე პეტრიწის თარგმანი). Tbilisi, 1914. The text from this edition is at TITUS here.

The translation is that of the famous philosopher and translator Ioane Petrici (d. 1125; Tarchnishvili, Geschichte, 211-225).

კაცისა სულისა-გან გონიერისა და სხეულისა რჩეულად შემზადებაჲ

• გონიერი wise, understanding
• სხეული body
• რჩეული choice, select
• შემზადებაჲ preparation

Syriac

The witness to a Syriac translation is fragmentary. It has been studied by Zonta. The incipit of Nemesius’ work appears in two places, and differently.

1. from Timotheos I (d. 823), Letter 43, as given in Pognon, xvii:

ܥܩܒ  ܬܘܒ ܘܥܠ ܣܝܡܐ ܕܐܢܫ ܦܝܠܣܘܦܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܢܡܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܥܠ ܬܘܩܢܗ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܪܫܗ ܗܢܐ. ܒܪܢܫܐ ܡܢ ܢܦܫܐ ܡܬܝܕܥܢܝܬܐ ܘܦܓܪܐ ܛܒ ܫܦܝܪ ܡܬܩܢ
Brock’s ET (“Two Letters,” 237): “Search out for a work by a certain philosopher called Nemesius, on the structure of man, which begins: ‘Man is excellently constructed as a rational soul and body…’”

2. from Iwannis of Dara (fl. first half of 9th cent.), De anima, in Vat. Syr. 147, as given by Zonta, 231:

ܒܪܢܫܐ ܡܢ ܢܦܫܐ ܝܕܘܥܬܢܝܬܐ ܘܦܓܪܐ ܡܪܟܒ

Bibliography

(In addition to the already cited editions, etc.)

Brock, Sebastian P., ”Two Letters of the Patriarch Timothy from the Late Eighth Century on Translations from Greek”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 9 (1999): 233-246.

Motta, Beatrice, ”Nemesius of Emesa”, Pages 509-518 in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Edited by Gerson, Lloyd Phillip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Pognon, Henri. Une version syriaque des aphorismes d’Hippocrate. Texte et traduction. Pt. 1, Texte syriaque. Leipzig, 1903.

Sharples, Robert W. and van der Eijk, Philip J., Nemesius. On the Nature of Man. Translated Texts for Historians 49. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2008.

Zonta, Mauro, ”Nemesiana Syriaca: New Fragments from the Missing Syriac Version of the De Natura Hominis”, Journal of Semitic Studies 36:2 (1991): 223-258.

Share this:

The passage below comes from near the end of the story of Euphemianus and his son Alexis (aka The Man of God), in K. Kekelidze, Keimena, tom. 1, pp. 161-165; for other languages, cf. BHG 51, BHO 36-44, GCAL I:497-498, and CSCO 298-299. In Kekelidze’s edition, the title runs [Ⴇ~ⴀ ⴋⴐⴚⴑⴀ ႨႪ:] ⴚⴞⴍⴐⴄⴁⴀⴢ ⴄⴅⴔⴄⴋⴈⴀⴌⴄⴑⴈ ⴃⴀ ⴛⴈⴑⴀ ⴋⴈⴑⴈⴑⴀ ⴀⴊⴄⴕⴑⴈⴑⴈ, that is, for March 17, ცხორებაჲ ევფემიანესი და ძისა მისისა ალექსისი, The Life of Euphemianus and his Son Alexis. I give the Greek (from Pereira’s edition in AB 19 [1900], 243-253 [BHG 51]) for convenient comparison, the Georgian text from Kekelidze, my English translation of that, and the same Georgian text broken down into sentences with vocabulary. It will be immediately evident that the Greek and Georgian texts do not match exactly. (In this and other passages is evident a feature of the Greek version that Pereira notes as follows [p. 245, n. 1]: “Les mots d’origine latine, dont nous signalerons en note les plus marquants, sont assez nombreux dans notre texte pour faire croire, sinon que notre légende est traduite du latin, du moins que son auteur était familiarisé avec la langue latine.”)

Ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἡνίκα ηὐδόκησεν ὁ Κύριος παραλαβεῖν τὴν παραθήκην αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν παῖδα τὸν ὑπηρετοῦντα αὐτῷ· Ἀδελφέ, φέρε μοι χαρτίον καὶ μελάνην καὶ κάλαμον, Καὶ ἔγραψεν πάντα τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια, ἃ εἶχεν μεταξὺ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἃ ἐλάλησεν τῇ νύμφῇ ἐν τῷ γάμῷ, καὶ ὡς ἀπέδωκεν τὸ δακτύλιον αὐτοῦ τὸ χρυσοῦν καὶ τὴν ῥένδαν ἐντετυλιγμένην εἰς πράνδεον καὶ πορφυροῦν, καὶ πάντα τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ ἔγραψεν, ὅπως γνωρίσωσιν αὐτὸν ὅτι αὐτός ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτῶν. (Pereira, p. 249)

და იყო ოდეს მოიწია ჟამი მისი ზეცით წოდებისაჲ ო~ლისა მიერ. ჰქ~ა მსახურსა მას თჳსს: ძმაო ჩემო. წარვედ და მომართუ მე ქარტაჲ და მელანი და კალამი და მან მოართუა. ხოლო ალექსი დაწერა ყ~ლი რ~ი რაჲ იყო საქმჱ მისი და ნიშანი ოდეს იგი მისცა ცოლსა სარტყელი და ბეჭედი შარითა წახუეული რ~ი საიდუმლოჲ იყო ყ~ლთა-გან. და იპყრა იადგარი იგი ჴელსა მარჯუენესა: და ეგრეთ შეისუენა ნეტარმან ალექსიმ დღესა კჳრიაკესა჻ (Kekelidze, end of § 6, p. 163)

When the time for his call in heaven from the Lord came, he [Alexis] said to his servant, “My brother, go and bring me paper, ink, and pen,” and he brought it. Then Alexis wrote what his whole story had been and when [as] a sign to his wife [he had given] the belt and the ring wrapped in fine linen, which was a secret from them all, and he grasped the hymnbook [iadgari] in his right hand, and thus the blessed Alexis died on a Sunday.

და იყო ოდეს მოიწია ჟამი მისი ზეცით წოდებისაჲ ო~ლისა მიერ.

• მოწევნა to approach, come near, arrive
• ჟამი time
• ზეცაჲ heaven
• წოდებაჲ call

ჰქ~ა მსახურსა მას თჳსს:

• მსახური servant

ძმაო ჩემო. წარვედ და მომართუ მე ქარტაჲ და მელანი და კალამი და მან მოართუა.

• წარსლვა to go away
• მორთუმა to bring
• ქარტაჲ paper
• მელანი ink
• კალამი pen

ხოლო ალექსი დაწერა ყ~ლი რ~ი რაჲ იყო საქმჱ მისი და ნიშანი ოდეს იგი მისცა ცოლსა სარტყელი და ბეჭედი შარითა წახუეული რ~ი საიდუმლოჲ იყო ყ~ლთა-გან.

• ნიშანი sign, mark
• სარტყელი belt
• ბეჭედი ring
• შარი costly linen
• წახუეული wrapped up (cf. წარხუევა to wrap up)
• საიდუმლოჲ secret

და იპყრა იადგარი იგი ჴელსა მარჯუენესა:

• პყრობა to grasp
• იადგარი hymn-book
• მარჯუენეჲ right (hand)

და ეგრეთ შეისუენა ნეტარმან ალექსიმ დღესა კჳრიაკესა჻

• შესუენება to die

As an appendix, for one parallel among several possible (i.e. the text in other languages), here is the same part of the tale in a Gǝʕǝz version (CSCO 298, pp. 145-146, ed. E. Cerulli), with my translation:

ወሶበ ፡ ርእየ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ዘንተ ፡ ራእየ ፡ ተፈሥሐ ፡ ወተኀሥየ ፡ ፈድፋደ ፡ ወይቤሎ ፡ ለውእቱ ፡ ገብር ፡ ዘይትለአኮ ፡ አምጽእ ፡ ሊተ ፡ ክርታሰ ፡ ወማየ ፡ ሕመተ ፡ ወእምይእዜ ፡ ተዐርፍ ፡ እምፃማ ፡ ዚአየ። ወአንከረ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ገብር ፡ እምነገሩ ፡ ወአምጽአ ፡ ሎቱ ፡ ክርታሰ ፡ ወማየ ፡ ሕመተ። ወጸሐፈ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ሙሴ ፡ ብእሴ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ገድሎ ፡ እምጥንቱ ፡ እስከ ፡ ተፍጻሜቱ። ወበራብዕ ፡ ዕለት ፡ ነሥአ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ክርታሰ ፡ ዘጸሐፈ ፡ በእዴሁ ፡ ወአዕረፈ ፡ በዕለተ ፡ እሑድ። ወዓርገት ፡ ነፍሱ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ሰማያት። ወተቀበልዎ ፡ መላእክት ፡ ጻድቃን ፡ ወሰማዕት ፡ ነቢያት ፡ ወሐዋርያት ፡ እንዘ ፡ ይብሉ፤ ሃሌ ፡ ሉያ ፡ ፍርቃን ፡ ለአምላክነ። ወቦአ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ሰማያት።

When the saint saw this vision, he rejoiced and was very glad, and he said to his servant who was assisting him, “Bring me paper and ink, and henceforth shall you rest from labor in my [service].” The servant was surprised at his words and brought him paper and ink. Then the saint, Moses the Man of God, wrote all of his combat from beginning to end. On the fourth day, he took in his hand the paper he had written and he died [lit. rested] on a Sunday. His soul went up to heaven and the angels, the just, the martyrs, the prophets, and the apostles received it, saying, “Halleluia, salvation to our God!” And he entered heaven.

Share this:

For Valentine’s Day, there may be no better Georgian text to turn to than the Visramiani, the Georgian version of the Persian poem Vis o Rāmin. In addition to the prose version, there is an adaptation in verse, both fortunately available at TITUS. Here is where Ramin happens to see the face of Vis, and what the sight does to him, from ch. 12 of the prose version (p. 61, ll. 19-24 in the edition of Gvakharia and Todua).

ანაზდად ღმრთისა განგებისაგან ადგა დიდი ქარი და მოჰგლიჯა კუბოსა სახურავი ფარდაგი. თუ სთქუა, ღრუბლისაგან ელვა გამოჩნდა ანუ ანაზდად მზე ამოვიდა: გამოჩნდა ვისის პირი და მისისა გამოჩენისაგან დატყუევდა რამინის გული. თუ სთქუა, გრძნეულმან მოწამლა რამინ, რომელ ერთითა ნახვითა. სული წაუღო.

Suddenly, by the providence of God, a great wind arose, and it tore the covering curtain of the sedan chair: as if lightning shone forth from a cloud, or the sun suddenly arose, the face of Vis appeared, and at her appearance the heart of Ramin was taken captive, as if a sorcerer had poisoned him; at one look he had his soul taken away. [Adapted from Wardrop’s ET, p. 50]

Some vocabulary

• ანაზდად all of a sudden
• განგებაჲ guidance, direction, decision, order
• ადგომა to arise (ადგა)
• ქარი wind
• მოგლეჯა to tear, rip (მოჰგლიჯა)
• კუბოჲ sedan chair
• სახურავი covering
• ფარდაგი curtain
• ღრუბელი cloud (ღრუბლისაგან)
• ელვაჲ lightning
• გამოჩინება to appear (გამოჩნდა)
• მზეჲ sun
• ამოსლვა to come up (ამოვიდა)
• დატყუენვა to apprehend, usurp, conquer (დატყუევდა) (cf. Šaniże, Gramm., § 22 for ვ after a consonant, and § 27 for the falling away of ნ)
• გრძნეული magician, sorcerer, witch
• მოწამვლა to poison (მოწამლა) (cf. მოწამლეჲ sorcerer)
• ნახვაჲ sight, glimpse
• წაღება to take away (წაუღო)

Even after this, the narrator continues for many lines describing the ravishing and intoxicating effect on Ramin of having seen Vis, but the few lines here and the supplied vocabulary will have to serve us for now.

Bibliography

*See further bibliography at Giunashvili 2013.

Gippert, J. (1994). Towards and Automatical Analysis of a Translated Text and its Original: The Persian Epic of Vīs u Rāmīn and the Georgian Visramiani. Studia Iranica, Mesopotamica et Anatolica, 1, 21–59.

Giunashvili, J. (2013). Visramiani. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved from http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/visramiani

Gvakharia, A. (2001). Georgia iv. Literary Contacts with Persia. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved from http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/georgia-iv–1

Lang, D. M. (1963). Rev. of Alexander Gvakharia and Magali Todua, Visramiani (The Old Georgian Translation of the Persian Poem Vis o Ramin): Text, Notes, and Glossary. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 26(2), 480.

Vashalomidze, S. G. (2008). Ein Vergleich georgischer und persischer Erziehungmethoden anhand literarischer Quellen der Hofliteratur am Beispiel von Vīs u Rāmīn und Visramiani. In A. Drost-Abgarjan, J. Kotjatko-Reeb, & J. Tubach (Eds.), Von Nil an die Saale: Festschrift für Arafa Mustafa zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 2005 (pp. 463–480). Halle (Saale). Retrieved from http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/ssg/content/titleinfo/642205

Wardrop, O. (1914). Visramiani: The Story of the Loves of Vis and Ramin, a Romance of Ancient Persia (Vol. 23). London: Royal Asiatic Society. Retrieved from http://gwdspace.wrlc.org:8180/xmlui/handle/38989/c011c5b27

Share this:

As I mentioned in a recent post, I’ve been at work on a little document presenting the Christmas story in Old Georgian. From a philological perspective, and from the perspective of language pedagogy, the Gospels stand out as a special group of texts, because in many languages we have multiple translations or revisions of earlier translations. In addition, of course, there is the fact that a number of passages exist in more or less similar versions across the four Gospels. All that to say, the Gospels offer students of this or that language and those interested in the variety of ways a text may appear in different translations an excellent opportunity for study. (Other genres where similar benefits accrue from the same kind of surviving multiple translations are philosophy and patristics.) The benefit derivable from a study like this to some extent depends on the format of its presentation. (For an excellent presentation of the Syriac Gospels, see George Kiraz’s Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, 4 vols.) A digital presentation of the requisite texts certainly offers promising possibilities, but at least strictly for the texts, a conventional 2-D display with one layer, whether on paper or on screen, can be very valuable for those who read it closely.

From here (unidentified ms).

It is this conventional single surface and single layer presentation that I have followed here. Since we’re in the Christmas season now, it’s a fitting time to read over any relevant texts, whether for language practice or some other reason. In the New Testament, the Christmas story, of course, is found in Matthew 1:18-25 and 2:1-12 and in Luke 1:26-38 and 2:1-20. It is only the last section that I have included here. In this document (xmas_story_old_georgian) I’ve given that text verse-by-verse first in Greek as a kind of anchor point, then in Georgian in each of the Adiši, Pre-Athonite, and Athonite redactions, all of which are freely available online thanks to TITUS/Armazi. Following the text in these versions, comes an almost comprehensive lexicon and full verbal concordance, hopefully to make the document a more useful reader for students and because lexical tools for Old Georgian in English are quite meager, and any addition to that small list of instrumenta will, I think, have value. (I have similar documents, too, for the Temptation and Transfiguration pericopes, and outside of the Gospels, some other passages from the rest of the Bible, both OT and NT.)

I welcome any comments on the document, not only corrections, but also remarks on the layout, on the worth of a lexicon for such a small text selection, whether more grammatical information should be supplied (and if so, how much), &c.

As always, thanks for reading and best wishes in your studies!

Share this:

One of the most visually striking manuscripts, even though it is not very colorful, in the collection of the Near East School of Theology, Beirut, is AP 38, thanks to its drawings in the second part of the work. There are animals (including the human body), plants, mechanical diagrams, a map, and other figures. It is not an old book at all, but it deserves a facsimile edition for its unique visual presentations. An anonymous work, it was apparently translated from Turkish, which version itself was translated from an English book (cf. J.W. Pollock, “Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Library of the Near East School of Theology,” Near East School of Theology Theological Review 4 [1981]: 69). Below is one example of the several diagrams (pt. 2, p. 11):

NEST AP 38, pt. 2, p. 11

The caption reads:

hāḏihi ṣūratu ṭurumbā [sic] ‘l-māʾi allaḏī tanšulu ‘l-māʾa min al-baḥri wa-tūṣiluhu ilá ‘l-amākini ‘l-baʿīdati ka-ma tarāhā marsūmatan hākaḏa hāhunā

This is a picture of a water-pump that takes water from the sea and conducts it to faraway places, as you see drawn here.

(For ṭurumba/ṭurumbā, cf. Italian trompa, Turkish tulumba.)

Share this:

For some time the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has very generously made available PDFs of its great store of books in Egyptology, Assyriology, archaeology, history, etc. Very recently the accessibility of two books of definite interest for Syriac scholars have been announced:

• Martin Sprengling and William Creighton Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pt. I, Genesis-II Samuel, Oriental Institute Publications 13 (Chicago, 1931).

This is part I, but that is all that appeared. The only complete edition is that from the Bar-Hebraeus Verlag, 2003. Full information on manuscripts, editions, and studies will be found in Hidemi Takahashi’s always handy Barhebraeus: A Bio-Bibliography (Piscataway, 2005), 147-173.

• James Edward Dean, Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version, foreword by Martin Sprengling, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11 (Chicago, 1935).

Lagarde, with his interest in the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible had worked on this Syriac text before and published it (as he did for other works) in Hebrew script (see here for bibliography of Epiphanios in Syriac). I cannot refrain from quoting Sprengling’s humorous report (p. ix) on Lagarde:

…our last predecessor in a similar undertaking [work on the Syriac Bible], the curious Paul de Lagarde of Göttingen. Lagarde had therefore undertaken an extensive study and a series of editions of this Epiphanius material. In his usual fashion he scattered this work around in a series of odd publications, many of them in small editions. These are not easy to get and, when obtained, generally not easy to use. The Syriac text, for example, he printed in Hebrew letters, because there was no Syriac type in Göttingen. His translation into German is curious. In various notes voicing his disgust and alleging (a thing Lagarde does not often admit) his incompetence, he shows that this was to him no labor of love. Jülicher’s statement in Pauly-Wissowa that the text is “sehr schlect ediert” by Lagarde is, indeed, too harsh a judgement. But a better, more easily accessible, more usable, and in every way more definitive edition than that of Lagarde, dated 1880, was clearly called for.

Hence the book by Dean, now eminently accessible after not being so for many years.
The Greek fragments of Epiphanios’ work (CPG 3746, cf. 3747) are not all that remains in addition to the Syriac: Georgian (CSCO 460-461, by M. van Esbroeck) and Armenian (CSCO 583, by M. Stone and R. Ervine) witnesses have also been published since the time of Dean’s Syriac text. In this work, interesting in and of itself, we have another opportunity for cross-linguistic comparison.

So, hats off to the OI for sharing its resources!

Share this:

Recently I wrote a post on translating into ancient languages. Lest any of my dear and faithful readers think me merely a theorist, here is a translation of a famous paragraph from Darwin’s On the Origin of Species Syriac’d, complete with vocalization. Comments on any aspect of the document are welcome!

darwin_syriac

Share this:

First off, in answer to the title’s question, the optimum scenario is to have texts and editions. No question: that way, those closely involved with the language and literature and those outside this group can both get some benefit and have opportunity and even incentive to interact with the text. And even for the eventual case of every text edition, an included translation or translations is not too much to wish for. But in our own meantime, are translations always necessary? Let’s not kid ourselves that most of the literatures in the ancient, late antique, or medieval worlds of the east is of much more than even passing interest to that many people, even in translation. Let’s not kid ourselves further that in all but the rarest cases there might be some real pecuniary value to translation activity in these literatures. This is work done by a small number of scholars for a small number of scholars, and even if we wish any of these fields were more largely populated with active laborers, those laborers would not be ones who work chiefly with translations, but with texts in the appropriate original languages.

It may be a truism that translation is always time-consuming and often hard work, but I repeat the fact anyway. No one who has spent time at it, even if that person knows both languages well, will describe it as easy work requiring little time or thought. I find translating snippets not bad at all, and even enjoyable: I can relish the challenge and put sufficient time into it without drowning in the great mass of uncertainties that almost naturally seem to be attached to the interpretive task. Not so with full texts, when there is page after page of it to slog through. Now, producing useful editions of texts is also hard work, but not in the same way. In some cases, this latter labor can even come down to reading and transcribing manuscripts, or sometimes even a single manuscript, making perhaps some emendations here and there to correct the text, but doing so all the while having also recorded the manuscripts’ real reading (this rule was hardly adhered to steadfastly in prior centuries).

It might be argued that a translation helps readers know for certain how an editor (and, in this case, translator) understood the text. Yes, so argued, and so conceded. But I counter that necessarily knowing how this or that editor/translator understood part—and cumulatively, all—of a text pales in importance to making that text itself more accessible to other readers (of the original language). In other words, the focus should be the text and its place as a linguistic document within a literary tradition, not how this or that scholar has understood it. The latter, while not by any means unimportant, is secondary. In addition, at the very least, a suitable introduction and a commentary would partly answer this question with regard to the opinions of the editor (and non-translator!).

There is today not necessarily the question of recouping costs, which was the case in earlier generations. Electronic texts, even a PDF that can be both electronic and then physical with the push of a button, are relatively easily and very cheaply made, and even with good typography, provided the maker knows something about it and is not stuck in the MS Word-only daydream (which is, in fact, sometimes a day-nightmare for Mac users, and that even from the point of view of practicality, much less aesthetics!). Open access journals available online mean not only less cost to publishers and to readers, they also mean more potential readers, since these resources are discoverable so simply via searching and linking.

How does the question fare in the history of oriental scholarship? Just a few examples: Where would be in terms of material for Jacob of Sarug, the Syriac Martyr Acts, etc., had Paul Bedjan (or his publisher) decided that French translations were requisite for the thousands of pages he edited? I fear we would hardly have so many thousands of pages in Syriac edited by him anymore! What about Wright’s editions of the Travels of Ibn Jubayr, the Kāmil of Al-Mubarrad, and the later Syriac translation of Kalila wa-Dimna. What of Paul de Lagarde’s numerous text editions? We would be better off if all of these texts had translations, and indeed some of the texts just mentioned eventually have found their translators, but if the necessity of translation had loomed over the head of Bedjan, Wright, or Lagarde, it is hardly likely that we would have the texts edited by them that we have, and we would thus have much less within reach so much literature. We can be glad, then, that they did not give in to fear of this sword of Damocles before putting out these published texts in Syriac and Arabic, and not also in English.

Again, I want to make clear that I am not discounting the worth of translations, and even multiple translations into more than one language in use. But I am questioning if every edition of every text needs, or absolutely requires, a translation. What about, at least for some texts, aiming first at editions with good introductions, and in some cases with commentary and perhaps even a glossary, so that it will be especially useful to students? The translation can be something that comes later, perhaps by the editor, perhaps by someone else.

We do not even enter into the thorny question of editing principles: I use “edit”, “edition”, etc. in their etymological sense of “publish”, “give out (to the public)”. The question for now is simply that of the title above: should scholars be required, by their own or external compulsion, in every case to produce a translation alongside any newly edited or re-edited text? My own answer, as will be obvious by now, is “no”, but I think discussion of the question may prove fruitful for the fields concerned.