Introduction
The De Mundo (hereafter DM) occupies somewhat of a unique position in the
history of philosophical and scientific transmission from Greek to Syriac and Arabic in that the complete work is extant in all three languages. What is more, there are in fact three separate versions in Arabic,1 not to mention two Armenian translations,2 as well as an early Latin version, the work of Apuleius (c.125-c.180).3 Too often we have only testimonia that this or that text was translated into Syriac or Arabic, but we lack either the original or the translation(s); the DM gives us all this, and then some. In this paper, I would like to focus on the Syriac version4 of this fascinating and significant scientific
1 This version has only been well known since the publications of S.M. Stern, “The Arabic Translations of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 77 (1964): 187-204, and “A Third Arabic Translation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 78 (1965): 381-393; see also F.
Klein-Franke, , “Die Überlieferung der ältesten arabischen Handschrift von Pseudo-Aristoteles ‘De Mundo,’” Le Muséon, 87 (1974): 59-65, for an important clarification of the relationship to the Greek and Syriac texts. Brafman’s 1985 dissertation, The Arabic ‘De Mundo’: An Edition with Translation and Commentary, (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1985), made the texts more widely available, but since he did not know Syriac, from which at least two of the three translations were made, he made some mistakes in interpretation. Incidentally, the Princeton Arabic ms. of the DM also contains the related Treatise on the Movement of the Universe (Risālah fī ḥarakat al-kull) by Alexander of Aphrodisias (fols. 176r-177r); for an edition and English translation, see C. Genequand, Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos (Leiden, 2000), pp. 136-143. I am currently preparing an edition (with English translation and commentary) of the Syriac and Arabic versions of the DM.
2 See F.C. Conybeare, A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, and of Porphyry’s Introduction (Oxford, 1892), especially pp. xxxii-xxxv, as well as W.L. Lorimer, The Text Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London, 1924), pp. 21-23. The printed edition of the Mekhitarists is included in the volume entitled Koriwn Vardapet, Mambre Vercanol, Dawit’ Anyalt’: Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Venice, 1833). On the subject of Aristotle in Armenian, see also A. Tessier, Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (Padua, 1979).
3 A critical edition of the text is found at the end of W.L. Lorimer, De Mundo. Translationes Bartholomaei et Nicholai, rev. by L. Minio-Paluello (Bruges and Paris, 1965), which also contains the two medieval Latin versions. Some scholars have doubted the attribution to Apuleius, but Lorimer’s statement is apt: “…[I] am content to accept the traditional view as in all probability correct on the general ground that most nineteenth-century atheteses of classical works—at any rate, those that have not secured general support—are mistaken” (Lorimer, Text Tradition, p. 20).
4 The Syriac text was published in P.A. de Lagarde (ed.), Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig: 1858), pp. 134-158.
The solemanuscript of the Syriac DM is British Library (olim Museum) Add. ms. 14658 (see below). As
2
text, in particular on its translator, Sergius of Reshaina (d. 536), and on his modus operandi in bringing the Greek work into Syriac. I will aim to offer a few examples of his work, hopefully in such a way that readers who are not specialists in Syriac will nevertheless still be in a position to get an idea of how Sergius worked and how his rendering would have looked to a Syriac reader.5
The Greek text of the DM has been very ably edited by W.L. Lorimer,6 who also
published two separate monographs at about the same time dealing with textual and other interpretive questions, and there is a fine commentary on the DM by G. Reale and A. Bos.7 Lorimer, while keenly aware of the importance of the Syriac version, was himself no expert in Syriac.8 Similarly, Brafman, who studied the Arabic versions of the DM, also lacked any direct knowledge of Syriac.9 Based on the sections translated into German by Victor Ryssel10 and Eduard König (the latter included as an appendix to the Greek critical edition), Lorimer adopted just two readings based solely on the Syriac text.11
Lagarde makes numerous tacit alterations to the manuscript reading, this study is based on the manuscript, and references to the DM are given according to it, but an appendix at the end of the paper provides a handy concordance of the ms., Lagarde’s text, and Bekker’s page numbers for the Greek text.
5 For the Nachleben of Sergius’ DM, see the works of H. Takahashi in the bibliography and the
commentary in A. McCollum, The Syriac De Mundo: Translation, Commentary, and Analysis of
Translation Technique (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2009), which also contains comparative notes on other scientific Syriac texts.
6 W.L. Lorimer, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De Mundo (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1933).
7 G. Reale and A.P. Bos, Il trattato Sul Cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele (2nd edn, Milan,
1995). This volume includes a classified bibliography of the substantial amount of literature on the DM, as well as a concordance to the Greek text.
8 “linguae Syriacae scientiae prorsus expers sum,” (Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 26).
9 Pp. 2-3, n. 3.
10 Über den textkritischen Werth der syrischen Übersetzungen griechischer Klassiker, I. Theil (Leipzig, 1880). While Ryssel’s analysis certainly offers some fruitful observations, his concern for the Syriac version as a textual witness to the Greek (note his title) makes his work differently focused than a study like this one. See also the concluding remarks.
11 395a28 τὴν γῆν, 399b30 om. λίθοιϲ (Lorimer, Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 26). On Lorimer’s use of Ryssel and König, cf. W. Raven, “De Mundo. Tradition syriaque et arabe,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Supplément (Paris, 2003), p. 481: “Malheureusement Lorimer n’a pas toujours compris le texte de Ryssel et la traduction de König est pleine de fautes, ce qui dévalorise l’apparat critique en ce qui concerne les variantes syriaques.” Raven does not elaborate this judgment further.
3
Sergius of Reshaina
We first turn to the man that brought the DM into Syriac.12 He is famous in both
Syriac and Arabic literature mainly as a translator, notably of the works of Galen, ps.-Dionysius, and some Aristotelica.13 The Syriac version of Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry’s Eisagoge were formerly attributed to Sergius but this is no longer tenable.14 The Syriac DM, as well as most of the other works attributed to Sergius, resides in British Museum (now Library) Add. ms. 14658.15 The earliest (indeed almost contemporary) source mentioning Sergius is the Historia Ecclesiastica of (ps.-)Zacharias of Mitylene, the Syriac text of which was edited both by Land16 and Brooks;17 in book 9, chapter 19, we find,
12 On Sergius in general, see E. Renan, De Philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros (Paris, 1852), pp. 23-29;
W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), pp. 88-93; R. Duval, La littérature
syriaque (3d ed., Paris, 1907), pp. 247-249; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn,
1922), pp. 167-169; and Mar Igantius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa, 2d rev. ed. (Piscataway, N.J.), pp. 273-74.
13 Sergius is also very probably the translator of the works of Evagrius into Syriac; see A. Guillaumont, Les six centuries des ‘kephalaia gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique, PO. 28.1 (Paris, 1958).
14 See S. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho 9, Kottayam, 1997), p. 43; H.
Hugonnard-Roche, “Note sur Sergius de Resh ‘Aina, traducteur du grec en syriaque et commentateur
d’Aristote,” in G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism (CNWS Research: Leiden, 1997), pp. 128-9. The attributions of these and other works (a work on the soul, a work on the parts of speech, a work on affirmation and negation, and a scholion on the term οὐϲία) to Sergius most likely rest on the fact that they are included in BL Add. 14658; cf. E. Renan, “Lettre à M. Reinaud, sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée Britannique, contenant des traductions d’auteurs grecs profanes et des traités philosophiques,” Journal Asiatique 19 (1852b), p. 329, and W. Wright’s description of the contents of the ms. in his Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (London, 1872), pp. 1154-1160.
15 Lorimer (Text Tradition, p. 24; Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 25 n. 3) wonders whether A. S. Lewis’ Cod. Sinait. Syr. 14 may be another ms. of the Syriac DM. I have not examined the ms., but while it is possible, I see no conspicuous likelihood that the it contains the DM. It has the title: “Collection of holy books for the benefit of souls,” and in Lewis’ description more fully “Extracts from Macarius…, followed by sayings of the philosophers, …Aristotle” (A.S. Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catharine on Mount Sinai [Studia Sinaitica I, London, 1894], p. 17), nor is there anything in the additional description of the ms. by John Stenning, contained on p. 127 of the same volume, to suggest that this selection from Aristotle is the DM.
16 J.P.N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 3, Zachariae Episcopi Mitylenes aliorumque Scripta Historica
Graece plerumque Deperdita (Leiden, 1870). The text translated in the following lines is found on p. 289, lines 7-16.
17 E.W. Brooks, Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori, vol. 2 (Paris, 1921); the following translated text is from p. 136, lines 4-16.
4
“This man [Sergius] was eloquent and practiced in reading many books of the
Greeks and in the doctrine of Origen. He had been studying translation of the
books of other teachers in Alexandria for some time—he had knowledge of Syriac both in reading and speaking—and books on medicine. In his beliefs he was orthodox, as witness the prologue and translation of Dionysius, which he made quite aptly, and the book made by him on the faith in the days of the illustrious Peter the faithful. In his lifestyle, however, this Sergius was very unrestrained in the desire for women, and was licentious and immodest. He was greedy in the desire for money. Efrem tested him and found him learned.”
From this passage (and elsewhere), we see that Sergius, who is always referred to as “of Reshaina,”18 or the “Reshainan,” was educated at Alexandria19 in matters Hellenistic,20 at the very least, including theology and medicine, and he was admired for his learning.21 Our testimonia to Sergius after Zacharias are late,22 though they are presumably based on earlier sources. The memory of Sergius as an expert in Greek matters (and particularly in medicine) continued for some time. Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a (1203-1270) in a parenthesis
18 It is still called Ra’s al-‘Ain and is located on the Khabur River at 36.825125 N, 40.049286 E in the Al-Ḥasakah governorate in northeast Syria on the border with Turkey. See also Yaqut’s Geographical Dictionary (Mu‘jam al-Buldān) (Beirut, 1977), vol. 3, pp. 13-14.
19 Cf. A. Baumstark, Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae (Leipzig, 1904), p. 367. Further on, Baumstark (p. 382) says of Sergius in that city: “Alexandriae, quo tunc undique artium et doctrinarum divitiae confluebant, litteris sacris et profanis imbutus, omnes, quotquot suae aetatis hominibus Syris scitu digni videbantur,locos scientiarum cognitos habebat et tractatos.” On Alexandria in Late Antiquity, particularly from the viewpoint of medical history, which of course is very relevant for understanding Sergius, see Peter E. Pormann and Emilie Savage-Smith, Medieval Islamic Medicine (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 12-15, with the literature cited there.
20 “Sergius de Reschaina se forma à l’école des Grecs” (Duval, p. 281).
21 Modern scholars, too, continue to cite Sergius as an early paragon of thorough Greek learning among Syriac authors: “Conspicuous among the scholars of this age for his knowledge of Greek, and more especially of the Aristotelian philosophy, was Sergius…” (Wright, Short History, p. 88).
22 I have followed Baumstark (Lucubrationes, pp. 368-369) in taking the references to Ϲέργιοϲ ὁ ἑρμηνεύϲ in the Greek historian Agathias (535-580) as not pointing to our Sergius (contra Renan, De Philosophia, pp. 24-25 with n. 1). There are also some grammarians named Ϲέργιοϲ, references to whom Baumstark spends several pages cautiously discussing (Lucubrationes, pp. 369-374; also see pp. 374-380 on “Sergius the Greek, son of Elias”), but the identification of any one of them with Sergius of Reshaina is fraught with uncertainties and too convoluted to explore here.
5
mentions Sergius as a translator of Greek works into Syriac.23 When Barhebraeus (1225/6-1286) comes to the time of the famous Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (808-873) he tells how Ḥunayn, reared in al-Ḥīra, went to Baghdad and then left to spend time among the Greeks learning their language and literature. When Ḥunayn returned to Baghdad an accomplished Hellenistic scholar he approached the chief physician of the city, Gabriel,24 who tested him and exclaimed, “If this young man lives, he will leave no memory to Sergius of Reshaina!”25 Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a in fact considers Sergius to have been only a mediocre translator and Ḥunayn to have surpassed him.26 We might well doubt, however, Ibn Abī Uṣaibi‘a’s ability to judge the matter competently and without bias:27 he
probably knew neither Greek nor Syriac and was more akin to Ḥunayn, not religiously but at least linguistically. Before Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a, Ḥunayn himself mentions Sergius numerous times in his famous Risālah on the translations of Galen into Syriac and
23 A. Müller (ed.), ‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (Cairo, 1882; reprint, Frankfurt, 1995), vol. I, 186, lines 4-5: “This Sergius, whom Gabriel mentions, was from Reshaina and he was the first to translate anything from Greek science into the language of the Syrians.” The text is also in Baumstark, Lucubrationes, pp. 361-362, with notes on 492-493, where he compares it with (the Arabic version of) Barhebraeus’ report (see below for the Syriac reference). The supposed reference to our Sergius in al-Nadīm’s Fihrist (see the English translation of B. Dodge, vol. 2, p. 852) is on shaky ground. While it is tempting to see Sergius here, there are problems with the spelling of the name, as well as exactly what kind of work is being attributed to him (and who is Quwairi, Bishop of Edessa, mentioned there?); the Arabic text is on p. 354 of Flügel’s edition, vol. 1, line 19 (see also the notes and variants in vol. 2, pp. 191-192). The subsequent reference to “Sergius the Monk” is even less sure (contra Dodge, p. 853, note 86).
24 On this Gabriel see Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 227, and the lengthy treatment by al-Qifṭī (J. Lippert [ed.],Ibn al-Qifṭī’s Ta’rīḫ al-Ḥukamā’ (Leipzig, 1903], pp. 132-146).
25 In Renan’s words (De Philosophia, p. 25), “quasi nihil majus dici aut fingi posset.” This is the same story recorded in Ibn Abī Uṣaibi‘a mentioned above. The line translated here may be found in E.A.W. Budge (ed. and trans.), The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj…Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), vol. 2, fol. 53v, col. b, lines 17-19 (cf. P. Bedjan (ed.) Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum [Paris, 1890], p. 162, lines 22-23), with Budge’s translation in vol. 1, pp. 147-148.
26 “Sergius Ra’sī, of the town Ra’s al-‘Ayn, translated many books but was mediocre in the skill of
translation [mutawassiṭan fī al-naql]. Ḥunayn would improve his translation and what is found in the improvement of Ḥunayn is the good, but what is found without [his] improvement is of medium quality,” (Müller, vol. I, p. 204, near the bottom; the text is also given in Baumstark, Lucubrationes, p. 364).
27 Cf. Renan, De Philosophia, pp. 28-29, and Baumstark, Lucubrationes, p.366.
6
Arabic.28 He often finds little to praise in Sergius’ translations, but he does note
improvement in Sergius’ ability over time.29 Sergius was seen as the first of skilled physicians in the Greek tradition, and Barhebraeus names him at the head of such a list.30 It is worth pointing out that his regular appellation ἀρχίατροϲ, “chief physician.”31 Though presumably a skilled and successful practitioner of medicine, it is as a translator that posterity especially reveres him. As (ps.-)Zacharias mentioned, Sergius translated the Dionysian corpus into Syriac,32 and the introduction to another Syriac translation of ps.-Dionysius refers to Sergius’ previous work: “that which was translated a long time ago from Greek into Syriac by the pious and skillful Sergius, presbyter and chief
28 The work was originally written in Syriac, but it does not survive in that language. There was a first and second Arabic edition, the second extant in two recensions, one of which was published by G. Bergsträsser, with German translation (Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 17.2, Leipzig, 1925]), and the second is soon to appear (with English translation) in John Lamoreaux, Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on His Galen Translations (Eastern Christian Texts 3, Provo, forthcoming).
29 I have mainly used Lamoreaux’s forthcoming work (see previous note); the following reference numbers correspond (sometimes roughly) to Bergsträsser’s page and line numbers as well. Of the many references to Sergius in the Risālah, especially relevant are the following: First, on the poor quality of Sergius’ work, 9.5, 13.4, 15.3, 19.5, 20.3-4, 51.6; and second, on Sergius’ progression as a translator, 6.6, 8.7, 16.9 (specifically mentions training in Alexandria), 22.13.
30 Budge’s translation, Chronography, pp. 56-57 in vol. 1; the accompanying Syriac volume, a ms.
facsimile, has the text on fol. 21r, col. a, line 16-col. b, line 5 (= Bedjan, p. 57, lines 12-17): “Shapur built a city in Persia and named it Gundishapur and had his Roman wife live there. Skilled men from the Greeks, physicians, came with her, and they planted the Hippocratic study of medicine in the east. There were also excellent Syrian physicians, such as Sergius of Reshaina, for he first brought over medical books from Greek into Syriac.”
31 As Renan (De Philosophia, p. 24) remarks, it is no surprise that Sergius was a physician and a bishop at the same time, since these studies (medical and ecclesiastical) were so closely joined together among Syrians of Sergius’ time. The same scholar later that year wrote of Sergius’ dual expertise that it was a “témoignage remarquable de l’alliance des études ecclésiastiques et profanes chez les Syriens au viiie siècle” (“Lettre,” p. 320). Sergius remains at once, it seems, a representative of both camps. Authors up to the early sixth century generally approached Greek learning with an eye to theology and the church, but “Avec Serge de Rēš ‘Aynā commence une nouvelle période” (J. Habbi, “Le langage philosophique syriaque,” in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C. Molenberg, and G.J. Reinink (eds), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, Rome, 1987), p. 234).
32 See Fiori’s contribution in this volume and I. Perczel, “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius,” in (ed.), Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), with literature cited in these. Sergius himself also wrote an introduction to the works of Dionysius, which is contained in the late (post fourteenth century) ms. BL Add. 22370 (Wright, Catalogue, pp. 500-501). Sergius himself refers to the Dionysian writings and his translation of them in his On the Spiritual Life §§ 114-122, P. Sherwood, (ed. and trans.), “Mimro de Serge de Rešayna sur la vie spirituelle,” L’Orient Syrien, 5 (1961), pp. 146-151.
7
physician.”33 In this ms. Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa,34 who revised the earlier
translation of Sergius, says of the work, “all of us Syrians who read the work35 marvel and praise it on account of the superiority of its meanings, its divinity, which in truth is worthy of marveling.”36 Finally, while it is remarkable that Sergius earned mention in the catalog of mostly Church of the East authors by ‘Abdišo‘ bar Brikhā (d. 1318)37 at all, it is somewhat curious that he is only associated there with “commentaries on logic” and not at all with medicine or translation.
The Syriac De Mundo
It is best to begin as Sergius himself did, with his preface to the translation. It is
especially fitting to include here in full since it has not hitherto appeared in English: [107v] The letter composed by Aristotle the philosopher for Alexander the King on the knowledge of the things that exist, which you, the elect, have sent me and commanded38 that I translate according to my ability from Greek speech to the language of the Syrians, I have received whence you sent it. I have, though,
33 See Wright, Catalogue, p. 494). The text is from BL Add. 12151, fol. 1b, with introduction and notes by Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa, ms. dated 804 CE.
34 On Phocas see J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 1 (Rome, 1719), p. 468, and Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 271-272.
35 It is unclear whether Phocas is praising the work itself or the translation specifically, but the reference to “all…Syrians,” who would have in general been more familiar with a work in Syriac than one in Greek and thus would have known the work in Sergius’ version, favors the latter possibility. On the other hand, the fact that Phocas himself revised the translation leads one to believe that he thought the translation in need of improvement, or at least adaptation.
36 See Wright, Catalogue, p. 494. Incidentally, Sergius also finds mention as a source in the Syriac(-Arabic) lexica: see W. Gesenius, De Bar Alio et Bar Bahlulo, Lexicographis Syro-Arabicis Ineditis, Commentatio Litteraria Philologica (Leipzig, 1834), p. 30; R. Payne Smith, Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, pt VI, Codices Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mendaeos Complectens (Oxford, 1864), cols. 606, 620.
37 The text is in J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 3.1 (Rome, 1725), p. 87.
38 Cf. also “your commands” at 107vβ36 and “your command” at 108rα2. Sergius composed his preface to the translation along the same lines as other prefaces in Syriac literature and he includes in it the common themes of an order or request to undertake a project (E. Riad, Studies in the Syriac Preface [Uppsala, 1988], pp. 191-196) and mention of his own humility (at 108rα9-11; cf. Riad, Syriac Preface, pp. 197-202).
8
been hindered39 from the work until now for various reasons, which it is not now
time to mention. But now, since it is necessary, I have decided to fulfill your
commands. Even though many other important things have been preventing me,
[108r] I have let them all go for the sake of your command for me and have taken
pains to accomplish your will. But I urge you, dear sir, that if another copy40 of
this letter is found, in which is anything more or less, please, elect one, do not
blame our weakness:41 that which I have found in the copy that was sent from
you, dear sir, I have taken care to preserve completely, neither adding anything to those things written here by the philosopher, nor on the other hand taking away from them according to my ability.42
It cannot be said with certainty to whom Sergius addresses this preface, or who the one who asked for this Syriac version of the DM is. Renan43 assumes that the preface is addressed to his known correspondent Theodore of Karḫ Juddān (located on the Diyala river near the present day Iraq-Iran border),44 and Wright,45 following Renan, says that the work “was translated for Theodore,” but this is simply not certain; it may well be that this Theodore is the addressee but he is not explicitly named, in contrast, for example, to
39 This word makes no sense as it stands. The verb baggen means “to complain,” or “to appeal to,” but the meaning from context is almost certainly, “I have been hindered.” Additionally, there is the ending -yt, which does occur in some later texts, but would be irregular in a text this early. In light of these difficulties, it is probable that we have here eṯbagḥeṯ, a phonetic variant of eṯpagḥeṯ, “I have been hindered,” the ḥēṯ being miswritten as nun-yoḏ.
40 This apparently refers to another exemplar of the Greek text.
41 Similarly, Sergius says of his translation of Dionysius that it was completed (SpirLife §114.6 [Sherwood, pp. 146-147]), “according to the weakness of my intellect,” and he hopes that it will succeed despite (ibid. §121.4-5), “our ignorance.”
42 Sergius brackets his preface with this expression here and above at 107vβ26 (inclusio). He uses similar expressions elsewhere, e.g. (SpirLife §115.2, 6 [Sherwood, pp. 146-147]).
43 De Philosophia, p. 26, “Lettre,” p. 321.
44 This Theodore was formerly that to be “of Merv,” but see Hugonnard-Roche, p. 124, n. 13), where his identity is established. For Karḫ Juddān, see Yaqut, vol. 4, p. 449, and Jean Maurice Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 3 (Beirut, 1968), pp. 71-74). I thank Hidemi Takahashi for the last reference.
45 Catalogue, p. 1157.
9
Sergius’ translation of Galen’s De Simplicibus;46 in addition, we know that Sergius had other patrons.47
The history of Greek-Syriac translation and various examples across its spectrum
have been discussed elsewhere,48 but interest in the subject justly continues to urge scholars to pry into the matter more thoroughly. Suffice it to say here that there is a tendency49 of translators to use a “free” method of rendering in the fourth and fifth centuries, while in the seventh century they show a conspicuous literalism in their work.50 This leaves the sixth century as an intermediate period, and it proves indeed to be a time of transition in translation methodology as well. Sergius, our translator, who died in 536, shows in his translation of the DM a number of characteristics that, on the one hand, echo the practice of the fourth and fifth century translators, but on the other, some that also forecast the work of the seventh century literalists.
46 See A. Merx, “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel,”Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 39 (1885): pp. 244, 272, 286.
47 The treatise On the Spiritual Life was addressed to a Mar Stephen: see §123 of the work (Sherwood, pp. 150-153).
48 For example, Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 75-95, 102-104, 106-107, 159-173, 251-252, 256-257, 261-268; S.P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979): 69-87; “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique,” in René Lavenant (ed.), III Symposium Syriacum 1980. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Rome, 1983); Brief Outline pp. 143-145; D. King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique (Louvain, 2009), pp. 11-25; see also his “Paul of Callinicum and his Place in Syriac Literature,” Le Muséon, 120 (2007), with the items he mentions on pp. 327-38, and, for more on Sergius, Fiori’s contribution in this volume and King’s forthcoming paper in Le Muséon.
49 It must be stressed that this scheme highlights the main trends, and that there are translations that diverge from the pattern presented here. The Syriac version of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos, for example, was made very early, but tends toward the literal. In general one finds in this translation “un souci evident de littéralisme chez le traducteur” (P.-H. Poirier, and C. Sensal, “Du grec au syriaque: quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du Contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra,” in René Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 [Rome, 1990], pp. 315). In conclusion: “Si nous voulions caractériser brèvement son enterprise, nous dirions qu’elle se situe quelque part entre les traductions sensus de sensu et celles verbumn de verbo, plus proche, toutefois, des dernières que des premières” (ibid., pp. 317-18).
50 The hallmark examples of this approach are the Ḥarqlean version of the New Testament and the Syro-Hexapla Old Testament. In general, see S.P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway, 2006), pp. 37, 47-48, 50; and the articles A. Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version” and A.G. Salvesen, “Syro-Hexapla” in the forthcoming Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage (Piscataway), for a study of translation technique in the Syro-Hexapla, see T. Skat Rørdam, Libri Judicum et Ruth secundum Versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem (Copenhagen, 1861), pp. 3-59.
10
We are fortunate to have, in his own words, some statements by Sergius about
translation and the praxis of it.51 A passage, the Syriac text of which is unfortunately not yet published, from his Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories (British Library, Add. ms. 14658, f.60v) gives a picture of Sergius at work translating Galen. Brock52 has translated the text and his version of the pertinent sentence runs as follows: “When we were translating certain works of the doctor Galen from Greek into Syriac, I used to translate, while you would write it down for me, correcting the Syriac wording, in accordance with the requirements of the idiom of this language.”53 An obvious question: Why was correction necessary for Sergius’ Syriac? More pointedly, “Est-ce à dire que le style de Sergius était defectueux, ou que sa langue était incorrecte” (Hugonnard-Roche 1997:
131)? Hugonnard-Roche answers the question with “Il semble plus probable que
l’allusion de Sergius se rapporte à un procédé de traduction à deux, l’un traduisant au fil du grec, l’autre améliorant le style de la version orale en la mettant par écrit” (1997: 132).
51 In addition to the following words of Sergius, another statement of his on translation may be found in On the Spiritual Life, §§121-122 (pp. 150-151 in Sherwood), but since it is less focused on the praxis of translation itself and more on the theory, we only mention it without any further discussion.
52 Brief Outline, p. 202. The same passage also has an important declaration about the broad usefulness of Aristotelian logic; see Brock’s translation in Brief Outline, p. 204, and also From Ephrem to Romanos, chap. 3, p. 43 n. 76. The passage was paraphrased, it seems, in the much later Chronicon ad annum 1234 (ed. J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1920), pp. 104-105, where we read: “At this time [Alexander has just been mentioned] Aristotle the philosopher gathered together all the scattered species [āḏšē] of philosophical teachings and made from them one great corpus [gušmā], dense with meanings and powerful teachings, because he separated the truth from falsehood. Without reading this book of logic he made, it is impossible to grasp the knowledge of books, the understanding of teachings, and the power that is in Holy Scripture, on which the hope of Christians depends, unless someone is granted favor from the Holy Spirit (who makes
everyone wise), on account of the excellence of his life.”
53 This description in some ways brings to mind Jerome’s quick work of bringing Tobit into Latin, which he describes in a letter to Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus: “quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem repperiens, unius diei laborem arripui et quicquid ille mihi hebraicis verbis expressit, haec ego accito notario sermonibus latinis exposui.” The letter may be conveniently found in R. Weber and R. Gryson (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem (4t ed., Stuttgart, 1994) as the preface to Tobit. But even more relevant to out subject here is a passage from Ḥunayn’s Risālah (Lamoreaux, 22.15) on his correction of one of Sergius’ translations: there Ḥunayn records a two-person approach to revising the text, one (Ḥunayn) with the Greek and one with the
Syriac; the latter reads Sergius’ Syriac and Ḥunayn speaks up whenever there is a contradiction of the Greek.
11
If this reconstructed picture of Sergius translating is on the mark, then we might well expect to see in his translated products some elements that are akin to the freer earlier Syriac translations, as well as some elements that will match later seventh century translation activity, that is, a mixture of the two methods.
It is appropriate now to take a look, albeit a selective and brief one, at some ways
in which Sergius’ translation technique especially manifests itself.
Editing
By “editing” I mean the addition or omission of words, phrases, or even sentences that the translator felt free to make. Such editing is also known from other Syriac translations.54 It is, of course, not always possible to distinguish such additions or omissions from textual variants. Sergius adds very many words in Syriac to repeat verbs in long sentences or to make explicit words only assumed in Greek, as can be seen in the Syriac-Greek Index where there is no corresponding Greek word given. Some examples of Sergius’ changes follow in list form.
• At 108vβ33, b-ḥuḏrā w-ḇa-ḵrāḵā (“in a circle and circuit”), there is no
corresponding word in the Syriac text to the Greek numeral in μιᾷ περιαγωγῇ καὶ κύκλῳ. This is, of course, not a major change, but it does show that Sergius, here at least, is not following the Greek in a servile manner.
• Where the Greek has διάμετροϲ ἔϲται τοῦ κόϲμου, Sergius (109rα20)
expands the phrase to āmrinan d-hu hānā surṭā diyameṭros iṯāu(hy) d-‘ālmā, that is, he
54 See, for example, C.E. Morrison, The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel (Leiden, 2001), pp. 78-82 and G. Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden, 2002), pp. 32-45, 97-102.
12
has not translated the word ἔϲται exactly, but has gone from “it will be a diameter of the cosmos” to “we say that this line is a diameter of the universe.”
• 109vβ11 μέχριϲ ἧϲ ὁρίζεται ὁ αἰθήρ | da-‘ḏammā l-ṣēḏāu(hy) men lǝ‘el āṯē
aṯir w-ṯammān mettaḥam (“which the aether comes next to at the top and is bounded there”). Sergius, in adding “coming from above” and “and there,” does not change the meaning, but he has not adhered to the Greek text.
• 114vβ19-23 Τούτων δὲ οἱ μὲν καὶ πνεῦμα προϲαναβάλλουϲιν, οἱ δὲ
πέτραϲ | w-henon dēn hālēn, menhon ruḥē gāḏēn w-massqin men gaw ar‘ā, w-menhon kēfē rawrǝḇē (“Some of these cast winds and make them rise from within the earth, some large stones”). Sergius has added “and make them rise from within the earth” and describes the stones as “large,” as opposed to being undefined in the Greek.
• At 117rα9-10 τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πρώτην ἕδραν becomes rēšā
hāḵēl hāw d-qaḏmāy ṭāḇ wa-m‘allay ‘ālmā (“the top, then, that is first and exalted, the world”), that is ἀνωτάτω and πρώτην have switched places. It is possible that there is a textual mix-up, but it is also possible that in Syriac it was more usual to say “first and highest” than “highest and first,” just as in English we always say “bigger and better,” and never “better and bigger.”
• At 118vβ17 Sergius has added a substantive to the numeral: ἐξ ἑνόϲ | ḥaḏ
hwāyā (“one essence”).
• The reason why Sergius omits the reference to Sophocles (τοῦ
ποιήϲαντοϲ) at 121rα10 is unclear, but it is possible that he thought his readers would not be familiar with the line (in contrast to the Homeric quotations) or the poet and therefore
13
simply translated it with no indication that it is a poetic citation, but since Stobaeus, with whom Sergius shares a number of readings, also lacks it,55 it may have stood thus in his Greek exemplar. While a reader perusing the De Mundo in Greek might be expected to know, or at least be able to figure out, the references to etymological explanation, a reader going through the text in Syriac cannot be expected to have the same knowledge and ability available to him. Sergius, therefore, responsibly makes additions to the text in his translation to make these sections more palatable to his Syriac audience. In his discussion of the meaning of aether, Sergius supplies the information (109rβ5-7) b-yaḏ d-ḏāmē (h)u
šmā hānā da-mšalhḇē b-yawnāyā l-aṯir (“because the word for ‘glowing hot’ in Greek resembles [the word] aether”), on the name Olympus (120rα18-25) dumyā gēr da-šmēh da-šmayyā b-lešānā yawnāyā, a(y)ḵ tḥumā iṯāw(hy) da-l‘el, meṭṭul da-l-šmayyā qārēn lēh uranos, wa-l-tḥumā oros, wa-l‘el anon (“for the likeness of the noun ‘heaven’ in the Greek language is as ‘the limit above,’ for they call ‘heaven’ ouranos, ‘limit’ oros,56 and ‘above’ anōn57), and, although the connection is not fully clear, he is obviously trying to give his readers some etymological information from Greek in his mention of Peprōmenē (121vβ25-33).
In the classification of winds in Chapter Four, we find several changes. Here
(394b19ff.) the four main types are given according to origin and are then further
subdivided. It will be instructive to examine some of the differences between the Greek
55 The direct tradition of the DM is almost uniform in having it (see Lorimer’s apparatus), and it is unlikely that it is simply a later gloss.
56 Not horos: the pronunciation of the rough breathing had long since passed away in Greek.
57 Sic! What can explain the ending in -n? There is a phenomenon in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic where indeclinable words ending in a long vowel appear with -n (E.Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic [trans. Michael Sokoloff, Ramat-Gan, 1976], p. 61 with the literature at n. 79), and analogous behavior may have taken place here.
14
and Syriac texts. In the section on the Εὖροι, the order of the wind-names in Greek is καικίαϲ, ἀπηλιώτηϲ, εὖροϲ, but second in Syriac: maḏnḥāyā, then qaiqiyas, ending with apiliyoṭis, but, in the case of ἀπηλιώτηϲ and εὖροϲ, only the order of the names is different, not the order of the descriptions, the result being that the description of the Syriac apiliyoṭis actually matches the Greek description of εὖροϲ, etc. Additionally, ἀπὸ τοῦ…τόπου πνέων occurs only once in Greek, but in Syriac it (d-nāšeḇ men aṯrā) appears with all three wind descriptions. In the list of Ζέφυροι, the first two (of three) names, with their proper descriptions, have been switched: Greek ἀργέϲτηϲ, ζέφυροϲ, λίψ; but Syriac ma‘rḇāyā, then agrēsṭis (sic, with metathesis of r and g), then libā. In the list of Βορέαι, the wind θραϲκίαϲ has its proper definition, but it is in the second place in Syriac, not the third, as in Greek. The other two winds, βορέαϲ and ἀπαρκτίαϲ, have their descriptions
switched in the Syriac, and the phrase κατὰ τὸ μεϲημβρινόν __________(properly in the description of ἀπαρκτίαϲ) is completely absent in the Syriac, even in the description garbyāyā, where we would expect it due to the switching of names and definitions. Finally, the section on the Νότοι is remarkably intact in Syriac. There is an exact fit in the order, although with some additional details, and instead of εὐρόνοτοϲ being described as μεταξὺ νότου καὶ εὔρου, it is said to be hāw d-ḇaināṯ taimnā l-apiliyoṭis, that is, ἀπηλιώτηϲ stands for εὖροϲ, just as in the list of Εὖροι. The fact that we find the discrepancy here too, suggests that the switch between these two winds was intentional. Perhaps the differences between the Greek and Syriac are due to the dissimilar orientation toward the major winds in Greek and Mesopotamian science.58
58 See J. Neumann, “The Winds in the World of the Ancient Mesopotamian Civilizations,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 58 (1977): 1050-1055, with bibliography; cf. W. Horowitz,
15
To conclude, we may say that Sergius has, while not reticent to add words for
clarification (and Syriac style?) or omit words for smooth Syriac reading, followed even the details of the DM, but not on a narrow level focused on individual words.
Doublets
One of the most striking aspects of the Syriac DM is the large number of doublets, that is, “la traduction d’un seul mot grec par deux termes syriaques plus ou moins proches l’un de l’autre.”59 There are at least 39 examples of doublets in the Syriac DM. Poirier and Sensal gave attention to doublets in their study of the Syriac version of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos, and due to the large number of such translations in the DM, we will do well to consider them too. These doublets, especially in their large number, show how free Sergius felt himself to explain Greek words by offering synonyms, and to deviate from any quantitative correspondence60 between the Greek and Syriac texts. But
this characteristic of Sergius’ translation method is probably more than just a matter of precise explanation, since the use of near synonyms juxtaposed together is in fact a feature of native Syriac writing too, and even of high Semitic style generally.61 In addition, “le recours au doublet trahit la volonté de rendre un préverbe grec,”62 examples from Contra Manichaeos including meṯpseq wǝ-meṯpleg = κατατεμνομένου and neṯḥre luqbal = ἀντιλέγειν. This usage of a doublet in the DM occurs at 121vβ8-9
Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, 1998), pp. 196-198, 200-204).
59 Poirier and Sensal, p. 311; cf. J. Joosten, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds), The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium, Held at Leiden, 19-21 August 1993 (Leiden, 1995), p. 63.
60 M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge and New York, 1999), p. 23, discusses doublets under the heading “Quantitative correspondence.”
61 Specifically for Syriac, merely from a random and quick perusal of Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron we find several examples: J.-B. Chabot (ed.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem. (Paris, 1928): 85b5, 146a18-19, 147b9, [13-14 similar], 147b24-25, 150a28-29.
62 Poirier and Sensal, p. 313.
16
maite…masseq | ἀνενέγκατο and 110rα32 meṯyaldin w-gāḏēn | ἀναλιϲκομένοιϲ.
This phenomenon is not restricted to one part of speech: verbs, nouns, and
adjectives all may be translated with a doublet. While these kinds of translation are common in Sergius’ DM, we find others that also call for mention here. At 117vβ13-14 simply for κόϲμοϲ we find ṣeḇtēh wǝ-rabbuṯēh wǝ-ya’yuṯēh: a triplet! Such expansions are rare, to be sure, but there is at least another one in the Contra Manichaeos: rēšānuṯā wǝ-‘attiquṯā wǝ-qaḏmāyuṯā = τὸ ἀρχαιότερον.63 Oddly, in two places Sergius reduced paired items in Greek to only one in Syriac: 114vβ32 zu‘zā‘ā | ἐγκλίϲεϲι καὶ ἀποπάλϲεϲι and 117vα27 allāhā | δεϲπότηϲ καὶ θεὸϲ. Sergius similarly turns three Greek verbs (εὕρηται καὶ διατέτακται καὶ ϲυνέχεται) into only two in Syriac at 119vα17-18: eštǝḵaḥ w-ettaqqan. A few further examples follow:
108rβ22 kannšaṯ w-ḥeḇšaṯ ϲυνεφόρηϲε
“gathered and included”
117rα7 raḥiqān w-maḇ‘ḏān πόρρω
“far away and distant”
118vβ19 qrāh w-šammhāh ὀνομάϲαϲα
“called it and named it”
119vβ35 asrēh…w-raḵḇēh ϲυνδῆϲαι
“bound it…and put it together”
120rβ12 ba-ṣlawwāṯā wa-b-taḵšfāṯā εὐχὰϲ ποιούμενοι
63 Ibid.
17
“with prayers and with supplications”
Other than Poirier and Sensal, Jan Joosten has also given attention to doublets in Syriac translations, in his case those of the book of Proverbs. He arrived at the conclusion that the doublets in the Syriac Proverbs “are typical of the working method of the author—possibly of the group of authors—who produced the version roughly as we know it today”.64 The large number of these doublet translations in the DM, in addition to those in the Contra Manichaeos and in Proverbs, show that this phenomenon deserves more attention in future studies of translations into Syriac, which will, no doubt, reveal more occurrences of this feature and will perhaps provide us with enough data to understand with more precision the causes and development of this unique characteristic.
Terms Differently Translated
It is commonly assumed that lexical consistency is a mark of literal translation.
Whether or not such consistency is a mark of literalism or not,65 it may tell us something about key terms in a translated text and how they were interpreted by the translator, and therefore how they would be received in the target language. In the case of the DM, some of the frequently occurring scientific terms naturally lend themselves to this kind of investigation. There are, of course, many cases where Sergius has been consistent in his rendering of this or that Greek term, as a perusal of both texts will show.66 This fact, however, does not definitively tell us anything about Sergius’ method of translation; he may happen to translate a Greek word by the same Syriac word because the two words
64 Joosten, “Doublet Translations,” p. 63.
65 J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XV, Göttingen, 1979), pp. 305-314.
66 See my A Greek and Syriac Index to Sergius of Reshaina’s Version of the De Mundo (Piscataway, 2009).
18
have a similar range of meaning in both languages,67 not because of any overt proclivity toward consistency in the translation of lexemes.
The terms for bodies of water θάλαϲϲ/ττα, κόλποϲ, and πέλαγοϲ occur several
times in the DM. At the outset of this discussion of how Sergius translates each of them, it must be remembered that the niceties of this semantic domain are not part of common linguisic purview. In English, for example, while speakers are comfortable with the words “river,” “lake,” “pond,” and “ocean,” far fewer are comfortable with the distinction between “bay” and “gulf,” or, say, “creek,” “brook,” “stream,” and “beck.” The Greek islands and even the mainland are, of course, always very near bodies of water of some kind, so there were certain terms in use among their inhabitants that they would have been very familiar with. Semites will not have had the same range of meaning for names
used for bodies of water as Greek islanders. The three Greek terms under discussion here are all common and presumably well-known to anyone who knows Greek, but the fact is that the terms were not all that specific (see LSJ s.vv.). Θάλαϲϲα might refer, for example, to the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Black Sea; Aristotle (Meteorology 351a9) uses the term of a salt lake. Πέλαγοϲ may be used of the broad, open sea, but also of parts of the sea named for its geographical environs. We even find expressions like πέλαγοϲ θαλάϲϲηϲ (Appolonius Rhodius 2.608). Herodotus (2.97) uses πέλαγοϲ, perhaps waxing poetic, of a flooded plain. The term κόλποϲ, which may refer to
any inner part of something, such as the womb or the fold of a garment, is defined doubly for water as “bay, gulf.”68 All this is to make clear what might have been obvious: these are not strictly used terms. For this reason, and the aforementioned geographical factors
67 Weitzman, p. 27.
68 LSJ, p. 974, meaning III.2.
19
that differently informed the usual vocabularies of Greek and the Semitic languages, we can hardly impugn Sergius’ lack of consistency in how he brings them into Syriac.
The first of these terms is usually yammā (“sea,” as 110rα27, 110rβ27, 110vβ27,
and 111vα32), and the related verb ἐθαλάττωϲαν at 120rβ35 is translated šaḥlef l-yammā (“it changed [much dry land] to sea”), but τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλαϲϲαν becomes (111rβ3) ‘ubbā hāw d-meṯqre d-suf (“the bay that is called [the bay] of Suf”).69 Sergius also renders πέλαγο with yammā a few times (e.g. 110rβ23, 110vβ16). At 110vα37 μεγάλοιϲ…πελάγεϲιν becomes men yammē ḥrānē rawrḇē, that is, he has used yammā, but these words at 110rβ30 are rendered men ‘ubbē rawrḇē dǝ-yammā, that is, with ‘ubbā, which also stands for πέλαγοϲ at 111rα15 and 115rα35. This word ‘ubbā (“bay, gulf”) is also Sergius’ most frequent choice for κόλποϲ (e.g. 110vβ32, 111rβ21, 118rβ38) and the related adjective ἐγκολπίαι and verbal phrase become, respectively (112vα36 and 111rα4) ‘ubbānē and meṯpleg la-ṯrēn ‘ubbin. As we saw both ‘ubbā and yammā for πέλαγοϲ at
110rβ30, so, too, at 112vα35 men ‘ubbē d-yammē (“from gulfs of seas”) renders ἐκ κόλπων. Due perhaps to the looseness of meaning of the terms in Greek or Syriac, perhaps to the paucity of terms in Syriac (only two used in the instances above), perhaps to both, Sergius shows himself to be without concern for a precise rendering of these words for bodies of water.
Another scientific term that occurs several times in the DM is κεραυνόϲ. As with
the vocabulary for bodies of water, this word has more than one usual meaning. It is traditionally translated into English as “thunderbolt,” but this is due to its frequent
69 That is, the Red Sea; compare, for example, Exodus 15:22 and Joshua 24:6 in Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac.
20
occurrence in mythological texts as the weapon and sign of Zeus, not to any specific meteorological description, in which kinds of texts the word, in fact, is used of both thunder and lightning,70 although Greek has more common terms for these phenomena as well (βροντή and ἀϲτραπή). Sergius’ inconsistency in translating κεραυνόϲ into Syriac suggests that there was no accepted or thoroughly suitable word in Syriac for it.71 Sergius translates the word with (112rα18) zelgā and twice (113vβ4, 17) with zalqā dǝ-māḥe (“a lightning ray that strikes”), but elsewhere he uses barqā, the regular word for “lightning,”
for κεραυνόϲ: at 110rα24 merely barqin, but later at 116rβ21 he adds an adjective, barqē taqqifē (“intense lightning”). The compound word ἀρχικέραυνοϲ and the derivative κεραύνιοϲ become, respectively, maḇreq barqē72 (“one that causes lightning to flash”) and ‘āḇeḏ barqē wǝ-ra‘mē (“maker of lightning and thunder,” at 121vα29 and 121vα1).
Let us now consider some words that do not occur as frequently, but which
Sergius translates differently on one occasion or other. Sometimes polysemy in the Greek is the cause fordifferent translations into Syriac, as for ἀρχή we find
122rβ2) rēšē (lit. “heads”) as well as šulṭānā (“rule, authority”) and šurāyā (“beginning”); for δώρον we find (108vβ4, 117vα36) mawhḇāṯā (“gifts”) and qurbānē (“offerings”). By far the greater number of places, however, where the same Greek word has been translated with a different Syriac word are instances where Sergius simply seems to have chosen two (or more) Syriac words of similar meaning to translate the same Greek word
70 The several derivatives of the word (LSJ, p. 942) also show that both thunder and lightning are associated with the term.
71 Cf. H. Takahashi, Aristotelian Meteorology in Syriac: Barhebraeus, Butyrum Sapientiae, Books of Mineralogy and Meteorology (Leiden, 2004), p. 541 n. 18. In Syriac Jacob b. Šakko defines a kehrāwnos (=κεραυνόϲ) as “a thunderbolt [paq‘ā] that comes down from the clouds and destroys every body it comes down upon” (Syriac text in F. Nau, “Notice sur le livre des trésors,” Journal Asiatique, 9th series, 7 [1896], pp. 327-328); for Job of Edessa’s description, see A. Mingana (ed. and trans.), Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa (Cambridge, 1935), p. 422b.
72 The ms. mistakenly has qrābē for this word.
21
in different places; that is, he has not interpreted the Greek differently at each occurrence, but only offered a variant Syriac word, in some cases, a plain synonym. Examples of this practice include: ἀκίνητοϲ = d-lā mettzi‘ānuṯā and d-lā zaw‘ā (both mean “without movement,” 109rα28, 110vα5), ἄϲτρον = kawkḇā (“star,” 108vβ30) and nahhirā (“luminary,” 114rα13, 19), βιαίως = qṭirā’iṯ and ‘azzizā’iṯ (113vα4, 113vβ2), ἰδέα = znā and āḏšā (both terms can mean “kind,” 114rβ4, 118rα27), κορυφαῖοϲ = rēšā (lit. “head,” 118vβ34) and mallfānā (“teacher,” 120vα36).
Proper Names
Brock mentions the remarkable rendering of Ζεύϲ at Acts 14:12 in the Peshitta by
mārē allāhā.73 A translator working from Greek into a Semitic language also, at least in some cases, has the option of transliteration or a substitute, this time a substitute of native Mesopotamian tradition. In theDM Sergius often simply transliterates the Greek name, but other times he gives a Syriac substitute. When “Zeus” refers to the god, he gives zeus (as 120rβ15, 121vα26),74 but when the planet Jupiter is meant, the Syriac name is bēl (as 109vα31, 118vβ8). Where the DM gives more than one name for a planet, Sergius is not always consistent in how he translates the different terms. Mars is named both Πυρόειϲ and Ἄρεοϲ, which Sergius translates (109vα33-34) with hāw summāqā (“the red”) and daris,
but later (118vβ6) Πυρόειϲ is also translated with d-aris. In this list of planet names at the end of 109vα we also see both bēlaṯ(y) (“lady”) and kawkaḇṯā (fem. of “star, planet”) for Venus (Ἀφροδίτηϲ and ὁ τοῦ Φωϲφόρου [cf. 118vβ4] in Greek), and for
73 “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek,” in Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New
Testament (Oxford, 1977), p. 87.
74 But at 121rβ25 he translates the name—here in the accusative Ζῆνα—with ḥayyā “living” to
communicate the connection between Zeus’ name and “life.”
22
Saturn (Κρόνοϲ) kēwān (cf. 118vβ11), but the other names are transliterated, with the exception of Ϲτίλβων (Mercury), which Sergius (109vα36) just translates into Syriac, maḇreq (“flashing, shining”), that is, as a common adjective used for a specific entity, not purely as a proper name.
Sergius generally transliterates the wind-names, other than those which are purely adjectives of the compass points (e.g. 112vβ34 ma‘rḇāyā | ζέφυροϲ):
113rα27 euronaṭos εὐρόνοτοϲ
113rα5 libā λίψ
113rα36 libā funiqā λιβοφοίνικα
113rα35 libānaṭon λιβόνοτον
Finally, we come to certain place names. Sergius gives the Greek place names in transliteration, either because they were known and accepted as such in Syriac or because they were unknown in Syriac and there was, therefore, no Syriac name for them, but he at times changes the form of gentilic adjectives.
The adjectives Αἰγαῖοϲ, Αἰγύπτιοϲ, and Παμφύλιο__________ϲ are not adjectives in Sergius’ version, but become a demonstrative pronoun +toponym: at 111rα26 hāw d-agēs, then 111rα23 hāw d-meṣrēn, and 111rα24 hāw dpamfuliyya,
respectively. On the other hand, Περϲικόϲ and Καϲπία become the relative
marker d- + plural gentilic adjective.
Some Concluding Remarks
If we ask what it was that attracted Sergius to the DM, a likely answer is that it
had a role in the scientific curriculum at Alexandria, of which Sergius was a master. He
23
presumably knew the text and its worth as a piece of elementary philosophico-scientific instruction and wanted it to be read by Syriac readers who had little or no facility in Greek. It is also tempting to imagine a theological or religious motive, given the strong possibility for a monotheistic interpretation of the text, but nowhere in his translation does Sergius Christianize the work or balk at its (non-Christian) Greekness, which is a tack different from the one he follows in translating Alexander of Aphrodisias’ On the Principles of the Universe (often known as the mabādi’, from the Arabic title).75 This Christianization of Alexander’s work is only a part of the rather large-scale alterations that Sergius seems to have undertaken while translating that text, if, as is generally assumed, it is not a case of dual recensions in Greek; judging from the Arabic translation of the text (the Greek is not extant), there are entire portions missing in Sergius’ version.
His DM, however, lines up exactly with the Greek when viewed as a whole, and the individual changes or adaptations that Sergius makes—with the possible exception of the description of the winds—do not substantially alter the data, arrangement, or presentation of the DM: it has been repackaged for a Syriac audience, but it most certainly remains an accurate reflection of the Greek DM. Sergius, it seems, then, did not always operate with the same translation method and with the same goals.
What about the style of the Syriac DM? From the point of view of lexicon, there
is little—and we must permit to every author some idiosyncrasies—that strikes us as out of place; indeed, a large number of words are attested very similarly too in other Syriac scientific texts for the next several centuries, even up to Barhebraeus in the thirteenth century. It might be said that Sergius’ translation of the DM into Syriac rendered a far-
75 See Genequand for the Arabic versions, and, for the Syriac, the articles by King and Fiori in the
forthcoming issue of Le Muséon.
24
reaching scientific service to Syriac thought and language.76 From a grammatical and syntactical standpoint, too, the Syriac DM uses forms and constructions that are completely regular in Syriac literature, both natively written and in translations from Greek; there are some similarities between the DM and the mirror-translations of the seventh century, such as the rendering of derived adjectival forms and standard equivalences for adverbs and alpha-privative words, but Sergius is not rigid in their application and he has virtually none of the harshness and foreign syntactic and lexical flavor of those texts. In a text such as this one that contains so many lists of toponyms,planet-names, and wind-names, not to mention the etymological arguments offered by the author, it would be impossible for a translator into any language to avoid a noticeable presence of Greek words, so there is a conspicuous foreignness to the text in this regard, but that oreignness is wrapped in such a fine specimen of good Syriac, that often we can
easily forget that we are reading a translation.
Of the Syriac version of Daniel, Richard Taylor has said, “Upon reading it, one
does not get the uncomfortable impression that it is wooden or stiff. On the contrary, it is a carefully executed and idiomatic translation, faithful to its Vorlage, while at the same time maintaining in Syriac a high standard of pleasing literary achievement.”77 The same description will fit the DM. Wright78 cites with approval Ryssel’s positive assessment of the quality of Sergius’ translation of the DM as “ein Meisterwerk des Uebersetzungskunst;” the translation is, furthermore, “eine im besten Sinne wortgetreue.” Sergius’ DM, while not as disparate from the Greek as (apparently) his translation of
76 For reasons of space, we have had to forego a discussion of the well-attested Nachleben of the Syriac DM, but see n. 5 above.
77 R. Taylor, The Peshiṭta of Daniel (Leiden, 1994), pp. 319-320.
78 Short History, p. 91, n. 3.
25
Alexander’s mabādi’, cannot baldly be called literal, at least not in any way approaching the same sense in which that term might be given to a number of seventh-century Syriac translations. Scott Montgomery has offered an acute evaluation of Ryssel’s general interpretation of Sergius’ translation method: “As a modern commentator, Ryssel seems at pains to emphasize the literal exactness of Sergius’ version over any ‘free disposition of Syrian vocabulary’; he thus appears to reveal a degree of reverence for the Greek original entirely characteristic of German scholarship in his own time.”79 This same
contemporary “reverence for the Greek original” might be pointed out from the
emendations of de Lagarde, who is usually tacit about his alterations to the manuscript reading, and Baumstark, and, while any study of translation technique such as this one necessarily requires a constant eye on both the Greek original and the Syriac translation, due prestige must be granted to the Syriac version in its own right, if it is to be taken seriously as a translation. The fact that Sergius’ DM might accord high appreciation from both quarters, one more concerned with the Greek and the other looking also to the Syriac
as a piece of Syriac literature, marks Sergius as a fine translator indeed.
We noticed above in our mention of other Syriac translations from Greek that the
general tendency is from freer in the fourth century to more literal in the seventh, and that a noticeable aspect of the trend is the striving toward formal equivalence between individual Greek and Syriac words, as well as Syriac word order mimicking the Greek. In this selective survey of Sergius’ translation methods in the DM, we have seen very little of this strict adherence to Greek forms. He omits very little—and this is perhaps in some places a question of his Greek Vorlage, not one of his editing techniques—and generally
79 Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through Cultures and Time (Chicago, 2000), p. 73.
26
adds only to clarify for Syriac readers the details of the etymological data from the Greek language necessary to understand what the author is stating, to translate periphrastically some term or concept that might not be obvious to a Syriac reader without Greek, or to smooth over the style of his version. Sergius is more concerned with the content and the sense of the Greek text and, therefore, offers in good Syriac form this fascinating piece of Hellenistic literature. The Syriac version of the DM, then, fits squarely in this translation continuum where we would expect it as a product of the early sixth century.
Appendix: Concordance of Texts Manuscript de Lagarde Bekker
107v 134.12-20
108r 134.20-135.17 391a1-20 (Chapter one begins)
108v 135.17-136.13 391a20-391b20 (Chapter two begins)
109r 136.13-137.8 391b20-392a15
109v 137.8-138.3 392a15-392b4
110r 138.3-27 392b4-32 (Chapter three begins)
110v 138.27-139.23 392b32-393a23
111r 139.23-140.21 393a23-393b18
111v 140.21-141.16 393b18-394a11 (Chapter four begins)
112r 141.16-142.10 394a11-394b2
112v 142.11-143.6 394b2-25
113r 143.6-30 394b25-395a10
113v 143.30-144.25 395a10-32
114r 144.25-145.21 395a32-395b21
114v 145.21-146.19 395b21-396a10
115r 146.19-147.16 396a10-396b7 (Chapter five begins)
115v 147.16-148.11 396b7-397a1
116r 148.11-149.5 397a1-28
116v 149.5-30 397a28-397b22 (Chapter six begins)
117r 149.30-150.24 397b22-398a13
27
117v 150.24-151.20 398a13-398b5
118r 151.20-152.15 398b5-30
118v 152.15-153.8 398b30-399a21
119r 153.8-154.1 399a21-399b11
119v 154.1-154.25 399b11-400a1
120r 154.25-155.20 400a1-29
120v 155.20-156.14 400a29-400b21
121r 156.14-157.8 400b21-401a18 (Chapter seven begins)
121v 157.8-158.2 401a18-401b13
122r 158.2-21 401b13-29
Bibliography
Assemani, J.S., Bibliotheca Orientalis, (3 vols., Rome: Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 1719-1728).
Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XV, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).
Barsoum, Mar Ignatius Aphram I, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa. (2d rev. ed., Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2003).
Baumstark, Anton, Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904).
________, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Webers, 1922).
Bedjan, Paul (ed.), Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum (Paris, 1890).
Bergsträsser, G (ed. and trans.), Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen (Abhandlungen für fie Kunde des Morgenlandes 17.2.
Leipzig: Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1925).
Bos, Abraham, “The Theological Conception in De Mundo and the Relation between this Writing and the Work of Plato and Aristotle,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 39
28
(1977): 314-330.
________, “Greek Philosophical Theology and the De Mundo,” in Th. G. Sinnige (ed.),
On and Off the Beaten Track: Studies in the History of Platonism (Nijmegen:
Centrale Interfaculteit, 1986).
Brafman, David Alan, The Arabic ‘De Mundo’: An Edition with Translation and
Commentary (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1985).
Brock, Sebastian P., The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
________, “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek,” in Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).
________, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979): 69-87 (reprint, in Brock, Syriac Perspectives,
1984).
________, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in Nina Garsoïan et al. (eds), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980) (Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1982; reprint, in Brock, Syriac Perspectives, 1984).
________, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique,” in René Lavenant (ed.),
III Symposium Syriacum 1980. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres
cultures (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983).
________, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London: Variorum, 1984).
________, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho 9, Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997).
29
________, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2006).
Brooks, E.W. (ed. and trans.), Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori, vol. 2 (SS Series 3, 6, Paris: Typographeum Reipublicae, 1921).
Budge, E.A.W., The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj…Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1932).
Chabot, J.-B. (ed.), Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 (SS Series 3, 14, Paris:
Typographeum Reipublicae, 1920).
________ (ed.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem. (CSCO 92=SS 44, Paris: Typographeum Reipublicae, 1928).
Conybeare, F.C., A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, and of Porphyry’s Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892).
de Lagarde, Paul Anton, Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig: Teubner, 1858).
Daiber, Hans, “Semitische Sprache als Kulturvermittler zwischen Antike und Mittelalter: Stand und Aufgaben der Forschung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 136 (1986): 292-313.
________, “The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,” in William W. Fortenbaugh and Dimitri Gutas (eds), Theophrastus: His
Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings (New Brunswick and
London: Transaction, 1992).
Dodge, Bayard (ed. and trans.), The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols. (New York and London: Columbia University Press,
30
1970.
Duval, R., La littérature syriaque (3d ed., Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1907).
Elsas, Christoph, “Studien zu griechischen Wörtern im Syrischen,” in Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchengeschichte, 1968).
Fiey, Jean Maurice, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. III (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1968).
Fiori, Emiliano, “L’épitomé syriaque du traité Sur les causes du tout d’Alexandre
d’Aphrodise attributée à Serge de Reš‘aynā: edition et traduction,” Le Muséon,
forthcoming.
________, Dionigi l’Areopagita e l’origenismo siriaco. Edizione critica e studio storicodottrinale
del trattato sui Nomi divini nella versione di Sergio di Reš‘aynā, (Ph.D.
thesis, Università di Bologna, 2009).
Flügel, Gustav (ed.), Kitâb al-Fihrist mit Anmerkungen Herausgegeben, edited by J. Roediger and A. Müller, 2 vols. (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 1872).
Genequand, Charles, Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos (Leiden: Brill, 2000).
Gesenius, W., De Bar Alio et Bar Bahlulo, Lexicographis Syro-Arabicis Ineditis,
Commentatio Litteraria Philologica (Leipzig: Vogel, 1834).
Greenberg, Gillian, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Guillaumont, A., Les six centuries des ‘kephalaia gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique (PO 28.1, Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958).
Habbi, Joseph, “Le langage philosophique syriaque,” in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C.
31
Molenberg, and G.J. Reinink (eds), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary
Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, Rome: Pont.
Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987).
Hamilton, F.J. and E.W. Brooks, The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zacharias of Mitylene (London: Methuen, 1899).
Horowitz, Wayne, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998).
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri, “Note sur Sergius de Resh ‘Aina, traducteur du grec en syriaque et commentateur d’Aristote,” in G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds), The
Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism (CNWS Research: Leiden,
1997).
Joosten, Jan, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds), The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta
Symposium, Held at Leiden, 19-21 August 1993 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
King, Daniel, “Paul of Callinicum and his Place in Syriac Literature,” Le Muséon, 120
(2007): 327-349.
________, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in
Translation Technique (Louvain: Peeters, 2009).
________, “Alexander of Aphrodisias’ On the Principles of the Universe in a Syriac Adaptation,” Le Muséon, forthcoming.
Klein-Franke, Felix, “Die Überlieferung der ältesten arabischen Handschrift von Pseudo-Aristoteles ‘De Mundo,’” Le Muséon, 87 (1974): 59-65.
32
Koriwn Vardapet, Mambre Vercanol, Dawit’ Anyalt’: Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Venice, 1833).
Kutscher, E.Y., Studies in Galilean Aramaic (trans. Michael Sokoloff, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976).
Lamoreaux, John (ed. and trans.), Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on His Galen Translations (Eastern Christian Texts 3, Provo: Brigham Young University Press, forthcoming).
Land, J.P.N., Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 3, Zachariae Episcopi Mitylenes aliorumque Scripta Historica Graece plerumque Deperdita (Leiden: Brill, 1870).
Lewis, Agnes Smith, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catharine onMount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica I, London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1894).
Lippert, J. (ed.), Ibn al-Qifṭī’s Ta’rīḫ al-Ḥukamā’ (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche
Verlagbuchhandlung, 1903).
Lorimer, W.L., The Text Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London: Oxford University Press, 1924).
________, Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London: Oxford University Press, 1925).
________, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De Mundo (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1933).
________, De Mundo. Translationes Bartholomaei et Nicholai, rev. by L. Minio-Paluello (Bruges and Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965).
Lulofs, H.J. Drossaart, “The Syriac Translation of Theophrastus’ Meteorology,” in L. de Raemaker (ed.), Autour d’Aristote: Recueil d’ études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1955).
33
________, Nicolaus Damascenus on the Philosophy of Aristotle: Fragments of the First Five Books Translated from the Syriac with an Introduction and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1969).
Mansfeld, Jaap, “ΠΕΡΙ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ. A Note on the History of a Title,” Vigiliae Christianae, 46 (1992): 391-411.
McCollum, Adam, A Greek and Syriac Index to Sergius of Reshaina’s Version of the De Mundo (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009).
________. The Syriac De Mundo: Translation, Commentary, and Analysis of TranslationTechnique (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2009).
Merx, A., “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 39 (1885): 237-305.
Mingana, A., Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons
Limited, 1935).
Montgomery, Scott L., Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through
Cultures and Time (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Morrison, Craig E., The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel(Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Müller, A. (ed.), Ibn Abi Uṣaibi‘a,‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (2 vols., Cairo, 1882, reprint, Frankfurt: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science,
1995).
34
Nau, F., “Notice sur le livre des trésors,” Journal Asiatique, 9th series, 7 (1896): 286-331.
Neumann, J., “The Winds in the World of the Ancient Mesopotamian Civilizations,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 58 (1977): 1050-1055.
Payne Smith, R., Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, pt VI, Codices Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mendaeos Complectens (Oxford: Clarendon,
1864).
Perczel, István, “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius,” in (ed.), Re-thinking
Dionysius the Areopagite (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
Poirier, Paul-Huber and Catherine Sensal, “Du grec au syriaque: quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du Contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra,” in René Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990).
Pormann, Peter E. and Emilie Savage-Smith, Medieval Islamic Medicine (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2007).
Raven, W., “De Mundo. Tradition syriaque et arabe,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Supplément (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 2003).
Reale, Giovanni and Abraham P. Bos, Il trattato Sul Cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele (2nd edn, Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1995).
Renan, Ernest, De Philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros (Paris: A. Durand, 1852).
________, “Lettre à M. Reinaud, sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée
35
Britannique, contenant des traductions d’auteurs grecs profanes et des traités
philosophiques.” Journal Asiatique, 19 (1852): 293-333.
Riad, Eva, Studies in the Syriac Preface (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988).
Rørdam, T. Skat, Libri Judicum et Ruth secundum Versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem (Copenhagen, 1861).
Ryssel, Victor, Über den textkritischen Werth der syrischen Übersetzungen griechischer Klassiker, I. Theil (Leipzig, 1880).
Saliba, George, “Revisiting the Syriac Role in the Transmission of Greek Sciences into Arabic,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 4 (2004): 27-32.
Sherwood, P. (ed. and trans.) “Mimro de Serge de Rešayna sur la vie spirituelle,”
L’Orient Syrien, 5 (1960): 433-59, and 6 (1961): 95-115, 121-56.
Stern, S.M., “The Arabic Translations of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 77 (1964): 187-204.
________, “A Third Arabic Translation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 78 (1965): 381-393.
Takahashi, Hidemi, “The Greco-Syriac and Arabic Sources of Barhebraeus’ Mineralogy and Meteorology in Candelabrum of the Sanctuary, Base II,” Islamic Studies, 41 (2002): 215-269.
________, “Syriac Fragments of Theophrastean Meteorology and Mineralogy: Fragments in the Syriac Version of Nicolaus Damascenus, Compendium of Aristotelian Philosophy, and the Accompanying Scholia,” in W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle (eds), On the Opuscula of Theophrastus (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2002).
________, “Observations on Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Marine Geography,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies [http://syrcom.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye], 6.1 (2003).
________, Aristotelian Meteorology in Syriac: Barhebraeus, Butyrum Sapientiae, Books of Mineralogy and Meteorology (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
________, “Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Qazwīnī and Bar Shakkō,” The Harp, 19 (2006): 365-379.
________, “Notes on the Syriac and Arabic Versions of the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo,” (Unpublished paper).
________, “Reception of Secular Greek Learning in Syriac,” (Unpublished paper).
Taylor, Richard, The Peshiṭta of Daniel (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Tessier, Andrea, Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1979).
Van Rompay, Lucas, “Jacob of Edessa and the Sixth-Century Syriac Translator of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies,” in Bas ter Haar Romeny (ed.), Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008).
Wachsmuth, Curtius (ed.), Ioanni Stobaei Anthologii Libri Duo Priores Qui Inscribi
Solent Eclogae Physicae et Ethicae, vol. 1 (2d edn, Weidemann: Berlin, 1884).
Weber, R. and R. Gryson (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem (4t ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
Weitzman, M.P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
37
Wright, William, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (3 vols, London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1872).
________, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1894).
Yaqut al-Ḥamawī, Mu‘jam al-Buldān (5 vols., Beirut, 1977).