Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s 17th century translation of the Qur’an, Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, offers a new approach to the long history of Latin translations of the Qur’an. In line with the early modern, humanistic, “philological” trend, he aims to explore the original sources of his object of study. However, he takes this concept further by considering as “source” not only the authentic Qur’anic text, but also the most authoritative Qur’anic commentators, whom he also translates into Latin and incorporates into the translation. This paper is a first attempt to analyze in detail Dominicus’s modus operandi, his sources and how he relates them to the Qur’anic text, as well as the purpose of his work. The study includes the critical edition of sura 9, 28-35 in the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, both in the translation and in the commentary parts of the work.
Résumé
La traduction du Coran par Dominicus Germanus de Silesia au XVIIe siècle, Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, offre une nouvelle approche de la longue histoire des traductions latines du Coran. Conformément à la tendance « philologique » humaniste du début des temps modernes, il cherche à explorer les sources originales de son objet d’étude. Cependant, il pousse ce concept plus loin en considérant comme « source » non seulement le texte coranique authentique, mais aussi les commentateurs coraniques les plus autorisés, qu’il traduit également en latin et incorpore à la traduction. Cet article est une première tentative d’analyse détaillée du modus operandi de Dominicus, de ses sources et de la manière dont il les relie au texte coranique, ainsi que de l’objectif de son travail. L’étude inclut l’édition critique de la sourate 9, 28-35 dans l’Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, à la fois dans la partie traduction et dans la partie commentaire de l’ouvrage.
Abstract
Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s 17th century translation of the Qur’an, Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, offers a new approach to the long history of Latin translations of the Qur’an. In line with the early modern, humanistic, “philological” trend, he aims to explore the original sources of his object of study. However, he takes this concept further by considering as “source” not only the authentic Qur’anic text, but also the most authoritative Qur’anic commentators, whom he also translates into Latin and incorporates into the translation. This paper is a first attempt to analyze in detail Dominicus’s modus operandi, his sources and how he relates them to the Qur’anic text, as well as the purpose of his work. The study includes the critical edition of sura 9, 28-35 in the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, both in the translation and in the commentary parts of the work.
Since at least the 15th century, the rise of humanistic ideas, such as the renewed interest in the study of languages and their deeper structure and meaning, as well as the idea of “returning to the sources” – i.e., the study of texts, their transmission, their cultural background, and their “meaning”, which the humanists were able to gain thanks to their enhanced knowledge of languages – also influenced the relations of the Latin Christian world with Islam, as well as the Latin translations of the Qur’an that were produced from then on.1
For example, the translation of the Qur’an by Juan Gabriel of Teruel for Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1469-1532) around the year 1518 was in four columns. This was done, on the one hand, to allow the reader to compare the Latin translation with the Arabic original (i.e. the “source”) and, on the other hand, to allow a deeper knowledge of the “meaning” of the text. The first three columns contained the Arabic original in Arabic script and in Latin “phonetic” transliteration, placed in columns one and two, respectively, and the Latin translation in column three. In the fourth column, one could read explanatory annotations, mostly illustrating cultural customs of Islamic societies that were not immediately apparent from the Qur’anic text.2 These were largely inspired by another contemporary work that perfectly embodied the spirit of the time, the book “Confusión o confutación de la secta mahomética” published in 1515 by the convert Juan Andrés. A Muslim himself (as was Juan Gabriel, who, before his conversion was known as Alí Alayzar), Juan Andrés often gives an insider’s view of the rituals and customs within the Muslim community of the Iberian Peninsula.3 Similarly, the translation of the Qur’an by Guglielmo Raimondo de Moncada, also known as Flavius Mithridates (fl. 1475-1485), for the Duke of Urbino Federico da Montefeltro (1422-1482) around 1480 juxtaposes Latin and Arabic.4
There are more examples of what we may call the humanistic “philological” trend in the field of Latin translations of the Qur’an, but it is not our purpose to list them all here.5 We simply want to introduce the reader to the existence of such a trend in order to provide a background for the work of the central figure of this article, the 17th-century Franciscan friar Dominicus Germanus de Silesia (1588-1670). This author may be viewed as a recipient of the trend, since he places the emphasis of his translation of the Qur’an on the respect of the original source and provides his translation with exegetical sections based on Islamic sources to present the Muslim perspective. However, he extends and develops this trend in an unprecedented way by explicitly and systematically quoting Islamic commentaries (both in the Arabic and in the Latin translation). Rather than confine them to side notes, he embeds them in extensive sections within the main text, giving them the same importance as the translation of the Qur’anic text, and presenting their interpretation as an essential part of the work.
1 Dominicus Germanus de Silesia and the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis
Dominicus Germanus de Silesia,6 born in 1588 in Schurgast, today Skorogoszcz in Poland, spent the last 18 years of his life, from ca. 1652 until 1670, the year of his death, in the monastery of El Escorial on the Iberian Peninsula, working on what he probably considered to be the greatest achievement of his life: a Latin translation of the Qur’an, accompanied by commentaries based on the reproduction – in Latin translation, but also partly in the original Arabic – of the most authoritative Islamic exegetical literature. On the basis of the explanations he collected from these sources, he structured his refutation, which is also included in the commentary sections, in the form of personal statements related to the quoted Islamic exegetical passages. In this respect, Dominicus considered himself an improvement over the previous Latin translations and refutations of the Qur’an. This is evident from what he writes in the preface to his Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis:
“… I had hunted down (“uenatus fuero”) the interpretation of the meaning of the Qur’an, not from dictionaries and lexica, but from the words and explanations of the disciples of the author himself [i.e. the Prophet Muḥammad, n. Cecini], or of other people who lived at same time (or in a time close to theirs), as well as [from explanations] of indigenous commentators of the Qur’an itself.”7
In his mind, such a translation and refutation were irrefutable because they were based on a supposedly literal translation and interpretation taken from the meanings explained by the very sources from which each pious Muslim draws his own understanding of the Qur’an.
As we pointed out in the introduction, Dominicus was not the first, even if he would like to present himself as such, to seek a literal translation to implement Muslim commentaries into the translation.8 It is indeed remarkable, however, how he incorporated the commentaries into the structure and into the concept of the translation, and how he did so in a very analytical and consistent manner. In fact, the quotations from the exegetical sources are not irregularly distributed throughout the translation, but we have a structure that alternates translated sections, which Dominicus refers to as textus, and relative commentaries, which he calls scholia. The suras, which Dominicus names textus as well, are divided into further subsections, also called textus, each of which is followed by a scholium. The scholium contains exegetical material related to the verses translated in the preceding (sub-) textus to which the scholium refers, presented in a Latin translation interspersed with Arabic transcriptions and, now and then, Dominicus’s comments on them.9 For example, the textus primus, i.e. the second sura (the first sura, the fātiḥa, is called textus proëmialis [=introductory text]), is divided into 25 (sub-)textus, each of which is followed by a scholium, according to the following table:
The sub-textus are divided based on their content and not, for example, according to internal Qur’anic divisions such as ḥizb (division of the Qur’an into 60 equal parts) or ǧuzʾ (division of the Qur’an into 30 equal parts).10 This can be seen, for example, by the fact that many textus begin with an apostrophe to the intended recipient of the message that follows, thus representing a unit based on content: the beginning of the new apostrophe marks the beginning of the new sura subsection (e.g., textus 2 begins with “O uos homines!” [“O ye people!”]; textus 4 and 5 with “O filii Israel!” [“O ye Sons of Israel!”]; textus 6, 7 and 8 with “Item recordemini” [“You (pl.) should remember further!”]; textus 10 with “Dic” [“Say!”]; textus 11: “O uos qui uera fidem profitemini!” [“O ye (pl.) who profess the true faith!”]; textus 13 with “Recordare” [“Remember (sg.)!”]; textus 14 and 18 with “O uos qui uere credidistis!” [“O ye who rightly believed!”]; textus 15 with “O homines!” [“People!”]; textus 16, 23 and 25 with “O uos qui uere creditis!” [“O ye who rightly believe!”]; textus 20 with “Annuntia tu credentibus et dic:” [“Announce to the believers and say:”]).11 The underlined words in these textus allow Dominicus to stress the literality of his translation: In the preface he explains that he has underlined what is to be understood as a commentary within the text, the source of which he indicates in the margin (this is represented by the name, in Arabic script, of the commentator [or commentators] from whom he drew the interpretation, or the abbreviation ǧm [also in Arabic script, from the Arabic ǧamīʿ, meaning “totality of”], which means that all the commentators present such an interpretation).12 For example, here is the beginning of textus 6, which contains two underlined passages, compared to the Qur’anic source:
“And when We took compact with you, and raised above you the Mount [i.e. Mount Sinai, n. Cecini]: ‘Take forcefully what We have given you, and remember what is in it; haply you shall be godfearing’”.13
Item recordemini quando nos approbauimus pactum uestrum et sublimauimus montem super uos. Tunc, supple, diximus uobis: Recipite id quod tradimus uobis cum efficacia, et fixa mente retinete in eo contenta, ut appareat uos habere timorem Dei.
“You [i.e. the Sons of Israel, n. Cecini] should remember further, when we approved your pact and raised high the mountain above you. Then, you [i.e. the reader, n. Cecini] should add, we said to you: Receive what we transmitted to you with effectiveness, and hold with firm mind what is contained in it, so that it shows that you are afraid of God.”
Here Dominicus wants to connect the new block with the previous one in a logical sequence. The section contained in textus 5, beginning with verse 47, opens with a call to the Sons of Israel, telling them explicitly: “Children of Israel, remember My blessing etc.”.15 At verse 63, the text continues elliptically, with a simple “and when” (“wa-iḏ”), so that Dominicus feels the need to point out to his readers that the text here continues the apostrophe to the Sons of Israel of the previous block: (v.47:) “Sons of Israel, you should remember my favour (Lat. “beneficium”)” […] (v.63:) “Further, (Lat. “item”) you should remember (Lat. “recordemini”) when we approved your pact etc”. In the next sentence, again, the text does not explicitly say, even if it can be inferred, that a direct speech (“Take forcefully what We have given you etc.”) is beginning, quoting what God said to the Children of Israel at the time of the Covenant, and therefore is not a further commandment, parallel to the “remember”. Dominicus, therefore, points this out in his translation by introducing the direct speech with the underlined words: “Back then (Lat. “tunc”), we said to you”. In this case he also marks the addition with the word “supple” (“you should add”), which unmistakably marks the addition as a note for the reader. The underlined additions (“Recordemini” and “Tunc etc.”) fall into the category of an interpretation accepted by all commentators, since in the margin we find the note ǧm in Arabic script.16
Dominicus is careful to always cite rigorously the original sources of the interpretation presented and he also lists and classifies them all in a separate section between the preface and the translation.17 In the scholia, as we will see in the case study below, he methodically mentions both in the text (usually in Latin transcription) and in the margins (in Arabic script) the source he is quoting. Moreover, Dominicus wishes to accompany his quotations of exegetical sources in Latin translation with the original Arabic, a procedure that increases in subsequent revisions of his work. The Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis project is, in fact, about a continuous reworking, both of the translation and the commentaries, with the objective of obtaining even better translations and more analytical and in-depth commentary sections. This is clearly visible in some of the extant manuscripts, which show numerous corrections, as we will also see below. Not content with this, after completing a first version of the entire work, Dominicus begins a new translation project in which not only are the commentaries more extensive, but in which each exegetical quotation in Latin is immediately followed by the corresponding original text in Arabic script.18 This version is quite practical for the analysis of the sources, but unfortunately it covers only a small part of the Qur’an. The first version, the only one that covers the entire Qur’an, is more difficult because the Arabic transcriptions of the original sources translated in the scholia are far less frequent and systematic.
2 A Case Study: Sura 9, 28-35
In spite of this difficulty, we will offer here a first attempt at analyzing the work of Dominicus both in terms of translation and commentary. This will be done through a case study of (sub-)textus 3 of the Textus Octavus, i.e. sura 9 “al-tawba”. The (sub-)textus 3 covers verses 28 to 35 of the sura. We have chosen this passage for the following reasons. First, it is a relevant passage regarding the relations between Islam and other religions or cults: It clearly speaks against the pre-Islamic polytheism, establishes the individual tax for the ḏimmīs, and takes a stand on the affirmation that Christ is the Son of God. Second, one can see in it the effort made by Dominicus to find a text that was acceptable to him, both in the translation and in the scholium, given the numerous corrections that can be seen in the manuscripts. Third, we do not have the “new” version of MSK for this part of the Qur’an, so it is a good passage to test Dominicus’s first approach to the sources.
2.1 The Qur’anic text and the translation of Dominicus Germanus
For the convenience of the reader, I reproduce here the passage both in Arabic and in Arberry’s translation:
O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. 9:30 The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!
They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary’s son – and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate – desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse. It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. O believers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed consume the goods of the people in vanity and bar from God’s way. Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God -- give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, 9:35 the day they shall be heated in the fire of Gehenna and therewith their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded: ‘This is the thing you have treasured up for yourselves; therefore taste you now what you were treasuring!’20
The analysis will be structured as follows: first, we will look at the translation part, paying special attention to the corrections and to the verses commented on in the scholium, the analysis of which will constitute the second part of the case study.
The passage exists in three manuscripts:
MSE (El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, 1624), which is a working manuscript of Dominicus. It shows many corrections, both in the translation and in the scholium. Some of the text has been illegibly erased by covering it with ink and replacing it over the line or in the margin.
Fortunately, we have most of the pre-correction version preserved in the copy in MSM, Montpellier, Bibliothèque interuniversitaire, H 72. M is not an autograph copy of Dominicus.
The third manuscript, MSB, El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, L.I.3, fols. 122r-319v, an autograph of Dominicus like E, implements the corrections we find in E and adds new ones.
In sum, we have three stages, which we could group into two for better visualization: 1) E before the correction and M. 2) E after the correction and B. We will now place the two texts side by side in a verse-by-verse analysis. We will mark the corrected passages in bold. We will mark in italics the modifications that occur only in B, i.e., where E has no correction and coincides with the text given by M. The sections that are underlined were already underlined in the manuscripts. We provide the critical edition of the text in the appendix at the end of this paper.
Arberry’s transl.: O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
In this verse, we can see that the corrections involve some changes in the wording, in an effort to be more literal. In the first correction, on MSE, Dominicus replaced the ablativus absolutus “finito hoc lustro” (“this period having finished”) with a construction that more closely resembles the wording of the Arabic: “post (Ar. “baʿda”) peractum lustrum ipsorum annale (Ar. “ʿām”)”. He also felt the need to add an in-text gloss (“id est magnae festiuitatis” [i.e. [the period] of the great feast]), which he may have found in a subsequent consultation of the commentaries, or simply for further clarification. In the other corrections we found in MSB, we see Dominicus striving to be even closer to the Arabic. He prefers “uos ditabit” (“he will enrich you”), which is a more literal rendering of the Arabic “yuġannī-kum” (“he will enrich you”), to “sufficientiam uictus tribuet” (“he will give you enough nourishment”), which is already informed by an interpretation. The same can be said for “si ei placuerit” (“if it pleases Him”), which is closer to the Arabic phrase “in šāʾ” (“if He will”) than “secundum beneplacitum suum” (“according to His good will”). We can also suppose that Dominicus, upon reflection, considers the verb ʿalama (from which comes “ʿalīm” [the one who is “knowing” par exellence]) to be better expressed by the Latin cognosco than scio – which would perhaps be closer to the Arabic darā? –. This might also be the reason for changing “omnia” (“everything”) to “omnes” (“everyone; every being”), considering scio a more abstract and cognosco a more concrete type of knowledge. Naturally, this last part is only speculation. On the contrary, in the first version we also find words closer to the Arabic source that have been removed: the “hoc” in “finito hoc lustro”, which corresponds to the Arabic hāḏā, and the “Deus” in “quia Deus omnia sciens sapientissimus est”, which corresponds to the Arabic Allāh in the phrase “inna l-lāha ʿalīmun ḥakīmun”.
Arberry’s transl.: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
In verse 29, some of the corrections seem to aim at a better style, such as “et apostolus eius” instead of “apostolusque illius”, or the suppressed repetition of the word “aetas” at the end. Others are more like a commentary to achieve greater clarity while at the same time seeking greater literality, such as the further addition, in the last stage, of “secundum ueritatem” to express the literal meaning of the Arabic word “al-ḥaqq” (“truth”), which had already been translated as “just” (in “iustum iudicium”), following the more literal rendering of “yadīnūna dīna” with “iudicant iudicium”, which reproduces the typical Arabic construction of the internal object, i.e., the direct object as a noun from the same root as the verb.21 The word “personale” explains the nature of the ǧizya, the “tributum”, as a “head tax”. One explanation is the use of “cogantur dare” (“they should be forced to give [the tax]”) instead of “dent” (“they should give”), the latter being closer to the wording of the Arabic text, which has only “yuʿtū” (“[until] they give”), so Dominicus seems to want to underline the coercion here. Nevertheless, he chooses not to translate “ṣāġirūna” with “humiliated”, as we find in many translations22 and also in Arberry, quoted above, and as it is also suggested in the commentaries,23 but goes with a literal translation of the meaning of the root, i.e. “being small”, interpreting that the tax was also imposed on children. If we look at al-Zamaḫšarī’s’s commentary ad locum: “‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’: ay tuʾḫidu min-hum ʿalā al-ṣiġāri wa-l-ḏilli” (“ ‘and they are (or become) little’: i.e., It is taken from them to make them contemptible and to cause humiliation”),24 we may wonder if Dominicus understood “ṣiġāri” as the plural of ṣaġīr (small, little), and thus perhaps interpreted the sentence as “it is collected by them [being imposed] upon the little ones [i.e. the children]”. Once again, this is a tentative way of looking for a solution for which we have no proof. However, it is possible that he found a source to support it, since he also interprets the Arabic “ʿalā yad” (“out of hand”) to mean that the amount of the tax should be proportional to age, a gloss that he maintained even after the correction, even though he changed the phrasing (before the correction: “pro aetate quisque sua” [“each one according to their age”]; after: “iuxta aetatis augmentum quisque suae” [“each one according to the growing of their age”]). Be that as it may, the relevant feature here is that between the two alternatives, “little ones” and “humiliation”, Dominicus seems to have discarded the most polemical one by not speaking of humiliation in his translation. Nevertheless, he adds the detail of the forceful collection of the head tax, which is present in the commentaries.25 While Dominicus added all the more detailed explanations we have seen so far, he removed the commentary “Judaei et Christiani” to explain the “al-laḏīna ūtū l-kitāba” (“those to whom the book [or rather, the Scripture] was given”). Perhaps by adding “scriptam” and changing “those who have received a Law” (“qui legem acceperunt”) to “those who have received a written Law” (“qui acceperunt legem scriptam”) – thus adhering more closely to the Arabic root kataba (to write) of “kitāb” – Dominicus considered that it was already implied that one was referring to Jews and Christians as the only custodians, along with Muslims, of written Sacred Scripture.
Arberry’s transl.: The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!
In verse 30, we can see that the second part of the verse has been completely rewritten probably once again to be more literal and concise.26 We can see that the verb ḍāhaʾa (to resemble something, to imitate), was later translated with the participle “imitantes” (“imitating”) instead of the long periphrasis “se ipsos conuincunt esse similes” (“they convict themselves to be similar [to the unbelievers which God damned before them]”). In both cases there is an added commentary on the “Unbelievers” (“increduli” / “al-laḏīna kafarū”) to specify that they are “idol-worshippers” (“idolatrae”), in the later version the gloss is incorporated into the translation (“incredulos idolatras”), unlike the version before the correction, where it is clearly marked as a gloss (“id est idolatras”). In both cases, Dominicus’s translation differs from the modern one. He refers the “hum” (“them”) of qātala-hum (“may he [i.e. God, n. Cecini] fight them”) to the unbelievers and not to the Christians and the Jews, and connects it with the following “annā yuʾfakūna”, a rethorical exclamation (“how have they been perverted!”) which Dominicus renders in a simpler way: “God ordered to fight them (i.e. the unbelievers) [“quos (i.e. idolatras) expugnare praecepit Deus”], wherever they turn themselves away to (“quocumque se uerterint”)”. This literally renders the passive yuʾfaku, which means “to be turned in a wrong direction”.27 Once again, between two possible interpretations, Dominicus seems to choose the less polemical one, if it seems to him to be the more literal one, while at the same time making the idolaters, and not Christians and Jews, the target of the exhortation to fight. So if the choice is between polemic and literalism, the polemic loses.
Verses 31-35 will be discussed in less detail, since they are not specifically commented on in the scholium.
Arberry’s transl.: They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary’s son -- and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate.
Apart from the stylistic corrections, we would like to point out the disappearance of the gloss explaining that the “priests” of the text refer to both Jews and Christians, replaced by the translation of the Arabic aḥbār with two words “priests and bishops”. It is important for Dominicus to show how the Arabic word designating a religious scholar, an “expert” in theological matters, often used to designate Jewish rabbis, should also be applied to their Christian counterparts. In fact, by eliminating the direct mention of the Jews, who are also involved in the context of the previous verses, he emphasizes the fact that he considers this verse – even though he is basing his interpretation on Muslim commentaries, as we will see below – to be addressed primarily to Christians, as he will explain in the scholium.
Q. 9:32
Arabic: yuridūna an yuṭfiʾū nūra l-lāhi bi-afwāhi-him wa-yaʾbā l-lāhu illā an yutimma nūra-hu wa-law kariha l-kāfirūna
Arberry’s transl.: desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse.
Here we notice a doubt in the rendition of Arabic yuridūna (“they want”). “Quaerunt” may have been influenced by the Spanish translation of the word (= quieren), which in Latin means “they seek”, and is thus an interpretation of the Arabic verb. Dominicus may have later felt that this was not justified and used the more literal “uolunt”. We also notice the insertion of a gloss in the later version, a gloss developed in two steps: first only “Alcoranum”, to explain the “light of God” as the Qur’an, and then with the addition of “supprimere”, which refers the gloss to the whole preceding sentence: “They want to put out God’s light”, explained as: “They want to suppress the Qur’an”. It is also noteworthy to what extent Dominicus emphasizes that the Qur’anic text is addressed to a specific group of unbelievers, namely “these”, i.e. “these, who are here now” (as the “praesentes” and “nunc existentes” of verse 30), repeating the addition “istis” twice. He seems to want to underline that this revelation, which might be considered somewhat aggressive, is not general, but was made on a specific occasion, as he will explain in the scholium. In this way, he may have wanted to reduce controversy by relating this not to all Christians (and Jews), but to a particular group of them at a particular historical time and place.
Arberry’s transl.: It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse.
We can note how in manuscript B Dominicus refers the pronoun “hu” of “li-yuẓhira-hu” (“to uplift him”) to “rasūl” (“messenger” / “apostolus”) instead of referring it to dīn (“religion” / “lex”, in Arabic a masculine noun), as he did in the first version (and as Arberry, does).28 We can speculate whether he has chosen here to avoid a confrontation between religions in favor of a solution that is also grammatically possible and that “only” gives the Prophet a prominent place without explicitly stating the superiority of one religion over others.
Arberry’s transl.: O believers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed consume the goods of the people in vanity and bar from God’s way. Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God – give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, / the day they shall be heated in the fire of Gehenna and therewith their foreheads
and their sides and their backs shall be branded: ‘This is the thing you have treasured up for yourselves; therefore taste you now what you were treasuring!’
We have connected these two verses because they are logically connected in Dominicus’s translation. Here, too, “episcopi” is added as in verse 31.29 Moreover, we can see an effort to better translate “yaṣuddūna” (“to turn away”), and render its two senses: “to turn away oneself from” or “to turn others away, to dissuade from.” Along the same lines of a more literal translation is the change from “gratis” to “inaniter” to render “bi-l-bāṭili” (lit. “in what is futile”) and the repetition of the expression “on the way of God” present in the Qur’anic text. Dominicus also opts for a more appropriate translation ad sensum when he translates “yaʾkulūna” (lit. “they eat”) with “consummunt” (“they consume”) rather than with “edunt” (“they eat”). The other corrections are stylistic choices.30
2.2 The scholium
As we mentioned earlier, the scholia are the most original and most interesting part of Dominicus’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis. To date, they have neither been edited nor analyzed in detail.31 What we present here, together with the critical edition of this scholium, which can be found in the appendix section, is therefore a first attempt to see how Dominicus uses the exegetical sources to write his scholia, and it should be seen as the first result of a work in progress.
Not only did Dominicus revise the translations, but we also have the three stages we described earlier for the scholium . In what follows, we will analyze each paragraph of the scholium, according to the two grouped redactions of 1) E before the correction and M, and 2) E after the correction and B. We will try to describe Dominicus’s use of Muslim exegetical sources by examining the commentaries he mentions and seeing how he deals with them.
The first paragraph refers to the question of who exactly is referred to by the word “al-mušrikūna” (the “associators”33 of the first verse of the TextusIII, verse 28: “innamā l-mušrikūna naǧasun” [Arberry: “The idolaters (lit. “the associators”, n. Cecini) are indeed unclean”]). Although he later presents some examples from specific commentators, here Dominicus makes a general statement, saying that there is a multiplicity of opinions among the commentators. He wants to show this because he is convinced that the multiplicity of opinions among the commentators shows the obscurity of the Qur’an and that even the “experts” could not agree on its interpretation.34 Be that as it may, all the commentators agree (as the notation “ǧm”, the abbreviation for “ǧamīʿ” [“all” (the commentators)] in the margin confirms) that God did not allow polytheism in any of the revealed scriptures. We have not been able to find the exact wording we read in Dominicus’s scholium in any particular commentator. Nevertheless, especially when Domincus speaks of the Qur’an that “shines above every law with the light of truth”, it is clear that he is translating from, or perhaps summarizing, Muslim sources. Whatever the source,35 it is important to note that when Dominicus reports a source, he usually translates it “as it is”, including praises of Islam, Muḥammad and the Qur’an, if they are present in the source. The most he does to make it clear that he is reporting a statement is to add an “aiunt” (“they say”), but this is not the case with each quotation. In any case, he does not feel the need to adapt the text he is translating, but reproduces it as closely as possible.
After this general statement, Dominicus goes on to illustrate the various solutions to the question: “who are the mušrikūn, of whom the text speaks”?
Al-Ǧurǧānī, explains Dominicus, says that these are to be understood as the idol-worshippers among the Arabs, to whom access to the temple had been granted since ancient times.
This is indeed what we find in al-Ǧurǧānī’s commentary ad locum:
(English translation:) The situation indicates that they are “associators” of the Arabs, because they used to approach the Sacred Mosque and went frequently to it in the Hajj and ʿUmrah rather than the rest of the people, and we learned it mostly by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah, which also indicate that they are idol-worshippers rather than other unbelievers; Because God Almighty says: {Indeed, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians, and Christians, and the Magi, and those who associate} [Q. 21: 17].
The Qur’anic quotation we find at the end of this passage is also present in the scholium of Dominicus, but only in the Latin translation, and it is said to be a quotation of Muǧāhid within the commentary of al-Ǧurǧānī.
Muǧāhid does indeed appear in the commentary of al-Ǧurǧānī that I consulted, but with a different statement, referring to the part of verse 28 that reads “If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will”:
wa-rawiya Ibn abī Naǧīḥ ʿan Muǧāhid fī hāḏihi l-āya: qāla l-muʾminūna: kunnā nusību matāǧira l-mušrikīna fa-waʿada-humu l-lāhu an yaġniya- hum min faḍli-hi ʿawḍan la-hum39
(English translation:) Ibn Abī Naǧīḥ transmitted on the authority of Muǧāhid: The believers said: We have been obtaining the business of the “associators”. So God promised them that He would enrich them from His favor in compensation for them.
We have the addition in manuscript B that the idol-worshippers of the Arabs worshipped the statues of the Angels, considering these as daughters of God, which we find in al-Ǧurǧānī further below, in the explanation of the word “yuḍāhiʾūna”, which was reworked in the translation:
(English translation:) They resemble and are similar to those who disbelieved before, they are those who claimed that the Creator dwelled in earthy bodies, glory be to Him! , among them […] the Banū al-Malīḥ who claimed that the angels are the daughters of God, may God be exalted from that!
Apart from the missing mention of Muǧāhid, al-Ǧurǧānī’s commentary continues exactly as we read in Dominicus’s scholium, with a quotation from the Prophet himself, which Dominicus reproduces in Arabic and in Latin translation:
qawlu-hu ʿalay-hi l-salām: “man aslama min ahli l-kitāb kāna aǧru-hu marratayni wa-la-hu mā la-nā wa-ʿalay-hi mā ʿalay-nā wa-man aslama min al-mušrikīna kāna la-hu mā la-nā wa-ʿalay-hi mā ʿalay-nā”.42
However, I could not find in al-Ǧurǧānī the following explanatory text that Dominicus attributes to Ibn ʿAbbās: The reward of the people of the book is double, because they receive one reward for obeying the new Islamic Law, and another for obeying the precepts of the Law they followed before conversion, if they did. Once again, the work of tracing Dominicus’s sources is more difficult than it seems at first, and I wonder whether the tafsīr-manuscripts of the Escorial library could help in this matter. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee, considering that many manuscripts were destroyed in the fire of 1671.
So far, Dominicus commented on verse 28. The following clearly refers to verse 30 (Here, again, we do not find any intermediate corrections between E and the new version of B).
Dominicus moves from al-Ǧurǧānī to other commentators, whom he lists in the margin as Abu Hayyān, al-Zamaḫšarī, al-ʿAmādī (quoting al-Kalabī and Ibn ʿAbbās). He says that even though these commentators also recognize that this passage refers to anyone who put other deities next to the one God, it is addressed specifically to Christians. Dominicus quotes al-ʿAmādī in particular to support the argument that the Qur’anic reprobation concerns the Jews to a lesser extent. They call Esdras the son of God, but this is a kind of honorific title for having restored the true Mosaic Law after it had been perverted during the Babylonian captivity.43
We then found a comment of Dominicus which shows how he refuted or diminished the importance of the Islamic sources he so carefully quoted:
The “tradition of the impostor”, as it is called in the later addition of ms. B, are probably the hadiths as narrated by the disciples of the Prophet i.e., his companions. Once again, Dominicus seems to discredit the commentators, who “fabricate” stories (note the change from “affero” (“bring”) to “astruo” (“construct”) in the later version) rather than the Qur’anic text itself.
After this parenthesis, Dominicus continues with the quotation from the commentators:
This second part of the quotation is present only in the earlier versions of E and M, but is absent from B. Did Dominicus perhaps find it too strong for Christian ears? Again, in his earlier translation, he seems to be faithful to his source (which I have not been able to identify), saying that Jesus Christ is “only the son of Mary, a human being borne of a human being, even if he was not conceived by a human male”, and speaks of “the error” of Christians and Jews, of Muhammad “opening their eyes”, and of the Qur’an “containing the truth”.
Then we have a commentary by Dominicus, which we find in the margin of MSE and is also incorporated into the text and corrected in B, but it is absent in M.
Again, this is a personal commentary by Dominicus in which he shows his knowledge of the background of the commentators. I could not find the source he used to claim that Al-Ǧurǧānī was a former Christian.44 The motive is reminiscent of the legend that Muḥammad was a former Christian cardinal who founded Islam in revenge for not being elected pope.45 Be that as it may, its purpose is to discredit Al-Ǧurǧānī’s work. Dominicus affirms to have erased the text, probably a commentary on verses 34-35, because it was too critical of the Church and clergy. It seems that he did not want to allow a tone that was too harsh in his argumentation, especially as regards direct attacks on Christians, which would definitely compromise dialogue. This may reflect the post-Tridentine attitude of avoiding theological confrontation and the missionary disposition, promoted by institutions such as the Propaganda Fide congregation, to seek “explanation and comparison” in interreligious dialogue. Dominicus, therefore, tends to take advantage of “weak spots” in the doctrine of the opponent, rather than place the argumentation on the territory of mutual attack.46 He must have thought a lot about this passage because we do not find anything about it in manuscript M. This means that when this manuscript was copied, Dominicus had erased the passage, probably because he considered it to be too offensive. Later, however, he may have thought that the matter should not be totally ignored and therefore added the marginal note in E, which probably refers to the deleted passage, explaining why he chose not to quote it extensively, as he did before when he chose not to list all the “fantastic stories” of the commentators because they were unworthy of being heard. Such a note was then copied into B’s text.
The last part of the scholium recounts the circumstances of the revelation. This is a frequent occurrence in Dominicus’s scholia and also reflects the Islamic attention to this topic, which makes the asbāb al-nuzūl (“the causes of the revelations (or, literally, of their ‘descent’”) a part of many tafāsīr (Qur’anic commentaries). We will not dwell on the comments of this section, since most of the corrections seem to be mainly stylistic. We will simply draw the attention of the reader to the last sentence of the scholium “reliqua patent in textu” (“the rest of the text is clear”), before making the final statements of this study.
Conclusion: A First Assessment of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s Approach to the Qur’an
We will now try to draw some conclusions from our long journey through Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s translation and commentary of some verses of the ninth sura. The final statement of the scholium confirms that the main objective of the translation and its scholia is the understanding of the Qur’an. The sources are quoted in order to make explicit what the Qur’an does not say or says in an obscure manner: in short, the scholia are real commentaries. I would like to emphasize the fact that in this passage we have verses that speak of fighting and possible humiliation of Christians. Dominicus does not comment on these, because he decides to erase direct attacks on the clergy in the scholium. He does not seek this kind of confrontation. This work is not a polemical treatise. From time to time, Dominicus inserts his own thoughts on the futility of some comments that are not worth repeating. He does not argue directly against the content of the Qur’an, but against the validity of the arguments of the commentators or their way of expressing themselves. In this, and by clearly asserting his identity as a Christian, he articulates his refutation. Nevertheless, he qualifies Muhammad as an impostor. However, his translations are as faithful as possible and avoid polemics, rectifications or comments when Islam is praised or Christianity is said to be in error, if this is done in a way that he does not consider disrespectful. He therefore seeks to make the differences explicit, but in a way that promotes dialogue. He constantly seeks the best translation and interpretation, correcting the translations and adding more and more texts in Arabic in order to give his work the greatest possible authority and authenticity, on which the arguments of the missionaries will be based. Sometimes the use of sources is not as rigorous as it is presented. Some passages may be attributed to the wrong source (such as the example of Muǧāhid) or Dominicus’s Vorlage may have been different from the modern editions. Be that as it may, the quotations, even if wrongly attributed to a particular source, were undoubtedly taken from an Islamic source without falsifying the content. In any case, Dominicus attempts to correct this problem by adding more quotations from the sources in Arabic language that correspond to the translations he gives in later editions of the work. The aim of Dominicus’s activity, not only of his translation of the Qur’an, but also of his linguistic and theological works (to which I will devote further papers), remains the mission. He seeks to give missionaries the tools to speak the language, both grammatical and theological, of their interlocutors. To this end, he collects an enormous amount of information, which he includes in his scholia and in a vast collection of notes that we find in the manuscripts of the Escorial library. Naturally, these are the first conclusions of an ongoing study. We will be able to confirm or correct them only when the complete “Interpretatio” has been studied in all its versions and when all the works of Dominicus, including his linguistic and theological works, have been re-evaluated alongside the Interpretatio and his biography. Our journey in the production of this man is still at its beginning and we are eager to see how it will continue.
Acknowledgments
Ulisse Cecini is a Ramón y Cajal Researcher at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and his research, from which this publication results, is currently funded by the Spanish National Research Agency (RYC2020-029328-I/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033). Prior to this affiliation, the research leading to these results was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Grant Agreement No. 810141, Project EuQu: “The European Qu’ran. Islamic Scripture in European Culture and Religion 1150-1850.” The publication of this contribution in Open Access has been funded by the Spanish National Research Agency, Ramón y Cajal Research Project (RYC2020-029328-I/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033).
Appendix
A critical edition of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, VIII, 3 (Q. 9:28-35)
Sigla Codicum:
E : El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, 1624, fols. 168v-170r
M : Montpellier, Bibliothèque interuniversitaire, H 72, fols. 158v-159v
B : El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, L.I.3, fols. 289v-291r
Adbreviationes:
add.: addidit / addiderunt
a.c.: ante correcturam
del.: delevit / deleverunt
in marg.: in margine
om.: omisit / omiserunt
praem.: praemisit / praemiserunt
s.l.: supra lineam
The text in Arabic script is absent from MSM. Verse numbers have been added at the beginning of verses.
{28} O uos48 qui uere creditis! Scitote. Quoniam illi, qui Deo consortem attribuunt sunt immundi! Quapropter non possunt, nec appropinquare loco orationis sacrato post peractum lustrum49 ipsorum annale, id est magnae festiuitatis.50 Quodsi inde metuitis penuriam uos51 passuros, Deus uos ditabit52 de sua liberalitate, si ei placuerit, quoniam omnes cognoscens53 sapientissimus est. {29} Agite bellum contra eos, qui non credunt in Deum, neque in diem nouissimum, nec uetitum sibi habent, quod Deus uetuit et apostolus eius.54 Quia non iudicant iustum iudicium secundum ueritatem,55 quidam ex eis, qui acceperunt legem scriptam,56 quousque cogantur dare57
qui82 misit apostolum suum cum directione et lege ueritatis, ut ostendat eum praepositum super legem uniuersam,83 quamuis grauiter ualde84 id ferant illi, qui Deo socium attribuunt.85 {34} O uos qui uerè creditis, Scitote! quoniam multi ex sacerdotibus seu episcopis86 et monachis sunt,87 qui consummunt88 bona hominum inaniter,89 et recedunt recedereque faciunt90 a uia91 Dei. Item quidam autem ex illis,92 qui thesaurizant aurum et argentum, quae93 non expendunt ea in uia Dei, id est94 secundum beneplacitum eius.95 Tu ergo annuncia eis tormentum rigorosissimum,96 {35} quod apprehendet illos in die quo97 uehementer uret ignis gehennae. Quo etiam98 cauterizabuntur frontes ipsorum99 et latera et terga, diceturque illis: Hoc nunc100 est, quod thesaurizastis uobis: Igitur degustate modo101 id, quod tam auide accumulastis.102
For an excellent overview of this phenomenon, which also mentions the two examples presented in the following lines of the introduction, see Thomas E. Burman, “European Qur’an Translations, 1500-1700,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 6 Western Europe (1500-1600), ed. David Thomas and John A. Chesworth, Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 25-34, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004281110_004. (with further bibliography on the matter).
On this translation, see Katarzyna K. Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an (1518/1621) Commissioned by Egidio Da Viterbo: Critical Edition and Case Study (Diskurse Der Arabistik 24), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2018); see also Thomas E. Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560, Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, p. 150-177.
On the parallels between Juan Gabriel’s glosses in the translation of the Qur’an and Juan Andrés, as well as their parallels with the two Catholic preachers Martín García (ca. 1441-1521) and Johan Martín de Figuerola (ca. 1457- post 23 July 1532), who were assisted in their preaching by Juan Andrés and Juan Gabriel, see Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an, p. xxxv-lxii, as well as the notes on the edition to the glosses at p. 777-813. About Juan Gabriel’s former name see, ibidem, p.xxxi.
Mitridate’s translation, however, is not complete, but consists only of the translation of two suras, sura 21 (al-anbiyāʾ, “The Prophets”) and sura 22 (al-ḥaǧǧ, “The Pilgrimage”). The prefatory dedication from the “autograph” MS Vat. urb. lat. 1384, fols. 63v-86r of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (here fols. 63v-64v) was published by Hartmut Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1995, p. 81-82 (ibidem, n. 266, also cites later manuscripts in Paris, Venice, Padua, Milan, and Vienna), as well as by Angelo Michele Piemontese, “Il Corano latino di Ficino e i Corani arabi di Pico et Monchates,” Rinascimento, 36 (1996), p. 227-273 (here, p. 260). The translation of sura 21 is edited from the same Vatican manuscript (fols. 65r-76v) in: Hartmut Bobzin, “Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada e la sua traduzione della sura 21 (‘dei profeti’),” in Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada alias Flavio Mitridate. Un ebreo converso siciliano. Atti del convegno internazionale Caltabellotta (Agrigento) 23-24 ottobre 2004, ed. Mauro Perani, Palermo, Officina di Studi Medievali, 2008, p. 173-183. This translation seems to be far from good: Giorgio Levi della Vida described this translation as “everything but well-made” (Giorgio Levi della Vida, Ricerche sulla formazione del più antico fondo dei manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Vaticana, [Studi e testi 92], Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1939, p. 94: “tutt’altro che felice”), which was confirmed by Bobzin, who stated that the translation was full of errors (Bobzin, “Guglielmo”, p. 174: “pullula di errori”) and listed some (on pages 175-176), and Thomas Burman in Reading the Qur’an, p. 137-141 as well as in “Qur’an Translations” p. 26.
For an overview of Latin translations of the Qur’an in the Middle Ages and early modern period, in addition to Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom and Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an, see Hartmut Bobzin, “Latin Translations of the Koran. A Short Overview” Der Islam, 70/2 (1993), p. 193-206, https://doi.org/10.1515/islm.1993.70.2.193; Ulisse Cecini, “Latin Christianity Engaging With the Qur’an,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 15, Thematic Essays (600-1600), ed. Douglas Pratt and Charles L. Tieszen, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2020, p. 227-253, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004423701.
For the biography of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, see Bertrand Zimolong, P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M. Ein Biographischer Versuch, Breslau, Otto Borgmeyer, 1928; Bertrand Zimolong, “Neues zu dem Leben und zu den Werken des P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M.”, Franziskanische Studien, 21 (1934), p. 151-170; Bertrand Zimolong, “Nochmals P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M.”, Franziskanische Studien, 23 (1936), p. 426-31; More recent studies are Hartmut Bobzin, “Ein oberschlesischer Korangelehrter: Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, O.F.M. (1588-1670) ”, in Die oberschlesische Literaturlandschaft im 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Gerhard Koselleck (Tagungsreihe der Stiftung Haus Oberschlesien 11), Bielefeld, Aisthesis Verlag, 2001, p. 221-231 and the preface of the critical edition of Dominicus’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis (only the qur’anic text, not the scholia) by Antonio García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis (Nueva Roma 32), Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2009, p. 13-22, which mainly draws on Marcel Devic, “Une traduction inédite du Coran”, Journal Asiatique, VIII/1 (1883), p. 343-406 and Francis Richard, “Le franciscain Dominicus Germanus de Silésie, grammairien et auteur d’apologie en Persan”, Islamochristiana, X (1984), p. 91-107; On Dominicus’s translation see also Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 53-56; Ulisse Cecini, “The Qur’ān Translation by Germanus de Silesia OFM (ca. 1650-1670):Observations About Its Inedited Sections”, in Documenta Coranica Christiana. Christian Translations of the Qur’an. Preliminary Considerations of the State of the Art, ed. Manolis Ulbricht, Leiden, Brill (forthcoming); Ulisse Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1 of the El Escorial Library: Newly Discovered Revised Versions”, in The Iberian Qur’an, ed. Mercedes García-Arenal and Gerard Wiegers, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2022, p. 133-48, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110778847-006.
“… interpretationem Alcorani, non ex dictionarijs lexicisque, sed ex ipsiusmet autoris discipulorum, aliorumuè ipsis coaeuorum, uel aeuo proximorum, ac ipsiusmet Alcorani domesticorum expositorum sententia et declaratione, uenatus fuero”. From the Praefatio of the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, in Antonio García Masegosa’s critical edition, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 35-37 (here, p. 35), with some slight changes in orthography and punctuation (The English translations in this study, unless otherwise stated, are mine).
On the use of Islamic exegetical sources in the first two medieval Latin translations of the Qur’an, by Robert of Ketton (1143) and Mark of Toledo (1210), see Thomas E. Burman, “Tafsīr and Translation: Traditional Arabic Qurʾān Exegesis and the Latin Qurʾāns of Robert of Ketton and Mark of Toledo” Speculum 73/3 (1998), p. 703-32, https://doi.org/10.2307/2887495 and Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 36-58.
These divisions were known and used by the Latin translators. Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation, p. 229, has shown how Robert of Ketton’s divisions of longer suras are based on this system. Ḥizb, ǧuzʾ, as well as ʿušr (division marked every ten verses), are signaled in Flavius Mithridates’s translation and the ǧuzʾ-division is mentioned in its preface, see: Bobzin, “Guglielmo”, p. 174 and Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 137.
See García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 41-64. These translations correspond to the following verses: Q. 2:21 (“yā-ayyuhā al-nās”); Q. 2:40 and Q. 2: 47 (“yā-banī Isrāʾīl”); Q. 2:63 (“wa-iḏ”), Q.2:67 (“wa-iḏ”) and Q. 2:83 (“wa-iḏ”); Q. 2:97 (“qul”); Q. 2:104 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:124 (“wa-iḏ”); Q. 2: 153 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”) and Q. 2:208 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:168 (“yā-ayyuhā al-nās”); Q. 2: 178 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”), Q. 2:254 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”) and Q. 2:278 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:223-224 (“wa-bašširi l-muʾminīna”). In this last example, Dominicus begins the new textus at the end of verse 223, which he considers as an introduction to the injunction at the beginning of verse 224 (“wa-bašširi l-muʾminīna / wa-lā taǧʿalū …” [Transl. “and give good tidings to the believers. / ‘And do not make …’”]; Dominicus (García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 57.): “Annuntia tu credentibus et dic: ‘Cauete ne ponatis …’” [Transl. “Announce to the believers and say: ‘Do not put …’”]). Dominicus splits the verse where he thinks a new unit of content begins. The content here takes precedence over the verse structure (in fact, Dominicus does not mark the verses in his translation, even though the end of a subsection almost always coincides with the end of a verse). It should also be noted that even though Dominicus stresses the literality of his translation, interpretations or variations sometimes slip into it. Here one should note the three different translations of the exactly identical expression “yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”, among which the solution proposed at the beginning of textus 11 stands out.
I reproduce here the text and translation of this passage from the preface of Dominicus (cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 36-37) from Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an translation in the MS K-III-1”, p. 141.(Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, praefatio, ms. E, fol. 2r): “In mancis autem dictis et suppositionibus euidentibus, subintellecta linea subducta notabo, nomen uerò expositoris pluriumue, aut has literas جم quae significant omnes in eo convenire, in margine è regione collocabo.” (Transl. “Whenever the [Qur’anic] words are overly synthetic, or there is clearly an implicit reference, I will underline the words of the reference that I have made explicit, and put in the margin the name of the commentator [from whom I obtained the explanation], or more than one name, or these letters “جم”, which mean that all the commentators agree on such an explanation”).
Cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 45. For the underlined “Tunc”, different from García Masegosa’s edition,see MS Escorial L.I.3 (siglum: B), fol. 140v.
Q. 2: 47 in the translation of Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, I, p. 34. Arabic: “yā-banī Isrāʾīla ḏkurū niʿmatiya”. Dominicus (García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 43.): “O filii Israel. Recordemini beneficii mei” (in all versions, the emphasis by the presence or absence of italics is mine).
I have edited the entire section in Cecini, “The Qur’ān Translation.” (forthcoming). See also: Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1”, p. 136-137.
This new version, which contains only the translation and commentary of the opening sura and sura 2, v. 1-5, is contained in MSK, fols.15r-38r. About it see Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1 of the El Escorial Library.” Its edition is currently under preparation by the author of this paper.
The Qur’anic text is that of the 1924 Cairo edition, transliterated according to the rules of this journal. The verse numbers of the Arabic Qur’an are placed, as customary, at the end of each verse.
It is also noteworthy that in both versions Dominicus chooses the juridical interpretation of dīn (“judgment”), and does not translate it as “religion”, as it is usually interpreted in this passage. He probably thinks that the first interpretation is the more literal one, while the second is a further development. On the two meanings of dīn, with an explanation of their possible etymology, see Arne A. Ambros, A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic, Wiesbaden,: Reichert, 2004, p. 102. and, in more detail, Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān, Baroda, 1938, p. 131-33.
E.g. Al-Samarqandī ad locum: “wa-qāla l-Aḫfaš: yaʿnī: karhan. ‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’ yaʿnī: ḏalīlīna” (“And Al-Aḫfaš said: It means: forcibly. and they are (or become) little, means: they are humiliated.”); Al-Zamaḫšarī ad locum: “ ‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’: ay tuʾḫidu min-hum ʿalā al-ṣiġāri wa-l-ḏilli” (“{and they are (or become) little}: i.e. it is taken from them to make them contemptible and to cause humiliation.”); (Source for both commentaries: www.altafsir.com [Last consulted: 27/10/2022]). Al-Samarqandī and al-Zamaḫšarī are among the most quoted commentators by Dominicus . In al-Samarqandī we can also see the origin of the change “dare”>”cogantur dare”, which was therefore made by Dominicus according to the evidence of the commentaries.
This may also be the result of consulting more commentaries, as can be seen by comparing the margins of the different versions (the added names are only in MSB).
The first version also translates the verb as “deviate”, but adds an interpretation (“to deviate from the truth”) that is later left out: “[quos Deus perdidit ante illos] ubi eos reperit declinasse à ueritate” (“[whom God destroyed before them, when he found them to have deviated from the truth]”).
The passage is translated in different ways, which testifies to its amiguity: Bausani, p. 135, maintains the ambiguity: “Egli è Colui che ha inviato il Suo Messaggero con la retta guida e la Religione della Verità, perché prevalga [who? the Messenger? the Religion of Truth?] sulle religioni tutte”; Blachère chooses a translation similar to the previous reading of Dominicus, p. 217: “C’est Lui qui a envoyé Son Apôtre, avec la Direction et la Religion de Vérité, pour la faire prévaloir sur la Religion en entier”, as do Bobzin, p. 163,: “Er ist es, der seinen Gesandten [m.] mit der rechten Leitung sandte / und mit der Religion (f.) der Wahrheit, um ihr (f.) zum Siege zu verhelfen über alle Religion”, and Vernet, p. 203: “Él es Quien ha mandado a su Enviado con la dirección y la religión verdadera, para elevarla sobre todas las religiones”.
Dominicus clearly relates this two verses to the clergymen mentioned earlier. This is also the reason why he does not begin a new textus here, despite the apostrophe (“O ye who believe rightly!”).
For the sake of completeness, we also report here the translation of part of this passage (vv. 30 [part]; 32-33), which Dominicus made in an early work of his , the “Antitheses Fidei” of 1638, p. 13: “Alcor. Textu Paenitentiae, versus medium; dictum eius. Dixerunt Nazareni: Christus est filius Dei, atque illud est dictum eorum, qui fidem abnegauerunt antea & non multo post: volunt exstinguere lucem Dei oribus suis, sed auertat Deus; nisi quod perficiat lumen suum inuitis, etiam infidelibus. Ipse est qui misit apostolum cum directione, seu regula & fide veritatis; vt superiorem illum ostendat super fidem vniuersam, & etiam invitis participantibus. id est Christianis.” Note the “volunt” at the beginning of verse 32 and the “illum” of verse 33, referred to the Prophet. We plan to publish more detailed studies on the Antitheses Fidei. On this work see: Zacarias Remiro Andollu, “La Sagrada Congregación frente al Islám: Apostolado de la Prensa en lengua árabe”, in Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum: 350 anni a servizio delle missioni, ed. Josef Metzler, Rome, Herder, 1971, vol. I/1, p.707-731 (esp. 715-716;721); Aurélien Girard, “Teaching and Learning Arabic in Early Modern Rome: Shaping a Missionary Language”, in The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe, ed. Jan Loop, Alastair Hamilton, and Charles Burnett, Leiden, Brill, 2017, p. 189-212, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2b9.13 (esp. p. 203-204); Ulisse Cecini, “Dominicus Germanus de Silesia in Rome: The Roman Prodromes of a Future Qur’an Translator”, in The Qur’an in Rome. Manuscripts, Translations, and the Study of Islam in Early Modern Catholicism, ed. Federico Stella and Roberto Tottoli, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2024, p. 263-285, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111096926 -011 (esp. 276-283); Dennis Halft, The Arabic Vulgate in Safavid Persia. Arabic Printing of the Gospels, Catholic Missionaries, and the Rise of Shīʿī Anti-Christian Polemics, Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 2016, p. 139-142.
Here MSE does not present corrections, so here, as in verse 33, the two stages are E and M on one side, and only B, with its corrections, on the other.
I.e. “Those who associate”. We tried to reproduce in the English translation the Latin “consocificantes”, used by Dominicus to give a literal rendition of “al-mušrikūna”, meaning “those who put an associate or a partner [socius] next to God”.
Dominicus speaks of this explicitly in the preface to the Interpretatio (cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 35): “… cum uix in aliquo seruet ordinem narrationis et magnam prae se ferat uerborum ostentationem, incompta nonnumquam connexione, immo confusione […]; qua de causa expositores, horum indicationes citantes, cum sint tam diuersae, diuersas quoque eliciunt conclusiones.“ (“… since [the Qur’an] almost never keeps the sequence of the narration, while making show of a great verbal ostentation, sometimes with rough connections or, better, confusion […]; therefore, when the commentators mention the implied meanings of the verses, these meanings are so different that the commentators also draw different conclusions from them.”).
This means: “His word, [i.e. the Prophet], Peace be upon Him: Who converts to Islam from the People of the Book, his reward will be twice as much: to him, the same as to us and upon him the same as upon us. Who converts to Islam from the polytheists, to him, the same as to us and upon him the same as upon us.”
A similar case is found in the description of ʿĀlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (the future fourth Calif) in the introductory section of the “Interpretatio” mentioned above. He is said to be a former rabbi, together with his father (MSE, fol. 3r): “Erant [scilicet Aali et Abu Thaleb] enim ambo praecipui Rabbini, suo tempore, inter Iudaeos” (They [i.e. ʿĀlī and Abū Ṭālib] were both important rabbis of their time among the Jews).
On this legend, see: Fernando González Muñoz, “Liber Nycholay. La leyenda de Mahoma y el cardenal Nicolás,” Al-Qanṭara 25/1 (2004), p. 5-43, https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2004.v25.i1.147; Fernando González Muñoz, “Liber Nycholay, in Christian-Muslim Relations 600-1500, ed. David Thomas and Alex Mallet, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2012, p. 650-653; Alessandro D’Ancona, “La Leggenda Di Maometto in Occidente,” in Alessandro D’Ancona, Studj di Critica e Storia Letteraria, Bologna, Zanichelli, 1912, p. 165-308. (esp. 206-219).
On the post-Tridentine missionary attitude and Propaganda Fide, see Giovanni Pizzorusso, Governare le Missioni, Conoscere il Mondo nel XVII Secolo, Viterbo, Sette Città, 2018, p. 183: “Dopo il Concilio di Trento prevalse l’opinione che era meglio evitare il confronto teologico. […] Il metodo missionario della predicazione rese necessaria una certa disposizione dei religiosi a favorire la conversione attraverso la spiegazione e la comparazione”, and ibidem, p. 187: “Ingoli [i.e. the secretary of Propaganda Fide, Francesco Ingoli (1578-1649), n. Cecini] suggeriva di ritorcere contro gli eretici i punti deboli della loro dottrina”.
Haec … uerterint] Hoc dicto orium [sic] suorum, se ipsos conuincunt esse similes incredulis quos Deus perdidit ante illos, id est, idolatras, ubi eos reperit declinasse à ueritate M a.c. E.
Quibus … suae] Quibus permissum fuit frequentare orationem cum credentibus in phano, eò quod cum illis pactum inierat Mohhammaed, sperans se per hoc illos fidei lucraturum E M.
Idèo … oraculo] Ideo (aiunt) propheta statim expediuit Maekkam cum hoc oraculo Aali generum suum [E 170r] qui mox ut peruenit Maekkam praelegit illis oraculum E M
Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s 17th century translation of the Qur’an, Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, offers a new approach to the long history of Latin translations of the Qur’an. In line with the early modern, humanistic, “philological” trend, he aims to explore the original sources of his object of study. However, he takes this concept further by considering as “source” not only the authentic Qur’anic text, but also the most authoritative Qur’anic commentators, whom he also translates into Latin and incorporates into the translation. This paper is a first attempt to analyze in detail Dominicus’s modus operandi, his sources and how he relates them to the Qur’anic text, as well as the purpose of his work. The study includes the critical edition of sura 9, 28-35 in the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, both in the translation and in the commentary parts of the work.
Résumé
La traduction du Coran par Dominicus Germanus de Silesia au XVIIe siècle, Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, offre une nouvelle approche de la longue histoire des traductions latines du Coran. Conformément à la tendance « philologique » humaniste du début des temps modernes, il cherche à explorer les sources originales de son objet d’étude. Cependant, il pousse ce concept plus loin en considérant comme « source » non seulement le texte coranique authentique, mais aussi les commentateurs coraniques les plus autorisés, qu’il traduit également en latin et incorpore à la traduction. Cet article est une première tentative d’analyse détaillée du modus operandi de Dominicus, de ses sources et de la manière dont il les relie au texte coranique, ainsi que de l’objectif de son travail. L’étude inclut l’édition critique de la sourate 9, 28-35 dans l’Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, à la fois dans la partie traduction et dans la partie commentaire de l’ouvrage.
Since at least the 15th century, the rise of humanistic ideas, such as the renewed interest in the study of languages and their deeper structure and meaning, as well as the idea of “returning to the sources” – i.e., the study of texts, their transmission, their cultural background, and their “meaning”, which the humanists were able to gain thanks to their enhanced knowledge of languages – also influenced the relations of the Latin Christian world with Islam, as well as the Latin translations of the Qur’an that were produced from then on.1
For example, the translation of the Qur’an by Juan Gabriel of Teruel for Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1469-1532) around the year 1518 was in four columns. This was done, on the one hand, to allow the reader to compare the Latin translation with the Arabic original (i.e. the “source”) and, on the other hand, to allow a deeper knowledge of the “meaning” of the text. The first three columns contained the Arabic original in Arabic script and in Latin “phonetic” transliteration, placed in columns one and two, respectively, and the Latin translation in column three. In the fourth column, one could read explanatory annotations, mostly illustrating cultural customs of Islamic societies that were not immediately apparent from the Qur’anic text.2 These were largely inspired by another contemporary work that perfectly embodied the spirit of the time, the book “Confusión o confutación de la secta mahomética” published in 1515 by the convert Juan Andrés. A Muslim himself (as was Juan Gabriel, who, before his conversion was known as Alí Alayzar), Juan Andrés often gives an insider’s view of the rituals and customs within the Muslim community of the Iberian Peninsula.3 Similarly, the translation of the Qur’an by Guglielmo Raimondo de Moncada, also known as Flavius Mithridates (fl. 1475-1485), for the Duke of Urbino Federico da Montefeltro (1422-1482) around 1480 juxtaposes Latin and Arabic.4
There are more examples of what we may call the humanistic “philological” trend in the field of Latin translations of the Qur’an, but it is not our purpose to list them all here.5 We simply want to introduce the reader to the existence of such a trend in order to provide a background for the work of the central figure of this article, the 17th-century Franciscan friar Dominicus Germanus de Silesia (1588-1670). This author may be viewed as a recipient of the trend, since he places the emphasis of his translation of the Qur’an on the respect of the original source and provides his translation with exegetical sections based on Islamic sources to present the Muslim perspective. However, he extends and develops this trend in an unprecedented way by explicitly and systematically quoting Islamic commentaries (both in the Arabic and in the Latin translation). Rather than confine them to side notes, he embeds them in extensive sections within the main text, giving them the same importance as the translation of the Qur’anic text, and presenting their interpretation as an essential part of the work.
1 Dominicus Germanus de Silesia and the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis
Dominicus Germanus de Silesia,6 born in 1588 in Schurgast, today Skorogoszcz in Poland, spent the last 18 years of his life, from ca. 1652 until 1670, the year of his death, in the monastery of El Escorial on the Iberian Peninsula, working on what he probably considered to be the greatest achievement of his life: a Latin translation of the Qur’an, accompanied by commentaries based on the reproduction – in Latin translation, but also partly in the original Arabic – of the most authoritative Islamic exegetical literature. On the basis of the explanations he collected from these sources, he structured his refutation, which is also included in the commentary sections, in the form of personal statements related to the quoted Islamic exegetical passages. In this respect, Dominicus considered himself an improvement over the previous Latin translations and refutations of the Qur’an. This is evident from what he writes in the preface to his Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis:
“… I had hunted down (“uenatus fuero”) the interpretation of the meaning of the Qur’an, not from dictionaries and lexica, but from the words and explanations of the disciples of the author himself [i.e. the Prophet Muḥammad, n. Cecini], or of other people who lived at same time (or in a time close to theirs), as well as [from explanations] of indigenous commentators of the Qur’an itself.”7
In his mind, such a translation and refutation were irrefutable because they were based on a supposedly literal translation and interpretation taken from the meanings explained by the very sources from which each pious Muslim draws his own understanding of the Qur’an.
As we pointed out in the introduction, Dominicus was not the first, even if he would like to present himself as such, to seek a literal translation to implement Muslim commentaries into the translation.8 It is indeed remarkable, however, how he incorporated the commentaries into the structure and into the concept of the translation, and how he did so in a very analytical and consistent manner. In fact, the quotations from the exegetical sources are not irregularly distributed throughout the translation, but we have a structure that alternates translated sections, which Dominicus refers to as textus, and relative commentaries, which he calls scholia. The suras, which Dominicus names textus as well, are divided into further subsections, also called textus, each of which is followed by a scholium. The scholium contains exegetical material related to the verses translated in the preceding (sub-) textus to which the scholium refers, presented in a Latin translation interspersed with Arabic transcriptions and, now and then, Dominicus’s comments on them.9 For example, the textus primus, i.e. the second sura (the first sura, the fātiḥa, is called textus proëmialis [=introductory text]), is divided into 25 (sub-)textus, each of which is followed by a scholium, according to the following table:
The sub-textus are divided based on their content and not, for example, according to internal Qur’anic divisions such as ḥizb (division of the Qur’an into 60 equal parts) or ǧuzʾ (division of the Qur’an into 30 equal parts).10 This can be seen, for example, by the fact that many textus begin with an apostrophe to the intended recipient of the message that follows, thus representing a unit based on content: the beginning of the new apostrophe marks the beginning of the new sura subsection (e.g., textus 2 begins with “O uos homines!” [“O ye people!”]; textus 4 and 5 with “O filii Israel!” [“O ye Sons of Israel!”]; textus 6, 7 and 8 with “Item recordemini” [“You (pl.) should remember further!”]; textus 10 with “Dic” [“Say!”]; textus 11: “O uos qui uera fidem profitemini!” [“O ye (pl.) who profess the true faith!”]; textus 13 with “Recordare” [“Remember (sg.)!”]; textus 14 and 18 with “O uos qui uere credidistis!” [“O ye who rightly believed!”]; textus 15 with “O homines!” [“People!”]; textus 16, 23 and 25 with “O uos qui uere creditis!” [“O ye who rightly believe!”]; textus 20 with “Annuntia tu credentibus et dic:” [“Announce to the believers and say:”]).11 The underlined words in these textus allow Dominicus to stress the literality of his translation: In the preface he explains that he has underlined what is to be understood as a commentary within the text, the source of which he indicates in the margin (this is represented by the name, in Arabic script, of the commentator [or commentators] from whom he drew the interpretation, or the abbreviation ǧm [also in Arabic script, from the Arabic ǧamīʿ, meaning “totality of”], which means that all the commentators present such an interpretation).12 For example, here is the beginning of textus 6, which contains two underlined passages, compared to the Qur’anic source:
“And when We took compact with you, and raised above you the Mount [i.e. Mount Sinai, n. Cecini]: ‘Take forcefully what We have given you, and remember what is in it; haply you shall be godfearing’”.13
Item recordemini quando nos approbauimus pactum uestrum et sublimauimus montem super uos. Tunc, supple, diximus uobis: Recipite id quod tradimus uobis cum efficacia, et fixa mente retinete in eo contenta, ut appareat uos habere timorem Dei.
“You [i.e. the Sons of Israel, n. Cecini] should remember further, when we approved your pact and raised high the mountain above you. Then, you [i.e. the reader, n. Cecini] should add, we said to you: Receive what we transmitted to you with effectiveness, and hold with firm mind what is contained in it, so that it shows that you are afraid of God.”
Here Dominicus wants to connect the new block with the previous one in a logical sequence. The section contained in textus 5, beginning with verse 47, opens with a call to the Sons of Israel, telling them explicitly: “Children of Israel, remember My blessing etc.”.15 At verse 63, the text continues elliptically, with a simple “and when” (“wa-iḏ”), so that Dominicus feels the need to point out to his readers that the text here continues the apostrophe to the Sons of Israel of the previous block: (v.47:) “Sons of Israel, you should remember my favour (Lat. “beneficium”)” […] (v.63:) “Further, (Lat. “item”) you should remember (Lat. “recordemini”) when we approved your pact etc”. In the next sentence, again, the text does not explicitly say, even if it can be inferred, that a direct speech (“Take forcefully what We have given you etc.”) is beginning, quoting what God said to the Children of Israel at the time of the Covenant, and therefore is not a further commandment, parallel to the “remember”. Dominicus, therefore, points this out in his translation by introducing the direct speech with the underlined words: “Back then (Lat. “tunc”), we said to you”. In this case he also marks the addition with the word “supple” (“you should add”), which unmistakably marks the addition as a note for the reader. The underlined additions (“Recordemini” and “Tunc etc.”) fall into the category of an interpretation accepted by all commentators, since in the margin we find the note ǧm in Arabic script.16
Dominicus is careful to always cite rigorously the original sources of the interpretation presented and he also lists and classifies them all in a separate section between the preface and the translation.17 In the scholia, as we will see in the case study below, he methodically mentions both in the text (usually in Latin transcription) and in the margins (in Arabic script) the source he is quoting. Moreover, Dominicus wishes to accompany his quotations of exegetical sources in Latin translation with the original Arabic, a procedure that increases in subsequent revisions of his work. The Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis project is, in fact, about a continuous reworking, both of the translation and the commentaries, with the objective of obtaining even better translations and more analytical and in-depth commentary sections. This is clearly visible in some of the extant manuscripts, which show numerous corrections, as we will also see below. Not content with this, after completing a first version of the entire work, Dominicus begins a new translation project in which not only are the commentaries more extensive, but in which each exegetical quotation in Latin is immediately followed by the corresponding original text in Arabic script.18 This version is quite practical for the analysis of the sources, but unfortunately it covers only a small part of the Qur’an. The first version, the only one that covers the entire Qur’an, is more difficult because the Arabic transcriptions of the original sources translated in the scholia are far less frequent and systematic.
2 A Case Study: Sura 9, 28-35
In spite of this difficulty, we will offer here a first attempt at analyzing the work of Dominicus both in terms of translation and commentary. This will be done through a case study of (sub-)textus 3 of the Textus Octavus, i.e. sura 9 “al-tawba”. The (sub-)textus 3 covers verses 28 to 35 of the sura. We have chosen this passage for the following reasons. First, it is a relevant passage regarding the relations between Islam and other religions or cults: It clearly speaks against the pre-Islamic polytheism, establishes the individual tax for the ḏimmīs, and takes a stand on the affirmation that Christ is the Son of God. Second, one can see in it the effort made by Dominicus to find a text that was acceptable to him, both in the translation and in the scholium, given the numerous corrections that can be seen in the manuscripts. Third, we do not have the “new” version of MSK for this part of the Qur’an, so it is a good passage to test Dominicus’s first approach to the sources.
2.1 The Qur’anic text and the translation of Dominicus Germanus
For the convenience of the reader, I reproduce here the passage both in Arabic and in Arberry’s translation:
O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. 9:30 The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!
They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary’s son – and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate – desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse. It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. O believers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed consume the goods of the people in vanity and bar from God’s way. Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God -- give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, 9:35 the day they shall be heated in the fire of Gehenna and therewith their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded: ‘This is the thing you have treasured up for yourselves; therefore taste you now what you were treasuring!’20
The analysis will be structured as follows: first, we will look at the translation part, paying special attention to the corrections and to the verses commented on in the scholium, the analysis of which will constitute the second part of the case study.
The passage exists in three manuscripts:
MSE (El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, 1624), which is a working manuscript of Dominicus. It shows many corrections, both in the translation and in the scholium. Some of the text has been illegibly erased by covering it with ink and replacing it over the line or in the margin.
Fortunately, we have most of the pre-correction version preserved in the copy in MSM, Montpellier, Bibliothèque interuniversitaire, H 72. M is not an autograph copy of Dominicus.
The third manuscript, MSB, El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, L.I.3, fols. 122r-319v, an autograph of Dominicus like E, implements the corrections we find in E and adds new ones.
In sum, we have three stages, which we could group into two for better visualization: 1) E before the correction and M. 2) E after the correction and B. We will now place the two texts side by side in a verse-by-verse analysis. We will mark the corrected passages in bold. We will mark in italics the modifications that occur only in B, i.e., where E has no correction and coincides with the text given by M. The sections that are underlined were already underlined in the manuscripts. We provide the critical edition of the text in the appendix at the end of this paper.
Arberry’s transl.: O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
In this verse, we can see that the corrections involve some changes in the wording, in an effort to be more literal. In the first correction, on MSE, Dominicus replaced the ablativus absolutus “finito hoc lustro” (“this period having finished”) with a construction that more closely resembles the wording of the Arabic: “post (Ar. “baʿda”) peractum lustrum ipsorum annale (Ar. “ʿām”)”. He also felt the need to add an in-text gloss (“id est magnae festiuitatis” [i.e. [the period] of the great feast]), which he may have found in a subsequent consultation of the commentaries, or simply for further clarification. In the other corrections we found in MSB, we see Dominicus striving to be even closer to the Arabic. He prefers “uos ditabit” (“he will enrich you”), which is a more literal rendering of the Arabic “yuġannī-kum” (“he will enrich you”), to “sufficientiam uictus tribuet” (“he will give you enough nourishment”), which is already informed by an interpretation. The same can be said for “si ei placuerit” (“if it pleases Him”), which is closer to the Arabic phrase “in šāʾ” (“if He will”) than “secundum beneplacitum suum” (“according to His good will”). We can also suppose that Dominicus, upon reflection, considers the verb ʿalama (from which comes “ʿalīm” [the one who is “knowing” par exellence]) to be better expressed by the Latin cognosco than scio – which would perhaps be closer to the Arabic darā? –. This might also be the reason for changing “omnia” (“everything”) to “omnes” (“everyone; every being”), considering scio a more abstract and cognosco a more concrete type of knowledge. Naturally, this last part is only speculation. On the contrary, in the first version we also find words closer to the Arabic source that have been removed: the “hoc” in “finito hoc lustro”, which corresponds to the Arabic hāḏā, and the “Deus” in “quia Deus omnia sciens sapientissimus est”, which corresponds to the Arabic Allāh in the phrase “inna l-lāha ʿalīmun ḥakīmun”.
Arberry’s transl.: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
In verse 29, some of the corrections seem to aim at a better style, such as “et apostolus eius” instead of “apostolusque illius”, or the suppressed repetition of the word “aetas” at the end. Others are more like a commentary to achieve greater clarity while at the same time seeking greater literality, such as the further addition, in the last stage, of “secundum ueritatem” to express the literal meaning of the Arabic word “al-ḥaqq” (“truth”), which had already been translated as “just” (in “iustum iudicium”), following the more literal rendering of “yadīnūna dīna” with “iudicant iudicium”, which reproduces the typical Arabic construction of the internal object, i.e., the direct object as a noun from the same root as the verb.21 The word “personale” explains the nature of the ǧizya, the “tributum”, as a “head tax”. One explanation is the use of “cogantur dare” (“they should be forced to give [the tax]”) instead of “dent” (“they should give”), the latter being closer to the wording of the Arabic text, which has only “yuʿtū” (“[until] they give”), so Dominicus seems to want to underline the coercion here. Nevertheless, he chooses not to translate “ṣāġirūna” with “humiliated”, as we find in many translations22 and also in Arberry, quoted above, and as it is also suggested in the commentaries,23 but goes with a literal translation of the meaning of the root, i.e. “being small”, interpreting that the tax was also imposed on children. If we look at al-Zamaḫšarī’s’s commentary ad locum: “‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’: ay tuʾḫidu min-hum ʿalā al-ṣiġāri wa-l-ḏilli” (“ ‘and they are (or become) little’: i.e., It is taken from them to make them contemptible and to cause humiliation”),24 we may wonder if Dominicus understood “ṣiġāri” as the plural of ṣaġīr (small, little), and thus perhaps interpreted the sentence as “it is collected by them [being imposed] upon the little ones [i.e. the children]”. Once again, this is a tentative way of looking for a solution for which we have no proof. However, it is possible that he found a source to support it, since he also interprets the Arabic “ʿalā yad” (“out of hand”) to mean that the amount of the tax should be proportional to age, a gloss that he maintained even after the correction, even though he changed the phrasing (before the correction: “pro aetate quisque sua” [“each one according to their age”]; after: “iuxta aetatis augmentum quisque suae” [“each one according to the growing of their age”]). Be that as it may, the relevant feature here is that between the two alternatives, “little ones” and “humiliation”, Dominicus seems to have discarded the most polemical one by not speaking of humiliation in his translation. Nevertheless, he adds the detail of the forceful collection of the head tax, which is present in the commentaries.25 While Dominicus added all the more detailed explanations we have seen so far, he removed the commentary “Judaei et Christiani” to explain the “al-laḏīna ūtū l-kitāba” (“those to whom the book [or rather, the Scripture] was given”). Perhaps by adding “scriptam” and changing “those who have received a Law” (“qui legem acceperunt”) to “those who have received a written Law” (“qui acceperunt legem scriptam”) – thus adhering more closely to the Arabic root kataba (to write) of “kitāb” – Dominicus considered that it was already implied that one was referring to Jews and Christians as the only custodians, along with Muslims, of written Sacred Scripture.
Arberry’s transl.: The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!
In verse 30, we can see that the second part of the verse has been completely rewritten probably once again to be more literal and concise.26 We can see that the verb ḍāhaʾa (to resemble something, to imitate), was later translated with the participle “imitantes” (“imitating”) instead of the long periphrasis “se ipsos conuincunt esse similes” (“they convict themselves to be similar [to the unbelievers which God damned before them]”). In both cases there is an added commentary on the “Unbelievers” (“increduli” / “al-laḏīna kafarū”) to specify that they are “idol-worshippers” (“idolatrae”), in the later version the gloss is incorporated into the translation (“incredulos idolatras”), unlike the version before the correction, where it is clearly marked as a gloss (“id est idolatras”). In both cases, Dominicus’s translation differs from the modern one. He refers the “hum” (“them”) of qātala-hum (“may he [i.e. God, n. Cecini] fight them”) to the unbelievers and not to the Christians and the Jews, and connects it with the following “annā yuʾfakūna”, a rethorical exclamation (“how have they been perverted!”) which Dominicus renders in a simpler way: “God ordered to fight them (i.e. the unbelievers) [“quos (i.e. idolatras) expugnare praecepit Deus”], wherever they turn themselves away to (“quocumque se uerterint”)”. This literally renders the passive yuʾfaku, which means “to be turned in a wrong direction”.27 Once again, between two possible interpretations, Dominicus seems to choose the less polemical one, if it seems to him to be the more literal one, while at the same time making the idolaters, and not Christians and Jews, the target of the exhortation to fight. So if the choice is between polemic and literalism, the polemic loses.
Verses 31-35 will be discussed in less detail, since they are not specifically commented on in the scholium.
Arberry’s transl.: They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary’s son -- and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate.
Apart from the stylistic corrections, we would like to point out the disappearance of the gloss explaining that the “priests” of the text refer to both Jews and Christians, replaced by the translation of the Arabic aḥbār with two words “priests and bishops”. It is important for Dominicus to show how the Arabic word designating a religious scholar, an “expert” in theological matters, often used to designate Jewish rabbis, should also be applied to their Christian counterparts. In fact, by eliminating the direct mention of the Jews, who are also involved in the context of the previous verses, he emphasizes the fact that he considers this verse – even though he is basing his interpretation on Muslim commentaries, as we will see below – to be addressed primarily to Christians, as he will explain in the scholium.
Q. 9:32
Arabic: yuridūna an yuṭfiʾū nūra l-lāhi bi-afwāhi-him wa-yaʾbā l-lāhu illā an yutimma nūra-hu wa-law kariha l-kāfirūna
Arberry’s transl.: desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse.
Here we notice a doubt in the rendition of Arabic yuridūna (“they want”). “Quaerunt” may have been influenced by the Spanish translation of the word (= quieren), which in Latin means “they seek”, and is thus an interpretation of the Arabic verb. Dominicus may have later felt that this was not justified and used the more literal “uolunt”. We also notice the insertion of a gloss in the later version, a gloss developed in two steps: first only “Alcoranum”, to explain the “light of God” as the Qur’an, and then with the addition of “supprimere”, which refers the gloss to the whole preceding sentence: “They want to put out God’s light”, explained as: “They want to suppress the Qur’an”. It is also noteworthy to what extent Dominicus emphasizes that the Qur’anic text is addressed to a specific group of unbelievers, namely “these”, i.e. “these, who are here now” (as the “praesentes” and “nunc existentes” of verse 30), repeating the addition “istis” twice. He seems to want to underline that this revelation, which might be considered somewhat aggressive, is not general, but was made on a specific occasion, as he will explain in the scholium. In this way, he may have wanted to reduce controversy by relating this not to all Christians (and Jews), but to a particular group of them at a particular historical time and place.
Arberry’s transl.: It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse.
We can note how in manuscript B Dominicus refers the pronoun “hu” of “li-yuẓhira-hu” (“to uplift him”) to “rasūl” (“messenger” / “apostolus”) instead of referring it to dīn (“religion” / “lex”, in Arabic a masculine noun), as he did in the first version (and as Arberry, does).28 We can speculate whether he has chosen here to avoid a confrontation between religions in favor of a solution that is also grammatically possible and that “only” gives the Prophet a prominent place without explicitly stating the superiority of one religion over others.
Arberry’s transl.: O believers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed consume the goods of the people in vanity and bar from God’s way. Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God – give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, / the day they shall be heated in the fire of Gehenna and therewith their foreheads
and their sides and their backs shall be branded: ‘This is the thing you have treasured up for yourselves; therefore taste you now what you were treasuring!’
We have connected these two verses because they are logically connected in Dominicus’s translation. Here, too, “episcopi” is added as in verse 31.29 Moreover, we can see an effort to better translate “yaṣuddūna” (“to turn away”), and render its two senses: “to turn away oneself from” or “to turn others away, to dissuade from.” Along the same lines of a more literal translation is the change from “gratis” to “inaniter” to render “bi-l-bāṭili” (lit. “in what is futile”) and the repetition of the expression “on the way of God” present in the Qur’anic text. Dominicus also opts for a more appropriate translation ad sensum when he translates “yaʾkulūna” (lit. “they eat”) with “consummunt” (“they consume”) rather than with “edunt” (“they eat”). The other corrections are stylistic choices.30
2.2 The scholium
As we mentioned earlier, the scholia are the most original and most interesting part of Dominicus’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis. To date, they have neither been edited nor analyzed in detail.31 What we present here, together with the critical edition of this scholium, which can be found in the appendix section, is therefore a first attempt to see how Dominicus uses the exegetical sources to write his scholia, and it should be seen as the first result of a work in progress.
Not only did Dominicus revise the translations, but we also have the three stages we described earlier for the scholium . In what follows, we will analyze each paragraph of the scholium, according to the two grouped redactions of 1) E before the correction and M, and 2) E after the correction and B. We will try to describe Dominicus’s use of Muslim exegetical sources by examining the commentaries he mentions and seeing how he deals with them.
The first paragraph refers to the question of who exactly is referred to by the word “al-mušrikūna” (the “associators”33 of the first verse of the TextusIII, verse 28: “innamā l-mušrikūna naǧasun” [Arberry: “The idolaters (lit. “the associators”, n. Cecini) are indeed unclean”]). Although he later presents some examples from specific commentators, here Dominicus makes a general statement, saying that there is a multiplicity of opinions among the commentators. He wants to show this because he is convinced that the multiplicity of opinions among the commentators shows the obscurity of the Qur’an and that even the “experts” could not agree on its interpretation.34 Be that as it may, all the commentators agree (as the notation “ǧm”, the abbreviation for “ǧamīʿ” [“all” (the commentators)] in the margin confirms) that God did not allow polytheism in any of the revealed scriptures. We have not been able to find the exact wording we read in Dominicus’s scholium in any particular commentator. Nevertheless, especially when Domincus speaks of the Qur’an that “shines above every law with the light of truth”, it is clear that he is translating from, or perhaps summarizing, Muslim sources. Whatever the source,35 it is important to note that when Dominicus reports a source, he usually translates it “as it is”, including praises of Islam, Muḥammad and the Qur’an, if they are present in the source. The most he does to make it clear that he is reporting a statement is to add an “aiunt” (“they say”), but this is not the case with each quotation. In any case, he does not feel the need to adapt the text he is translating, but reproduces it as closely as possible.
After this general statement, Dominicus goes on to illustrate the various solutions to the question: “who are the mušrikūn, of whom the text speaks”?
Al-Ǧurǧānī, explains Dominicus, says that these are to be understood as the idol-worshippers among the Arabs, to whom access to the temple had been granted since ancient times.
This is indeed what we find in al-Ǧurǧānī’s commentary ad locum:
(English translation:) The situation indicates that they are “associators” of the Arabs, because they used to approach the Sacred Mosque and went frequently to it in the Hajj and ʿUmrah rather than the rest of the people, and we learned it mostly by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah, which also indicate that they are idol-worshippers rather than other unbelievers; Because God Almighty says: {Indeed, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians, and Christians, and the Magi, and those who associate} [Q. 21: 17].
The Qur’anic quotation we find at the end of this passage is also present in the scholium of Dominicus, but only in the Latin translation, and it is said to be a quotation of Muǧāhid within the commentary of al-Ǧurǧānī.
Muǧāhid does indeed appear in the commentary of al-Ǧurǧānī that I consulted, but with a different statement, referring to the part of verse 28 that reads “If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will”:
wa-rawiya Ibn abī Naǧīḥ ʿan Muǧāhid fī hāḏihi l-āya: qāla l-muʾminūna: kunnā nusību matāǧira l-mušrikīna fa-waʿada-humu l-lāhu an yaġniya- hum min faḍli-hi ʿawḍan la-hum39
(English translation:) Ibn Abī Naǧīḥ transmitted on the authority of Muǧāhid: The believers said: We have been obtaining the business of the “associators”. So God promised them that He would enrich them from His favor in compensation for them.
We have the addition in manuscript B that the idol-worshippers of the Arabs worshipped the statues of the Angels, considering these as daughters of God, which we find in al-Ǧurǧānī further below, in the explanation of the word “yuḍāhiʾūna”, which was reworked in the translation:
(English translation:) They resemble and are similar to those who disbelieved before, they are those who claimed that the Creator dwelled in earthy bodies, glory be to Him! , among them […] the Banū al-Malīḥ who claimed that the angels are the daughters of God, may God be exalted from that!
Apart from the missing mention of Muǧāhid, al-Ǧurǧānī’s commentary continues exactly as we read in Dominicus’s scholium, with a quotation from the Prophet himself, which Dominicus reproduces in Arabic and in Latin translation:
qawlu-hu ʿalay-hi l-salām: “man aslama min ahli l-kitāb kāna aǧru-hu marratayni wa-la-hu mā la-nā wa-ʿalay-hi mā ʿalay-nā wa-man aslama min al-mušrikīna kāna la-hu mā la-nā wa-ʿalay-hi mā ʿalay-nā”.42
However, I could not find in al-Ǧurǧānī the following explanatory text that Dominicus attributes to Ibn ʿAbbās: The reward of the people of the book is double, because they receive one reward for obeying the new Islamic Law, and another for obeying the precepts of the Law they followed before conversion, if they did. Once again, the work of tracing Dominicus’s sources is more difficult than it seems at first, and I wonder whether the tafsīr-manuscripts of the Escorial library could help in this matter. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee, considering that many manuscripts were destroyed in the fire of 1671.
So far, Dominicus commented on verse 28. The following clearly refers to verse 30 (Here, again, we do not find any intermediate corrections between E and the new version of B).
Dominicus moves from al-Ǧurǧānī to other commentators, whom he lists in the margin as Abu Hayyān, al-Zamaḫšarī, al-ʿAmādī (quoting al-Kalabī and Ibn ʿAbbās). He says that even though these commentators also recognize that this passage refers to anyone who put other deities next to the one God, it is addressed specifically to Christians. Dominicus quotes al-ʿAmādī in particular to support the argument that the Qur’anic reprobation concerns the Jews to a lesser extent. They call Esdras the son of God, but this is a kind of honorific title for having restored the true Mosaic Law after it had been perverted during the Babylonian captivity.43
We then found a comment of Dominicus which shows how he refuted or diminished the importance of the Islamic sources he so carefully quoted:
The “tradition of the impostor”, as it is called in the later addition of ms. B, are probably the hadiths as narrated by the disciples of the Prophet i.e., his companions. Once again, Dominicus seems to discredit the commentators, who “fabricate” stories (note the change from “affero” (“bring”) to “astruo” (“construct”) in the later version) rather than the Qur’anic text itself.
After this parenthesis, Dominicus continues with the quotation from the commentators:
This second part of the quotation is present only in the earlier versions of E and M, but is absent from B. Did Dominicus perhaps find it too strong for Christian ears? Again, in his earlier translation, he seems to be faithful to his source (which I have not been able to identify), saying that Jesus Christ is “only the son of Mary, a human being borne of a human being, even if he was not conceived by a human male”, and speaks of “the error” of Christians and Jews, of Muhammad “opening their eyes”, and of the Qur’an “containing the truth”.
Then we have a commentary by Dominicus, which we find in the margin of MSE and is also incorporated into the text and corrected in B, but it is absent in M.
Again, this is a personal commentary by Dominicus in which he shows his knowledge of the background of the commentators. I could not find the source he used to claim that Al-Ǧurǧānī was a former Christian.44 The motive is reminiscent of the legend that Muḥammad was a former Christian cardinal who founded Islam in revenge for not being elected pope.45 Be that as it may, its purpose is to discredit Al-Ǧurǧānī’s work. Dominicus affirms to have erased the text, probably a commentary on verses 34-35, because it was too critical of the Church and clergy. It seems that he did not want to allow a tone that was too harsh in his argumentation, especially as regards direct attacks on Christians, which would definitely compromise dialogue. This may reflect the post-Tridentine attitude of avoiding theological confrontation and the missionary disposition, promoted by institutions such as the Propaganda Fide congregation, to seek “explanation and comparison” in interreligious dialogue. Dominicus, therefore, tends to take advantage of “weak spots” in the doctrine of the opponent, rather than place the argumentation on the territory of mutual attack.46 He must have thought a lot about this passage because we do not find anything about it in manuscript M. This means that when this manuscript was copied, Dominicus had erased the passage, probably because he considered it to be too offensive. Later, however, he may have thought that the matter should not be totally ignored and therefore added the marginal note in E, which probably refers to the deleted passage, explaining why he chose not to quote it extensively, as he did before when he chose not to list all the “fantastic stories” of the commentators because they were unworthy of being heard. Such a note was then copied into B’s text.
The last part of the scholium recounts the circumstances of the revelation. This is a frequent occurrence in Dominicus’s scholia and also reflects the Islamic attention to this topic, which makes the asbāb al-nuzūl (“the causes of the revelations (or, literally, of their ‘descent’”) a part of many tafāsīr (Qur’anic commentaries). We will not dwell on the comments of this section, since most of the corrections seem to be mainly stylistic. We will simply draw the attention of the reader to the last sentence of the scholium “reliqua patent in textu” (“the rest of the text is clear”), before making the final statements of this study.
Conclusion: A First Assessment of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s Approach to the Qur’an
We will now try to draw some conclusions from our long journey through Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s translation and commentary of some verses of the ninth sura. The final statement of the scholium confirms that the main objective of the translation and its scholia is the understanding of the Qur’an. The sources are quoted in order to make explicit what the Qur’an does not say or says in an obscure manner: in short, the scholia are real commentaries. I would like to emphasize the fact that in this passage we have verses that speak of fighting and possible humiliation of Christians. Dominicus does not comment on these, because he decides to erase direct attacks on the clergy in the scholium. He does not seek this kind of confrontation. This work is not a polemical treatise. From time to time, Dominicus inserts his own thoughts on the futility of some comments that are not worth repeating. He does not argue directly against the content of the Qur’an, but against the validity of the arguments of the commentators or their way of expressing themselves. In this, and by clearly asserting his identity as a Christian, he articulates his refutation. Nevertheless, he qualifies Muhammad as an impostor. However, his translations are as faithful as possible and avoid polemics, rectifications or comments when Islam is praised or Christianity is said to be in error, if this is done in a way that he does not consider disrespectful. He therefore seeks to make the differences explicit, but in a way that promotes dialogue. He constantly seeks the best translation and interpretation, correcting the translations and adding more and more texts in Arabic in order to give his work the greatest possible authority and authenticity, on which the arguments of the missionaries will be based. Sometimes the use of sources is not as rigorous as it is presented. Some passages may be attributed to the wrong source (such as the example of Muǧāhid) or Dominicus’s Vorlage may have been different from the modern editions. Be that as it may, the quotations, even if wrongly attributed to a particular source, were undoubtedly taken from an Islamic source without falsifying the content. In any case, Dominicus attempts to correct this problem by adding more quotations from the sources in Arabic language that correspond to the translations he gives in later editions of the work. The aim of Dominicus’s activity, not only of his translation of the Qur’an, but also of his linguistic and theological works (to which I will devote further papers), remains the mission. He seeks to give missionaries the tools to speak the language, both grammatical and theological, of their interlocutors. To this end, he collects an enormous amount of information, which he includes in his scholia and in a vast collection of notes that we find in the manuscripts of the Escorial library. Naturally, these are the first conclusions of an ongoing study. We will be able to confirm or correct them only when the complete “Interpretatio” has been studied in all its versions and when all the works of Dominicus, including his linguistic and theological works, have been re-evaluated alongside the Interpretatio and his biography. Our journey in the production of this man is still at its beginning and we are eager to see how it will continue.
Acknowledgments
Ulisse Cecini is a Ramón y Cajal Researcher at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and his research, from which this publication results, is currently funded by the Spanish National Research Agency (RYC2020-029328-I/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033). Prior to this affiliation, the research leading to these results was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Grant Agreement No. 810141, Project EuQu: “The European Qu’ran. Islamic Scripture in European Culture and Religion 1150-1850.” The publication of this contribution in Open Access has been funded by the Spanish National Research Agency, Ramón y Cajal Research Project (RYC2020-029328-I/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033).
Appendix
A critical edition of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, VIII, 3 (Q. 9:28-35)
Sigla Codicum:
E : El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, 1624, fols. 168v-170r
M : Montpellier, Bibliothèque interuniversitaire, H 72, fols. 158v-159v
B : El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, L.I.3, fols. 289v-291r
Adbreviationes:
add.: addidit / addiderunt
a.c.: ante correcturam
del.: delevit / deleverunt
in marg.: in margine
om.: omisit / omiserunt
praem.: praemisit / praemiserunt
s.l.: supra lineam
The text in Arabic script is absent from MSM. Verse numbers have been added at the beginning of verses.
{28} O uos48 qui uere creditis! Scitote. Quoniam illi, qui Deo consortem attribuunt sunt immundi! Quapropter non possunt, nec appropinquare loco orationis sacrato post peractum lustrum49 ipsorum annale, id est magnae festiuitatis.50 Quodsi inde metuitis penuriam uos51 passuros, Deus uos ditabit52 de sua liberalitate, si ei placuerit, quoniam omnes cognoscens53 sapientissimus est. {29} Agite bellum contra eos, qui non credunt in Deum, neque in diem nouissimum, nec uetitum sibi habent, quod Deus uetuit et apostolus eius.54 Quia non iudicant iustum iudicium secundum ueritatem,55 quidam ex eis, qui acceperunt legem scriptam,56 quousque cogantur dare57
qui82 misit apostolum suum cum directione et lege ueritatis, ut ostendat eum praepositum super legem uniuersam,83 quamuis grauiter ualde84 id ferant illi, qui Deo socium attribuunt.85 {34} O uos qui uerè creditis, Scitote! quoniam multi ex sacerdotibus seu episcopis86 et monachis sunt,87 qui consummunt88 bona hominum inaniter,89 et recedunt recedereque faciunt90 a uia91 Dei. Item quidam autem ex illis,92 qui thesaurizant aurum et argentum, quae93 non expendunt ea in uia Dei, id est94 secundum beneplacitum eius.95 Tu ergo annuncia eis tormentum rigorosissimum,96 {35} quod apprehendet illos in die quo97 uehementer uret ignis gehennae. Quo etiam98 cauterizabuntur frontes ipsorum99 et latera et terga, diceturque illis: Hoc nunc100 est, quod thesaurizastis uobis: Igitur degustate modo101 id, quod tam auide accumulastis.102
For an excellent overview of this phenomenon, which also mentions the two examples presented in the following lines of the introduction, see Thomas E. Burman, “European Qur’an Translations, 1500-1700,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 6 Western Europe (1500-1600), ed. David Thomas and John A. Chesworth, Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 25-34, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004281110_004. (with further bibliography on the matter).
On this translation, see Katarzyna K. Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an (1518/1621) Commissioned by Egidio Da Viterbo: Critical Edition and Case Study (Diskurse Der Arabistik 24), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2018); see also Thomas E. Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560, Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, p. 150-177.
On the parallels between Juan Gabriel’s glosses in the translation of the Qur’an and Juan Andrés, as well as their parallels with the two Catholic preachers Martín García (ca. 1441-1521) and Johan Martín de Figuerola (ca. 1457- post 23 July 1532), who were assisted in their preaching by Juan Andrés and Juan Gabriel, see Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an, p. xxxv-lxii, as well as the notes on the edition to the glosses at p. 777-813. About Juan Gabriel’s former name see, ibidem, p.xxxi.
Mitridate’s translation, however, is not complete, but consists only of the translation of two suras, sura 21 (al-anbiyāʾ, “The Prophets”) and sura 22 (al-ḥaǧǧ, “The Pilgrimage”). The prefatory dedication from the “autograph” MS Vat. urb. lat. 1384, fols. 63v-86r of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (here fols. 63v-64v) was published by Hartmut Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1995, p. 81-82 (ibidem, n. 266, also cites later manuscripts in Paris, Venice, Padua, Milan, and Vienna), as well as by Angelo Michele Piemontese, “Il Corano latino di Ficino e i Corani arabi di Pico et Monchates,” Rinascimento, 36 (1996), p. 227-273 (here, p. 260). The translation of sura 21 is edited from the same Vatican manuscript (fols. 65r-76v) in: Hartmut Bobzin, “Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada e la sua traduzione della sura 21 (‘dei profeti’),” in Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada alias Flavio Mitridate. Un ebreo converso siciliano. Atti del convegno internazionale Caltabellotta (Agrigento) 23-24 ottobre 2004, ed. Mauro Perani, Palermo, Officina di Studi Medievali, 2008, p. 173-183. This translation seems to be far from good: Giorgio Levi della Vida described this translation as “everything but well-made” (Giorgio Levi della Vida, Ricerche sulla formazione del più antico fondo dei manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Vaticana, [Studi e testi 92], Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1939, p. 94: “tutt’altro che felice”), which was confirmed by Bobzin, who stated that the translation was full of errors (Bobzin, “Guglielmo”, p. 174: “pullula di errori”) and listed some (on pages 175-176), and Thomas Burman in Reading the Qur’an, p. 137-141 as well as in “Qur’an Translations” p. 26.
For an overview of Latin translations of the Qur’an in the Middle Ages and early modern period, in addition to Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom and Starczewska, Latin Translation of the Qur’an, see Hartmut Bobzin, “Latin Translations of the Koran. A Short Overview” Der Islam, 70/2 (1993), p. 193-206, https://doi.org/10.1515/islm.1993.70.2.193; Ulisse Cecini, “Latin Christianity Engaging With the Qur’an,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, Volume 15, Thematic Essays (600-1600), ed. Douglas Pratt and Charles L. Tieszen, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2020, p. 227-253, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004423701.
For the biography of Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, see Bertrand Zimolong, P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M. Ein Biographischer Versuch, Breslau, Otto Borgmeyer, 1928; Bertrand Zimolong, “Neues zu dem Leben und zu den Werken des P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M.”, Franziskanische Studien, 21 (1934), p. 151-170; Bertrand Zimolong, “Nochmals P. Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O. F. M.”, Franziskanische Studien, 23 (1936), p. 426-31; More recent studies are Hartmut Bobzin, “Ein oberschlesischer Korangelehrter: Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, O.F.M. (1588-1670) ”, in Die oberschlesische Literaturlandschaft im 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Gerhard Koselleck (Tagungsreihe der Stiftung Haus Oberschlesien 11), Bielefeld, Aisthesis Verlag, 2001, p. 221-231 and the preface of the critical edition of Dominicus’s Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis (only the qur’anic text, not the scholia) by Antonio García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis (Nueva Roma 32), Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2009, p. 13-22, which mainly draws on Marcel Devic, “Une traduction inédite du Coran”, Journal Asiatique, VIII/1 (1883), p. 343-406 and Francis Richard, “Le franciscain Dominicus Germanus de Silésie, grammairien et auteur d’apologie en Persan”, Islamochristiana, X (1984), p. 91-107; On Dominicus’s translation see also Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 53-56; Ulisse Cecini, “The Qur’ān Translation by Germanus de Silesia OFM (ca. 1650-1670):Observations About Its Inedited Sections”, in Documenta Coranica Christiana. Christian Translations of the Qur’an. Preliminary Considerations of the State of the Art, ed. Manolis Ulbricht, Leiden, Brill (forthcoming); Ulisse Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1 of the El Escorial Library: Newly Discovered Revised Versions”, in The Iberian Qur’an, ed. Mercedes García-Arenal and Gerard Wiegers, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2022, p. 133-48, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110778847-006.
“… interpretationem Alcorani, non ex dictionarijs lexicisque, sed ex ipsiusmet autoris discipulorum, aliorumuè ipsis coaeuorum, uel aeuo proximorum, ac ipsiusmet Alcorani domesticorum expositorum sententia et declaratione, uenatus fuero”. From the Praefatio of the Interpretatio Alcorani Literalis, in Antonio García Masegosa’s critical edition, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 35-37 (here, p. 35), with some slight changes in orthography and punctuation (The English translations in this study, unless otherwise stated, are mine).
On the use of Islamic exegetical sources in the first two medieval Latin translations of the Qur’an, by Robert of Ketton (1143) and Mark of Toledo (1210), see Thomas E. Burman, “Tafsīr and Translation: Traditional Arabic Qurʾān Exegesis and the Latin Qurʾāns of Robert of Ketton and Mark of Toledo” Speculum 73/3 (1998), p. 703-32, https://doi.org/10.2307/2887495 and Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 36-58.
These divisions were known and used by the Latin translators. Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation, p. 229, has shown how Robert of Ketton’s divisions of longer suras are based on this system. Ḥizb, ǧuzʾ, as well as ʿušr (division marked every ten verses), are signaled in Flavius Mithridates’s translation and the ǧuzʾ-division is mentioned in its preface, see: Bobzin, “Guglielmo”, p. 174 and Burman, Reading the Qur’an, p. 137.
See García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 41-64. These translations correspond to the following verses: Q. 2:21 (“yā-ayyuhā al-nās”); Q. 2:40 and Q. 2: 47 (“yā-banī Isrāʾīl”); Q. 2:63 (“wa-iḏ”), Q.2:67 (“wa-iḏ”) and Q. 2:83 (“wa-iḏ”); Q. 2:97 (“qul”); Q. 2:104 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:124 (“wa-iḏ”); Q. 2: 153 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”) and Q. 2:208 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:168 (“yā-ayyuhā al-nās”); Q. 2: 178 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”), Q. 2:254 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”) and Q. 2:278 (“yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”); Q. 2:223-224 (“wa-bašširi l-muʾminīna”). In this last example, Dominicus begins the new textus at the end of verse 223, which he considers as an introduction to the injunction at the beginning of verse 224 (“wa-bašširi l-muʾminīna / wa-lā taǧʿalū …” [Transl. “and give good tidings to the believers. / ‘And do not make …’”]; Dominicus (García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 57.): “Annuntia tu credentibus et dic: ‘Cauete ne ponatis …’” [Transl. “Announce to the believers and say: ‘Do not put …’”]). Dominicus splits the verse where he thinks a new unit of content begins. The content here takes precedence over the verse structure (in fact, Dominicus does not mark the verses in his translation, even though the end of a subsection almost always coincides with the end of a verse). It should also be noted that even though Dominicus stresses the literality of his translation, interpretations or variations sometimes slip into it. Here one should note the three different translations of the exactly identical expression “yā-ayyuhā l-laḏīna āmanū”, among which the solution proposed at the beginning of textus 11 stands out.
I reproduce here the text and translation of this passage from the preface of Dominicus (cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 36-37) from Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an translation in the MS K-III-1”, p. 141.(Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, praefatio, ms. E, fol. 2r): “In mancis autem dictis et suppositionibus euidentibus, subintellecta linea subducta notabo, nomen uerò expositoris pluriumue, aut has literas جم quae significant omnes in eo convenire, in margine è regione collocabo.” (Transl. “Whenever the [Qur’anic] words are overly synthetic, or there is clearly an implicit reference, I will underline the words of the reference that I have made explicit, and put in the margin the name of the commentator [from whom I obtained the explanation], or more than one name, or these letters “جم”, which mean that all the commentators agree on such an explanation”).
Cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 45. For the underlined “Tunc”, different from García Masegosa’s edition,see MS Escorial L.I.3 (siglum: B), fol. 140v.
Q. 2: 47 in the translation of Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, I, p. 34. Arabic: “yā-banī Isrāʾīla ḏkurū niʿmatiya”. Dominicus (García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 43.): “O filii Israel. Recordemini beneficii mei” (in all versions, the emphasis by the presence or absence of italics is mine).
I have edited the entire section in Cecini, “The Qur’ān Translation.” (forthcoming). See also: Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1”, p. 136-137.
This new version, which contains only the translation and commentary of the opening sura and sura 2, v. 1-5, is contained in MSK, fols.15r-38r. About it see Cecini, “Germanus de Silesia’s Qur’an Translation in the MS K-III-1 of the El Escorial Library.” Its edition is currently under preparation by the author of this paper.
The Qur’anic text is that of the 1924 Cairo edition, transliterated according to the rules of this journal. The verse numbers of the Arabic Qur’an are placed, as customary, at the end of each verse.
It is also noteworthy that in both versions Dominicus chooses the juridical interpretation of dīn (“judgment”), and does not translate it as “religion”, as it is usually interpreted in this passage. He probably thinks that the first interpretation is the more literal one, while the second is a further development. On the two meanings of dīn, with an explanation of their possible etymology, see Arne A. Ambros, A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic, Wiesbaden,: Reichert, 2004, p. 102. and, in more detail, Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān, Baroda, 1938, p. 131-33.
E.g. Al-Samarqandī ad locum: “wa-qāla l-Aḫfaš: yaʿnī: karhan. ‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’ yaʿnī: ḏalīlīna” (“And Al-Aḫfaš said: It means: forcibly. and they are (or become) little, means: they are humiliated.”); Al-Zamaḫšarī ad locum: “ ‘wa-hum ṣāġirūna’: ay tuʾḫidu min-hum ʿalā al-ṣiġāri wa-l-ḏilli” (“{and they are (or become) little}: i.e. it is taken from them to make them contemptible and to cause humiliation.”); (Source for both commentaries: www.altafsir.com [Last consulted: 27/10/2022]). Al-Samarqandī and al-Zamaḫšarī are among the most quoted commentators by Dominicus . In al-Samarqandī we can also see the origin of the change “dare”>”cogantur dare”, which was therefore made by Dominicus according to the evidence of the commentaries.
This may also be the result of consulting more commentaries, as can be seen by comparing the margins of the different versions (the added names are only in MSB).
The first version also translates the verb as “deviate”, but adds an interpretation (“to deviate from the truth”) that is later left out: “[quos Deus perdidit ante illos] ubi eos reperit declinasse à ueritate” (“[whom God destroyed before them, when he found them to have deviated from the truth]”).
The passage is translated in different ways, which testifies to its amiguity: Bausani, p. 135, maintains the ambiguity: “Egli è Colui che ha inviato il Suo Messaggero con la retta guida e la Religione della Verità, perché prevalga [who? the Messenger? the Religion of Truth?] sulle religioni tutte”; Blachère chooses a translation similar to the previous reading of Dominicus, p. 217: “C’est Lui qui a envoyé Son Apôtre, avec la Direction et la Religion de Vérité, pour la faire prévaloir sur la Religion en entier”, as do Bobzin, p. 163,: “Er ist es, der seinen Gesandten [m.] mit der rechten Leitung sandte / und mit der Religion (f.) der Wahrheit, um ihr (f.) zum Siege zu verhelfen über alle Religion”, and Vernet, p. 203: “Él es Quien ha mandado a su Enviado con la dirección y la religión verdadera, para elevarla sobre todas las religiones”.
Dominicus clearly relates this two verses to the clergymen mentioned earlier. This is also the reason why he does not begin a new textus here, despite the apostrophe (“O ye who believe rightly!”).
For the sake of completeness, we also report here the translation of part of this passage (vv. 30 [part]; 32-33), which Dominicus made in an early work of his , the “Antitheses Fidei” of 1638, p. 13: “Alcor. Textu Paenitentiae, versus medium; dictum eius. Dixerunt Nazareni: Christus est filius Dei, atque illud est dictum eorum, qui fidem abnegauerunt antea & non multo post: volunt exstinguere lucem Dei oribus suis, sed auertat Deus; nisi quod perficiat lumen suum inuitis, etiam infidelibus. Ipse est qui misit apostolum cum directione, seu regula & fide veritatis; vt superiorem illum ostendat super fidem vniuersam, & etiam invitis participantibus. id est Christianis.” Note the “volunt” at the beginning of verse 32 and the “illum” of verse 33, referred to the Prophet. We plan to publish more detailed studies on the Antitheses Fidei. On this work see: Zacarias Remiro Andollu, “La Sagrada Congregación frente al Islám: Apostolado de la Prensa en lengua árabe”, in Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum: 350 anni a servizio delle missioni, ed. Josef Metzler, Rome, Herder, 1971, vol. I/1, p.707-731 (esp. 715-716;721); Aurélien Girard, “Teaching and Learning Arabic in Early Modern Rome: Shaping a Missionary Language”, in The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe, ed. Jan Loop, Alastair Hamilton, and Charles Burnett, Leiden, Brill, 2017, p. 189-212, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2b9.13 (esp. p. 203-204); Ulisse Cecini, “Dominicus Germanus de Silesia in Rome: The Roman Prodromes of a Future Qur’an Translator”, in The Qur’an in Rome. Manuscripts, Translations, and the Study of Islam in Early Modern Catholicism, ed. Federico Stella and Roberto Tottoli, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2024, p. 263-285, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111096926 -011 (esp. 276-283); Dennis Halft, The Arabic Vulgate in Safavid Persia. Arabic Printing of the Gospels, Catholic Missionaries, and the Rise of Shīʿī Anti-Christian Polemics, Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 2016, p. 139-142.
Here MSE does not present corrections, so here, as in verse 33, the two stages are E and M on one side, and only B, with its corrections, on the other.
I.e. “Those who associate”. We tried to reproduce in the English translation the Latin “consocificantes”, used by Dominicus to give a literal rendition of “al-mušrikūna”, meaning “those who put an associate or a partner [socius] next to God”.
Dominicus speaks of this explicitly in the preface to the Interpretatio (cfr. García Masegosa, Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis, p. 35): “… cum uix in aliquo seruet ordinem narrationis et magnam prae se ferat uerborum ostentationem, incompta nonnumquam connexione, immo confusione […]; qua de causa expositores, horum indicationes citantes, cum sint tam diuersae, diuersas quoque eliciunt conclusiones.“ (“… since [the Qur’an] almost never keeps the sequence of the narration, while making show of a great verbal ostentation, sometimes with rough connections or, better, confusion […]; therefore, when the commentators mention the implied meanings of the verses, these meanings are so different that the commentators also draw different conclusions from them.”).
This means: “His word, [i.e. the Prophet], Peace be upon Him: Who converts to Islam from the People of the Book, his reward will be twice as much: to him, the same as to us and upon him the same as upon us. Who converts to Islam from the polytheists, to him, the same as to us and upon him the same as upon us.”
A similar case is found in the description of ʿĀlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (the future fourth Calif) in the introductory section of the “Interpretatio” mentioned above. He is said to be a former rabbi, together with his father (MSE, fol. 3r): “Erant [scilicet Aali et Abu Thaleb] enim ambo praecipui Rabbini, suo tempore, inter Iudaeos” (They [i.e. ʿĀlī and Abū Ṭālib] were both important rabbis of their time among the Jews).
On this legend, see: Fernando González Muñoz, “Liber Nycholay. La leyenda de Mahoma y el cardenal Nicolás,” Al-Qanṭara 25/1 (2004), p. 5-43, https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2004.v25.i1.147; Fernando González Muñoz, “Liber Nycholay, in Christian-Muslim Relations 600-1500, ed. David Thomas and Alex Mallet, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2012, p. 650-653; Alessandro D’Ancona, “La Leggenda Di Maometto in Occidente,” in Alessandro D’Ancona, Studj di Critica e Storia Letteraria, Bologna, Zanichelli, 1912, p. 165-308. (esp. 206-219).
On the post-Tridentine missionary attitude and Propaganda Fide, see Giovanni Pizzorusso, Governare le Missioni, Conoscere il Mondo nel XVII Secolo, Viterbo, Sette Città, 2018, p. 183: “Dopo il Concilio di Trento prevalse l’opinione che era meglio evitare il confronto teologico. […] Il metodo missionario della predicazione rese necessaria una certa disposizione dei religiosi a favorire la conversione attraverso la spiegazione e la comparazione”, and ibidem, p. 187: “Ingoli [i.e. the secretary of Propaganda Fide, Francesco Ingoli (1578-1649), n. Cecini] suggeriva di ritorcere contro gli eretici i punti deboli della loro dottrina”.
Haec … uerterint] Hoc dicto orium [sic] suorum, se ipsos conuincunt esse similes incredulis quos Deus perdidit ante illos, id est, idolatras, ubi eos reperit declinasse à ueritate M a.c. E.
Quibus … suae] Quibus permissum fuit frequentare orationem cum credentibus in phano, eò quod cum illis pactum inierat Mohhammaed, sperans se per hoc illos fidei lucraturum E M.
Idèo … oraculo] Ideo (aiunt) propheta statim expediuit Maekkam cum hoc oraculo Aali generum suum [E 170r] qui mox ut peruenit Maekkam praelegit illis oraculum E M
