The Latin Translation of the Qur’ān Between Controversy and Research
https://doi.org/10.22311/2074-1529-2020-16-4-27-50
Abstract
This article examines the history of the translation of the Qur’an into Latin. The main attention was paid to the study of the transformation of the approach to the translation of the Qur’an into Latin. During the long historical period (XII–XVII centuries) its basic principles remained unchanged, but the ways of their practical application were significantly changed. The study shows that the combination of polemical and research components forms the basis of the translation approach developed in the translation of Robert of Ketton and Corpus Tholetanum (c. 1143), a collection of works on Islam, created in Toledo under the guidance of Peter the Venerable. These leading components of the translation approach constitute the basis of all other translations of the Qur’an into Latin. However, since Mark of Toledo’s translation (c. 1210) the structural characteristics of these components greatly change. In addition, the correlation between them also changes: while in the twelfth century the polemical component significantly shaped certain translation decisions, by the seventeenth century it was definitively detached from the translation itself. This transformation prepared the ground for the modern scientific approach to the translation of the Qur’an.
About the Author
D. V. Mukhetdinov
Moscow Islamic Institute; Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Damir V. MUKHETDINOV, D. Sci. (Theol.), rector, Moscow Islamic Institute; professor, head of Centre of Islamic Studies, Saint Petersburg State University
12, Kirova Lane, 109382, Moscow
11, Universitetskaya Emb., Saint Petersburg, 199034
Competing Interests:
References
1. Afnan F. (2006). Translation and the Qur’an. Leaman O. (ed.) The Qur’an: an Encyclopaedia. Great Britain: Routledge. Pp. 657–669.
2. Bozbin H. (2004). Translations of the Qur’an. Encyclopædia of the Qur’an. Vol. IV. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Pp. 340–354.
3. Burman Th. E. (2015). European Qur’an translations, 1500–1700. Thomas D., Chesworth J. (eds.) Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 6. Western Europe (1500–1600). Pp. 25–34.
4. Catlos B. A. (2018). Kingdom of Faith. A New History of Islamic Spain. New York: Basic Books. Xi, 482 p.
5. Cecini U. (2013). Main Features of Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qur’ān Translation. Al-Masāq. Vol. 25. No. 3. Pp. 331–344.
6. D’Alverny M.-Th. (1947–1948). Deux traductions latines du Coran au Moyen Age. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age. Vol. 16. Pp. 69–131.
7. D’Alverny M.-Th. (1950). Pierre le Vénérable et la légende de Mahomet. A Cluny. Fêtes et Cérémonies liturgiques en l’honneur des saints Abbés Odon et Odilon. Congrès scientifique de juillet 1949. Dijon: Société des Amis de Cluny. Pp. 161–170.
8. De la Cruz Palma Ó., Hernández C. F. (2011). Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete que arabice Alchoran, id est collectio preceptorum, vocatur. Thomas D., Mallet A. (eds.) Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 3 (1050–1200). Leiden, Boston: Brill. Pp. 510–515.
9. Elmarsafy Z. (2020). Translations of the Qur’an: Western Languages. The Oxford Handbook of Qur’anic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 541–551.
10. Formisano L. (2004). La più antica (?) traduzione italiana del Corano e il Liber Habentomi di Ibn Tu ̄mart in una compilazione di viaggi del primo Cinquecento. Critica del testo. 2004. No. 7. Pp. 651–696.
11. Fück J. (1955). Die arabischen Studien in Europe. Leipzig. Viii, 335 p.
12. Glei R. F., Tottoli R. (2016). Ludovico Marracci at work. The evolution of his translation of the Qur’ān in the light of his newly discovered manuscripts. With an edition and a comparative linguistic analysis of Sura 18. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 188 p.
13. Iogna-Prat D., Tolan J. (2011). Summa totius haeresis ac diabolicae sectae Saracenorum siue Hismahelitarum; Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum. Thomas D., Mallet A. (eds.) Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 3 (1050–1200). Pp. 606–607.
14. John of Segovia (2003). Praefatio in translationem. Gázquez J. M. (ed.) El prólogo de Juan de Segobia al Corán (Qur’an) trilingüe (1456). Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch. No. 38. Pp. 389–410.
15. Hamilton A. (2005). The Quran in early modern Europe. Schaeps J. et al. (eds.) Oostersche weelde: De Oriënt in westerse kunst en cultuur. Met een keuze uit de verzamelingen van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek. Leiden: Primavera Pers. Pp.131–143.
16. Hamilton A. (2017). L’ Alcoran de Mahomet. Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. 2017. Vol. 9. Western and Southern Europe (16001700). Leiden, Boston: Brill. Pp. 453–465.
17. Hamilton A. (2016). Lutheran Islamophiles in Eighteenth-century Germany. For the Sake of Learning. Essays in honor of Anthony Grafton. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 327–343.
18. Hamilton A. (1999). Western Attitudes to Islam in the Enlightenment // Middle Eastern Lectures. 1999. No. 3. Pp. 69–85.
19. Kritzeck J. (1964). Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Xiv, 301 p.
20. Marraccio L. (1698). Alcorani textus universus ex correctioribus Arabum exemplaribus summa fide, atque pulcherrimis characteribus descriptus, eademque fide, ac pari diligentia ex Arabico idiomate in Latinum translatus; appositis unicuique capiti notis, atque refutatione: his omnibus praemissus est prodromus totum priorem tomum implens, in quo contenta indicantur pagina sequenti, auctore Ludovico Marraccio e congregatione Clericorum Regularium Matris Dei, Innocentii XI gloriosissimae memoriae olim confessario. Patavii: Ex Typographia Seminarii.
21. Marracci L. (1691). Prodromus ad Refutationem Alcorani. In quo per quatuor praecipuas verae Religionis notas Mahumetanae Sectae falsitas ostenditur: Christianae Religionis veritas comprobatur. In quatuor Partes divisus: Authore Ludovico Marraccio e Congregatione Clericorum Regularium Matris Dei, Innocentii XI. Gloriosissimae memoriae olim Confessario. Romae: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide.
22. Muñoz F. G. (2011). Epistula Saraceni [et] Rescriptum Christiani; Disputatio Saraceni et Christiani. Thomas D., Mallet A. (eds.) Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 3 (1050–1200). Pp. 479–482.
23. Le Coran. Traduit de l’arabe, accompagné de notes, précédé d’un abrégé de La Vie de Mahomet, tiré des écrivains orientaux les plus estimés (1821). Traduction par Claude-Étienne Savary. Première partie. Paris: G. Dufour, Libraire. Xvi, 160, 252 р.
24. Lutheri M. (1543). Alcoranum Præfatio // Bibliander Th. (ed.) Machumetis Saracenorum principis, eiusque successorum vitae, ac doctrina, ipseque Alcoran. Basileae: Ex officina Ioannis Oporini.
25. Pons N. P. (2016). Alchoranus latinus quem transtulit Marcus canonicus Toletanus: estudio y edición crítica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. CLXX, 464 p.
26. Ricœur P. (1999) Le paradigme de la traduction. Esprit, No. 253 (6), Juin 1999. Pp. 8–19.
27. Roth U. (2014) Juan of Segovia’s Translation of the Qur’an. Al-Qantara, XXXV 2, julio-diciembre 2014. Pp. 555–578.
28. Starczewska K. K. (2016) Latin translation of the Qur’an commissioned by Egidio da Viterbo. Christian-Muslim Relations A Bibliographical History. Vol. 6. Western Europe (1500–1600). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 417–418.
29. Starczewska K. K. (2018) Latin Translation of the Qur’ān (1518/1621): Commissioned by Egidio da Viterbo. Critical Edition and Case Study. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag. Cxxiv, 828 p.
30. Tottoli R. (2017) Ludovico Marracci. Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 9. Western and Southern Europe (1600–1700). Leiden: Brill. Pp. 791–800.
31. Luchickaja S. I. (2018) «Pechat’ prorokov»: obraz Muhammada v Сorpus Tholetanum [‘The Seal of the Prophets’: The Image of Muhammad in Сorpus Tholetanum]. Vestnik RGGU. Serija «Istorija. Filologija. Kul’turologija. Vostokovedenie. 2018. No. 3 (36). Pp. 264–282.
Review
For citations:
Mukhetdinov D.V. The Latin Translation of the Qur’ān Between Controversy and Research. Islam in the modern world. 2020;16(4):27-50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22311/2074-1529-2020-16-4-27-50
Views:
1001
Email this article 