Help with Strange Term in Arabic Nemesios

[Giovanni DiRusso]

Hello all,

A colleague and I are working on an edition and translation of the Arabic translation of Nemesios of Emesa preserved in the Secret of Creation attributed to Apollonius of Tyana. In the manuscript, we found a strange sequence of undotted letters that we cannot come up with a good reading of in Arabic or English. The line may be seen here, and the whole page may be seen here

We have tentatively transcribed the line as:

الحسّ رُوحًا عَاقلًا مِنَ النّفسِ من سَافى اياه ونَجدُ ناسًا يُصيبون الحسَّ

And rendered the sentence up to that point as: "We find some people, who are not correct, saying that 'something accepts what it senses.' It is not as they claim. For they make sensation into something sensed, and they neglect sensation, and they diminish it[s role]. As for us, we define sensation as an intellectual spirit of the soul..."

The corresponding passage in Nemesios, translated by Sharples and van der Eijk (pp. 102-103), says:

"often the  sense-organs  are  called  senses,  but  a  sensation  is  the  reception?!”  [57]  of objects  of  sense.  But  this  definition  seems  to  be  not  of  the  sensation  itself but  of  its  functions,  which  is  why  they  also  define  a  sense  as  an  intellective pneuma  reaching  from  the  authoritative  element  to  the  organs."

The underlying portion could correspond to the Arabic text, but we don't know how to get something like that from the manuscript.

Does anyone have any tips or readings of these words? We will happily mention you in our acknowledgements and a footnote on the point if so :)

All best, and wishing you all a blessed Advent season,

-Gio

[Mohamed]

Hello,

Reading the two texts in parallel, it becomes clear that the Arabic translator is using the word محس as both active and passive participles. Thus, كان الاستنشاء محسا خامسا "smelling came to be as a fifth sense-organ", while أنه يعرف المحسات "it receives objects of sense". Further, the Arabic text that is hard to read seems to stand for the underlined text indeed. It seems to make sense if we read them as three words instead of four. Thus, it should be مرسا في اناه. The last word should read إنائه.

Accordingly, the text could read as follows:

"For they made sensation into a sense-organ, and they neglected sensation, dropping/leaving it out. We, on the other hand, find sense to be an intellective pneuma of the soul, anchored in its vessel."

Best wishes

[Bishoy Habib]

Hello!

That's a tricky one. Here's an alternative reading based on 1. observing the shape of the end of the first word من and the fact that it corresponds more neatly with the scribe's ن (and similar letters) than with a ر. 

2. This reading potentially corresponds with the Sharples and van der Eijk translation. الحسّ رُوحًا عَاقلًا مِنَ النّفسِ من سَاقي اياه ونَجدُ ناسًا يُصيبون الحسَّ. However, I am far from certain. It may help to know if the author uses the verb يسوق in the sense of "directing or leading" in similar contexts. 

Best, 

Bishoy

[Mohamed]

Hello,

This suggestion would be tempting were it not for a number of considerations:

It is hard to imagine - even though the capabilities of men can defy common sense - a relatively early translator from Greek (identified in manuscripts with Ishaq b. Hunayn) who would derive the Arabic correspondent for 'leading, etc' from the root sqy and not the most common swq.

It is also unlikely for one whose writing is this close to Classical Arabic to use the relative man where he otherwise uses al-ladhi\lati.

Also, although the manuscript we are dealing with is by no means an autograph but made by some late scribe who seems to be confused as to how to read the text here, and this is probably why he left it undotted, the phrase, once granted, makes no sense in regard to the English translation from the Greek text.

Moreover, the letters sa and (presumably) qy are not on the same line, whereas the (presumed) mr and sa are on the same line, making it possible for it to be one word.

Finally, this is one instance when choosing from possible variants is tricky, since the skeleton bears more than one reading and weighing between them may be misleading. However, the original Greek has survived, and in such cases it should be consulted rather than the (modern) translation. There we read the following:
πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένον
It becomes more clear that the former suggestion is the one that should be preferred. First, the Arabic text seems to run word-for-word with the Original. In LSJ, ἡγεμονικός can stand for 'the authoritative part of the soul'. Also, the verb τείνω can be used for 'tie'. It is not unlikely for ὄργανα to be rendered into اناء, too. The two texts seem to correspond closely now:
πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένον
روحا عاقلا من النفس مرسا في انائه

In the other Arabic translation found in the Sbath manuscript (85v), which is more close to the original than this one, we read:
روح عقلي ينبعث من القوه المدبره الي الالات

I hope that the Greek text, if not also the other early versions, and other Arabic manuscripts (Morani mentioned three, Sbath included - others may be found when sought) are consulted for this edition.

Best wishes

[Di Pietrantonio Stefano]

Dear all,

Many thanks to everyone for the rich discussion — and bravo, Mohamed, for your insightful intervention. I fully subscribe to your concluding remarks, especially the call to triangulate the Arabic text with the original Greek and the alternative Arabic recensions such as the Sbath ms.

Wishing you all joyful holidays and a peaceful end of year,

Stefano

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To post to this group, send email to nas...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nascas+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nascas?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nascas+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/bec9a19a-1aa4-4953-afee-d82452ded7dfn%40googlegroups.com.

[Giovanni DiRusso]

Dear all,

Thank you all so much for your insights! I am inclined to go with your intervention, Mohamed (please forgive me, the listserv does not list your last name, but feel free to message me off-list so I may properly credit you!). You are right that your proposal matches the Greek quite closely, and I am happy to say we will indeed include a concordance of our text with the Greek as well as observations on its translation technique. I am not a specialist on the version preserved in the Sbath manuscript, but my co-author has done a fair bit of work on it and concludes that it likely represents an entirely separate translation than that preserved in the Sirr (which she believes is distinct from the Ishaq translation).

If anyone has additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to reach out off-list!

Best,

-Gio

[Mohamed]

Hello,

It should be called to attention that اٮاه could very well be a corruption of اداه, a more probable rendition of the Greek organon - I would go with it instead.

I agree that the Sbath version should be labelled a translation, and not merely a recension - this would be misleading.

It seems that I can no longer text the author off-list. This is my email: apolqasem [at] gmail.

All the best