This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]On: 13 November 2014, At: 21:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Al-Masaq: Journal of the MedievalMediterraneanPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calm20

Main Features of Mark of Toledo's LatinQurʾān TranslationUlisse CeciniPublished online: 20 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Ulisse Cecini (2013) Main Features of Mark of Toledo's Latin QurʾānTranslation, Al-Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 25:3, 331-344, DOI:10.1080/09503110.2013.845518

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2013.845518

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Main Features of Mark of Toledo’s Latin QurʾanTranslation

ULISSE CECINI

ABSTRACT This article sets out to be a concise account of Mark of Toledo’s Qurʾantranslation. It will be structured as follows: first, it will provide information about whenand in what circumstances it was realised. Second, it will present some examples, whichwill show Mark’s way of translating and transferring form and content of the Qurʾan forhis Latin-speaking Christian audience. Mark mostly translates words consistentlythroughout the text, and also tries to translate words derived from the same Arabic rootwith root-related Latin words. Moreover, he does not usually try to convey the semanticnuances a word may have, seemingly not paying attention to the context, but translatingwith a standard, basic meaning of the word. (This observation should be taken as atendency and not as a rule, as the excursus at the end will illustrate.) Nevertheless,Mark does not violate the grammar of the Latin language. Despite his fidelity to the text,Mark’s Christian cultural background sometimes influences the translation. In theconclusion, the features of Mark’s translation will be set out in relation to the cultural andpolitical activity of its commissioner, the Archbishop of Toledo Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada.

Keywords: Islam / literature – prose; Iberia; Translation – from Arabic; Latinlanguage – and Arabic; Qurʾan – Latin translations; Marcus of Toledo, translator;Jiménez de Rada, Rodrigo, archbishop of Toledo; Toledo, Spain – translators

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan translation1 can be dated to around the year 12102

and its commissioner was the Archbishop of Toledo, Rodrígo Jiménez de Rada

© 2013 Society for the Medieval Mediterranean

Correspondence: Ulisse Cecini, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Seminar für Klassische Philologie,Universitätsstraße 150, Gebäude GB 2/57, 44780 Bochum, Germany. Email: ulisse.cecini@rub.de

1The article is an adaptation of a talk given at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds on 11 July 2012.The talk presented some key features ofMark’s translations drawn from an analysis of his text and comparisonwith the Arabic Qurʾan and the Latin translation by Robert of Ketton (1143), which were presented in mydoctoral dissertation: Ulisse Cecini, Alcoranus latinus: Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse derKoranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toledo (Berlin/Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012). Inorder to compensate for the conciseness of the presentation, I have now added an excursus at the end,which should enable the reader to gain an impression of the complexity of the matter. My thanks are dueto Prof. Dr Reinhold Glei for his helpful comments and to Nina Tomaszewski for checking my English.The reader can find additional information about my work on Mark of Toledo (including his activity as atranslator apart from the Qurʾan translation, a brief account of the manuscript tradition of the Qurʾan trans-lation and a few additional text samples with comparisons with Robert of Ketton) inUlisse Cecini, “Faithful tothe ‘Infidels’’Word:Mark of Toledo’s Latin Translation of the Qurʾan (1209-10)”, in Frühe Koranübersetzun-gen, ed. Reinhold F. Glei (Trier: 2012), pp. 83-98 and in Ulisse Cecini, “Tra latino, arabo e italiano: Osser-vazioni sulla riduzione in volgare italiano della traduzione latina del Corano di Marco da Toledo (Ms. Ricc.1910, cc170vb-174rb)”,FilologiaMediolatina 16 (2009): 131-60, where I edit some passages of the translation.

Al-Masaq, 2013Vol. 25, No. 3, 331–344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2013.845518

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(1170–1247),3 together with the Archdeacon of the Toledan cathedral Don Maur-icio, as we read at the end of Mark’s prologue to the Qurʾan translation: “TranstulitautemMarchus Toletane ecclesie canonicus librum Alchorani ad peticionem Roderici vener-abilis archiepiscopi Tholetani salubrem et persuasionem magistri Mauricii Toletane sedisarchiadiaconi meritis et sanctitate commendabilium virorum”.4

Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada was elected Bishop of Toledo at the end of 1208 andreceived papal confirmation of his election from Innocent III (1198–1216) on 27February 1209.5

Considering that the Qurʾan translation was finished in June 1210 at the latest (if wetake the lastmonthof the Islamicyear606,withwhichMarkhimselfdateshis translation),its commissioning must have been one of Rodrigo’s first acts following his election.

Towards the end of his prologue to the Qurʾan translation, Mark mentions intwo sentences Jiménez de Rada’s reasons of commissioning the translation: tofight against the Muslims’ “aberrant doctrines” and to “confound” them, inorder perhaps to obtain the conversion of some of them without using weapons,which a bishop was not permitted to do: “ut quos ei non licebat armis impugnare cor-poralibus, saltem enormibus institutis obuiando confunderet. […] Quatinus ex institutisdetestandis Mafometi a Christianis confusi, Sarraceni ad fidem nonnulli traherenturcatholicam”.6

“Not with arms, but with words [I attack you]”, one could almost say, quotingPeter the Venerable’s words in his liber contra sectam sive haeresim sarracenorum,7 to

(footnote continued)An essential bibliography onMark of Toledo includes: Thomas Burman, “Tafsır and Translation: TraditionalArabic Qurʾan Exegesis and the Latin Qurʾans of Robert of Ketton andMark of Toledo”, Speculum 73 (1998):703-32; Thomas Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom 1140-1560 (Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press 2007); Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, “Deux traductions latines du Coran au moyen âge”,Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age, 16 (1948): 69-131, also published in Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, La connaissance de l’Islam dans l’Occident médiéval, ed. Charles Burnett (Aldershot:Ashgate 1994), I; Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny and Georges Vajda, “Marc de Tolède, traducteur d’IbnTumart”, Al-Andalus 16 (1951): 99-140; 259-307; 17 (1952): 93-148, also published in d’Alverny, La con-naissance de l’Islam, II;Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, “Marc de Tolède”, inEstudios sobre Alfonso VI y la reconquistade Toledo 3, Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Estudios Mozárabes, Toledo 20-26Mayo 1985 [Serie Històrica,volume V] (Toledo: Instituto de Estudios Visigótico Mozárabes, 1989), pp. 49-59, also published in d’Al-verny, La connaissance de l’Islam, VII.; José Martínez Gázquez and Nadia Petrus, “Las motivaciones generalesde las traducciones latinas del Corán”, Journal of Medieval Latin 18 (2008): 230-46; Reinhold Glei and StefanReichmuth, “Religion between Last Judgement, Law, and Faith: Koranic Dın and Its Rendering in LatinTranslations of the Koran”, Religion 42, no. 2 (2012): 247-71.2The explanation for this date is to be found in Cecini, Alcoranus Latinus, 116 n. 477.3On Jiménez de Rada, seeMatthiasMaser,Die Historia Arabum des Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada: arabische Tra-ditionen und die Identität derHispania im 13. Jahrhundert: Studie,Übersetzung,Kommentar (Berlin: Lit, 2006);Peter Linehan, Spain 1157-1300: A Partible Inheritance (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008); WolframDrews,“‘Sarazenen’ als Spanier?Muslime und kastilisch-neogotische Gemeinschaft bei Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada(† 1247)”, in Wissen über Grenzen, ed. A. Speer and L. Wegener (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2006),pp. 259-81; Wolfram Drews, “Transkulturelle Perspektiven in der mittelalterlichen Historiographie:ZurDiskussionwelt- und globalgeschichtlicher Entwürfe in der aktuellenGeschichtswissenschaft”,Histor-ische Zeitschrift 292 (2011): 31-59; Candida Ferrero Hernández, “Cristianos y Musulmanes en la HistoriaArabum de Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada”, Journal of Medieval Latin 18 (2008): 356-73.4Mark of Toledo, Praefatio in Alcoranum. See Cecini, Alcoranus latinus, 116.5See Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1957),n° 3680, p. 318.6Mark of Toledo, Praefatio in alcoranum. See Cecini, Alcoranus latinus, 115.7See Petrus Venerabilis, Schriften zum Islam, ed. Reinhold Glei (Altenberge: CIS–Verlag, 1985), p. 62:“Aggredior inquam vos, non, ut nostri saepe faciunt, armis sed verbis, non vi sed ratione, non odio sed amore”.

332 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

summarise up the intention Mark describes. The commissioner of the first completeLatin translation of the Qurʾan, the one made by Robert of Ketton in 1143, usedthese words to explain his way of approaching the confrontation withthe Muslims, which informed the translations of Islamic material he commissioned,i.e., apart from the Qurʾan, Chronica Mendosa et ridicula Saracenorum, De doctrinaMahumet, De generatione Mahumet and the letter of the Pseudo-Alkindi.8

However, one should not be seduced by this apparent parallel between theToledan archbishop and the Cluniac abbot. As a matter of fact, Rodrigo Jiménezde Rada was very much involved in the military effort of the Reconquista and activelysupported the Castilian kings, mainly Alfonso VIII (1158-1214) and Ferdinand III(1217–1252), by undertaking diplomatic missions to European courts in order toobtain military support, and by being physically present on the battlefield as amoral and spiritual guide and encouragement to the troops.9 Nevertheless, itmust be also underlined that by writing his Historia Arabum (finished in 1245) hebecame the first Latin historian of the Middle Ages, as has been pointed out by Mat-thias Maser and Wolfram Drews, to dignify the Arabs with a proper role in universalhistory, dedicating a separate work to them.10

These two complementary aspects of Rodrigo’s character, i.e. zeal for the crusadeon the one hand and his kind of historical open-mindedness on the other, should notbe forgotten when evaluating the Qurʾan translation.

A further aspect should not be neglected: Rodrigo’s struggle for the (re-)accep-tance of the role of the Toledan archbishop as Primas Yspaniarum and for the (re-)establishment of the ordo gothorum, i.e. the social and cultural structure and orderthat existed under Visigothic rule before 711 AD.11

Having established these premises concerning the commissioner and havingsketched a few guidelines about his activities as archbishop, we may now focus atten-tion on the translation.

Mark’s translation of the Qurʾan is immediately distinguished by its closeness tothe Arabic original. This applies to word order, sentence order, syntax and vocabu-lary. It is important to point out two aspects: the first is that Mark generally not onlytranslates words consistently, i.e. using the same translations (I say “generally”because there are sometimes translation variants too), but he also tries to translatewords that derive from the same Arabic root with root-related Latin words,especially when the words are located close to one another in a sentence. Thesecond aspect is that he usually (here too I noted a trend, which cannot be con-sidered a rule, since there are exceptions) does not attempt to convey the semanticnuances a word may have, seemingly not paying attention to the context, but trans-lating with a standard, basic meaning of the word.

To illustrate the first aspect, I present here a few short and simple examples.

8This translation corpus – known after Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny’s work as collectio Toletana and re-namedby the Barcelona team around José Martínez Gázquez as corpus Islamolatinum – even though it was prob-ably known to Rodrigo and Mark, was never mentioned in the new translations. On this collection, seeCecini, Alcoranus latinus, 84 n. 248; Óscar de la Cruz Palma, “Los textos de la llamada Collectio Toletana,fuente de información sobre el Islam”, Journal of Medieval Latin 17 (2007): 413-34.9See Maser, Historia Arabum, p.19-27.10See Maser, Historia Arabum, 2; Drews, Transkulturelle Perspektiven, 31-59, esp. 55.11See Lucy K. Pick, Conflict and Coexistence: Archbischop Rodrigo and the Muslims and Jews of MedievalSpain (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Basmala, the first verse of the first Sura as well as the introductory line ofall following Suras, except the ninth, so called from its initial consonants as it isread, contains two root-related words, reading as follows: 12

bi-smi Allahi l-rah˙mani l-rah

˙ım(i), (In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassio-

nate).13 The two descriptors al-rah˙man and al-rah

˙ım, which both derive from the

Arabic root r-h˙-m, are translated by Mark as misericors and miserator, e.g. in Sura

1:1, which results in the following translation: In nomine dei misericordis miseratoris.14

A second example that indicates Mark’s closeness to the Arabic Qurʾan, i.e. thepreservation in the Latin translation of root-relationships between words, is pre-sented in Sura 19:3: idh nada rabba-hu nidaʾan khafiyy(an) (whenhe called upon his Lord secretly15). Mark translates: Quando vocavit creatorem suumvocatione occulta.16 Vocare und vocatio reflect here the root relationship between theverb nada and the substantive nidaʾ.

Another good example is offered by Sura 48:1: , Inna fatah˙na la-

ka fath˙an mubın(an) (Surely We have given thee / a manifest victory17) / Mark: Nos

quidem aperuimus tibi apertionem patentem.18

This example also illustrates the second aspect of Mark’s method of translation,i.e. his tendency to use a strictly etymological translation of a word, regardless of thecontext, as he translates fath

˙(=opening, but here: victory, success) with apertio.19

In order to show that he does this consistently, in the following I quote Mark’stranslation of Sura 110, which contains the word fath

˙with the same figurative

meaning of “victory”, as it refers – according to most commentators – to the con-quest of Mecca in the year 630.20

Sura 110

bi-smi Allahi l-rah˙mani l-rah

˙ımi / idha jaʾa nas

˙ru llahi wa-l-fath

˙u / wa-raʾayta n-nasa

yadkhuluna fi dıni llahi afwajan / fa-sabbih˙bi-h

˙amdi rabbi-ka wa-staghfir-hu inna-hu

kana tawwabanIn theNameofGod, theMerciful, theCompassionate /Whencomes thehelpofGod,

and victory, / and thou seest men entering God’s religion in throngs, / then proclaim thepraise of thy Lord, / and seek His forgiveness; / for He turns again unto men.21

Mark: In nomine Dei misericordis miseratoris. 1Cum venerit tutela Dei et apertio 2etvideris homines ingredientes ad legem dei catervatim. 3Lauda creatorem tuum laude etpete ab eo veniam quia misericors est.22

12I follow here defective Qurʾanic spelling; the transliteration takes account of the long vowels.13English translation from Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (London: Oxford University Press1964), p. 1.14D’Alverny, Deux traductions, 116. Robert of Ketton, who instead appreciated a style characterised byvariatio, translated these words as pius and miserator (Sura 1:1: Misericordi pioque Deo, ibidem).15Arberry, Koran, 302.16See Cecini, Alcoranus latinus, 199.17Arberry, Koran, 531.18Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale, Codex F.V. 35, (Henceforth as T.), fol. 69vb.19The context to which the verse should be ascribed is explained in Cecini, “Faithful”, 93-4.20See Alessandro Bausani, Il Corano (Milano: RCS Rizzoli Libri S.p.A., 2004), p. 734.21Arberry, Koran, 665.22Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 14503, fol. 217va,; Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 780(1178): fol. 108rb.

334 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

As we can see Mark translates fath˙as apertio here too. We should also note the

translation of rabb as creator, which is also practically constant in Mark’s translation.This verse also gives us the chance to make a couple of additional observations,

which we shall develop in the excursus at the end of the article.We find a similar example of this way of translating, i.e. using a basic meaning

regardless of the context, in Sura 19:24:

fa-nada-ha min tah˙ti-ha alla tah

˙za-nı qad jaʿala rabbu-ki tah

˙ta-ki sariyyan

But the one that was below her called to her, “Nay, do not sorrow; see, thy Lordhas set below thee a rivulet”.23

Mark: Et vocavit eam qui erat sub ea dicens: “Noli contristari posuit enim creator tuussubtus te sublimem”.24

This verse is part of the story of Jesus Christ’s birth. After Mary conceived him,she went to a solitary place far away, supposedly in the desert, to give birth. In theverse preceding this one Mary cries out in sorrow and pain, as she is in labour:“Would I had died ere this, and become a thing forgotten!”25 That is when shehears a voice telling her, as we have seen, that God has made a little stream ofwater spring up below her for her to freshen up, and encouraging her in the followingverses to shake the palm tree near her so that dates fresh and ripe can fall from it andshe can eat and be comforted.26

Mark’s translation is very close to the Arabic. Almost every Latin word corre-sponds to an Arabic one. Some of the translations are consistent with the rest ofthe work: he translates nada as vocare, which we have already seen, and ponereand creator are his usual translations of jaʿala and rabb, respectively, throughoutthe Qurʾan (we have seen an example of the translation of rabb above in Sura110: 4). The only two additions to the Arabic original are the insertion of the rela-tive pronoun qui with the verb erat in the relative clause (which could however be amisreading of the unvocalised min as man, i.e. “who”), and the participle of theverbum loquendi dicens, which introduces the direct speech (which could,however, also not be seen as an addition, but as a rendering of the an containedin alla = an + la). This participle is particularly interesting, by the way, because itis very common in biblical Latin. Also, we note that the negative exhortation iscorrectly expressed with noli + infinite, which allows us, together with the insertedrelative clause with pronoun and verb, to infer that Mark’s translation is by nomeans a translation ad verbum that distorts the Latin grammar in a way StJerome would have defined as ridiculum.27

The main reason for quoting this verse here is to focus attention on Mark’stranslation of the word sariyy. As we can see, his translation of this word differswidely from the actual meaning, which is here presented by Arberry with theword “rivulet”. Anyway, if we consult Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon28 under theroot s-r-w, we find that, when the word sariyy is used “as an epithet applied to a

23Arberry, Koran, 304.24T: fol. 40vab.25Arberry, Koran, 304.26Sura 19: 25-6.27For the concept of ridiculum in Jerome see his Liber de optimo genere interpretandi, Kommentar G. J. M.Bartelink (Leiden: 1980), 5, 8.28E.W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (London: Williams and Norgate, 1872), pt 1, volume IV, p. 1354.

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 335

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

man”, it can mean: “possessing high or elevated rank or condition”. Probably thatwas the meaning Mark was familiar with, so he put it here, even though it does notmake much sense in this context. The word sariyy may also be derived, however, asit is here, from the root s-r-y, which has the meaning “to travel by night”.29 It alsoused to denote unseen progress, here referring to a stream of water, which flowsunder the earth and then springs up at the foot of a palm tree. Mark’s translationmust go back to the most common meaning of the word, and the fact that themeaning of the sentence was made obscure by this translation did not worry him.

The story of Jesus’ birth in Sura 19 also contains a passage that I would like topresent as an example for the fact that Mark did not always translate mechanicallyword-by-word and that his Christian background sometimes comes to the surface,although it is difficult to establish how aware the translator was of this phenomenon.In the Sura 19, it is said that, after Jesus’ birth, Mary shows him to her people. Whenthe people are scandalised by the sight of him, probably presuming that he was thefruit of adultery, Mary points at the baby, to which the people answer: “How shall wespeak to one who is still in the cradle, a little child?”30 To this Jesus himself answers,saying, in verses 30 to 33, that he is God’s servant and prophet. He concludes hisspeech in verse 33 with the following line:

wa-l-salamu ʿalayya yawma wulidtu wa-yawma amutu wa-yawma ubʿathu h˙ayyan

Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raisedup alive!31

Before quoting Mark’s translation of this passage I would like to quote verse 15 ofthe same Sura, which refers to John the Baptist, whose nativity is related in verses 1to 15:

wa-salamun ʿalay-hi yawma wulida wa-yawma yamutu wa-yawma yubʿathu h˙ayyan

The words are exactly the same, except for the fact that here the verbs are conju-gated in the third person, whereas in verse 33 they are conjugated in the first person.Arberry’s translations reflect this:

Peace be upon him, the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he israised up alive!32

Mark of Toledo translates these two verses as follows:Sura 19:15, referring to John the Baptist: Pax sit ei die qua natus est et die qua mor-

ietur et die qua suscitabitur vivus.33

Sura 19:33, reporting the words of Jesus Christ about himself: Et pax sit super diemin qua natus extiti et diem qua migravero et diem qua vixero.34

We cannot but notice the differences in the translation of the verbs. “Natus est” incontrast to “natus extiti”; “morietur” in contrast to “migravero”; “suscitabitur vivus” incontrast to “vixero”. We also note that Mark reads ʿala yawmin, because he translatessuper diem and not e.g. super me, die… I will now offer an explanation of these

29Ibid., 1355.30Sura 19: 29. Arberry, Koran, 304.31Ibid., 305.32ibid., 303.33T: fol. 40va.34T: fol. 40vb.

336 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

differences in the translation of the verbs, which, I admit, is mere speculation, andshould only be considered as an attempt to explain the differences.

The translation concerning John the Baptist is the more literal one, as it corre-sponds perfectly to the Arabic: mata yamutu means “to die”, and is here conjugatedin the so-called imperfect, which is also used to express future actions and yubʿathu isthe passive of baʿatha yabʿathu, which means “to send”, but also “to wake up”, andh˙ayy means “alive”.Mark, as we have seen, is a consistent translator, so we have to ask ourselves why

he translated the same verbs differently in this case and see whether it could havesomething to do with the “special case” of Jesus Christ. The following paragraphsconsider the verbs one by one and offer some brief hypotheses.

In the case of natus extiti, even if we admit that existere is often used by Mark, aswell as by other medieval authors, as a synonym of esse, we may assume here that thetranslator had in mind the mystery of the incarnation, through which Jesus, “begot-ten from the Father before all ages”,35 assumed the human nature, thus “manifest-ing” himself in the world, but without being created “for the first time” in thatmoment.

The verbmigrare could refer to the brief period of three days in which Jesus left hisbody, before his resurrection. This would also explain the use of vixero, as the resur-rection in the case of Jesus could not be seen as a passive process. So Mark’s Chris-tian cultural background and his assumptions about the two natures of Christ couldhere have influenced his otherwise very faithful translation.

Another striking feature, considering that Mark normally stays very close to theArabic text, deserves brief consideration. I will list here some translations ofArabic proper names or designations, which transfer them from the Islamic to theWestern- Greek-Roman cultural background.

Mark translates the names of the pre-Islamic pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-ʿUzza und Manat, named in Sura 53:19 as Pallas, Venus et Dyana.36 At thebeginning of the same Sura he translates the verse wa-l-najmi idhahawa (By the Star when it plunges37) as per pliades [scil. pleiades] quando declinant.38

Likewise, in Sura 71:23, he translates the names Wadd,Suwaʿ, Yaghuth, Yaʿuq and Nasr as Proserpinam, Plutonem, Cerberum, Venerem,Naiades, Pleiades.39 The title of Sura 62, , surat al-jumuʿa (Sura of the con-gregation)40 is translated as [capitulum] diei veneris,41 and Sura 86 ( al-t

˙ariq, i.e.

the one that appears at night; the Night-star42) is called Saturni, planetam excelsum.43

The name saqar, which indicates hellfire in Sura 74:26 and 27 is translated asavernus.44

35From the creed of Costantinople (381). See J. Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies: DocumentsIllustrating the History of the Church AD 337-461. New edn revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK,1989), p. 114.36T: fol. 72va.37Arberry, Koran, 550.38T: fol. 72va.39T: fol. 79rb.40Arberry, Koran, 583.41Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 3394, fol. 215v.42Arberry, Koran, 640.43Cecini, Alcoranus latinus, 204-13, contains a table with all the Sura titles in the manuscript tradition ofMark’s translation.44T: fol. 80ra.

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

By doing this, Mark shows his intention of translating every word literally, notleaving a foreign word in the entire text. The only way to do this when propernames occur is to substitute what is considered to be their equivalent in the culturallandscape of the target language. In my opinion, the commissioner’s desire to restorethe ordo gothorum and the importance he ascribed to cultural conditions before theIslamic conquest (which are also remembered with nostalgia in Mark’s preface tohis Qurʾan translation)45 could have played a role in this kind of complete “latinisa-tion” of the source text.

What can we now conclude after this very rapid overview of the main features ofMark’s way of translating, if we relate them to the commissioner’s political and cul-tural attitude, which we described at the beginning?

Mark made an effort to make his translation as close as possible to the Arabic orig-inal. This applied not only to the content, but also to the formal and syntacticalelements and may reflect the commissioner’s intention to acquire a valid instrumentwith which to refute Islam, one that might guarantee that arguments made on thebasis of it would be considered valid by his Islamic opponent, and might evenbring about his conversion. The dignity Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada attributed tothe Arabs in his later historical work might also be seen as an element that influencedMark’s way of translating, so that he would not alter the source for stylistic reasons.It is also possible that his translation was intended as an aid for people who couldunderstand Arabic. This might explain its closeness to the original and also its diffu-sion in Dominican circles, as Thomas Burman has pointed out. For example, thetranslation was used by people such as Ricoldo da Montecroce, who could under-stand – and himself translated– Arabic.46 It could also explain the need for a newtranslation just 60 years after Robert of Ketton’s. The latter was written in ahighly rhetorical style and was considered by many to be more of a paraphrasethan a proper translation. Despite the closeness of his translation to the originalArabic text, Mark’s Latin culture and Christian background also appear in the trans-lation. His Latin syntax may not in fact have seemed elegant to his contemporaries’ears but it is never betrayed or rendered incomprehensible.Moreover, some nuancesin the translation, such as in the example cited above concerning Jesus Christ, or thetranslation of proper names, suggest a strong sense of belonging to Latin-Christianculture, which was shared by commissioner and translator.

Excursus: Mark of Toledo and the translation of tawwab

When we consider Sura 110 quoted above, we can see that Mark sometimes trans-lates different Arabic words with the same Latin word. Here sabbih

˙and h

˙amd are not

differentiated and both are translated with laudare/laus. We should, however, say thatit is difficult here to both make a literal translation and bring out this difference, asboth words refer to the semantic field of praise:47 the modern English translator hasin fact changed the structure of the phrase and found an elegant solution in “pro-claim the praise of thy Lord”,48 which isn’t however as literal as Mark’s translation.

45See the preface in Cecini, Alcoranus latinus, 110-16.46See Thomas Burman, “How an Italian Friar Read His Arabic Qur’an”, Dante Studies with the AnuualReport of the Dante Society 125 (2007): 93-109, pp. 99-100, 104.47See A.A. Ambros and S. Procházka, A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic (Wiesbaden: Reichert 2004),s-b-h

˙, and h

˙-m-d, pp. 127, 78.

48For the reference of this translation see above, Sura 110.

338 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

In fact, we cannot say that “proclaim” corresponds to sabbih˙and “the praise” to

h˙amd, but, as sabbih

˙on its own means “proclaim the praise”, a literal translation

of sabbih˙bi-h

˙amdi should be “proclaim the praise with the praise”, which is what

Mark has done.By far the more interesting translation in this sura, however, is the one that trans-

lates tawwaban with misericors. If we remember the Basmala, we note that here, too,Mark uses a Latin word that he has already used to translate another Arabic word,namely rah

˙man. Moreover, if we search for the use of the word tawwab, which by

the way always refers to God,49 in the Qurʾan, we find one of the above mentionedexceptions in Mark’s procedere, as we encounter different translations of the sameArabic word.

Here are the occurrences of the word in the Arabic text along with Mark’stranslation:

Surah II, 37

fa-talaqqa Adamu min rabbi-hi kalimatin fa-taba ʿalay-hi inna-hu huwa al-tawwabul-rah

˙ım(u)

Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towardshim; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.50

Mark: Accepit igitur Adam a creatore suo verba et conversus est ad ea. Ipse enim est quiconvertit, miserator.51

Here we find a translation that is probably influenced by the preceding translationin the same verse of the root-related verb taba and which is therefore in line withMark’s usual procedure: conversus est / qui convertit. Though he keeps the sameLatin root, probably misled by the preceding translation, he here changes the direc-tion of the phrase “turning to someone”, which is conveyed by the verb taba + ʿala.52

As here, God is in fact the subject of tawwab; God is therefore the one who turns(compassionately) to the creation (hence the translation misericors, the English trans-lation “He turns” and the German translation: der sich gnädig zukehrt53), not the onewho makes creation turn to himself, who “converts”, as the Latin translation heremakes clear.

Surah 2:54:

49The only exception is Sura 2:222, where the word is used in the plural form: Wa-yasʾaluna-ka ʿanil-mah

˙ıd˙i qul huwa adhan fa-ʿtazilu l-nisaʾa fı l-mah

˙ıd˙i wa-la taqrabu-hunna h

˙atta yat

˙hurna fa-idha tat

˙ahharna

faʾtu-hunna min h˙aythu amara-kumu l-lahu inna l-laha yuh

˙ibbu t-tawwabına wa-yuh

˙ibbu l-mutat

˙ahhirın(a)

(They will question thee concerning the monthly course. Say: “It is hurt; so go apart from womenduring the monthly course, and do not approach them till they are clean. When they have cleansed them-selves, then come unto them as God has commanded you.” Truly, God loves those who repent, and Heloves those who cleanse themselves” (Arberry, Koran, 31); Mark, T.: fol. 5rb: Et consulent te pro menstruis.Dic: “Quod langor est”. Contineatis uos a mulieribus in menstruis et non accedatis ad eas donec mundentur. Etcum mundate fuerint accedatis ad eas ex parte qua Deus uobis precepit. Deus enim diligit penitentes et mundos.50Arberry, Koran, 6.51T: F. 1va.52See Ambros and Procházka, Concise Dictionary, t-w-b, 51.53Hartmut Bobzin, Der Koran: Neu Übertragen von Hartmut Bobzin (München: Beck, 2010), p.13.

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

wa-idh qala Musa li-qawmi-hı ya-qawmi inna-kum z˙alamtum anfusa-kum bi-ttikhadhi-

kumu l-ʿijla fa-tubu ila bariʾi-kum fa-qtulu anfusa-kum dhalikum khayrun la-kum ʿindabariʾi-kum fa-taba ʿalay-kum inna-hu huwa l-tawwabu l-rah

˙ım(u)

And when Moses said to his people, “My people, you have done wrong againstyourselves by your taking the Calf; now turn to your Creator and slay one another(the transgressors). That will be better for you in your Creator’s sight, and He willturn to you; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate”.54

Mark: Et quando dixit Moyses: “Popule, iniuriam fecistis vobis quia suscepistis vitulum.Penitentiam agite miseratori vestro et occidite vos ipsos. Hoc est vobis melius apud libera-torem vestrum: condescendet enim vobis. Ipse enim est remissor, miserator”.55

Here we find the translation remissor and, for the verb, when its subject is thepeople (taba + ila = “to turn to God, penitently”56), penitentiam agere, and, whenits subject is God, condescendere. My hypothesis is here that Mark could not use remit-tere for the verb without an object and/or use a word such as condescensor to charac-terise God. But why did he not use misericors here? One might suppose that maybe itwas because he did not want to create a confusion with the Basmala, as here (and, aswe shall see, in almost all the occurrences of the word) tawwab is used in conjunctionwith rah

˙ım (which is consistently translated as miserator), but we shall see further

below57 that this is not a problem that bothers Mark.58

Sura 2:128:

rabba-na wa-jʿalna muslimayni la-ka wa-min dhurriyyati-na ummatan muslimatan la-ka wa-ari-na manasika-na wa-tub ʿalay-na inna-ka anta l-tawwabu l-rah

˙ım(u)

[A]nd, our Lord, make us submissive to Thee, and of our seed a nation submiss-ive to Thee; and show us our holy rites, and turn towards us; surely Thou turnest,and art All-compassionate.59

Mark: Creator noster, et statue nos oblatos tibi et de progenie nostra populum tibioblatum et admitte oblationes nostras parceque nobis. Quoniam tu es pius, miserator.60

Here we find the verb translated as parcere, and another, new translation oftawwab: pius. Nevertheless, we found other “typic” translations such as creator forrabb, miserator for rah

˙ım and oblatus for muslim.61 Was parce maybe better here

because of the imperative/exhortative form of the verb and more suitable for a

54Arberry, Koran, 7.55T: fol. 1vb.56Ambros and Procházka, Concise Dictionary, 51.57See below, Sura 9:104.58We could not but notice here, too, two different translations of the same word bariʾ, namely miserator(again!) and liberator, although bariʾ actually means “creator” (See, Ambros and Procházka, Concise Dic-tionary, b-r-ʾ, 36). However, we should also note that, in manuscript T, we find above both translations thesame note: scilicet redemptorem. Moreover, we should notice that Mark understands the reflexive functionof nafs and translates it correctly as vos ipsos: This is another element that shows that the closeness to theoriginal does not do any violence to the Latin language. Regarding the meaning of nafs here, it should bementioned that there are modern translators, such as Bobzin, who translate it as “soul”, i.e. “desire”.Nevertheless, Bobzin also accepts the more common reflexive/reciprocal solution, which we also findin Arberry. See Bobzin, Koran, 14 (translation) and 616 (comment).59Arberry, Koran, 16.60T:fol. 3rb.61However, for muslim we also find the translation sarracenus, e.g. in Sura 43:69 (T. fol. 67rb).

340 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

prayer? But why did Mark choose pius here instead of indultor or misericors? Appar-ently, Mark had his problems with the rendering of taba/tawwab.

Surah 2:160:

illa l-ladhına tabu wa-as˙lah˙u wa-bayyanu fa-ulaʾika atubu ʿalay-him wa-ana l-tawwabu

l-rah˙ım(u)

[S]ave such as repent and make amends, and show clearly – towards them I shallturn; I turn, All-compassionate.62

Mark: nisi resipiscant et emendent et peniteant et tunc illis parcam. Ego enim sum quiparco, miserator.63

First of all, in order to understand this verse, we should perhaps quote the preced-ing one, as verse 160 is the continuation of a sentence: “Those who conceal the clearsigns and the guidance that We have sent down, after We have shown them clearly inthe Book – they shall be cursed by God and the cursers,/160/ save such…”64

We find here a certain consistency with Sura 2:128, as atubu and tawwab are bothtranslated using parcere. However, al-ladhına tabu is not translated, as we mayexpect, as convertant or peniteant, but as resipiscant. Mark of course did not want torepeat the peniteant which comes two words later (which by the way is not easy toexplain either, as bayyinameans “to make things clear”65 and Mark translates it cor-rectly in, for example Sura 43:63 as exponere66) and it is possible that he used anotherverb here because taba is used here without preposition.

Sura 4:16:

wa-l-ladhani yaʾtiyani-ha min-kum fa-adhu-huma fa-in taba wa-as˙lah˙a fa-aʿrid

˙u ʿan-

huma inna l-laha kana tawwaban rah˙ım(an)

And when two of you commit indecency, punish them both; but if they repent andmake amends, then suffer them to be; God turns, and is All-compassionate.67

Mark : Et si qui virorum uxores invadant eos corripiatis. Quod si resipiscant parcatis eis.Deus enim est indultor pius.68

Here we find again, as in Sura 2:160, resipiscere for taba and also parcere, althoughin this case it is used for another Arabic verb with a similar meaning. The phrasetawwab, rah

˙ım is translated in yet another different way here: indultor pius.

Surah 4:64

wa-ma arsalna min rasulin illa li-yat˙aʿa bi-idhni l-lahi wa-law anna-hum idh z

˙alamu

anfusa-hum jaʾu-ka fa-stag˙faru l-laha wa-stag

˙fara la-humu l-rasulu la-wajadu l-laha

tawwaban rah˙ım(an)

62Arberry, Koran, 20.63T. fol. 3vb.64Arberry, Koran, 20.65Ambros and Procházka, Concise Dictionary, 46.66T: fol. 67ra.67Arberry, Koran, 74.68T: fol. 10vb.

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

We sent not ever any Messenger, but that he should be obeyed, by the leave ofGod. If, when they wronged themselves, they had come to thee, and prayed forgive-ness of God, and the Messenger had prayed forgiveness for them, they would havefound God turns, All-compassionate.69

Mark: Et non destinavimus legatum nisi ut obediretur ei Deo volente et quando sibimetiniuriam intulerunt ad te venirent et peterent veniam a Deo; Et supplicaret legatus pro eis.Invenissent quidem Deum sibi propitium misericordem.70

We found here again the reflexive understanding of the use of nafs, and a newtranslation of tawwab as propitium.

Sura 9:104:

A-lam yaʿlamu anna llaha huwa yaqbalu l-tawbata ʿan ʿibadi-hı wa-yaʾkhudhul-s˙adaqati wa-anna llaha huwa l-tawwabu l-rah

˙ım(u)

Do they not know that God is He who accepts repentance from His servants, andtakes the freewill offerings and that God – He turns, and is All-compassionate?71

Mark: Nonne sciunt quod Deus recipit penitentiam servorum suorum et elemosynasaccipit qui est misericors et miserator.72

Here we encounter the substantive tawba, which is translated as penitentia, and wefind at the end of the verse what we anticipated before.73 In fact, we see that Markhere uses the first translation possibility we noted in Sura 110, misericors, not both-ered by the fact that the phrasing sounds like the basmala when used in this way.

Sura 9:118:

Wa-ʿala l-thalathati l-ladhına khullifu h˙atta idha d

˙aqat ʿalay-himu l-ard

˙u bi-ma rah

˙ubat

wa-d˙aqat ʿalay-him anfusu-hum wa-z

˙annu an la maljaʾa min Allahi illa ilay-hi thumma

taba ʿalay-him li-yatubu inna llaha huwa l-tawwabu l-rah˙ım(u)

And to the three who were left behind, until, when the earth became strait forthem, for all its breadth, and their souls became strait for them, and they thoughtthat there was no shelter from God except in Him, then He turned towards them,that they might also turn; surely God turns, and is All-compassionate.74

Mark: Et cum tribus qui remanserunt quando terra super eos fuit angusta licet essetampla et anime eorum super eos fuerunt angustiate et estimarunt quod non evaderent aDeo sed ad ipsum, deinde pepercit eis ut peniterent. Deus enim est remissor miserator.75

Here we find familiar translations: parcere as the action of God (taba ʿalay-him),penitere as the action of the creatures (li-yatubu), and, for tawwab, remissor, as inSura 2:54.

Sura 24:10:

69Arberry, Koran, 82.70T: fol. 11vb.71Arberry, Koran, 191.72T: fol. 26va.73See above, Sura 2:54.74Arberry, Koran, 193.75T: fol. 26vb.

342 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Wa-lawla fad˙lu Allahi ʿalay-kum wa-rah

˙matu-hu wa-anna Allaha tawwabun h

˙akım

(un)But for God’s bounty to you and His mercy and that God turns, and is All-wise.76

Mark: Et si bonitas Dei non esset super vos et misericordia eius et quod Deus est piusmiserator.77

Here, too, in the word pius, we find a translation we have already seen (Sura2:128). The translation of h

˙akım as miserator (a correct translation is e.g. to be

found in Sura 2:209, where Mark translates it as sapiens78) is surprising. We canoffer two possible solutions to this enigma: either Mark simply overlooked h

˙akım

– as the phrase always, except in this verse, occurs as tawwab rah˙ım – and translated

as usual, or he was working from a text version with rah˙ım, but this cannot be proved.

Sura 49:12:

Ya-ayyuha l-ladhına amanu jtanibu kathıran mina l-z˙anni inna baʿd

˙a l-z

˙anni ithmun

wa-la tajassasu wa-la yaghtab baʿd˙u-kum baʿd

˙an a-yuh

˙ibbu ah

˙adu-kum an yaʾkula

lah˙ma akhı-hi maytan fa-karihtumu-hu wa-ttaqu l-laha inna l-laha tawwabun rah

˙ım

(un)O believers, eschew much suspicion; some suspicion is a sin. And do not spy,

neither backbite one another; would any of you like to eat the flesh of his brotherdead? You would abominate it. And fear you God; assuredly God turns, and Heis All-compassionate.79

Mark: O vos qui creditis pravas vitate opiniones quia quedam opiniones sunt crimen etnon exploretis et non reprehendatis adinvicem. Vos appetit ne aliquis vestrum carnem fratrissui comedere mortui? Nonne abhominamini? Et timete Deum qui ipse est misericorsmiserator.80

Here we find again the translation misericors, as in Sura 110 and 9:104.To sum up, we have 11 occurrences of tawwab, which is very heterogeneously

translated, even though some translations are repeated: misericors is used threetimes (110:3; 9:104; 49:12); pius (2:128; 24:10) and remissor (2:54; 9:118) areused twice; qui convertit (2:37), qui parcit (2:160), indultor (4:16) and propitium(4:64) are each used once.

In most of the verses we have also found occurrences of the verb taba, sometimeswith God as the subject (with the preposition ʿala, with the meaning “to havemercy”) and sometimes with people as the subject (with the preposition ila, withthe meaning “to repent”). We have four occurrences of the former, which arethree times translated using parcere (2:128; 2:160; 9:118) and once using condescen-dere (2:54). We have five occurrences of the latter, which are translated twice as peni-tere/penitentiam agere (2:54; 9:118), twice using resipiscere (2:160; 4:16) and onceusing convertere (2:37).

These results show that there are exceptions to Mark’s general trend of consist-ency and disregard of the context, which we we have said we did not want to state

76Arberry, Koran, 353.77T: fol. 46vb.78T: fol. 4vb.79Arberry, Koran, 537.80T: fol. 70va.

Mark of Toledo’s Latin Qurʾan Translation 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

as rules. Despite the lexical variation, we can say that the meaning is always correctlyconveyed, except in Sura 2:37. It is difficult to say why his translation varies in thesecases and why Mark seems more attentive to the context than he usually is. Maybethe semantic field of “mercy/repentance/conversion” was, to a Christian translator, arich and deeply explored source, of which he knew many different tones and inflec-tions, a field he took more care about and which he was more familiar with. Anotherpossibility is that he was troubled as to exactly how to render the root t-w-b, whoseverbal form taba is a vox media: Its basic meaning “to turn” receives its connotationfrom the subject, hence conveying the idea of having mercy when the subject is God(who turns mercifully to his creatures) or, when the subject is the people, who turncontritely to their Lord, conveying the idea of repenting. This semantic tension isdifficult to render with a single pithy word for the modern translator too, who alsorequires a freer translation to do justice to the context.

If this is true for the verb taba, one might ask why the phrase tawwab rah˙ımwas not

always translated, as a phrase, in the same way. Perhaps it was used too infrequently,occurring only 11 times in the whole text, for Mark to perceive it as a phrase, and sohe translated it anew every time he encountered it.81 Only a complete screening ofMark’s translation, accompanied by a root glossary, will help us solve these pro-blems. However we believe we have made a step forward in illustrating and under-standing his way of translating, which is on the one hand not devoid of certaintrends, but on the other hand is also a complex cultural process influenced bymany factors and characterised by different facets and exceptions.

81The assumption that Mark did not perceive it as a phrase would tend to support the hypothesis thatMark had a text version of Sura 24:10 with rah

˙ım (see above).

344 Ulisse Cecini

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014