Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

integrum fuit. Hi enim vel tacebant de talibus, vel carebant verbis quæ ad ea explicanda sufficerent, vel iis quo:um oculati nos testes fuimus, contraria asserebant. Est quippe oculus dux fidelior quam auris. Etenim Galenus, quamvis summum gradum obtinuit in inquirenda et investiganda eorum veritate que tractaverit et publici juris fecerit, tamen oculis magis, quam illi, fidendum.

Licet utique a verbis ejus, si usus venerit, recedere: exemplo sit os Maxilla inferioris. Statuit már, eam binis constare ossibus, cum articulo valido ad mentum. Hoc autem loco, per Tov nów intelligimus Galenum solum: nam ipse est solus qui Anatomiam tractavit, quique ad eam anime toto incubuit, oculosque ad eam intentos, veluti ad scopum, collineavit. Multos ille composuit de arte ea libros; quorum plerique apud nos inveniuntur, cæteri in linguam Árabum non sunt conversi.

[ocr errors]

Jam vero quod observavimus de membri hujus vera conditione, est hoc, osse illud non nisi uno constare articulumque habere plane nullum, neque ullam commissuram. Quippe examinavimus illud, gratia Dei, plus vice simplici,compluribus in corporibus quorum sane numerus superat bis mille crania: id cum a me factum sit investigatione multiplici et accurata, repertum est ei membro inesse os tantummodo unum. Nolis porro adjumento fuerunt viri plurimi doctring instructissimi, qui nobis modo present.lus, modo absentibus, id examinaverunt; sed illis quæ diximus et retulimus baud quicquam addiderunt, perinde atque in rebus aliis. Quod si fata nobis faverint, composuerimus de hac re Tractatum, in quo propositum sit, tam que a nobismelipisis observata sint, quam que ex operibus Galeni didicerimus, fuse et dilucide explicare. Ho ego os examinavi etiam in priscis Busiræ conditeriis, de quibus facta a me supra est mentio; deprehendique illud, prout dixi, carere articulo et commissura. Conditio autem commissurarum paulo occultiorum, articulorumque solidorum, ita est comparata, ut cum plurimum assumpserint vetustatis et roboris, ad conspiciendum se præbeant, et a se invicem divellantur: at tota Maxilla hujusce substantia non reperitur nisi frustum simplex et unum.

On this passage, the translator has the following note:

Ei membro inesse os tantummodo unum] In solo infante duo sunt; et examinando multa ossa, quæ conservata inde a longo tempore essent, non observaverat ullum in infante; tum quod ossa in prima infantium atate exigua sint, tum quod adeo sint tenera, ut diu servata in pulveres dilabantur?

As Dr. White has (most unaccountably, we think,) omitted to quote or even to refer to the passages in the original text of Galen, on which Abdollatiph comments in this and the suc ceeding paragraphs, we shall, in one instance at least *, transcribe the words of Galen from the edition of Charterius, Tom. III. p. 16. Περὶ τῶν τῆς κάτα γίννος ἐτῶν. Οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς κατα γίννος στὸν ἐσὶν ἁπλεν, ὡς ἄν, τῳ δόξειεν· ἑψόμενον γὰρ καὶ τέτο διαλύεται κατ' άκρον τὸ γενεσιον, ὡς φαίνεται σαφῶς ὅτι συνεπεφύκει τὸ δὲ ἀνατεινόμενον ὡς ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτω μέρος εἰς δύο τελευτα прата.

*The passages of Galen respecting the os sacrum and the os coctygis, to which Abdollatiph refers in page 277, are to be found in p. 19. Tom. iii. of the edition of Charterius.

The whole passage of Abdollatiph, which we have quoted above, and some others of a similar nature which immediately succeed it, reflect the highest honour on his acuteness and accuracy of observation. They shew, as the editor has justly remarked, that his good sense had broken the shackles of education and prejudice. They prove, also, that he had anticipated Vesalius in the most important discovery which had been made for several hundred years, namely, that the parts of the human body are better understood by actual inspection than by reading Galen; and that we may safely repose greater confidence in our own observations than in his descriptions. If Abdollatiph had ever composed the anatomical work which he appears to have projected, this specimen is sufficient to assure us that he would have established a new era in the history of anatomy; and though the religious prejudices of his country and times would probably have confined his observations and discoveries to a few parts of the human body, yet still he would evidently have attempted to improve on Galen, by the study of original nature.

Having now given a general account of the contents of the work, and produced some few of the most remarkable facts and observations which it contains, we proceed to some farther remarks concerning the manner in which it has been executed by the learned editor and translator.-The whole volume, then, is highly respectable in point of typography. The Arabic text appears to be

very correctly printed. The version is truly classical in point of Latinity, and in most places accurately represents the sense of the original. In those few instances in which we conceive it to be erroneous, or in which the translator has fairly acknowleged his perplexity by forbearing to render the words, or sentences, that critic must be severe indeed who would refuse to admit his manly and ingenuous apology:

[ocr errors]

mum ita

Equus igitur candidusque Lector, vitio mihi, oro, minime vertat, si, ad lubrica quædam et scopulosa cum impingerem, hæserim aliquando vie incertus, aut errabundus interdum de ea nec-opinato deflexerim. Equidem anisemper induxi, ut, nescire me qua ediscere nequiverim, fateri mallem, quam pravo cedere pudori, gloriolamque aucupari inanem.' page 321. Indeed, the difficulties of translating Arabic authors, in general, every Oriental scholar knows to be extremely embarrassing; in consequence of the indefinite nature as well as the won derful extent of that language,when compared with the Greek, the Latin, or any of the modern European tongues :--but undoubtedly the difficulty of translating Abdollatiph is peculiarly great, on account of the brevity and conciseness of his style, (which, in many places, is not less compressed and obscure than that of Aristotle or of Tacitus,) and of the vast variety of subjects which

[blocks in formation]

he treats: many of which (such as the Egyptian cookery, edifices, shipping, &c.) have never been clearly described to us in any other publication, European or Oriental. The author evidently penned his remarks for the sole use of persons resident in Eastern countries; to whom, in course, the various points which he discusses must have been generally familiar: but an European translator, be his learning and his attainments what they may, not possessing this previous knowlege, must inevi tably be often embarrassed, and often fall into error.-Besides, it is not only where the subjects themselves are obscure that the translator of Abdollatiph has obstacles to encounter: they will also incidentally occur, even where objects are described to which he has long been accustomed by the perusal of modern travels. In order to illustrate and justify this assertion, it will be sufficient to place before our readers some totally different translations of the same Arabic passages, made by three eminent Oriental scholars, and exhibited in the volume before us, or in the Appendix annexed to it; and that we may not be suspected of selecting these variations from a large extent of the book, we shall purposely confine ourselves within the limits of two Arabic pages only, which follow each other

in immediate connection.

Page 110. 1. 2.

وقلما تجد في هذه المسال الصغار ما هو قطعة واحدة يل فصوصا بعض علي بعض

This short passage is thus rendered by the three translators:Dr. White; et parvulos hosce inter Obeliscos vix inveries unum qui stet separatim; sunt enim alii aliis innexi. Pococke; " et vix reperies ex parvis his acubus quampiam, que una pars esset, verum pars quædam ab alio gypso distincta est." M. Wahl; "Of these smaller obelisks, perhaps none is found consisting of a whole, and not composed of pieces." Here we are decidedly of opinion that Wahl is substantially right, and that Pococke and Dr. White are wrong. Pococke, indeed, appears to have read, by mistake, See Ab

line 11.

gypsum حص from خصوصا instead of خصوصا

-These words are ren في وسط عمارة

dollatiph, page 154, Ibid. line 5. dered by Dr. White, in medio munimenti:'-by Pococke, "in medio domuum ;"-and by Wahl, "in the middle of the dam." We suppose the meaning of the passage to be somewhat dif ferent from that which is affixed to it by any one of the three translators. We understand it to be, just within the wall; and, in fact, such is the situation of Cleopatra's Needle, as may be seen by inspecting Norden's and Dalrymple's Plans of modern Alexandria,

14

-Ibid.

وأما البرابي بالصيد فالحكاية عن عظمها 7 Ibid. line

[ocr errors]

Dr. White; Porro quod ad Berbas in Thebaide attinet, fama est pervulgata de earum magnitudine.'-Pococke; "Quod vero ad Al Bar Abi in Saide, et narrationes de magnitudine ejus."-Wahl; "to speak a word of the Temples of Upper Egypt, much might be said of their greatness." Here Dr. White and M. Wahl appear to have righty conceived the sense of the passage, and Pococke has evidently mistaken it. How Reiske, Schultens, and Hartmann, could contend that should be substituted for

in the sense of “ Pyramids,”

in the passage of Abulfeda,

where he speaks only of the antient Egyptian Temples, has always been matter of wonder to us. The word Berba is manifestly the Coptic word eppes temple, with the masculine article I, or П, prefixed, making together пeрer. Nothing is more common in Arabic, than for or , to be changed into B, in words adopted from the Coptic. Thus, instead of Farmoudi (one of the Coptic Months) they always write Barmoudi. *

من الحجر المانع الصوان 13 Abid line

Dr. White;

[ocr errors]

"praduro eandem ex marmore factam ;-Pococke; ex lapidibus duris, marmoreis ;"-Wahl; "erected of a stone, not inferior to Basalt." The author is speaking of the Shaft of Pompey's Pillar. Dr. White's translation is just and proper, and that of Wahl is palpably wrong, since there is nothing concerning Basalt in the original. Pococke too has evidently mistaken the sense; the Shaft, it is well known, consists only of a single piece; and in this passage, is certainly a singular noun, though Golius, Col. 1393, makes it the plural of

We cannot forbear to add one observation more on page 161, line 6, &c. of the Arabic text, where Dr. White's translation of the following passage appears to us to be evidently incorrect in some particulars:

[ocr errors]

وللاسكندر الافروديسي تاريخ صغير ذكر فيه اليهود والمجوس والصابية وتعرض لشي من أخبار القبط واما جالينوس ذكو الاهرام في موضع واحد وجعله من هرم الشيخوخة

• Alexander Aphrodisius, in Chronico suo parvo, agit quidem de Judais, Magis, et Sabais; sed ad aliud deflectit a rebus gesSee De Sacy, Observations sur le Nom des Pyramides, page 32.

&c.

A a 3

tis

tis Copterum alienum. Quod autem ad Galenum attinet, vidi illum locutum fuisse de Pyramidibus in loco uno, quem de decrepita senectute inscripserit!' M. Wahl's German translation is not more happy it is thus in English: "We have also a small chronicle of Alexander Aphrodisiensis, in which this writer mentions not only the Jews, Magi, and Zabians, but speaks also particularly of the Annals of the Copts. But Galen in one place expressly mentions the Pyramids, where he begins with the old destroyed one." We conceive that the Arabic passage should be thus rendered,- in the same manner nearly as Pococke has actually translated it: "We have a small historical work of Alexander Aphrodisius, in which he makes mention of the Jews, the Magians, and the Sabians; he speaks briefly also concerning the history of the Copts. But Galen speaks in one place of the Pyramids, and he derives their name from a word which signifies the decrepitude of old age."-We refer the reader to a very ingenious note on the subject of the latter part of this passage, in the learned Silvestre de Sacy's Observations sur le Nom des Pyramides, page 9.

The Notes of Dr. White, though certainly not so numerous as we could have wished, and perhaps had a right to expect, on such an author, and from such a critic, are yet sufficient to bear honourable testimony to his acuteness and erudition. We particularly lament, however, that he has omitted to subjoin an Index of the more remarkable Arabic words and idioms, which occur in the History of Abdollatiph. In Greek and Roman literature, no scholar is ignorant of the value of such indexes; and surely it will not be denied that they are still more valuable, and even indispensably necessary, in editions of Arabic writers: whose language is far more comprehensive, as well as less definite; and of which every Lexicon, that has yet been published, is frequently so defective in its enumeration of words, and so unsatisfactory in its definitions and explanations of their various meanings.

On the whole, we cannot take our leave of Abdollatiph, without sincerely congratulating the editor and translator on his successful completion of this edition of a work, which we confidently pronounce to be one of the most curious and valuable that has yet been imported from the East;--a work which has so long been expected by the learned world, and which, by one fatality or another, appears so many years since to have fruitlessly exercised the labour and ingenuity of two of the ablest Oriental Scholars which this country ever produced.

ART.

« AnteriorContinua »