for the Radcliffe Library, and they are now permanently housed in the Bodleian Library. The British Museum possesses a copy of this list which is drawn up in English and French on opposite pages and comprises eighty-six works in all. The list contains very few Arabic works of first-rate importance, but is rich in Turkish and Persian Histories. What is most significant, however, is the fact that it contains hardly any of the Arabic works and none of the Commentaries which are referred to on every page of Sale's translation of the Korân. I have therefore been forced to the conclusion that with the exception of Al-Baidhâwi, Sale's sources were all consulted at second hand; and an examination of Marracci's great work makes the whole matter perfectly clear. Sale says of Marracci's translation that it is "generally speaking very exact; but adheres to the Arabic idiom too literally to be easily understood … by those who are not versed in the Muhammadan learning. The notes he has added are indeed of great use; but his refutations, which swell the work to a large volume, are of little or none at all, being often unsatisfactory, and sometimes impertinent. The work, however, with all its faults is very valuable, and I should be guilty of ingratitude, did I not acknowledge myself much obliged thereto; but still being in Latin it can be of no use to those who understand not that tongue." Such is Sale's own confession of his obligation to Marracci-but it does not go nearly far enough. A comparison of the two versions shows that so much had been achieved by Marracci that Sale's work might almost have been performed with a knowledge of Latin alone, as far as regards the quotations from Arabic authors. I do not wish to imply that Sale did not know Arabic, but I do maintain that his work as it stands gives a misleading estimate of his original researches, and that his tribute to Marracci falls far short of his actual indebtedness. It must be mentioned that Marracci not only reproduced the whole of the Arabic text of the Korân but furthermore gives the original text and the translation of all his quotations from Arabic writers. It is indeed a profoundly learned work and has never received the recognition it deserves. Marracci had at his disposal rich collections of MSS. belonging to the Libraries of Italy. How he learnt his Arabic we do not know. Voltaire says he was never in the East. He was confessor to Pope Innocent XI, and his work which appeared in Padua in 1698 is dedicated to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I. By way of Introduction to his Korân Marracci published a companion folio volume called Prodromus which contains practically all that was known in his day regarding Muhammad and the Religion of Islam. It may in any case be claimed that the present work presents to the Western student all the essentials of a preliminary study of Islam: for Sale's translation and footnotes will give him as clear an idea as can be obtained, without laborious years of study in Arabic, of what is regarded by so many millions of men from Fez to the Far East as the revealed word of God and the unshakable basis of their faith. George Sale was born about 1697 and died in 1736. Every biography calls attention to the statement made by Voltaire in his Dictionnaire Philosophique to the effect that Sale spent over twenty years among the Arabs. I think this must have been a lapsus calami on Voltaire's part, because it is unlikely that he would have invented such a story. Sale must also have been well versed in Hebrew, both biblical and post-biblical, as his numerous allusions to Rabbinical writings testify. Two years after the publication of his great work Sale died in Surrey Street, Strand, his age being then under forty. In 1720 he had been admitted a student of the Inner Temple-son of Samuel Sale, citizen and merchant of London-and the same year the Patriarch of Antioch had sent Solomon Negri (Suleiman Alsadi) to London from Damascus to urge the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, then established in the Middle Temple, to issue an Arabic New Testament for the Syrian Christians. It is surmised that Negri was Sale's first instructor in Arabic, though Dadichi, the King's Interpreter, a learned Greek of Aleppo, guided him, we are told, "through the labyrinth of oriental dialects." Whatever Sale may have known before-and he certainly had the gift of languages-it is on the Society's records that on August 30, 1726, he offered his services as one of the correctors of the Arabic New Testament and soon became the chief worker on it, besides being the Society's solicitor and holding other honorary offices. That translation of the New Testament into Arabic was followed by the translation of the Korân into English. In this edition the proper names have been left for the most part as in the original, but the reader must understand that in Sale's day there was a freedom in regard to oriental orthography that allowed of many variations. In spite, however, of the want of a scientific system, Sale's transcription is on the whole clear, and far less confusing than those adopted by contemporary Anglo-Indian scholars, who utterly distorted Muhammadan names-including place names in India-by rendering the short a by u and so forth. As a few examples of names spelled in more than one way, the correct modern way being given first, we have Al-Qor'án, Coran, Korân, etc.; Muhammad, Mohammed, Mahomet, etc.; Al-Baidhâwi, Al-Beidâwi; Muttalib, Motalleb, Motaleb, etc.; Jalâl ud- Dîn, Jallâlo'ddîn; Anas, Ans; Khalîfa, Caliph, Khalif, etc. It is only within quite recent times that scholars have troubled to render each letter of the Arabic alphabet by an equivalent and distinct letter of the Roman alphabet-and although no particular system has been universally adopted by European orientalists, every writer has some system by which any reader with a knowledge of Arabic is able to turn back every name into the original script. The chief advantage of any such system is that a distinction is made between the two varieties of s, k, and t, and the presence of the illusive Arabic letter 'ayn is always indicated. E. DENISON ROSS.
Sir Edward Denison Ross
C.I.E., PhD., ETC.
[Written apparently sometime after 1877]
TO THE READER.
_______
I IMAGINE it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery: and if the religious and civil institutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Mohammed, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so; whether we consider their extensive obtaining, or our frequent intercourse with those who are governed thereby. I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Mohammed has met with so unexampled a reception in the world (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone), or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of the Mohammedan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalîfs: yet it seems as if there was something more than what is vulgarly imagined in a religion which has made so surprising a progress. But whatever use an impartial version of the Korân may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture; none of those who have hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr. Prideaux himself, having succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being complete masters of the controversy. The writers of the Romish communion, in particular, are so far from having done any service in their refutations of Mohammedism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolatry and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Mohammedans in general have to the Christian religion, and given them great advantages in the dispute. The Protestants alone are able to attack the Korân with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow. In the meantime, if I might presume to lay down rules to be observed by those who attempt the conversion of the Mohammedans, they should be the
same which the learned and worthy Bishop Kidder* has prescribed for the conversion of the Jews, and which may, mutatis mutandis, be equally applied to the former, notwithstanding the despicable opinion that writer, for want of being better acquainted with them, entertained of those people, judging them scarce fit to be argued with. The first of these rules is, To avoid compulsion; which, though it be not in our power to employ at present, I hope will not be made use of when it is. The second is, To avoid teaching doctrines against common sense; the Mohammedans not being such fools (whatever we may think of them) as to be gained over in this case. The worshipping of images and the doctrine of transubstantiation are great stumbling-blocks to the Mohammedans, and the Church which teacheth them is very unfit to bring
