English translations of the earliest life of Mohammed

Philip K. Hitti writes (p.112):

The first record of [Mohammed’s] life was undertaken by ibn-Ishaq, who died in Baghdad about A.H. 150 (767), and whose biography of the Prophet has been preserved only in the later recension of ibn-Hisham, who died in Egypt about A.H. 218 (833).  Other than Arabic sources for the life of the Prophet and the early period of nascent Islam we have none.  The first Byzantine chronicler to record some facts about “the ruler of the Saracens and the pseudo-prophet” was Theophanis [1] in the early part of the ninth century.  The first reference to Muhammed in Syriac occurs in a seventh century work. [2]

1. Chronographia, ed. Carolus de Boor (Leipzig, 1885), p. 333. [Here]

2. A. Mingana, Sources Syriaques, vol. 1, Bar-Penkaye (Leipzig, 1908), p.146 (text) = p. 175 (tr.)

I’m not sure that  Hitti is complete.  Jacob of Edessa certainly mentions Mohammed briefly in his chronicle, although the way in which this was published in the CSCO edition would disguise this from most people. 

But I was wondering what was online of all this.  Naturally I turned to Wikipedia, which had an article on ibn Hisham.  This links to an English translation now only available in Archive.org, since the original site has disappeared.  It is here.  But… what is this, I wondered?  Is it out of copyright?  When was it done?

There is an introduction by “Michael Edwardes”.  A certain amount of hunting around reveals that the book is in fact “The life of Muhammad, Apostle of Allah”, edited by Michael Edwardes, London: Folio Society (1964); Selections from Edward Rehatsek’s translation of Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by Ibn Isḥāq in the recension of Ibn Hishām.  Some details of the book is here:

This translation of his biography of Muhammad, published here for the first time, was made by a Hungarian, Edward Rehatsek, who spent most of his life in India. He presented the manuscript of his translation to the Royal Asiatic Society of London, and it is now published courtesy of the Society. …

Ed Jajko comments on my review of Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Apostle of Allah. Edited by Michael Edwardes: “Sirat rasul Allah by Muhammad ibn Ishaq is indeed the earliest extant biography of the prophet Muhammad, and thus an extremely important work. Not to deny anyone the pleasure of enjoying the new Folio Society volume, I would like to point out that this is not a new or a complete edition and that there are other ways of accessing the information. Michael Edwardes first published the Rehatsek translation in 1890 or 1894. Edwardes abridged Rehatsek’s translation for the general reader.  …

In the introduction, Edwardes writes:

“The translation which follows is the first known English version of Ibn Ishaq’s biography, and is here published for the first time. The translator, Edward Rehatsek, was born in Hungary in 1819 and died in Bombay in 1891. He arrived in India in 1847 and spent a number of years in research upon oriental subjects. He later became professor of mathematics and Latin at Wilson College, Bombay, from which position he retired in 1871. Rehatsek lived the life of a recluse, working upon his translations from Arabic and many other languages. After his death, his body was burned in the Hindu manner, the first European, it is said, to be cremated in India. The manuscript of the translation was completed just before his death and was presented to the Royal Asiatic Society, London, by F. F. Arbuthnot, the Islamic scholar, in 1898. This edition is published by courtesy of the Society.

The original work is extremely long, over a thousand pages of the translator’s small yet clear handwriting. Rehatsek produced an almost literal translation and it suffers somewhat from scholarly pedanticism. In preparing this edition for publication, I have kept one main aim in view – to present the earliest extant life of Muhammad in a form, and at a length, acceptable to the general reader. To do this it has been necessary to cut the text as well as to make some rearrangement in the interests of orderly chronology. I have inserted linking passages, printed in italic, where the text seems to require it. Generally speaking, those parts which have been excised have been repetitions of events, long lists of names, confusing accounts of minor battles, and a large quantity of verse. Some errors have been corrected and verbal infelicities removed.

Most of us will shudder at the cavalier statements of Edwardes, but doubtless he worked under the orders of a publisher who had somehow to sell the book to the public.

But how accurate are the statements?  Rehatsek certainly lived in the 19th century.  But Edwardes?  He looks like a 60’s figure, from online catalogues.  Was Rehatsek ever published before 1964?  If his translation exists in manuscript still, perhaps we would all be best served by a transcription, if it is public domain (rather a lot of ‘if’s there!)  It is certainly out of copyright in the US, but I find it hard to tell whether an unpublished manuscript would still be in copyright in the UK, although Rehatsek died more than 70 years ago.

Another Wikipedia article tells us that a  modern translation of the complete ibn Hisham does exist, by Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah”, with introduction [xiii-xliii] and notes (Oxford University 1955), xlvii + 815 pages.

So what’s the upshot?  Ibn Isham is not online.  Excerpts from him are, in a dubiously legal way, dubiously edited.  It would seem that we could all do with much better materials online for early Islamic history.

Share

Summer reading

I’m trying to read Philip Hitti’s monster History of the Arabs.  I’ve just reached the life of Mohammed, and his discussion of the materials for it — scanty.  He also has interesting comments on the text of the Koran; that the divergences in early Korans reflect the defective Kufic script used.  By chance I find that today is 16th July, the anniversary of the flight of Mohammed and his followers from Mecca to Medina, which marks the start of the Islamic year, and also the transformation of Mohammed from a prophet to a politician.

I hope to post some notes from Hitti when I can.

In the mean time I have been trying to turn the mass of photocopies on my floor into PDF’s.  This is proving slower than I had thought.  I really need a copy of Adobe Acrobat to manipulate the results.  But … it seems fantastically expensive!

Share

UK National Gallery threatens Wikipedia, tries copyfraud tactics

A story with some important implications has broken in the last few days.  It concerns items in the UK, which are out of copyright and unique and owned by the public. 

UK state bodies claim copyright of any photographs under English law and use their position as custodians to prevent access to them in this way.   This claim has never been tested and may be legally dubious even in the UK.  It is fairly certainly invalid in the US, for instance.  A great many state bodies — the British Library comes to mind — do the same, abusing their position to obstruct access to the public.  The object of the civil servants is to make money for their own institution, and let the public interest go hang. 

But now it may all come to court.  Whatever happens, that must be good news.

It seems that  the UK National Portrait Gallery has issued a copyright infringement letter to a US Wikipedia user, after he uploaded thousands of images from its website to Wikipedia.  The gallery started out pretty arrogantly, according to Techradar; the letter promptly appeared on Wikimedia.  TechRadar reports their next statement:

“The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available.”

They are concerned… about the loss of income.  Yes, indeed I’m sure they are.  The pictures belong to the public, the photos are paid for by the public, yet all they are concerned about is the income they can make from them.

Even in this statement, there is good news for us.  The Gallery has had to think of some reason why the public should support their actions.  They’ve had to acknowledge that “making images available” is what is expected of them.   They’ve had to acknowledge that Wikipedia making them available is in the public interest.

The gallery demands that the items be taken down, or they will sue, on the 20th July.  Let’s hope they do.  Just imagine how it works. 

First, imagine the court decides for the Gallery.  Then Wikipedia has to decide whether to pay any attention.  Wikipedia is based in the US.  It doesn’t give a damn about the UK.  So if the Gallery wants to enforce this, it has to travel to the US and convince a US judge that it is in the interests of people in the US that US people not see stuff in the UK.  The chances of this are minimal, as US courts are largely political and favour US people.  So the whole issue of daft UK copyright that harms only people in the UK will come squarely before the public eye.  In this situation, the need for a change to that law will become overpowering.

Second, imagine that the court decides against the Gallery.  This is even better, because it will bring UK law into line with US law.  It will bring an end to this copyfraud.

David Gerard rightly observes, “I can’t see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens.”  But it most likely will end well for everyone in the UK.

The issue is being reported also in the Guardian, although no comment seems to be possible.

Share

Sources for the Antonine Wall

A day trip to Edinburgh by air yesterday, and the sun shone on me which makes all the difference.  While in a bookshop, my eye fell on a book with the title “Roman Scotland.”  Of course we don’t think of Scotland as having a Roman past, but it does, at least as far as the Antonine Wall and a few outlying forts.

There is archaeology for the Antonine Wall.  But I was wondering what the literary sources for it are.  Does anyone know?

Share

Tom Lehrer still singing the Vatican rag

Enough serious stuff.  Courtesy of Small Dead Animals, I have just discovered that Tom Lehrer’s rag-time classic, The Vatican Rag, is online here.

Share

The grotto of the Cumaean sybil

I’ve been reading a guide-book to Naples and the Amalfi coast today, and I was struck by a photograph of the grotto of the Cumaean sybil, probably the most famous pagan prophetess of Roman Italy.  This, it seems, was only discovered in the 1920’s. 

I can’t find anything as evocative of Captain Kirk as the image in the book, but did find this one online:

cumaesybilcave2

I’ve never really paid attention to the Sybilline literature, which includes some prophecies of Christ.  I understand that it has probably been tampered with both by Jewish and Christian interpolators.  It would be interesting to see the manuscript tradition of the text, and what copies it exists in.

But… ancient magical stuff is always faintly disgusting, isn’t it?  I recall getting a translation of the Hermetic corpus — the books supposedly by Hermes Trismegistus — while I was on holiday in Egypt, in Aboudi’s bookshop in Luxor, and feeling that it was rather creepy stuff.  It’s a real element in the ancient world; but not necessarily one that deserved to live, while so much perished.

Share

Locking up those who say Wrong Things – it begins

I hesitated on whether to post on this, but in the end felt that I had to, as a truly horrible step too far.  Last Friday two men in the UK were given stiff jail sentences.  Their crime?  Running a website posting material which the UK government considered was “offensive”.  The BBC report is here.

No-one seems to have been hurt.  No quantifiable injury to anyone is mentioned anywhere that I have seen.  The offence was to verbally attack ethnic minorities of various sorts.  Apparently — the BBC is vague — they may have queried the holocaust as well in some way.

Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle correctly assessed their chances of justice, and fled to the US and asked for asylum, since they had committed no crime under US law and their website was based in the US.  The judge, who apparently has a history of left-wing activism, denied them asylum.

Judge Rodney Grant told the men their material was “abusive and insulting” and had the potential to cause “grave social harm”.

He added: “Such offences as these have, by their very nature, the potential to cause grave social harm, particularly in a society such as ours which has, for a number of years now, been multi-racial.

Um.  So, no actual harm to anyone.  He then sentenced Simon Sheppard to four years and ten months in prison, and Stephen Whittle to a lesser term.

But…

That, said Adil Khan, head of diversity and community cohesion at Humberside Police, makes their conviction a first.

“This case is groundbreaking,” he said.

“The fact is now that we’ve been able to demonstrate that you’ve got nowhere to hide; people have been hiding on [sic] the fact that this server was in the US.

“Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows.”

Um.  Inciting feelings … Was any evidence that these feelings *were* incited produced at the trial?  Who precisely came along to testify that he now hated immigrants?   Surely this is just weasel words for “saying anything that I think might cause people to react negatively to something I approve of.”  I wonder how many political campaigns would pass that test? 

Note the length of the sentences.  Now look at this article: a drug dealer got more or less the same.  Wreck hundreds of lives and make a million, and you get just under five years.  Say Wrong Things, and you get just under five years.  And we can be pretty certain that the establishment will bully and abuse Sheppard and Whittle in prison, in a way it would never dare do to a favoured group.

Groundbreaking?  Yes, indeed it is.  How proud we all are of Humberside police, and their “head of diversity and community cohesion”.

You have to hate people pretty badly to lock them up for their opinions.  Whether we agree with Sheppard and Whittle is irrelevant; they had the right to say what they thought.  At least, they thought they did.

First they came for those they called  “racists”…

(Thanks to Five Feet of Fury for the tip).

Share

Pyramids of the black pharaohs

This gorgeous image by Vit Hassan is of Meroe:

Pyramid at Meroe
Pyramid at Meroe

This via Egyptology News.

Share