# Translating from Arabic to Latin in the Twelfth Century: The Examples of Two Englishmen, Robert of Ketton and Adelard of Bath

Olivier Hanne

► To cite this version:

Olivier Hanne. Translating from Arabic to Latin in the Twelfth Century: The Examples of Two Englishmen, Robert of Ketton and Adelard of Bath. Cándida Ferrero Hernández; John Tolan. The Latin Qur'an, 1143-1500: Translation, Transition, Interpretation, De Gruyter, pp.71-94, 2021, 9783110702712. 10.1515/9783110702712-005. hal-03902307

HAL Id: hal-03902307

https://hal.science/hal-03902307

Submitted on 16 Dec 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Olivier Hanne

# Translating from Arabic to Latin in the Twelfth Century: The Examples of Two Englishmen, Robert of Ketton and Adelard of Bath

**Abstract:** The first half of the 12th century was a decisive time for the first translations from Arabic into Latin. Among them, various figures stand out, notably two British, Adelard of Bath and Robert of Ketton. Their translations are well-known, the former for Euclid, the latter especially for his Alcoran, even if he was first a specialist in astrological texts. The skills that these two men developed in Arabic allowed them to translate texts in particularly difficult fields: mathematics, astronomy, astrology, Islamology. By comparing extracts from the Latin translations of these two Englishmen with the Arabic original (Euclid and Ysagoga of Abū Ma'shar for Adelard; Alcoran and astronomical tables for Robert), the article identifies the principles of translation from Arabic followed by these two men, the difficulties they faced and how they sought to resolve them.

The first half of the twelfth century was a decisive period for the first translations from Arabic into Latin, one that saw the emergence of several figures and two Englishmen in particular, Adelard of Bath and Robert of Ketton. They share a number of similarities, as they were from the same geographical area, were not native Arabic speakers, and worked on texts that were very long and dense. However, they were not of the same generation, as Adelard was apparently born around 1075–1080 and Robert at the end of the century, while the former was a layman and the latter became a canon of Pamplona Cathedral and canon of Tudela (1145–1157). Finally, in order to learn Arabic, Adelard traveled in Southern Italy and Syria, while Robert only visited Spain.<fnref n="1" />

<footnote n="1">1 For a short bibliography of these two figures, see Benoît Patar, *Dictionnaire des philosophes médiévaux* (Longueil: Les Presses philosophiques, 2006), 29 ff.; Charles Homer Haskins, *Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science* (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 33–35; Charles Burnett, “Introduction,” in *Adelard of Bath*, 7 ff.; Gerhardt Maurach, “Adelard von Bath. Ein Naturdenker des 12. Jahrhunderts,” *Abhandlungen der Braunschweigischen Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft* 34 (1982): 173–197; Max Lejbowicz, “Postface, du traducteur à la traduction,” in Alain Galonnier, *Le De scientiis Alfarabi de Gérard de Crémone. Contribution aux problèmes de l'acculturation au XIIe siècle* (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), 324 ff.; José Martínez Gázquez, “Observaciones a la traducción latina del Coran de Robert de Ketene,” *Les traducteurs au travail, leurs manuscrits et leurs méthodes*, ed. Jacqueline Hamesse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 115–127.</footnote>
Their translations are well-known, including the former's Euclid and especially the latter's Alcoran, although he was initially a specialist in astrological texts. The skills that the two men developed in the Arabic language allowed them to translate particularly difficult texts in mathematics, astronomy, astrology, and Islamology. The two Englishmen wrote to be understood by their audience, the twelfth-century reader of Latin, and therefore had to make their text intelligible, unless it had an initiatory value. They also had to follow a translation methodology and identify the principles needed to establish their Latin version. However, ancient theories were crucially important for lettered persons of the Middle Ages, who could not avoid them without being accused of a lack of culture as well as ignorance.<fnref n="2" /> The translators were thus captive to questions raised by Cicero, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, and Boethius, whose answers wavered between literalism and adhering to the meaning.<fnref n="3" />

We will not revisit the circumstances of their works of translation or respective careers – subjects that have already been abundantly explored in the historiography – but will instead compare excerpts from the Latin translations of these two Englishmen in relation to the Arabic original, whenever the latter can be identified. For Adelard we will use his Euclid and his version of Abu Ma'shar's *Ysagoga minor*, and for Robert of Ketton his Alcoran and astronomical tables. Our objective is to see whether two comparable figures followed the same principles of translatology for Arabic, and whether these potential rules were adhered to in the same manner in all of their works.

# 1 Adelard of Bath

Adelard of Bath's most impressive work is his Latin translation of Euclid's *Elements*. Within the context of his intellectual journey, his knowledge of the *Elements* grew out of his passion for astronomy, which required the use of mathematics and geometry, as demonstrated by one of the chapters from the *Astronomical Tables* that indicates "How to determine whether the radiation of stars is hexagonal, tetragonal, or triangular."<fnref n="4" /> The calculation was one of the specialities of

<footnote n="2">2 Ulisse Cecini, *Alcoranus Latinus. Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toleda* (Berlin-Münster: Lit Verlag, 2012), 33–47.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Burman, *Reading the Qur'an*, 20 ff.; Cecini, *Alcoranus latinus*, 48–67.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 “Quomodo stellarum radiatio sive exagonalis sive tetragonalis sive trigonalis inveniatur” (ed. Suter, 30).</footnote>
the School of Laon, where Anselm's brother Raoul had written a treatise on the abacus. The school attended by Adelard drew on the Lorraine tradition and the legacy of Gerbert d'Aurillac.<fnref n="5" />

Three Latin versions attributed to Adelard have been identified in the historiography.<fnref n="6" /> In order to study Adelard's methods of translation, it seemed logical to focus on the first version attributed to him, for it is not a summary but rather a complete translation. It was completed in the second quarter of the twelfth century, and includes five manuscripts, all of which are incomplete.<fnref n="7" /> It is very close to the Arabic, and includes books 14 and 15, but not book 9. It drew inspiration from the version by al-Ḥajjāj, and was published by H. L. L. Busard in 1983.<fnref n="8" /> Adelard, if he is indeed the author, explicitly mentions his treatise on the astro-labe, which was completed before 1135.<fnref n="9" /> However, comparison with the Arabic versions of al-Ḥajjāj (ms. Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Or. 339, 1, copied in 1144)<fnref n="10" /> and Ibn Ḥunayn/Thābit ibn Qurra (ms. Copenhagen, Kongelige Biblioteket, cod. arab. 81, eighth century) – as proposed by Lorch – is not immediately convincing, and at the very least does not confirm that Adelard-I used al-Ḥajjāj.<fnref n="11" /> Specialized studies have actually shown that Thābit ibn Qurra's revision was still preferred to the latter, and that other Arabic and Greek versions of Euclid were circulating during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which our

<footnote n="5">5 Louise Cochrane, *Adelard of Bath: The First English Scientist* (London: British Museum Press, 1994), 24.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 We refer readers to the introduction by Hubert L. Busard, ed., *The First Latin Translation of Euclid's Elements* (Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1983). Regarding the three versions, see Patar, *Dictionnaire*, 29; Richard Lorch, "Some Remarks on the Arabic-Latin Euclid," in Burnett, *Adelard of Bath*, 54–55; Marshall Clagett, "The Medieval Latin Translations from the Arabic of the Elements of Euclid, with Special Emphasis on the Version of Adelard of Bath," *Isis* 44 (1953): 16–42; Cochrane, *Adelard of Bath*, 64 ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 The manuscript Oxford Trinity College 47, f. 139r-180v, dating from the mid-twelfth century, is most probably the autograph due to the presence of Arabic terms; see Clagett, "The Medieval Latin."</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Ibid., 18, contrary to Cochrane, *Adelard of Bath*, 62, who sees it as a translation of the text by Ibn Qurra.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 "...et omnium quidem supradictorum simpliciter expositorum siquis rationum postulauerit, intelligat eam apud Euclidem a quindecim libris artis geometrice quos ex arabico in latinum convertimus sermonem esse conniciendam," cited by Haskins, *Studies in the History*, 25. After some hesitation, Hubert L. Busard confirmed the attribution of the text to Adelard, *Robert de Chester (?)*, *Redaction of Euclid's Elements, the so-called Adelard II Version* (Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhäuser, 1992), 7–22.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Ahmad Salim Saïdan, *La Géométrie d'Euclide entre des mains arabes* (Amman: Dâr al-Bashir, 1991).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Ahmed Djebbar, "Quelques exemples de scholies dans la tradition arabe des Éléments d'Euclide," *Revue d'histoire des sciences* 56/2 (2003): 293–321.</footnote>
English translator may have discovered and even collated.<fnref n="12" /> This was the case for a witness entitled *Kitāb al-Arkān* conserved in Paris (BnF, ms. arabe 606), whose copying was completed on March 6, 1215. While it obviously was not a manuscript used by Adelard, the model of Euclid that was recopied is nevertheless interesting, for it is indeed the Ibn Hunayn/Ibn Qurra version, although the proposed variants, which differ from the better-known manuscript of Copenhagen, are more in keeping with the Latin translation of Adelard-I. Moreover, it includes the first four books, which is not the case for the Danish witness, which begins with book V. Finally, the illustrative diagrams are comparable to those of Adelard, unlike the Copenhagen manuscript.

A comparative study between the beginning of this Arabic version and Adelard's Latin translation (see Appendix 1) makes it possible to assess the latter's work. Despite the difficulty of the wording, Adelard successfully preserves clarity of language while hewing to the Arabic text with striking precision.<fnref n="13" /> There are two notable errors: postulate 4 confuses the segment with a straight line; the first Arabic enquiry (*petitio* in Latin) defines the outline of two parallels, which Adelard confuses with a simple straight line. Errors are otherwise rare, despite reformulations and inversions of postulates (such as 5 and 6) and phrases. Definition 7 is more convoluted in his source; Adelard simplifies it, preserving the immediate meaning and – in an interesting detail of his method – avoiding the literal translation of Arabic formulations that would be too unwieldy in Latin (such as the expression “fraction for fraction”). In other words, he avoids word-for-word translation. The equivalence between *scientia communis* and ‘*ilm ‘āmm* is also questionable, since in the early twelfth century *scientia* evoked an approach toward the spiritual life rather than the Aristotelian dimension of knowledge.<fnref n="14" /> The ‘*ilm* refers firstly to religious “knowledge,” that of the hadith, although in a mathematical context the secular dimension prevails, especially

<footnote n="12">12 Lorch, “Some Remarks,” 46–47. The complexity of textual transfers from Arabic to Latin in mathematics and astronomy do not lend themselves to a linear genealogy; see André Allard, “L’influence des mathématiques arabes dans l’Occident médiéval,” in *Histoire des sciences arabes*, vol. 2, ed. Roshdi Rashed (Paris: Éditions du Sueil, [1996] 1997), 199–204.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 This observation has already been made by Sabine Rommevaux, Ahmed Djetbar, and Bernard Vitrac, “Remarques sur l’histoire du texte des Éléments d’Euclide,” *Archive for History of Exact Sciences* 55 (2001): 221–295; “the faithfulness of Gerard and Adelard with respect to their Arabic model(s) is exemplary” (271).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Ronald H. Nash, “Sagesse,” *Encyclopédie Saint Augustin*, Agostino D. Fitzgerald, ed. (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 1275–1277; Jean Leclercq *L’amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu. Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du Moyen Âge* (Paris: Cerf, 1990), 99–101; Pietro Zerbi, *Philosophici e Logici. Un ven-tennio di incontri e scontri : Soissons, Sens, Cluny, 1121–1141* (Roma: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2002), 9–37.</footnote>
with the adjective ‘āmm, which actually has a pejorative connotation (less true for the Latin *communis*).<fnref n="15" /> Finally, Adelard does not follow a definitive rule of transposition from the Arabic; for instance, the letter *qāf* (*q*) is not systematically transcribed by a *k*.

The semantic equivalences are acceptable without being complete, for instance *quantitates* and *aqdār* or *proportio* and *nisba*, which designate mathematical relation and operation. The exposition of the rule is more developed in the Arabic original – if it is indeed an original model – which specifies the arithmetic consequences of the initial proposition before moving on to the actual example, something that Adelard does not do, instead proceeding directly with the concrete case, as does the Copenhagen manuscript. We can deduce that Adelard translated a version of Ibn Ḥunayn/Ibn Qurra that is rather difficult to identify.<fnref n="16" />

His translation is neither a paraphrase nor a summary, nor a word-for-word rendition. Adelard can display literalism in short sentences, but not when the chapters are considered as a whole. He faithfully follows his source text, and then abruptly abridges it before resuming a faithful translation.<fnref n="17" /> The Arabic offers a longer sentence – looser, more repetitive, and more didactic – but one that is less verbal, unlike Adelard’s Latin, which is shorter and more precise (12% fewer words in Latin than in Arabic if articles are considered words). For instance *shay* (“thing”), which in Arabic refers to size, is simply rendered by *res*, with no additional clarity. He also removes some conclusive observations in Arabic (such as “I therefore say that”). It should be noted that he uses few ablative absolutes, instead favoring verbal formulations. His vocabulary is technical and highly repetitive, which was already the case in the Greek text. There is no literary artifice here, so that the only actual difficulty of translation is not knowledge of the vocabulary (limited to approximately two hundred specific recurring terms), but rather the arrangement of the mathematical formulation and the frame of mind it underpins, one that the drawings considerably help to grasp.<fnref n="18" /> Finally, the last point that bears mentioning, and that distinguishes the *Elements* from Adelard’s other translations, is that it conserves no transcriptions from the Arabic, but instead

<footnote n="15">15 Ibn Qurra’s version transmitted in ms. Teheran, Malik 3586, f. 8r, instead speaks of ‘ulūm mut‘ārifa (“common” or “known sciences”).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 “Medieval translators took great liberties with the text, which they did not hesitate to adapt to their needs. Their versions are based on Greek models that are markedly different from those we are familiar with,” Rommevaux et al, “Remarques,” 222.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Ibid., 267 ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Ibid., 272.</footnote>
translates all of the words, as though it were absolutely necessary to enhance
clarity.

Another source, another topic, other conclusions: Adelard of Bath undertook
the translation of Jaʻfar bin Muḥammad Abū Maʻshar's *Introduction (Ysagoga)*,
a text partially inspired by Aristotle that includes a multitude of astrological
axioms. Adelard translated its eleventh-century abridged version<fnref n="19" /> under the title
*Ysagoga minor Iapharis matematici in astronomiam*, a work that did not meet with
success, and for which there are only two manuscripts. He was not interested
in his entire source, but only in the passages on how to conceive horoscopes,
whose order he inversed. The preface deserves to be translated and compared
(see Appendix 2).

Despite the inversion of passages, the accuracy of Adelard's work is striking, and obvious errors rare (such as the last sentence in paragraph 1b). It is neither a summary nor an adaptation, but indeed a translation, one that is not word-for-word, for every paragraph is shorter in Adelard (approximately 35% percent) as well as less explicit and often less clear. Certain correspondences are questionable: *dalāla* has a more esoteric or divinatory connotation than *effectus; hāla* (status, state) is translated by a number of Latin terms (*natura, proprietas, habitudo*); the word planet is translated as star. Finally, the Arabic distinguishes between *falsafa* and ‘*ulūm al-‘uluwiya*, a distinction related to the Greek classification of the sciences: cosmic knowledge is inscribed in philosophy, whereas Adelard believes that philosophy is the highest science, which is an obvious mistranslation, and links the Englishman to the Augustinian tradition. In the same vein, the second paragraph of Abū Maʻshar points out how much terrestrial reality is conducted by cosmic movements that are natural, whereas Adelard goes further by anticipating divinatory astrology. What's more, the translation does not succeed in clarifying Abū Maʻshar's abstruse text: how is one to know that the “fortune” and “power” of stars correspond to the ascendants that define the astral theme? Furthermore, Adelard conserves Arabic terms, which he did not do for Euclid, words that are nevertheless part of the elementary vocabulary: *shemeli* (*shamāl*: north), *genubi* (*janūb*: south), *cehem* (*siḥām*), *afraadet* (*fardārat*).<fnref n="20" /> As a result, the reader cannot access the book without a lexicon, reading guide, or tutor.

Despite a few minor inversions, Adelard faithfully follows his source, hesi-
tating between a relevant word-for-word rendition, and a tendency toward reduc-
tion (such as § 7) that does not, for all that, intefere with reading the text. It is

<footnote n="19">19 See the introduction to the Burnett-Yamamoto-Yano edition, 1–8; Cochrane, *Adelard of Bath*, 85; Haskins, *Studies in the History*, 24.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Ibid., 90.</footnote>
nevertheless weighed down by Arabic terms and formulations preserved from the
source that are not the subject of didactic interpretation (such as *dignitas*) or even
obvious mistranslation (such as *draco* for *jawzahira*). Adelard distorts the Arabic
text, for which the decline of Saturn in 21 belongs to Libra.<fnref n="21" />

It follows that Adelard’s translation methods do not seem to adhere to a
single model. Certain historiographical arguments appear ineffective here,
such as the debate between *ad sensum* and *ad litteram* translation; between
translation, paraphrase, and summary; between faithfulness to the source or
translating for a target (skopos theory).<fnref n="22" /> Adelard uses a multitude of approaches
in his translations and even within the same paragraph: occasional laborious
word-for-word renditions for theoretical or aximoatic passages, clear and reada-
ble summary for detailed examples, and transcriptions of certain Arabic substan-
tives. This latter characteristic is clearly not due to a misunderstanding on his
part, but is instead related to an initiatory aim, with access to science requiring
openness toward an abstruse vocabulary of foreign origin. One could even argue
that Adelard, in addition to some of his contemporaries, were seeking to renew
the Latin vocabulary relating to astronomy through the acculturation of another
vocabulary – deemed more reliable and drawn from awkward transcriptions from
the Arabic – as can be found during the same period in other texts from the Greek.
Consequently, rather than being an esotreric approach, this would actually be a
fairly pre-scientific one.

Adelard does not play on forms of prosody, and there is no detectable cor-
respondance between a possible Latin *cursus* and the rhythm of the Arabic
phrase.<fnref n="23" /> When the Arabic language uses more literary formulations, or when the
syntax becomes more complex and the vocabulary richer, Adelard is less certain;
he appears to be more at ease with a technical subject, namely that of the math-
ematical and astronomical vocabulary that he knew so well.<fnref n="24" /> Such a translation
requires an oral explanation.

Adelard’s translations are comparable in their general characteristics,<fnref n="25" />
although there is a difference between his mathematical texts and those relat-

<footnote n="21">21 § 9, see also § 45 (ed. Burnett, Yamamoto, Yano, 19).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 Hans Joseph Vermeer, *Skopos und Translationsauftrag. Aufsätze. Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen* (Heidelberg: Selbstverlag, 1990). Charles Burnett, ed., *Conversations with his Nephew. On the Same and Different. Questions on Natural Science and On Birds* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), xi, refers to these as “literal translations.”</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 Contrary to Burnett, *Conversations*, 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 Burnett, “Adelard, Ergaphalau and the Science of the Stars,” in *Adelard of Bath*, 133–146, especially 135.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Armando Bisanti, *L'identico e il diverso* (Palermo: Officina di Studi Medievali, 2014), 10–14.</footnote>
ing to astronomy-astrology, which include untranslated terms and more mis-
translations, and reduce the source text three times more than the Arabic Euclid,
which presents sentences that are freer than the Arabic construction. He does not
seem to have used a language of intermediation, whether from Europe (French,
Normand, or Middle English) or the Orient (Syriac or Armenian). His Latin syntax
reveals no underlying language.

The subtle differences between his translations can be explained by three hypotheses: a gradual improvement in his abilities; the great complexity of Abū Maʻshar, which forced him to be more literal, with his Latin not being without its faults<fnref n="26" />; and work as a team, which would account for his varying results based on the structure of his teams. There are too many differences between his two Latin translations for Adelard to have worked alone, which is confirmed by the colophons of his translation of Euclid's *Elements*.

2 Robert of Ketton

Since the text of the Alcoran has been especially studied in the historiography,
here I will mention the central conclusions I reached in earlier articles.<fnref n="27" /> Robert
of Ketton's translation cannot be deemed to be without interest, nor judged solely
on its polemical intention.<fnref n="28" /> His work uses a number of approaches: periphrasis,
compensation, addition, loan translation, adaptation, and borrowings from the
*tafsīr*. Robert adheres closely to the source text, for he reduces the number of
words by only 5% (verification conducted on the *Al-Baqarah*, the second surah),
which is more or less the normal relation from Arabic to Latin, French or English.

No passage from the *Alcoran* is in and of itself perfectly successful or without
value, especially considering the difficulty of the text being translated. Verses 2 and
42–43 provide a good example of this “middle road” that Robert of Ketton arrived at:

<footnote n="26">26 Haskins, *Studies in the History*, 31–32. The Latin of the geometry pages from *De eodem et diverso* is more clear than that of the *Elements*, although it was not a translation, hence the freer style.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 Olivier Hanne, “Le mariage coranique vu à travers l’Alcoran de Robert de Ketton,” in *Les stratégies matrimoniales (IXe-XIIIe siècle)*, Martin Aurell, ed. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 267–290; “Transferts sémantiques entre islam et chrétienté au XIIe siècle à travers la traduction du Coran de Robert de Ketton (sourates al-Fātiḥa et al-Baqara),” in *Le Moyen Âge* 119–2 (2013): 297–338; “La fides des Sarrasins et l’īmān des musulmans dans deux traductions latines du Coran (XIIe- XIIIe siècle),” in *Confiance, bonne foi, fidélité. La notion de fides dans la vie des sociétés médiévales (Vie-XIe siècles)*, Wojciech Falkowski, Yves Sassier, eds. (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2018), 357–374.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Contrary to Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, “Deux traductions latines du Coran au Moyen Âge,” *Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge* 16 (1947–1948): 69–113.</footnote>
Alcoran (II.42): May your intent of mind be firm, never combine what is false and what is true, do not silence the truth you know, (43) right yourself through prayers, in total submission of mind and body. Also give alms and fulfill your duties toward God.

Qur'an: (42) Do not cloak the truth (ḥaqq) with what is futile (bāṭil), do not hide the truth, you who know it. (43) Raise your prayers, give alms, bow with those who bow.

While the first half of verse 42 does not correspond to anything in the Arabic text, the second half is a fairly accurate literal translation, although the concept of truth differs in Islam (ḥaqq) and Christianity (veritas). While the verb *interse-rere* (“intermix, to plant amid”) is of course not the equivalent of *labisa* (“cover, clothe, hide”), the idea expressed is nevertheless quite similar. Verse 43 includes acceptable transpositions, notably between *zakāt* – purifying legal alms – and *decime* (“tithe”), which are also on the order of a religious obligation. However, Robert of Ketton amplifies the requirement of submission expressed in Muslim prostration (verb *rakaʻa*, “to bow, to humble oneself”).

Another revealing example of the methods used by the translator is Surah 101, called the Striking Hour (see Appendix 3). Robert hews closely to the surah's primary meaning and eliminates all of the repetitive scansions in verses 1, 3, 10 and 11, adopting the rules of Latin rhetoric, which avoids repetition, instead of taking a more literal approach. Moreover, based on the Semitic rhetoric in which the surah is written, as revealed by Michel Cuypers,<fnref n="29" /> the counterpart to Theme A in the first verse appears in the last verse; verses 2 and 3 offer the same Theme B, which reappears in verse 10; and verses 4–5 find their parallel in verses 6–9. This chiasmus method is confirmed by the final verses:

1. The Disaster [Theme: A¹, final: *al-qāriʻa*]

2. What is the Disaster? [B¹, *māl-qāriʻa*]

3. Would that you knew what the Disaster is? [B², *wa mā⁴⁵ʻādrā²ka mal-qāriʻa*]

4. On that day men shall become like scattered moths [C¹, *al-mabthū⁴⁶thi*]

5. and the mountains like tufts of carded wool. [C², *al-manfū⁴⁶shi*]

6. Then he whose scales are heavy [C'¹a, *mawā²zīnuhu*]

7. shall dwell in bliss; [C'¹b]

8. but he whose scales are light, [C'²a, *mawā²zīnuhu*]

9. the Abyss shall be his home. [C'²b]

10. Would that you knew what this is like? [B', *wa mā⁴⁵ʻādrā²ka ma hiya*]

11. It is a scorching fire. [A', *nāru ḥāmiya*]

<footnote n="29">29 Michel Cuypers, *Le Festin, une lecture de la sourate al-Mâ'ida* (Paris: Lethielleux, 2007).</footnote>
In the Qur'an, a number of surahs follow this type of subtle prosody masked
by an apparent disorder, which can be reduced to the three following patterns:
ABC/A'B'C', ABC/C'B'A', and ABC/x/A'B'C'.<fnref n="30" /> However, by eliminating four verses
Adelard destroys the Semitic system of the surah. There is also a doubtful equiva-
lence in verse 4 between al-qāriya yum yakun and mandatum grave, and an overly
rapid summary of verses 9–11 through precipitium corruet. On the other hand,
the general meaning is preserved, even though the text is not clarified by the
translation, especially for verses 6–9, which are translated literally.

Robert generally remains faithful to the text's meaning and primary
interpretations, introduces nuances, and looks for the equivalent phrase, but
does not capture the book's scansions, rhythm, narrative style, and numerous
images. Certain translations are nevertheless particularly successful, with respect
to both words and content. He mostly follows the framework for the verses, but
not their number or the structure of the surats. Robert of Ketton had to contend
with many pitfalls. The Qur'an has of course been translated, but is considerably
diminished, with the Latin leading to other meanings and new undertones, but
rarely to basic errors. Transfers from the Arabic that are perfectly adapted in Latin
are rare. The translator cuts, shifts, amplifies verses, and creates logical connec-
tions to reconstitute a text based on Latin rhetoric, thereby betraying the text he
wants to transmit. He doesn't always understand the nature of the Qur'an, its
modes of thought and inconsistencies. With respect to his methods, it is impor-
tant to note how much they evolve from one passage to another.

Robert's infidelity stems most probably from his decision to follow Cicero. In
his translation of the *Fables of the Saracens*, he explicitly admits to cutting the
Hadiths that he translated, by deleting the chain of transmitters:

> Being a Latin translator, I decided to keep their names in silence, because they are entirely
> foreign to the rule of Latinity. Such that if they were nevertheless scrupulously noted, their
> fruit would be of little use, unless one enjoys a fruit augmented with leaves and diluted with
> words.<fnref n="31" />

The Hadiths, which include anecdotes, sayings, and even legends regarding the
Prophet, were put in writing circa the eighth or ninth century. The chains of wit-
nesses that had enabled their transmission (the *sanad*) had to be specified in
order to ensure their authenticity: “Ibn Isḥāq says that al-Żuhrī says that Sa’īd bin

<footnote n="30">30 Here we have repeated the analysis of Angelika Neuwirth, *Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren* (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981).</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 Paris, Arsenal 1162, f. 5r; Tristan Vigliano, “Le Coran des Latins : un impossible décentrement ? Les deux cas exemplaires de Robert de Ketton et Jean de Ségovie,” *Revue d’histoire religieuse* 78 (June 2014): 137–174.</footnote>
al-Musayyib related that God's Messenger said that. . ." Then comes the content of the Hadith itself (the *matn*). However, by eliminating the *sanad*, which was too cumbersome and lengthy in his Latin eyes, Robert was unaware that he was eliminating the proof of authenticity of the prophetic word, and breaking with Islamic tradition in favor of the meaning.

Another text translated by Robert of Ketton, which has been studied less, is al-Kindi's (died in 873) astrological *Forty Chapters*. This major text, which influenced all of medieval Latin astrology, is a practical manual for political action guided by the stars. It survived in a single complete Arabic manuscript, and was translated by Robert circa 1130–1140 at the request of Hermann of Dalmatia. The complexity of the astrological and metaphorical vocabulary made it difficult to translate, especially as Robert was first and foremost a specialist in mathematics. He was thus unsure whether he had made the source text more accessible.

Let us consider a revealing passage, previously studied by Burnett, in comparison to its Latin version (see Appendix 4). It has 24% less words than the Arabic, and is thus a shortened paraphrase, but not a simple summary. Robert reduced the text and its formulations in an effort to capture the general idea. The Latin cuts intermediary phrases (such as § 482, “that should be done”) and repetitives phrases (such as in § 482, “made fortunate by a strong benefic”). His reduction can be problematic, especially when a word he does not understand requires him to reformulate the entire text. In Arabic, the Arrow of Fortune (*sahm*) is used with respect to the Moon and the Sun, but the word disappears in Latin in favor of “lights,” while the entire phrase is shortened (§ 483). He once again inverses the logic of the Arabic phrase to better render the Latin, but in doing so changes the text’s meaning. For example, he requests a “fixed and direct landmark in the first quadrant of the Sun, the Moon is in the ascendant” (§ 482), whereas in Arabic the position of the Moon is given in relation to the Sun. The translation’s flaws are hence striking, especially as Robert never chooses to clarify the source text, which is already difficult to understand in Arabic (as in §488). The second part of paragraph 483 (“and the application of the Moon”) appears to have been translated as he was writing, with the words being laid out without an understanding of their overall meaning, like some sort of medieval *Google Translate*.

Still, the qualities of the text, which are genuine, should not be overlooked: Robert does not amplify his source, and strays from it only to cut what he deems repetitive. He tries to follow the literality and even the syntax of Arabic, even tough the latter uses substantives and noun complements that do not convey meaning when rendered in Latin, whereas what is called for are verbal formulations or ablative absolutes. Finally, it should be emphasized that when the Arabic is narrative or descriptive, Robert offers a clear and comprehensible translation (as in § 484).
We can subsequently conclude that Robert favors a scrupulous literalism in his works; he uses little amplification, interpolation, and clarification of the text, even when he does not translate Arabic idiomatisms. There are nevertheless differences between his translation of the Qur'an and his translation of al-Kindi, with the latter's being more reduced and interpolated, albeit less accessible. It is possible that he was not comfortable with a text that is not narrative or poetic like the Qur'an, or "scientific" and rigorous like Euclid.

## 3 Conclusion: Principles of Translatology?

What common methodological features are there between Adelard of Bath and Robert of Ketton? First, neither one uses an intermediary language; both translate directly from Arabic to Latin, perhaps as part of a team, or assisted by an acolyte with perfect knowledge of the source text or the Arabic language. Both are comfortable with literalism, which can go as far as muddled word-for-word translation, for instance Robert in the *Forty Chapters*. They both genuinely reduce the original text – between 5 and 24% for Robert, and 12 and 35% for Adelard – thereby suggesting they had the same general attitude toward the Arabic text: they either translate it rigorously while reducing it, because the transition from Arabic to Latin requires doing so, or they shorten it because they are looking for specific information and demonstrations that they rid of whatever they consider superfluous. They both subsequently demonstrate a capacity to adapt to their source and audience. The Alcoran and Euclid had to be as clear as possible for those who commissioned the translations, wheras the *Ysagoga minor* and *Forty Chapters* were intentionally kept in a semantic and semiotic obscurity, because they are initiatory and astrological works.

Adelard and Robert nevertheless face three types of difficulties: they are comfortable with repetitive and descriptive constructions, but more hesitant when the syntax of the Arabic sentence is complex, or overly literary or allusive; the formulations of divinatory astrology are less accessible for them; they master technical lexical registers that are ultimately limited and specific in their variety of language, especially in mathematics. Their results differ, as Adelard masters the technical nature of Euclid, while Robert succeeds in rendering the general meaning of the Qur'an, but strays from it on the level of details; Adelard appears to assume the initiatory nature of his translations more so than Robert.
# Appendices

## 1 Adelard of Bath: Translations of Euclid's Elements

Version by Isḥāq bin Ḥunayn revised by Thābit bin Qurra al-Ḥarrānī (m. 901), BnF, ms. arabe 606 (vers 1215), transcription O. Hanne, English version A. Gharibian, f. 1r-2v.

### المقاله الاولى

(...)

<١> النقطه هي التي لا جزء لها

<٢> و الخط طول بلا عرض

<٣> و طرفا الخط نقطتان

<٤> و الخط مستقيم هو الممتد في المستقبل كُل و اجدته في النقطتين اللتين في طرفية

<٥> و البسيط هو التي لَهُ طول و عرض فقط

<٦> و اطراف البسيط خطوط

يحتاج الناظر في صناعة التقسي إلى معرفية خمسة اثنياء من ذلك

<١> نهايه من ان ياتي خط مستقيم من كُلَّ نقطة الي كُلَّ نقطه و ان تخرج خطًا مستقيماً ذا خط مستقيم لا صقن به

<٢> و ان تخط دابرة علي كل مركز و بقسمى كُلَّ بعد

<٣> و ان كُلَّ الزوايا القامة متسوية

<٤> و ان وقع خط مستقيم علي خطين مستقيمين فكانت الزاويتان اللتان في جهة و اجدته اصغَرَ و من زاويتن فا ممتين قان الخطين اذا اخرجا في تالك الجهة لابدَان يلتقيا

<٥> و خطان مستقيمان لا تحيطان بسطح

<١> علم عامَّ جامِع

<٢> اذا كانت لشيأ كُلٌّ و احِدٌّ منها مُسَاوٌ لشيئ مَا فَكُلَّها مُتساوية

<٣> و ان زيدَ علي المتساوية متساوية فَكُلَّها تصير متساوية

<٤> و لن نقصن من المتساويه متساويه فان التي تبقى متساويه

<٥> فان زيد علي غير المتساوية متساوية فان جميعها يصير غير متساويه

<٦> و ان كانت لشيئاً كُلٌّ وَجِدَ منها نصف لِشيئ ما فَكُلَّ و اجِدَ منها مَسَاوٌ للاخ

<٧> و الأشياء التي كل و احِدَ منها مثلان لِشيئ ما فهي ايضاً متسوية

<٨> و مارَكَبَ بَعضٌ علي بَعضٌ فَانْطَبَقَ احِدٌّ مما علي الاخر فهو مُسَاوٌ بَعضُه لبعض و الكل

اكبر من جزئيه
نُريدُ ان يَبْنَى كيف نعمل مثلثا متساوي الاضلاع علي خط مستقيم معلوم.

القرر ؛ مثاله انا نجعل الخط المعلوم خط [اب] و نريد ان نعمل عليها مثلثا متساوي الاضلاع
فخط علي مركز [ا] و نقدر بُعدها بين [اب] دايرة عليها [ج د ب] و نخط ايضاً علي مركز [ب]
و نقدر بُعدها بين [اب] دايرة عليها [ج ا ه] و خرجُ من نقطة [ج] التي عليها قطعتي احد الداير
بين الاخري خطين مستقيمين إلى نقطتي [ا] و [ب] و مُما خطأ [ج ا] و [ج ب] فاقول انا قد
عملنا مثلثاوي الاضلاع علي خط [اب] المعاوم وهو مثلث [اب ج].

برهانه ؛ ان نقطة [ا] لمَّا صَارَتْ مركز دايرة [ب ج د] كَانَ خط [اج] مساويًا لخط [اب]، و ان
نقطة [ب] لمَّا صَارَتْ مركز دايرة [ج ا ه] صَارَ خط [ب ج] مساويًا لخط [ا ب] فَكُلَّ وَ احِدٌ من
خطي [ج ا] و [ج ب] مساوي لخط [ا ب] المعلوم؛

و الاشيا المتساوي لشئ و احيد و كلها متساويه و هي [ا ج] و [ب ج] فقد عملنا علي خط [ا
ب] للمعلوم مثلثا متساوي الاضلاع و هو مثلث [ا ب ح] و ذلك ما لردنا بيانه

First article (...).

<1> A point is that which has no part.

<2> A line is a length without breadth.

<3> The ends of a line are made of two points.

<4> A straight line is that which extends on each side between two points that are at its ends.

<5> A surface is that which has only length and breadth.

<6> The edges of a surface are lines.

He who seeks to conduct measurements must know the following five things:

<1> A straight line extends from any point toward any other point, and then an
[another] infinite straight line is drawn from the [first] straight line without
touching it [sic: method for two parallel straight lines].

<2> Draw a circle with any center, and with a section of any size.

<3> All of the superior [sic: right] angles are equal.

<4> If a straight line falls on two straight lines, and if there are two angles on one side that are the smallest ones, if these two lines continue (litt.: come out) they should meet on this side.

<5> Two straight lines do not surround a surface.

Universal vulgar science.

<1> If each of two measures (litt.: things) is equal to [another] measure, then they are all equal.

<2> If we increase an equality with [another] equality, then they all become equal.

<3> If we decrease an equality from [another] equality, then that one retains equality.

<4> If we increase equalities with inequalities (litt.: without an equality), then their sums [totals] become unequal.
<5> If, for two measures, each is half of the [other's] measure, each one is equal to the other.

<6> Two measures that are each comparable (*litt.*: relative) to [another] measure are reciprocally equal.

<7> Place them one on top of the other, if each of them conforms (*litt.*: applies) to the other, then they are equal to one another.

<8> The whole is greater than its parts.

We want to show how to make an equilateral triangle on a given straight line.

Arrangement. For example let the line AB be the given line. If we want to make a triangle on it whose sides are equal, draw a circle on GBD with A at the center, and measure the length of AB. We also draw a circle on GAH with B at the center, and we measure it with the length of AB. From point G, on which each segment of the circles meets, draw two straight lines toward the two points B and A. From the lines AG and GB, I hence say we have made a triangle of equal sides on the given line AB, and that it is triangle ABG.

Its demonstration. Because point A has become the center of the circle BGD, line AG is equal to line AB. Because point B has become the center of the circle GAH, line BG is equal to line BA. Each of the two lines AG and BG is equal to the given line AB. If measures are equal to [another] measure, they are all equal. And it is AG and BG. We thus made on given line AB a triangle of three equal sides, and it is the same example for ABD. This is what we have answered.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Version Adelard-I (circa 1125–1150), ed. H. L. L. Busard, 1983, 31–34.

## Liber primus

<1> Punctus est illud cui pars non est.

<2> Lina est longitudo sine latitudine.

<3> Cuius extremitates quidem duo puncta.
linea BG equalis linee BA. Sicque unaqueque linearum GA et GB equalis est linee AB. Equalium autem uni rei unumquodque equale alteri. Itaque linee tres AG et AB et BG invicem equales. Triangulus igitur equalium laterum ABG factus est supra lineam AB assignatam. Et hoc est quod in hac figura demonstrare intendimus.

## 2 Adelard of Bath: Ysagoga minor lapharis matematici in astronomiam

Original Version of the Ysagoga by Jaʻfar bin Muḥammad Abū Maʻshar (ninth century), ed. Burnett-Yamamoto-Yano (1994), 12–14.

> هذا كتاب مختصر المدخل و هو سبعة فصول، في طبائع البروج و حالاتها و دلالاتها، في حالات الكواكب في ذاتها <١>
> ومقدار اجرامها و حالاها من الشمس، في حالات الكواكب الخمسة و العشرين، في سعادة الكواكب و قونها و ضعفها و
> نحوستها و فاسد القمر و معرفة الني عشربيتها، في طبائع الكواكب السبعة و خاصية دلالاتها على الأشياء الموجودة و
> أرباب الأيام و الساعات، في معرفة سني فردارات الكواكب و مراتب سنتها المختلفة وحدود المصريين.

> قال جعفر بن محمد المعروف باني معشر المنجم للمحنين الفلسفة و العلوم العلوية ذوي الفكر الدائمة في أعاجيب <٢>
> أحوال السالكات في الحق الكلي ما نفع حركاتها الطبيعية.

> و إنما يدرك بمعرفة درج الفلك و عدد البروج و أسمائها و كميّة درج كل واحد منها و أربابها و مزاعيمها و طبائعها <٣>
> و طبائع البيوت الني عشر و الكواكب و بمعرفة الصور الشمالية و الجنوبية و حالاتها و دلالاتها.

> وقد زكرنا عامة ما يحتاج إليه في هذا المعنى في كتابنا المسوم بالمدخل إلى علم أحكام النجوم فأما هذا الكتاب <٤>
> المسقى بمختصر المدخل فأنا نذكر فيه بعض تلك الأشياء على الاختصار و الايجاز ليكون أقرب إلى الفهم.

> أما الفلك فهو ثلاثمانة و ستون درجة واثنا عشر برجا و هي الحمل و الثور و الجوزاء و الرسوان و الأسد و السنبلة <٥>
> و الميزان و العقرب و القوس و الجدي و الدلو و الحوت.

> وكل برج منها ثلاثون درجة كل درجة ستون دقيقة كل واحد منها إلى العواشر و الحوادي عشر و سائر ما يتبع ذلك <٦>
> من الكسور.

> و أما الكواكب السريعة السير فهي سبعة فأعلاها و أبعدها عنا زحل ثم المشتري ثم المريخ ثم الشمس ثم الزهرة ثم <٧>
> عطارد ثم القمر.

> لكل واحد منها حظ في بعض البروج و لها فيها أوجات و جوزهرات <٨>

> فالحمل بيت المريخ و شرف الشمس في تسع عشرة درجة منه <٩>
Translation Hanne-Gharibian:

<1> This book is a summary of the *Introduction* and it has seven chapters: on the nature of zodiacs, their states and significations [auguries, indications]; on the states of planets [stars] in themselves, the size [volume] of their bodies [members] and their states due to the sun; on the 25 states of planets; on the joy [fortune] of planets, their power, their weakness [weakening], their bad luck [misfortune], the corrupted moon, and knowledge of their dozen; on the nature of the seven planets, the propriety of their significations regarding the things that are, and the lords of days and hours; on the reminder of the sums [totals] of values [wholes?]; on the knowledge of years of individualities [specificities, singularities] of planets, their rank [position] in the years and limits of Egyptians.

<2> Jaʻfar bin Muḥammad, known <by the name of> Ibn Abī Maʻshar the Astrologer, told the lovers of philosophy and the higher sciences, people of infinite intelligence [boundless thought] in the marvels of the accessible [practicable] conditions of truth and totality [of everything]: there is no use in the absence of knowledge regarding the things that exist in this world, such that higher bodies indicate with truth the natural movements with respect to it [in other words stars explain the world].

<3> He undertakes it with knowledge of the degrees of the <zodiacal> cycle [circle], the number of zodiacs, their names and the number of degrees for each of them, their masters and their nature, the nature of their 12 names and of their planets, and with the knowledge of their image in the north and the south [in other words their constellation in the north and the south], their states and significations.

<4> We have just pointed out everything that is required on this subject in our book entitled *Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars*, and in this book entitled *Summary of the Introduction*, we explain some of the things in the form of short summaries to help with understanding [so that it may be closer to comprehension].

<5> Namely the circle, in which there are 360 degrees and 12 zodiacs that are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Libra, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces;

<6> and each of these signs has 30 degrees, each degree has sixty seconds, each second has 60 thirds, each third has 60 fourths, and thus each of them divides until tenths and elevenths, and we will thus see what remains from the fraction [division].

<7> With regard to the planets, whose movement [course] is rapid, there are seven. The highest and most distant is Jupiter, then Mars, then the Sun, then Venus, then Mercury, then the Moon.
<8> Each one of them has a fortune [chance] in each zodiac, and within them is an apogee [climax] and an extreme circle [the most distant sphere].

<9> Aries is in the hous of Mars and the nobility [honor] of the Sun is in its 19th degree (...).

Latin Translation by Adelard of Bath, circa 1120-1140 (ibid., 93-95):

<1a> Ysagoga minor Iapharis matematici in astronomiam per Adelardum Bathoniensem ax arabico sumpta incipit. <2> Quicumque philosophie scientiam altorem studo constanti inquirens, ammirabiles celestium in universitate sensili perscrutatur effectus – similitudinis quippe superiorum formarum supra mundum hunc inferiorem naturali quodam motu apparentibus rerumque futurarum prenocionem portendentibus – <3> haut quamquam id absque noticia graduum circulorum signorumque consequetur; preterea quis planeta cuius signi dominus, quasque in eis partes occupent; eorumdem etiam natura nec minus et signorum; ipsorum etiam que shemeli, que autem genubi sint presciri convenit. <4> Horum autem singula in Ysagoga Maiore diffusius dicta sunt; nunc autem compendiose, introducendis propius. <1b> Dicetur itaque primo quidem loco de signorum natura, proprietatibus, effectibus; secundo vero de stellarum proprietatibus secundum se atque earumdem quantitatibus, quasque affeciones a Sole habeant; tercio autem de XXV habitudinibus planetarum; quarto de stellarum felicitate atque potentia, sed et infortunio et impotentia dicendum, Lune etiam imbecillitate, noticiaque duodecatemorion earum; quinto de planetarum natura quidque supra mundum inferiorem significent, quisve cui diei vel hore presit; sexto de nominibus cehem, id est partium; septimo de noticia afraadet et stellarum finibus secundum Medorum philosophos, set et graduum diversitatibus.

Sermo primus. <5> Circulus igitur in CCCLX gradus, necnon in XII signa dividitur: est autem primum signorum Aries, secundum Taurus, tercium Gemini, quartum Cancer, quintum Leo, sextum Virgo, septimum Libra, octavum Scorpius, nonum Sagittarius, decimum Capricornus, undecimum Aquarius, duodecimum Pisces. <6> Horum autem unumquodque in XXX gradus dividitur, gradus autem in dakaicas LX, secundum idem autem et dakaicas in secundas, et secunda in tercias, et tercia in quartas modo infinito dividi potest. <7> Septem vero planete sunt hii: primus Saturnus, secundus Iupiter, tercius Mars, quartus Sol, quintus Venus, sextus Mercurius, septimus Luna. <8> Unusquisque autem horum dignitates suas in signis optinent, set et sublimationem et draconem. <9> Aries itaque domilicium est Martis, regnum autem Solis in decimo nono eiusdem gradu, servitus autem Saturni in vigesimo primo (...).
## 3 Robert of Ketton: The Qur'an, Surah 101

Arabic Version (édition du Caire, 1924).

<table><tr><td>بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم</td><td>&lt;١&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>القارعة</td><td>&lt;٢&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>ما القارعة</td><td>&lt;٣&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>و ما أدركك ما القارعة</td><td>&lt;٤&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>يوم يكون الناس كالفراش الميثوث</td><td>&lt;٥&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>و تكون الجبال كالعنين المنفوش</td><td>&lt;٦&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>فأمّا من ثقلت موزينه</td><td>&lt;٧&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>فهو في عيشة راضية</td><td>&lt;٨&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>و أتّما من خفّت موزينه</td><td>&lt;٩&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>فأمّه هاوية</td><td>&lt;١٠&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>و ما أدركك ما هيه</td><td>&lt;١١&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>نار حامية</td><td></td></tr></table>

Latin Version By Robert (c.1142), Paris, Arsenal, ms. 1162, f. 138v.

Azoara centesima X

In n(omine) d(omini) p(ii) et m(isericordis). <4> Die mandati grauis exibunt homines uelud culices, nunc hac nunc illac promouentes, <5> fientque montes ut lana decerpta, <6> et cuicunque pondus immensum preponderabit, <7> uitam uiuet optimam, <8> cui uero leue contigerit, <11> in ignis feruidi <9> precipitium corruet.

## 4 Robert of Ketton: Translation of al-Kindī's Forty chapters

Arabic version (ninth century), ed. Burnett, *Arabic Sciences and Philosophy* 3 (1993), 116–117.

Burnett Translation (correction Hanne).
الباب السادس عشر في حفر الأنهار و عمارة الأرض و عمل البؤيرات المسنيات.

> ٤٨٢<
أما حفر الأنهار، فينبغي أن يعمل ذلك و القمر في تربيع الشمس الأول، مسعود، مقبول في الأوتاد، و تكون الأوتاد ثابتة مستقيمة. و صاحب الطالع مشرق، في حظوظه، و تدي أو مقبل. و يكون الطالع برجاً مائيًا، مسعوداً بالسعد قوي. و يكون وتد الرابع مسعوداً أيضاً بالسعد قوي.

> ٤٨٣<
و صاحب القمر في حظوظه، مقبول مسعود. و سهم السعادة مسعود في مناظرة القمر و الشمس. و جزء الاجتماع في مسطرة السعود. و اتصال القمر، عند انفصاله من الشمس عند الاجتماع أو الامتلا، سعد قوي و تدي أو مقبل. و صاحب الاجتماع أو الامتلا كذلك. و النحوس ساقطة عن الأوتاد و النيرين و سهم السعادة و صاحب القمر.

> ٤٨٤<
فإن ذلك إذا حكم على ما حددنا، دلّ على سهولة الكذ، و غزر الماء، و كثرة المنافع بذلك الماء و قلة الضربه، و سلامة المراكب السالكة فيه، و يطول ثباته.

> ٤٨٥<
و أما عمل البؤيرات، فينبغي أن يكون ذلك و الطالع و الأوتاد ثابة، غير زائلة، مستقيمة. و الطالع برجاً أرضياً هو وتد للأرض كذلك.

> ٤٨٦<
و الأوتاد نقية من النحوس و محصنة بالسعود، أن تكون الزهرة في الطالع أو الرابع، وهو برج أرضي. و يكون القمر في برج أرضي، غالباً في الشمال أو في الجنوب، و سيمّا في حظوظه، و هو مقبول من سعد مشرق.

> ٤٨٧<
و كذلك عمل المسنيات على مثل عمل البؤيرات فإن البؤيرات مسنيات.

> ٤٨٨<
فأما عمارة الأرض، فيكون ذلك و القمر مقبول من سعد، وهو > و < القابل له و تديّان أو مقبولان، و أصلح أن يكونا و تديين أو القمر خاصية. و يكون حال صاحب الطالع كحال صاحب القمر و يكون الأوتاد نقية من النحوس محصنة بالسعود، و سيمّا إن كان أحد السعدين صاحب بيت المال، أو صاحب سهم السعادة، أو صاحب سهم المال. و يكون المجتمع > وأ < الامتلاء و تدا من الأوتاد.

و صاحب اتصال القمر، عند انفصاله من جامعة الشمس أو استقباله، بسعد و تديّ أو مقبل. و يكون صاحب الاجتماع سعداً، و كذلك صاحب القمر و صاحب الرابع.

The Sixteenth Chapter: On Channeling Rivers, Enhancing the Land and Constructing Wells and Dams.

> ٤٨٢<
As for channeling rivers, that should be done when the Moon is in the first quadrant of the Sun, made fortunate, and received in the landmarks; and the landmarks are fixed and direct; and the Master of the ascendent is Eastern, in its rises, cardinal or received; and the ascendent is a watery sign, made fortunate by a strong benefic; and the landmark of the fourth <place> is made fortunate too by a strong benefic.

> ٤٨٣<
And the Master of the Moon is in its rises, received and made fortunate; and the Arrow of Fortune is made fortunate in the view of the Moon and Sun; and the degree of the conjunction is in the view of the benefic; and the relation of the Moon, at its departure from the Sun at the time of the conjunction or fullness, is a strong benefic in a landmark or succedent; and the Master of the conjunction or fullness is like this; and the decreases are falling from the landmarks and the two lights and the Arrow of Fortune and the Master of the Moon.
<484> For if that is judged to be as we have defined, it signifies ease of toil, abundance of water, a large number of profits from this water, a small amount of harm from it, and the safety of vessels travelling on it, and it will ensure that it lasts for a long time.

<485> As for the construction of wells, that should be done when the ascendent and the <other> landmarks are firm, not receding and direct, and the ascendent is an earthy sign – and the landmark of the earth likewise; <486> and the landmarks are pure of decreases and fortified by benefics, especially if Venus is in the ascendent or the fourth and this is an earthy sign; and the Moon is in an earthy sign, being dominant in the North or the South, especially in its rises, and it is received by a benefic in the East.

<487> Likewise the construction of dams is like the construction of wells. For wells are dams.

<488> As for enhancing the earth, this should be done when the Moon is received by a benefic, with it <and> its recipient being in landmarks or succedents; and it is better if both are in landmarks or the Moon at least; and the condition of the Master of the ascendent is the same as the condition of the Master of the Moon; and the landmarks are clear of decreases and fortified with benefics, especially if one of the two benefics is Master of the house of wealth or Master of the Arrow of Fortune or Master of the Arrow of Wealth; and the conjunction or fullness is <in> one of the landmarks; <489> and <the Master of> the relation of the Moon when it departs from its conjunction with the Sun or from its fullness is with a benefic in a landmark or succedent; and the Master of the conjunction is a benefic, and likewise the Master of the Moon and the Master of the fourth <place>.

Latin Version by Robert (c. 1130–1140), Burnett, *op. cit.*

XX. In fluminum et rivulorum ad irrigandum alveis necnon in coloniis puteisque gerendis.

<482> In alveorum fluminum eductionumque suarum opere, cardinem firmum atque directum in primo Solis quadrante fortunata necnon et recepta Luna sorciatur orientisque dominus orientalis in suarum aliqua potenciarum in cardine vel receptus existat. Oriens item signum aqueum terreque cardo a felicissimo fortunentur. <483> Sitque Lune dominus in sua dignitate receptus et fortunatus, partemque fortune lumina, gradumque coniunctionis felices, aspiciant. Luna rursus in primo de subradiis exitu dominusque coniunctionis cum felicissimo in cardine vel succedente iungantur, infelices a cardinibus atque luminibus parteque fortune necnon et a lunari domino quam diligenter alienentur. <484> Hoc enim
labore modico commodum immensum, aquarum copiam et salubritatem nulliusque naufragii pestisve seu detrimenti capacem, diuturnitatem eciam efficit.

<485> Similiter in ciconiis sint oriens ceterique cardines stabiles et nullatenus intricati, <486> directi et ab infelicibus mundi, felicibusque corroborati, precipueque oriens eu erre cardinem, que terrea sint signa, Venus optin-eat, et Luna in signo terreo in septemtrionem vel sursum accedens, pre-cipueque sit in suarum dignitatum quamvis ab orientali felice fortunata.

<487> Hec eadem quoque dispositio suffragiumque sidereum in rotis aquam trahentibus sunt necessaria.

<488> In coloniarum quidem fundamentis et iniciis est utillimum ut Luna a felice recipiatur, earumque utraque vel saltm Luna cardinem vel succedens, precipue tamen cardinem tenente. Sitque similis et concors habitus dom-inorum orientis et Lune cardinesque firmi, ab infelicibus mundi felici-busque corroborati, potissimumque felicium quevis domicilio substantie partisve fortune seu pecunie dominetur. <489> Luna rursus in suo de sub-radiis exitu vel expositione a stella felicissima sit fortunata vel recepta, coniunctioque sui vel oppositio in cardine vel succedente, et eorum alte-rius ac Lune terreque cardinis domini felices vel fortunati.

Bibliography

Adelard of Bath. *An English scientist and Arabist of the early Twelfth Century*, Charles Burnett, editor, London: The Warburg institute, 1987.

Bliemetzrieder, Franz. *Adelhard von Bath. Blätter aus dem Leben eines englischen Naturphilosophen des 12. Jahrhunderts und Bahnbrechers einer Wiedererweckung der griechischen Antike: eine kulturgeschichtliche Studie*, München: Hueber, 1935.

Burman, Thomas E. *Reading the Qur'an in Latin Christendom, 1140-1560*, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Burnett, Charles, ed. *Conversations with his Nephew. On the Same and Different. Questions on Natural Science and On Birds*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Burnett, Charles and Keiji Yamamoto, Michio Yano, ed. *Ysagoga minor. The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology together with the Medieval Translation of Adelard of Bath*, Leiden: Brill, 1994 (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science, Texts and studies, 15).

Busard, Hubert L. *Robert de Chester (?), Redaction of Euclid's Elements, the so-called Adelard II Version*, Basel-Boston-Berlin: Birkhäuser, 1992.

Cecini, Ulisse. *Alcoranus Latinus. Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toleda*, Berlin-Münster: Lit Verlag., 2012.

Clagett, Marshall. "The Medieval Latin Translations from the Arabic of the Elements of Euclid, with Special Emphasis on the Version of Adelard of Bath," *Isis* 44 (1953): 16-42.
Cochrane, Louise. *Adelard of Bath, The First English Scientist*, London: British Museum Press, 1994.

Haskins, Charles Homer. *Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science*, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924.

*Histoire des sciences arabes*, ed. Roshdi Rashed, Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1997.

Lambert, Hubert and Ludovic Busard, ed. *The First Latin Translation of Euclid's Elements*, Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1983.

Lorch, Richard. "Some Remarks on the Arabic-Latin Euclid," in Burnett, *Adelard of Bath*: 45–55.

Patar, Benoît. *Dictionnaire des philosophes médiévaux*, Longueil: Les Presses philosophiques, 2006.

Rommevaux Sabine and Ahmed Djetbar, Bernard Vitrac. «Remarques sur l'histoire du texte des Éléments d'Euclide», *Archive for History of Exact Sciences* 55 (2001): 221–295.

Suter, Heinrich, ed., *Die astronomischen Tafeln des Muhammed ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi*, Kobenhavn: A. F. Host & son, 1914.