É. Apor , I. Ormos (ed.): Goldziher Memorial Conference, June 21–22, 2000, Budapest.

HOPKINS, Simon: The Language Studies of Ignaz Goldziher

THE LANGUAGE STUDIES OF IGNAZ GOLDZIHER reading "ein arabisches Schimpfiexicon", a collection which might, he says, have been included in a further instalment of Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie; he also mentions the completion of a substantial "Folklore" study, the object of which was to elucidate certain obscure usages in old Arabic literature, and "mein strafrechtliches Bündel".

8 In reply to an enquiry by Hartmann about the term j^j, Goldziher states "... habe ich sowohl meine Stellen zu jj sowie den Art. in LA angesehen", as a result of which inspection he rejects the meaning "Lebensgenuss" which Hartmann had proposed.

8

8 Goldziher's lexical collections are of such scope and quality that a glossary compiled from his publications, the four volumes of his Freytag and his unpublished writings would constitute a highly valuable contribution to Arabic lexicography, more particularly since theology and jurisprudence are areas not well covered in the existing Arabic dictionaries.

8'

1 Goldziher's philology was in general of the "higher" rather than the "lower" variety. Accordingly, his Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie, i vols. (Leiden 1896-1898) is not a contribution to Arabic grammar similar in content to a more recent work of comparable title, H. Fleisch's Traité de philologie arabe, 2 vols. (Beyrouth 1961-1979), but is first and foremost an investigation into the origin and growth of hi/a' poetry in Arabic, followed in the second volume by an edition of Abü Hätim al-Sijistäni's Kitäb al-mu'ammarín, preceded by a remarkable introduction (pp. ix-xcii) on the theme of longevity in Arabic and other literatures.'"' Goldziher was much less interested in the functioning of grammatical mechanisms and in comparative Semitic grammar than some of his great contemporaries, e.g. Fleischer, Nöldeke, Praetorius or Barth. This is not, however, to say that he took no interest at all in philology in the narrower sense. On the contrary, he most certainly did. It is true that - excepting the aforementioned revision of the Hebrew grammar of Ballagi - he did not produce a formal description of any Semitic language or publish any strictly grammatical work, but from his early youth he was very well read indeed in this area and he continued throughout his life to enjoy the study of technical linguistic literature. For example, he was an enthusiastic reader of Abü Zayd's Kitäb al-nawädir, whose value for the study of old Arabic dialects he emphasized and from which he made copious extracts;'" the critical collection of dialectal features from the old philological literature he considered an important task.

" He doubtless had tongue in cheek when he disclaimed any linguistic expertise for himself "da ich in linguistischen Fragen 8' Hanisch, Briefwechsel 78, 306, 325 respectively. 8

8 Hanisch, Briefwechsel 342. 8'' See M. Ullmann's foreword to the first volume of the WKAS

, Wiesbaden 1970, xiv n. 12. '"' It is indicative of the gap between the two types of "philologie" involved that Goldziher's name does not appear at all in Fleisch's "Index des auteurs cités". '" Hanisch, Briefwechsel 23, 30-31. L'

2 Hanisch, Briefwechsel 114. 103