É. Apor , I. Ormos (ed.): Goldziher Memorial Conference, June 21–22, 2000, Budapest.
HOPKINS, Simon: The Language Studies of Ignaz Goldziher
SIMON HOPKINS unaltered in all cases, others electing to "correct" the real or imaginary "mistakes" in accordance with the classical standard, often converting the Hebrew letters of the original into Arabic script. Goldziher's attitude to this problem became progressively more and more liberal; the more he came to know about post-classical Arabic in general and Judaeo-Arabic in particular, the more tolerant he became of these nonclassical features, realising that many of them were a natural development of Arabic usage and not merely the blunders of ignorant scribes. In his work on Tanhum Yerushalmi of 1870, as stated there in the preface, he took a purist point of view and tacitly corrected ("verbesserte") the non-classical features of the text ("Verstösse gegen die Grammatik"). Twenty years later, in his review in WZKM 3 (1889), 79 = GS II 346 of the Judaeo-Arabic original of Maimonides's Sefer ha-miswot (ed. M. Bloch) he pointed out that the "Vulgarismen und laxere Construktionen" to be found there were part and parcel of the later language and should not be thoughtlessly corrected away. In the introduction to his own edition of Kitáb ma'äni al-nafs (1907) he speaks (p. 9*) of the editorial "Gewissenskampf" caused by having to decide whether to leave the readings of the MSS as they are or "correct ' them into what the author may (or may not) have wished them to be. 1 4' In some cases he himself, after subsequent reflection, withdrew several of the textual changes he had previously recommended (p. 10* n.i). In his previously mentioned edition (1908) of a theological tract from the Kaufmann collection he left the text virtually untouched, referring (p. 101) with approval to some remarks of M. Hartmann against unwarranted editorial interference. 14 8 In some of his Judaeo-Arabic book reviews Goldziher writes at considerable length and in great detail. One feels very clearly that he was here attracted by the reviewer's task in a way that he seldom was when called upon to review works in more conventional fields. Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic civilization was a field he had long loved; we have seen that the writings of, for example, Bahya, Judah ha-Levi and Maimonides had been familiar to him from his early youth. Some of his book reviews, e.g. those on Maimonides's Sefer ha-miswot, Saadia's Kitäb al-'amänät wal-i'tiqädät or Judah ha-Levi's Kuzari, are veritable tours de force, offering detailed textual treatments of the works under discussion, enriched by pages of additions and corrections, unfailingly illuminating and often brilliant. He would enter too into discussions of language and grammar, illustrating his remarks with parallels drawn from his enormous store of textual experience. We may mention here, e.g., his review of Bustän al-uqül, WZKM 22 (1908), 206-207, where Goldziher exemplifies from mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic texts the use of fossilized 'äd "still, yet" and points out that the same usage still exists in the modem bedouin material published by 14 7 Cf. recently and briefly J. Blau, JSAI 23 (1999), 222. 14 8 See further on this important subject the Appendix to the present article by I. Ormos, who presents some unpublished material from the Goldziher-Nöldeke correspondence. An article on Goldziher's editorial technique has been announced by T. Iványi, The Arabist 23 (2001), 123 n. 10. 114
