CC BY
51
History and archaeology Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 1-2 (2017)
' < BAiTWEST >
ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online)
History and archaeology История и археология
UDC 9.94(575) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/AJH-17-1.2-3-7
O.V. Makhmudov 1
1 Fergana State University, Fergana, Uzbekistan
SOME REASONS ABOUT EMPLOYEES OF THE TRANSLATOR DOMINGO GUNDISALVO IN TOLEDO SCHOOL
Abstract
Objective: To make essential amendments on the identity of employees of Domingo Gundisalvo. Methods: comparison, generalization, analysis, data grouping, theoretical cognition, the method of analogy and historical method.
Results: based on careful analysis of the scientific literature devoted to history of the translations in Spain in XII-XIII centuries, essential amendments purpose of which is elimination of some mistakes and absurdities about the identity of employees of Domingo Gundisalvo in Toledo school of translators.
Scientific novelty: in article on the basis of the presented methods, is established the identity of employees of Domingo Gundisalvo as Ibn Daud and Juan Hispano, and also their activity is characterized.
Practical significance: the main results and conclusions of article can be used in scientific and teaching activities when studying history of the Toledo school, and history of the Medieval Ages.
Keywords: The Toledo School, translator, employer, Domingo Gundisalvo, Ibn Daud, Juan Hispano, mistakes, absurdities.
INTRODUCTION
When talking about the Medieval Age, one of the most unknown details of the period is its importance to the development of knowledge and science in Europe. The continent experienced a cultural impulse due to the labor of the School of Translators of Toledo. This historical period is characterized by a strong intellectual obscurantism, which supposed a huge restriction on the diffusion of knowledge and information. Due to this obscurantism, most of the Greek and Oriental texts about Philosophy, Medicine, Mathematics and Astronomy were unknown in Europe and its universities, which mainly based their doctrines on Latin texts.
The appearance of the School of Translators between the 12th and 13th centuries meant a complete revolution for European knowledge. Several universities from Eu-
rope experienced an unprecedented impulse in literary, astronomic, medical and mathematical scopes due to the institution. Even so, although the labor of European universities has been strongly recognized, some people are not aware of the role that the School has had in this development [10, P. 13].
It was precisely this lack of awareness that led us to write this paper as well as the contradiction around a specific figure related to the School of Translators: the main contributor of Domingo Gundisalvo (who was another of the main translators of the period). It was brought to our attention that, although there were several theories around his identity, there was not an agreement on the issue, and the topic still remained unclear. Due to this lack of agreement, we will analyze the most important theories and, after comparing them, we will reach a conclusion.
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 1-2 (2017)
< IASTWEST >
SCBJCEUNrTTS
History and archaeology
RESULTS OF A RESEARCH
Although the historical periods of the School of Translators of Toledo have been clearly identified through history, the identity of some of the most important translators who composed it, such as Gundisalvo's contributor, still remains unclear. This fact makes really complicated to give to these translators the deserved recognition of their works, and their labor within the institution and Europe too.
Domingo Gundisalvo, who was one of the most important figures during the Periodo Raimundiano and has been clearly and irrefutably identified, however, there are a lot of theories around the real identity of his contributor, but none of these theories are truly reliable [9, P. 110]. Considering this, all the information obtained on the topic was separated into two parts: the first part was composed of the information that was, for sure, real and reliable. The second part consisted of theories or articles whose details did not coincide between them or others that did not gather evidence, which could support them. All these theories were compared in order to get the most possible and accurate conclusions.
What was considered as reliable information was the fact that there was an important contributor of Gundisal-vo and that this tandem of translators worked under the patronage of Don Raimundo. Another reliable fact was that this character has been considered throughout history as one of the promoters of translation activity in Toledo, due to his aim of transmitting Avicenna's doctrine. Finally, the most relevant in format ion about this figure was that his knowledge of Arabic was really high and he could speak Romance but not Latin (the main reason for which he worked with Gundisalvo).
Another aspect that has been highly taken into account during this investigation is the multilingual condition of Toledo of those times. This multilingual atmosphere could lead to phonetic and graphic corruption of words and names. A word pronounced by a Christian and an Arab would sound different depending on who was pronouncing it. A variation in the pronunciation could lead to a different way of writing that specific word. The result was that there could be a lot of different versions of the same word or, in this case, of a name.
Finally, the last point that must be considered was the possibility of confusion due to homonymy. The most common theory around the identity of this character is that his name was Juan Hispano. The name ofJuan was, if any, one of the most common names during those times
because its relation with the Bible, and this fact made the project even more difficult, giving the fact that the School of Translators was mainly composed and supported by clergy men and many of them were called Juan.
The name of Ibn Dawud
Ibn Dawud is another character that has always been associated to Juan Hispano and he must be analyzed because, apparently, both characters were the same person.
At the same time, the name of Ibn Dawud has always been linked to another similar name: Avendahuth. It is necessary to clarify this question before going deeper into the investigation of this figure. Some theories state that these two characters, Ibn Dawud and Avendahuth, were different people. Others suggest that Avendahuth was, indeed, a derivation of the name of Ibn Dawud. In "Sobre la Escuela de Traductores", by Ma-Teresa Garu-lo, she supported the same theory too: "Juan Hispano converted Jew named Avendahut, corruption for Ibn Dawud" [7, P. 9].
Moreover, there is another similar theory, given by Alexander Fidora: he suggests that Avendahuth is, indeed, the Latin version of Ibn Dawud [5, P. 481].
Nevertheless, what is irrefutable is that Ibn Dawud and Avendahuht were the same character. However, this figure is so important because it has been related to Juan Hispano throughout history, and some theories support that they were the same person. Other theories suggest that Ibn Dawud was a different translator who also collaborated with Gundisalvo [12; 14; 17; 20].
This research project will try to clarify the issue, examining the former theories around it, firstly considering John Hispano as Gundisalvo's contributor.
Ibn Dawud was Juan Hispano but not Juan His-palensis
According to Alonso, these two names referred to the same person: Ibn Dawud was Juan Hispano. He claims that there was an Israeli philosopher known as Ibn Dawud that changed his name after his baptism into Juan Ibn Dawud. This figure used the name of Hispanus instead of the name of Israeli [1, P. 162].Other authors, such as Gil [8, P. 31], Lomba [15, P. 46] or Ma-Teresa Garulo [7, P. 9], also support this theory.
In the investigation about Juan Hispano, Alonso stands out another important detail that has caused a lot of difficulties when trying to identify the contributor of Gundisalvo. The figure ofJuan Hispalensis was another translator who was commonly mistaken with Hispano. Alonso states that Hispano and Hispalensis were two
History and archaeology
< BAiTWEST >
SdB*ELMTÍS
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 1-2 (2017)
different people with a homonymic name and a similar surname. People tend to identify Hispalensis with Hispano and, according to what Alonso says, this identification is wrong: Johannes Hispalensis was an astrologist and astronomer, who lived in Andalucía (that is why he was known as Hispalensis, Juan de Sevilla or Juan de Luna). Moreover, Hispalensis had a high knowledge of Latin language and he could translate on his own. In contrast, Juan Hispano (apparent contributor) needed Gundisalvo for translating into Latin because, as Alonso assures, Hispano did not have enough knowledge to translate into Latin without help. This theory is also supported by Brasa [4, P 582] or Hayyek: "he did not know the educated Latin, but he knew the vulgar one, as well as he knew the technical philosophical Arabic with more perfection than any other of the translators" [11, P. 220].
Alonso continues his investigation, finding out that the works of the translator from Andalucía, dealt more with Astronomy and Astrology, and they were translated before 1136; on the other hand, the translations made by the tandem Gundisalvo-Hispano, were about Philosophy and were published later than 1138. In addition, Don Raimundo, patron of Gundisalvo and Hispano, is mentioned in the works of the tandem, but not in Hispalensis.
In his works, Alonso provides information about the ecclesiastic career of Juan Hispano too. According to him, he was named the substitute for Don Raimundo when this died. After that, he became the Archbishop of Segovia and, later on, Archbishop of Toledo. We did not realize of the importance of these facts until later, because this information was the key for determining important points of the investigation.
Considering these facts and the whole agreement on this topic amongst Alonso's theories and many authors, it seems that Hispano and Hispalensis were different characters who have been confused throughout history by their homonymic names [19, P. 42]. However, the rest of the data given by Alonso has turned out to be inaccurate.
After reading Alonso's work, we went to the Cathedral Archive in order to look for evidences. First of all, we tried to look for a document that proved the conversion of Ibn Dawud to Christianity: a baptism record or a document that mentioned this conversion. However, anything was found. Given the fact that this translator lived in a period where faith determined even the area of the city someone was living in, we may venture to say that, given the fact that any official document, which supported this conversion, was found it is very difficult to consider this theory as real.
In respect of the translator's ecclesiastical career mentioned by Alonso, during my visit to the Archive we found several inaccuracies, which will be exposed below, that do not coincide with the theory exposed by Alonso. This fact made us to continue with the research, which led us to analyze another theory related to this figure.
Ibn Dawud was not Juan Hispano
Despite the fact that most of the sources support that Ibn Dawud was Hispano, others distinguish them as two different men, supporting that Gundisalvo could have worked with two contributors. We focused on these other articles too, because of some evidences that were found in the Cathedral Archive. These new evidences supported the new theory in a more reliable way than the previous theories given by Alonso.
The first time that we found the name ofAvendahuth as contributor of Gundisalvo (instead ofJuan Hispano) was in Gil's book, when he mentioned a team formed by Gundisalvo — Avendahuth, who worked together from 1130 to 1150 [8, P. 31], under the patronage of Don Raimundo. According to Gil, the whole name of Avendahuth was Iohannes Avendahuth Hispanus. If we consider that Avendahuth is a derivation of Ibn Dawud and that, according to Alonso, Ibn Dawud adopted the name ofJuan when he became a Christian, we could say that Iohannes Avendahuht Hispanus was, indeed, Ibn Dawud.
However, Gil also quotes M. T. Alverny's suggestion: Avendahuht was a Jewish-Hispano (because he lived in Hispanic lands), whose real name was Abraham Ibn Dawud. He came from a really relevant Jewish family of Toledo. When he moved to Cordoba in order to go to University, he focused his studies, mainly, on the Neo-platonism of Avicena. In 1148 he came back to Toledo, and he started translating the Arabic works that he had studied in the University into Latin with the collaboration of Gundisalvo [8, P. 33].
Alexander Fidora, another author who worked on the issue, describes Avendahuth as the Jew philosopher of M. T. Alverny. He states that history has had the tendency to identify Ibn Dawud (Avendahuth) as a Jew converted, who adopted the name of Juan (this is the theory supported by Alonso). However, the archivist affirms that there is not an evidence of this conversion and this association was made due to an incorrect reading of the dedicatory in the translation of "De Anima" by Avi-cenna. This dedicatory was made for John, archbishop of Toledo [5, P. 481].
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 1-2 (2017)
< IASTWEST >
SCBJCEUNrTTS
History and archaeology
At the same time, this very translation has always been attributed to Juan Hispano (considering Hispano as Ibn Dawud/Avendahuth) and Gundisalvo. Thinking over what Fidora says, the name ofJuan was a leak which was wrongly associated to the name of Abraham Ibn Dawud. We may then say that the translation of De Anima was carried out by Gundisalvo and Ibn Dawud (Avendehuth), but not by any Juan Hispano.
In addition, if we gather all the information, what we know is that Ibn Dawud was a philosopher expert on Avicenna, just as the Abraham Ibn Dawud mentioned by M. T. Alverny [3, P. 19]. We assume that Ibn Dawud and Abraham Ibn Dawud were the same person, not only because of the similarities between their names, but because of their personal similarities (both were philosophers, experts on Avicenna and Arabic language) are so high that it is really difficult to believe that two different people can share have so much in common.
Putting all these details together, the conclusion is that Ibn Dawud (Avendahuth) and Abraham Ibn Dawud was the same person: a philosopher, expert on Avicenna, who translated De Anima together with Gundisalvo. He was the most qualified person to carry out this translation, because he went to the University in order to study the philosophy of Avicenna.
Another theory that will be analyzed at this point of the paper is Juan Francisco Riviera Recio's in his article Nuevas Notas sobre Gundisalvo y Juan Hispano. He supports the theory that Abraham Ibn Dawud "belonged to the previous generation to Hispano" [18, P. 279] and he was the professor of Gundisalvo. Ma-Teresa Garulo speaks about an Ibrim b. Dawud as the teacher of Gundisalvo too [7, 110]. We considered this theory as true and that Garulo was referring, indeed, to Abraham Ibn Dawud. These testimonies can confirm, in a certain way, the origins of the link between Ibn Dawud and Gundisalvo. Finally, we have to consider the fact that Riviera was a canonical man that worked in the Cathedral Archive of Toledo so, nobody but him could do a better investigation within the Archive. That is why this testimony has been considered the most reliable on this paper.
Considering all the data about Ibn Dawud and Abraham Ibn Dawud, we would affirm, that Abraham Ibn Dawud (also known as Ibn Dawud and Avendahuth) was the main contributor of Gundisalvo. However, he has always been mistaken with a character called Juan, because of a misunderstanding. However, there was person called
Juan who was contributor of Gundisalvo too. This Juan turned to be the same Juan mentioned by Alonso, but with a slightly different ecclesiastical career.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the results of the analysis of the previous theories, we support the theory given by Fidora, Alverny and Riviera Recio: the most important contributor of Gundisalvo was Abraham Ibn Dawud (Avendahuth) and not Juan Hispano, as it has always been believed. The evidence that Abraham Ibn Dawud and Juan Hispano were different characters, as well as the coincidences between the main contributor of Gundisalvo and the Jew Abraham Ibn Dawud described by the authors previously mentioned, are so apparent that it is almost impossible to believe in the other theory about a Jew person who was converted, adopting the name ofJuan, becoming archbishop of Segovia and Toledo (data which has turned to be a wrong information, because there were not such archbishops) in few years.
In addition, the lack of a baptism record or other documents related to the conversion, made partially impossible to consider the theory of Alonso as real. Abraham Ibn Dawud, however, joined the qualities that are described when talking about Gundisalvo's main contributor. The Juan Hispano proposed by Alonso has been based on generalized mistakes and presumptions, in addition to some wrong information, while the theory proposed by M. T. Alverny, Fidora and Riviera Recio has been supported by real documents which are recorded in the Cathedral Archive.
To summarize, throughout this investigation, we have tried to clarify the question concerning the main contributor of Gundisalvo: this contributor (who seemed to be John Hispano at the beginning) was, indeed, the Jew Abraham Ibn Dawud, a recognized expert on Avi-cenna's theories, which made the tandem Gundisalvo — Avendahuth famous (remember that Avendahuth is Ibn Dawud too). However, because of a possible wrong interpretation of a dedication, his identity was mistaken and mixed with a figure that also had some relation with Gundisalvo. This new figure was a canonical man, called Juan, known as Maestro Iohaness or Juan Hispano, who was Dean of the Cathedral, Archdeacon of Cuellar and, lately, Archbishop ofSegorbe (city near to Segovia, which could help to confuse the investigation of Alonso). This Maestro Iohannes was a translator too and he worked with Gundisalvo, but not on as many occasions as Ibn Dawud did.
History and archaeology <f Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 1-2 (2017)
' < BAiTWEST >
SdB*ELMTK
- ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online) -
References:
1. Alonso M. Notas sobre los traductores toledanos Domingo Gundisalvo y Juan Hispano//Al-Andalus. Revista de las Escuelas de Estudios árabes de Madrid y Granada. - Vol. 7. - 1943. - P. 155-188.
2. Alonso M. Traducciones del arabe al latin por Juan Hispano//Al-Andalus. Revista de las Escuelas de Estudios árabes de Madrid y Granada. - Vol. 17. - 1952. - P. 129-151.
3. Alverny M-T d'. Avendauth?//Homenaje a Millás-Vallicrosa. - Vol. 1. - 1964. - P. 19-43.
4. Brasa D. Las traducciones toledanas como encuentro de culturas//Estudios filosóficos. - Vol. 23 (67). - 1947. -P. 129-589.
5. Fidora A. La Escuela de Traductores//La Catedral Primada de Toledo, dieciocho siglos de Historia. - 2010. - P. 480-483.
6. Foz C. Bibliografía sobre la escuela de traductores de Toledo//Quaderns: revista de traduccio. - Vol. 4. - 1999. -P. 85-91.
7. Garulo Ma-T. Sobre la Escuela de Traductores de Toledo//Islam español. - Vol. 18. - 1973. - P. 5-18.
8. Gil J. La Escuela de Traductores de Toledo y sus colaboradores judíos. Toledo: Salamanca, - 1985. - P. 189.
9. GilJ. S. The translators ofthe period ofDon Raymundo: Their Personalities and Translations (1125-1187)//Ren-contres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale. Traductions et traducteurs de lAntiquité tardive au XIVe siècle. - 1990. - P. 109-119.
10. Haik S. Escuela de Traductores: Toledo despensa cultural de occidente. Madrid, - 1990. - P. 105.
11. Hayyek S. Escuela de Traductores. Toledo despensa cultural de Occidente//Islam español. - 1990. - P. 219-220.
12. Henelde Abecasis R. Escuela de Traductores de Toledo. Pasado y presente//Raíces, Revista judía de cultura. -Vol. 35. - 1998. - P. 28-41.
13. Hourani G. F. The Medieval Translations from Arabic to Latin Made in Spain//The Muslim World. - Vol. 62. -1972. - P. 97-114.
14. Lemay R. Dans l'Espagne du XIIe siècle. Les traductions de l'arabe au latin//Annales Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations. - Vol. 18 (4). - 1963. - P. 639-665.
15. Lomba J.La llamada Escuela de Traductores de Toledo. Madrid: Los Berrocales del Jarama, - 1997. -P. 152.
16. Millás Villacrosa J. M. Las traducciones orientales//Manuscritos Biblioteca Catedral de Toledo. Madrid, - 1942. -P. 85-99.
17. Piazza B. A. La Escuela de Traductores de Toledo: presente, pasado y futuro//Nuestra realidad Educativa. -2003. - P. 123-129.
18. Rivera Recio J. F. Nuevos datos sobre los traductores Gundisalvo y Juan Hispano//Al-Ándalus: Revista de las Escuelas de Estudios árabes de Madrid y Granada. - 1966. - Vol. 31. - P. 267-280.
19. Robinson M. The Heritage of Medieval errors in the Latin Manuscripts of Johannes Hispalensis (John of Se-ville)//al-Qantara. - Vol. 28. (1) - 2007.
20. Torre E. La Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, Teoría de la traducción literaria. Madrid, - 1994. - P. 138.
Information about the author
Otabek Valijonovich Makhmudov, the senior scientist-researcher of the Chair of History, Fergana State University.
Address: 19 Murabbiylar Str., 150100, Fergana, Uzbekistan. tel.: + 998 (91) 1070880
E-mail: bekmakhmudov@mail.ru
ORCID : http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9897-2796
