Sobre La Recepción En Latín Del Séfer Ha-Šorašim
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEFARAD, vol. 76:2, julio-diciembre 2016, págs. 313-331 ISSN: 0037-0894, doi: 10.3989/sefarad.016.011 “Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.” On the Reception of the Sefer ha-Shorashim in Latin Saverio Campanini* Università di Bologna «NO SUSTENTAS TÚ A LA RAÍZ, SINO LA RAÍZ A TI». SOBRE LA RECEPCIÓN EN LATÍN DEL SÉFER HA-ŠORAŠIM. Este artículo se ocupa de los principales capítulos de la recepción del Sefer ha-šorašim de David Quimḥi en el mundo cristiano durante el Renacimiento. Un testimonio menos conocido de este interés, que combina el examen crítico con la apro- piación, es la traducción latina integral compuesta por, o para, el cardenal Egidio de Viterbo, probablemente durante la segunda década del siglo XVI, y conservada en dos manuscritos. En este artículo se ofrece, junto a una rápida presentación de la situación de la lexicografía hebrea al principio del Renacimiento y de su profunda transforma- ción debida a la problemática adopción del modelo de Quimḥí, una visión sintética de los diferentes enfoques de las varias versiones del diccionario de Quimḥí en el mundo cristiano: de la simple adaptación al moldeo, bastante complicado, de un diccionario bi- lingüe de hebreo bíblico, al fenómeno paradójico de la traducción de un léxico mono- lingüe en un idioma diferente. En este último, la pérdida semántica es evidente: lo que sigue siendo de interés prioritario es el provecho exegético esperado de la investigación sobre esta adaptación, y no menos importante, el avance de nuestro conocimiento de la comprensión humanista de la Biblia en una época de cambios paradigmáticos radicales. Palabras clave: Traducciónes hebreo-latinas; David Quimḥí; Egidio de Viterbo. This paper deals with the main chapters of the reception of David Kimchi's Sefer ha- shorashim within the Christian world during the Renaissance. A less known testimony of this interest, blending critical examination and appropriation is the integral Latin trans- lation made by, or rather for, Cardinal Giles of Viterbo preserved in two mss., beside a rapid presentation of the situation of Hebrew lexicography in Latin at the beginning of the Renaissance and its deep change through the contested adoption of Kimchi’s model, a synthetic view of the various approaches to Kimchi’s dictionary, from simple adaptation ∗ [email protected] Copyright: © 2016 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) Spain 3.0 License. Sef_76_2.indb 313 27/12/2016 10:18:31 314 SAVERIO CAMPANINI to the rather complex moulding of a bilingual dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, to the para- doxical phenomenon of the translation of a monolingual lexicon in a different language. In the latter, the semantic loss is evident: what remains worth investigating is the expected exegetical gain for the Humanistic understanding of the Bible in an age of upheavals. Key WORDS: Hebrew-Latin Translations; David Kimchi; Giles of Viterbo. An imaginary contest designed to find out who was the most “popular” medieval rabbi among Christian intellectuals during the centuries from the Renaissance to the 18th century, would turn out as a quite narrow one. Rashi, Maimonides and Abraham Ibn Ezra would certainly be among the most likely candidates, but very close to the top one would find also rabbi David Kimchi, who is perhaps less known today than the other three, but undoubtedly deserves a mention in this ideal hall of fame. Speaking of mentions or citations, it is perhaps curious to note that the very first occurrence of the verb “to cite” in English is used in connection with David Kimchi. It is found, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 1 in a rare tract, printed in 1535 and violently opposed due to the heterodox opinions it contained. The booklet, confiscated and destroyed to such an extent that only very few copies survive, was authored by George Joye and bore the title An Apology Made to Satisfy, If It May Be, William Tindale and was a polemical pamphlet criticizing Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament. 2 The disputation revolved around the resurrection of the body and one of the loci of this in this case not ,על כן לא יקומו רשעים במשפט :controversy was Ps. 1,5 so much the yaqumu, understood variously among the Christians, to rise, to stand or to rise from the dead, but specifically about mishpat, which the German Reformer Martin Bucer, in his commentary on the Psalms according to the Hebraica Veritas, 3 analyzed on the basis of David Kimchi’s Commentary on the Psalms, 4 one of his best known 1 Cfr. J. WILLINSKY, Empire of Words. The Reign of the OED (Princeton 1994) p. 4. 2 See the modern edition by Edward ARBER (ed.), G. JOY, An Apology made by George Joy to satisfy, if it may be, W. Tyndale (Westminster 1882); cfr. G. M. JUHÁSZ, Translating Resurrection. The Debate between William Tyndale and George Joye in Its Historical and Theological Context (Leiden – Boston 2014). 3 M. BUCER, Sacrorum Psalmorum libri quinque, ed. Hervagius (Basel 1547) p. 11. 4 Ed. Saloniki 1522, f. 42, ad locum. SEFARAD, vol. 76:2, julio-diciembre 2016, págs. 313-331. ISSN: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.016.011 Sef_76_2.indb 314 27/12/2016 10:18:31 “THOU BEAREST NOT THE ROOT, BUT THE ROOT THEE” 315 works for Christian readers, especially because of the polemical, overtly anti-Christian attitude of several passages of his exegesis of the Psalms. Kimchi’s commentary on the Psalms has had for a long time a double identity: it was quoted and utilized by all the principal Hebraists of the Renaissance and Reformation. At the same time, it was the object of an implacable censorship with the paradoxical result that, in the edition of the Sefer Nitztzachon of Yom Tov Lippman Mülhausen, published by Theodor Hackspan in Altdorf and Nuremberg in 1644, the last pages are occupied by a collection of the censored passages, 5 without the innocent or neutral ones, constituting a sort of “enfer” of Kimchian exegese. It would be indeed very easy to find other Christian authors, of different ages and countries, who quote David Kimchi at the most unexpected places, simply because his works, soon translated into Latin, belonged to the standards of good humanist education, not only to the erudite discussions of the Reformation. In order to illustrate this point one could give countless examples but, within the given limits of the present contribution, I will only allude to a couple of instances. In the 1850 edition of the Divers voyages touching the discovery of America by Richard Hakluyt (first published in London in 1582), a passage concerning Brazil, is commented upon by the general editor John Winter Jones with a reference to Kimchi’s Liber radicum, in order to demonstrate that the use of the word Brazil for a type of wood predated that the denomination of the country, on the sole ground that Kimchi, long before the discovery as a gloss (lo‘ez) for a reddish type ברזיל of America, quotes the term of wood. 6 This late occurrence of Kimchi’s reception among a Christian cultivated readership served not only to illustrate the diffusion of the Sefer ha-shorashim among Christians in contexts as various as geography or botany, but also pars pro toto the question of the vernacular glosses, which forms one of the motivations of Christian interest of Kimchi and the subject of some of the following observations. As a last example of the reception of Kimchi’s works among the Christians, I would like to refer to one of the most beloved masterpieces 5 Th. HACKSPAN, Liber Nizachon (Altdorf – Nuremberg 1644) pp. 196-200. 6 Cfr. R. Hackluyt, Divers Voyages Touching the Discovery of America and the Islands Adjacent. Edited with Notes and Introduction by J. Winter Jones (London 1850) p. 46. SEFARAD, vol. 76:2, julio-diciembre 2016, págs. 313-331. ISSN: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.016.011 Sef_76_2.indb 315 27/12/2016 10:18:31 316 SAVERIO CAMPANINI of the English literature, James Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson. 7 The faithful author refers, in the preface, to Kimchi’s interpretation of the first Psalm (“His leaf also shall not wither”), as to mean that even the idle talk of a good man should not be neglected, in order to justify his generosity in reporting the apparently irrelevant obiter dicta and the most contingent “table talks” of his protagonist, the famous Samuel Johnson. 8 Rather than investigating the vast field of Kimchi’s fortunes across the ages, I will focus here on the beginnings of the reception of his dictionary, the Sefer ha-shorashim or Book of the Hebrew Roots in the 16th century, since it is a still poorly researched chapter of a rich story. Our knowledge of Hebrew lexicography among non-Jewish scholars has been improved in many significant ways since Ludwig Geiger’s monograph on the study of Hebrew in Germany between the end of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century. 9 One central piece of evidence widening our knowledge of Medieval Hebraism is afforded undoubtedly by the manuscripts studied by Judith Olszowy-Schlanger: her work documents with abundance that the study of Hebrew in the Middle Ages was far from virtually non-existent, as it had been previously assumed. 10 Nevertheless, as far as Hebrew lexicography is concerned, the prevailing model was rather the Glossarium, a sort of interlinear or marginal aid to the understanding of a text, usually the Bible, with an ad hoc rendering, be it in Latin or in a vernacular language, not very different from the 7 J.