immediately from the Arabic * ; wherefore it is no wonder ij the tran-
J'cript be yet more faulty and abfurd than the copy J-.
About the end of the fifteenth century, Johannes Andreas, a native
oj Xativa in the kingdom o f Valencia, who from a Mohammedan
doSlor became a Chriftian prieft, tranjlated not only the Koran, but alfo
its glojfes, and the feven books o f the Sonna, out o f Arabic into the Ar-
ragonian tongue, at the command o f Martin Garcia £, bijhop o f Barcelona,
and inquifitor of Arragon. Whether this tranfiation were ever
publijhed or not I am wholly ignorant: but it may be prefumed to have
been the better done for being the work of one bred up in the Mohammedan
religion and learning-, though his refutation o f that religion,
which has had feveral editions, gives no great idea o f his abilities.
Some years within the laft century, Andrew du Ryer, who had been
conful o f the French nation in Egypt, and was tolerably skilled in the
Turkilh and Arabic languages, took the pains to tranfiate the Koran
into his own tongue: but his performance, thd it be beyond comparifon
preferable to that of Retenenfis, is fa r from being a jufi tranfiation-,
there being miftakes in every page, befides frequent tranfpofitions, omif-
fions, and additions §, faults unpardonable in a work o f this nature. And
what renders it f i l l more incomplete is, the want of Notes to explain a
vafi number o f pajfages, fome o f which are' difficult, and others impojjibk
to be underfiood, without proper explications, were they tranjlated ever
fo exaStky; which the author is fo Jenfible o f that he often refers his
reader to the Arabic commentators.
fh e Englilh verfion is no other than a tranfiation o f Du Ryer ’s, and
that a very bad one; fo r Alexander Rofs, wbo did it-,: being Utterly unacquainted
with the Arabic, and no great mafter of the French, has
added a number o f frejh miftakes o f his own to thofe of Du Ryer; not
to mention the meannefs oj his language, which would make a better
book ridiculous. ■
l n 1698, a Latin tranfiation o f the Koran, made by father Lewis
Marracci, who had been confeffor to pope Innocent XI. was publijhed
at Padua, together with the original text, accompanied by explanatory,
notes and a refutation, This tranfiation of Marracci’r, generally Jpeak-
ing, is very exatd; but adheres to the Arabic idiom too literally to be
eafily underfiood, unlefs lam much deceived, by thofe who are not verfed
* His words are: — Queßo lihro, ehe gia havevo a commune utilila tit molti faito dal proprio teßo
Arabo tradurre nella noßra volgar lingua It alt ana, See. And afterwards; Queßo e V Alcorano di
Macometto, i l quakt come ho gia detto, ho fatto dal fuo idioma tradurre, 8tc-. + V. Jof. S'calig.
Epift- 361, Sc 362 ; & Seiden, de fuccelf. ad leges Ebraeor. p. 9. % J. Andreas; in Prsef. ad
Tradtat. fuum de Confufione Sedtse Mahometan«. § V. Windet, de vita fundtorum ftatü, fedt. 9. 1
in
in the Mohammedan learning. 'The notes he has added are indeed of
great ufe j but his refutations, which fw ell the work to a large volume, are
o f little or none at all, being often unfatisfaSlory, and fometimes impertinent.
The work, however, with all its faults, is very valuable, and I
Jhould be guilty o f ingratitude, did I not acknowledge myfelf much obliged
thereto-, but f i l l , being in Latin, it can be of no ufe to thofe who
underfiand not that tongue.
Having therefore undertaken a New Tranfiation, I have endeavoured
to do the Original impartial jufiice-, not having, to the beft o f my knowledge,
reprefented it, in any one inftance, either better or worfe than it
really is. I have thought myfelf obliged, indeed, in a piece which pretends
to:be the Word of God, to keep fomewhat fcrupuloufiy clofe to the
text -, by which means the language may, in fome places, Jeem to exprefs
the Arabic a little too literally to be elegant Englifh: but this, I hope,
has not happened often ; and I flatter myfelf that the Jlile I have made
ufe of will not only give a more, genuine idea o f the original than i f 1
had taken more liberty (which would have been much more for my eafe)
but will foon become familiar: for we muft not expeSt to read a verfion
o f fo extraordinary a book with the fame eafe and pleafure as a modern
compofition.
• In the Notes my view has been briefly to explain the Text, and efpeci-
ally the difficult and obfeure pajfages, from the mofl approved commentators,
and that generally in their own words, fo r whofe opinions or ex-
preffions, where liable to cenfure, I am not anfwerable; my province being
only fairly to reprefent their expoftions, and the little I have added
o f my awn, or from Europxan writers, being eafily difcernable. Where
1 met with any circumfiance which I imagined might be curious or entertaining,
I have not failed to produce it.
The Preliminary Dificourfe will acquaint the reader with the mofi material
particulars proper to be known previoufiy to the entring on the
Koran itfelfi and which could not fo conveniently have been thrown into
the Notes. And I have taken care, both in the Preliminary Difcourfe and
the Notes, confiantly to quote my authorities and the writers to whom I
have been beholden-, but to none have I been more fo, than to the learned
Dr. Pocock, whofe Specimen Hiftoriae Arabum is the mofi ufeful
and accurate work that has been hitherto publijhed concerning the antiquities
of that nation, and ought to be read by every curious enquirer
into them. . ,
As I have had no opportunity of confulting public libraries, the ma-
nuferipts o f which I have made ufe throughout the whole work have been
fuck
/