Beyond the bounds of heaven, earth, and time.”
It was in the beginning of the year 1837 that I was honored by the earl of Munster, the vice president of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, with the proposal of completing and editing the English Dabistán. Having already several years before been occupied with the same work whilst pursuing my Indian studies, I was so much the more prompted to accept the proffered honor. Engaged however as I then was in publishing my French translation of the first six books of the Rajatarangini from the Sanscrit, I could not begin the new work before 1841. This delay was the cause of my being deprived of the desired honor and satisfaction of presenting my translation to the earl of Munster, who while in the full enjoyment of life, welcomed with a benevolent interest every contribution, however small, to the general diffusion of Oriental history and literature; he had accepted in Paris my Dedication a short time before his death; it remains to me to consecrate, with a profound feeling of regret and veneration for departed worth, the English Dabistán to his memory.
I took charge of the manuscript copy of David Shea’s version, which had been carried to page 201 of the printed Calcutta edition.[217] In this there were only a few omissions to be supplied, and no other rectifications to be made but those which a second review would have suggested to my learned predecessor himself; his notes, and those which I thought necessary to add, are marked each with the initials of our respective names.
If I found little to change, I had much to imitate in David Shea’s translation—his faithfulness and clearness. By faithfulness I understand not only expressing truly the sense, but also keeping unaltered the words, figures, images, and phrases of the original, as it is in them that the author’s national and individual peculiarity is manifested. This sort of faithfulness may roughen or hamper the phrase, destroy the elegance of style, and even offend good taste, but by it alone we shall not only know, as I have just observed, the genius of the foreign writer, but also satisfy the exigencies of philology, which is one of the main purposes of translations not undertaken as mere exercises of improvable eloquence.
An author will not employ more or other words than those he thinks necessary for being understood by readers of his own nation, religion, school; he writes, for instance, as a Muhammedan for Muhammedans, a Súfi for Súfis. But a translator must do his best for uniting faithfulness with clearness, the indispensable condition of any speech or writing; he must add what is required for illustrating the original text, and thus submit to a charge, now and then heavier than he can bear.
Under the necessity of expounding the translation by notes, I was not actuated by the ambition of being new, but only by that of being as useful as my means permitted, that is, by endeavoring to spare the reader time and trouble to look for dates and biographical notices of the persons, the situation of the places, and the explanation of the technical terms which occur in the text. Orientalists know the difficulty of rendering in a European language the phraseology of the Asiatic theology and philosophy. The Dabistán presents, besides the Sanscrit, a confusion of Arabic and Persian technical expressions; some of them have a very comprehensive signification, and for the sake of clearness must be rendered by different terms in different places; other expressions have at times a particular sense, and are at other times to be taken in the common acceptation; the same terms must be translated by different words, and different terms by the same; finally, the matter treated of is frequently so abstruse in its nature that professed philosophers have not yet been able to agree upon some of the most important questions. I can therefore but apprehend that I may not have thoroughly understood, and must confess that I have not translated, to my own satisfaction, more than one passage relative to Indian doctrines, and to the Muhammedan scholastic philosophy.
The Sanscrit names and terms of Indian mythology, theology, and philosophy are much corrupted by the Persian spelling; I have endeavored to restore them to their original forms. I thought it right to adduce in most cases the Sanscrit, Arabic, or Persian word at the same time in Roman as well as Devanagari, or Arabic characters, with its interpretation. I followed the rule proposed by sir William Jones for writing oriental words in Roman characters, as often as I took these words from a Sanscrit, Persian, or Arabic text; but from works written in a European language, I was generally obliged to copy the spelling of Oriental names: on which account, in my notes, a regretable inequality of orthography could not be avoided.
The Dabistán not only touches upon most difficult points of science and erudition, but also comprises in its allusions and references nearly the whole history of Asia. In observing this, I am necessarily at the same time pointing to the many deficiencies which will be found in my attempts to comment and illustrate so comprehensive and diversified a text. The best advantage which a man obtains at the termination of an arduous work, is to have enabled himself to make it better, if he could begin again; but he can but humbly submit to the decrees of an all-ruling power, which bestows upon each mortal only a certain measure of faculties and of time.
Desirous to fulfil my task to the best of my abilities, I did not neglect to consult every translation of any part of the Dabistán which had been published. I have already mentioned, in this preface,[218] that Gladwin edited the Persian text of a part of the first chapter with an English version which was worthy of his reputation as an excellent Orientalist. Every thing that came from the pen of the late doctor Leyden deserved attention. I had before my eyes his translation of chapter IX., on the religion of the Roshenian.[219] I did not neglect the abridged interpretation of the religious controversies held before Akbar, given in form of a dialogue by the learned and ingenious Vans Kennedy.[220] I perused with due regard the explanations which the illustrious Silvestre de Sacy furnished of some passages of the Dabistán[221] since this work became known to him in 1821, as well as the remarks cursorily made upon it by some Orientalists.
I did not fail also to profit by the advantages which my residence in Paris, and my connections with distinguished cultivators of Oriental literature, could afford me on behalf of my translation. It is my duty to acknowledge the services which I received from the kindness of M. Garcin de Tassy, professor of Hindostanee, whose intimate acquaintance with Arabic and Persian literature in general, and with Muhammedan theology in particular, is attested by several esteemed works which he has published. The many Arabic passages, disseminated in the Dabistán, have mostly been revised, interpreted, and referred to the Koran, by him. M. Eugène Burnouf, professor of Sanscrit, is never in vain consulted concerning that part of ancient philology in which he has acquired a most particular and eminent distinction. I also constantly experienced the most friendly readiness to tender me information, when required, in M. Julius Mohl and baron Mac Guckin de Slane, as well as in M. Reinaud, professor of Arabic, attached to the Royal Library, a most distinguished conservator and most complaisant communicator of the valuable manuscripts under his special charge. I beg these honorable gentlemen to receive my sincerest acknowledgments.