In the history of native Syriac linguistic tradition [1], Išoʕyahḇ Bar Malkōn (d. early 13th century) is the odd man out. It is not that he is unknown or forgotten: his grammatical works are preserved in a not insignificant number of manuscript copies and his name is listed with other grammarians in overviews of Syriac literature compiled by modern scholars, as well as his contemporaries. Of the latter, the testimony of ʕAbdīšōʕ Bar Brīḵā's (d. 1318) Catalogue of Books is particularly telling: where Eliya of Ṭirhan (d. 1049) and Yōḥanan Bar Zoʕbī (d. 13th century) are described as having composed grammars or grammatical treatises, of Išoʕyahḇ bar Malkōn and his grammatical works we only learn the following:
ܡܳܪܝ ܝܶܫܘܽܥܰܝܲܗܒ ܒܰܪ ܡܰܠܟܳܘܢ ܕܰܨܘܒܳܐ ܐܝܺܬ ܠܶܗ ܫ̈ܘܽܐܳܠܐ ܓܪܰܡܡܰܛܝܺܩܳܝܶܐ
"Mār Išoʕyahḇ bar Malkōn of Ṣōḇā [Nisibis]: he has some grammatical questions..."
Whether this refers to a specific genre, is meant to be read generally or anything else, that's it as far as grammar is concerned. This lack of specificity with regard to Bar Malkōn’s work as a grammarian is also typical for modern sources. When consulting one, the reader typically learns no more than that he authored at least one treatise on points and one grammar (both unedited) [2], and that in his grammatical analysis, he followed the Arabic model [3]. One prominent example is Baumstark who describes Bar Malkōn’s grammar as “sachlich ganz die Methode der arabischen Grammatik befolgend” (“in terms of content, it entirely follows the methodology of Arabic grammar”) [4]. Over time, this simple observation - repeated uncritically - morphed into a judgment and finally into a condemnation: Talmon notes of Išoʕyahḇ bar Malkōn – and his contemporaries (or fellow travelers) like Yōḥannan bar Zoʕbī and Eliya of Ṭirhan – that they “exhibit either a servile attitude to Arabic grammar or poor coverage of grammatical issues.” [5]
Talmon's "poor coverage" remark is particularly silly. For one, the comparison made here is to Jacob of Edessa's grammar of Syriac which is notorious for - not to put a too fine point on it - BEING ALMOST ENTIRELY LOST. Secondly, "poor coverage" is a relative term, even this day and age, doubly so in the 13th century. But most importantly, none of Išoʕyahḇ Bar Malkōn works have been edited or analyzed in any detail, so there is simply no way for Talmon to know.
In fact, that Talmon's (and, by extension, that of those whose judgment he relies on) assessment of Bar Malkōn is wholly wrong can be gleaned from even the most cursory of interactions with the latter's grammatical works. This applies especially to Bar Malkōn magnum opus, a grammar of Syriac titled Ktāḇā d-manhrānūṯā b-gramaṭīqī sūryāytā/Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ fī naḥw as-suryānī (“Book of elucidation in Syriac grammar”, henceforth: Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ), extant in at least four manuscripts:
- Paris BnF Syr. 262 (1v-112r; 16th century)
- Paris BnF Syr. 370 (2r-96r; 1569) (olim Seert 101)
- Berlin SBB Ms. or. quart. 1050 (2v-106v; 17th century)
- Florence Laur. Or. 419 (1r-96r; 1589)
Four notes on this list:
Firstly, Stadel's entry on Bar Malkōn in his recent edition of bar Brīḵā's Catalogue (Stadel 2025: 213) lists the Berlin manuscript as located in Tübingen (as does Van Rompay). This is consistent with Assfalg's catalogue, but not with the online catalogue of the Tübingen collections (which, however, contains a work called Bülbüliye, huh). I am reliably informed the manuscript is indeed in Berlin at the Stabi; in fact, this is where I consulted it a few hours ago.
Secondly, Stadel does not list BnF Syr. 262, which is understandable: this manuscript does not give any author and its title is also different, namely
ܟܬܐܒ ܐܠܢܚܘ ܡܦܣܕ ܡܢ ܐܠܣܪܝܐܢܝ ܐܠܝ ܐܠܥܪܒܝ ܐܠܡܥܪܘܦ ܥܢܕ ܐܠܣܪܝܐܢ ܓܪܰܡܰܛܺܝܩܺܝ ܬܘܳܪܰܣ ܡܰܡܳܠܐ ܝܥܢܝ ܬܨܚܝܚ ܐܠܟܠܐܡ
"The book of grammar translated from Syriac into Arabic known as 'Gramaṭīqī - Tūraṣ mamlō' which means 'Grammar - Correction of speech'".
The term ܬܽܘܪܳܨ ܡܰܡܠ̱ܠܳܐ (note the correct Syriac spelling here) tūraṣ mamllā lit. 'correction of speech' is generally used to mean 'grammar' and so one finds it in titles of grammatical works modern and medieval; the lost gramar by Jacob of Edessa is reported to have born it. The phrase shows up even in the Syriac version of the title given by BnF Syr. 370 and SBB Ms. or. quart. 1050, although in those two, the first word is given as ܬܪܝܨܘܬܐ. The BnF catalogue refers to the work contained in BnF Syr. 262 as "Grammaire de la langue syriaque, divisée en quarante-cinq chapitres, par un auteur maronite". Why a maronite is a mystery; it could be because it is written entirely in garšūnī or just because it uses Serto. Regardless, even a cursory comparison of BnF Syr. 262 to BnF Syr. 270 makes it clear that they are the same work containing 46 (BnF Syr. 270 and SBB Ms. or. quart. 1050) or 45 (BnF Syr. 262) chapters. Also, 46 chapters on some 100 folios of 18-20 lines each? So much for "poor coverage".
Thirdly, Stadel adds Vat. Syr. 150 (200r-215v, 1709). This identification is clearly not correct - as should be evident from the number of folios - and likely the result of undue reliance on Baumstark (a common affliction in Syriac scholarship). Assemani's catalogue describes the manuscript as "Jesujabi Episcopi Nisibeni ... Quaestiones Grammaticae & aenigmaticae" and sure enough, this is our Išoʕyahḇ. Baumstark incorrectly assumes that this is the same work as the previous ones he lists, i.e. Seert 99 (now lost), Seert 100 (also lost) and Seert 101 (our BnF Syr. 370) [6]. This work, however, is in Syriac only; moreover, it is indeed a list of questions - maybe even the one Bar Brīḵā refers to - and not Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ.
And finally, I was made aware of the existence of the Florence manuscript by Margherita Farina (see also her article), to whom I hereby extend my gratitude. The text seems to be identical with that of BnF. Syr. 262, although interestingly, a colophon ascribes the authorship of the work to George (Gewārgīs) ʕAmīra, a Maronite scholar and bishop, the author of Grammatica Syriaca.
In summary, it may well be the case that there are not two, but three grammatical works written by Bar Malkōn:
- A treatise on points (BnF Syr. 369, 114v-125v; BnF Syr. 370, 174r-187v; London BL Add. 25,876, 276v-290v).
- Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ (see above)
- Grammatical questions (Vat. Syr. 150, 200r-215v)
Turning back to the contents of the manuscripts of Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ, it is not the case – as Baumstark’s description (which most likely goes back to Scher's catalogue and which Van Rompay copies in his GEDSH entry on Bar Malkōn) would have it – that Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ is originally written in Syriac with a translation in Arabic in two columns ("... das syrische Original in einer Parallelkolumne mit einer arabischen Üb[er]s[etzung] ...") [7]. That is not true of any of the mss Baumstark was aware of, i.e. the two Paris mss. and the Berlin one. Rather, the primary language of Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ is Arabic, but Syriac is employed throughout, in both examples and definitions of grammatical phenomena. Such Syriac text rarely constitutes a direct translation of any of the Arabic parts. As a rather straightforward example, consider this section from chapter 2 on parts of speech (BnF Syr. 370, fol. 9r-9v) with the Syriac portions highlighted in red (translation and numbered subsection division mine, underlined text is colored in the manuscript):
1 |
Chapter 2: On the division of parts of speech. Division of speech. |
الباب الثابي في اقسام الكلام ܗ̄. ܦܘܲܠܓܲܐ ܕܡܡܠܠܵܐ |
| 2 |
Among the Syrians, as well as the Arabs, speech is divided into three things: noun, verb and particle. That is, noun, verb and particle. |
الكلام عند السريانيين والعرب. ينتظم من ثلثه اشيآ ܫܡܐ. ܘܡܸܠܬ݂ܐ ܗ̄ ܥܒ̣ܵܕܐ ܘܐܣܵܪܐ. ܗ̄ اسمٌ. وفعلٌ. وحرفٌ. |
| 3 |
Some examples of nouns include: person, man, horse, mountain, command and similar. |
فالسم نحو قولك ܒܪܢܫܐ. ܓܒܪܐ. ܣܘܣܝܵܐ. ܬܘܪܐ. ܐܸܡܪܐ. وما شاكل ذلك ܀ |
| 4 |
And know that everything that ends in an alif in the Syriac language is, for the most part, a noun. And a (word) that takes one of the four particles BDWL BDWL is a noun. |
واعلم ان كل ما اخره الف في لغه السريانيون فهو اسم علي الامر الاكثر وما يدخل عليه احدي الزوايد الاربع وهي بدول ܒܕܘܠ فهو اسم ܀ |
| 5 |
The definition of a noun among them [= Syriac grammarians]: sound with meaning that (is) without tense. … |
و حد الاسم عندهم ܀ ܩܠܐ ܡܫܘܕܥܵܢܐ ܒܫܠܡܘ̣ܬܐ ܕܠܵܐ ܙܲܒܢܵܐ. ... |
| 6 |
And others define it as follows: the first part of speech designating a thing or an action. |
ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ. ܕܝܢ ܬܲܚܡܘ̣ܗܝ ܗܟܢܐ ܡܢܬܐ ܩܕܡܵܝܬܐ ܕܡܡܠܠܐ ܕܡܫܵܘܕܥܵܐ ܨܒ̣ܘ̣ܬ̣ܐ ܡܕܡ ܐܵܘ ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܀ |
To be fair, the Arabic influence is indeed undeniable: it is clear, for example, from the division of the parts of speech into three classes (section 2), where the native Syriac linguistic tradition typically works with seven, i.e. the eight of Technē Grammatikē minus the definite article. I guess it is ok to be servile to the Greek model, although on the other hand, Bar Hebraeus divides his grammar into four treatises on, respectively, nouns, verbs, particles and orthography, so maybe he is servile to Arabic models as well... In any case, the influence of Arabic on Bar Malkōn's analysis is also evident from the choice of his examples: 'man' and 'horse', for example, are also given as examples of nouns in Sībawayh’s Kitāb.
The rest of the section, however, is anything but a servile copy of the Arabic method without any connection to the Syriac linguistic tradition. One such connection is the terminology: melṯā, his term for 'verb', is one that is well-established in the Syriac scientific terminology, though originally used as a translation for ῥῆμα in philosophical works. The term for 'particles', esārā, is also in common use in native Syriac linguistic tradition, although typically meaning 'conjuction', translating the Greek σύνδεσμος, both as a philosophical term, as well as the linguistic one (ch. 20 of Technē Grammatikē). Interestingly, Bar Hebraeus uses both terms in the same way Bar Malkōn does. [8] These and other items of Syriac linguistic terminology occur all over Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ, both as a result of dealing with matters specific to Syriac (and not only such obvious things as vowel points), but especially due to the bilingual nature of the work. This of course requires Bar Malkōn not only to engage with the Syriac tradition, but also attempt to harmonize it with the Arabic linguistic framework and even make attempts at comparative linguistics.
The major way in which Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ is undoubtedly a part of the native Syriac linguistic tradition - as opposed to a mindless copy of the Arabic one - is Bar Malkōn’s constant references to the same and his insistence on working within it. The introduction (BnF Syr. 170, ff. 2v-4v) contains a brief overview of the previous work by Syriac grammarians and scholars of language, including Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), Eliya of Ṭirhan and Yawsep Hūzāyā (6th cent.), the purported translator of Technē Grammatikē into Syriac. The text of Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ then repeatedly refers to their work (the "among them" in section 5 above and "others" in section 6) and cites them by name regularly. The chapter on parts of speech cited above also contains one very telling example in section 5, i.e. the absence of time as a major criterion for the definition of a noun. This line of reasoning is unique to Syriac linguistic tradition and can be traced to Aristotle, e.g. De Interpretatione. In contrast, Technē Grammatikē opts for a morphological/semantic definition (English translation). Now Arabic tradition is complicated, but it involves morphological and syntactic criteria; a simplified contemporary grammar uses a definition that is heavy on the morphology. True, so does Bar Malkōn’s own definition of a noun in section 4, treating the particles BDWL as morphological properties. But then again, this is a fact of Syriac, obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the language. So servile attitude towards Arabic models or sensible analysis of one’s language? The latter definitely applies to the entirety of what BnF Syr. 370 calls chapter 47 (96v-173v), missing in BnF. Syr. 262 and SBB Ms. or. quart. 1050. [9] This chapter is sometimes treated as a separate work - or even genre - called De vocibus aequivocis, i.e. "On ambiguous nouns" - and contains a Syriac-Arabic glossary of homographs. None of this slavishly follows the Arabic model; in fact, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that those who argue so have only ever read the section on parts of speech. The relationship of Bar Malkōn's analysis to the Arabic linguistic tradition reminds me of the way grammars of modern languages follow the Latin model: there is some, even a lot of inspiration, that may even be slavish now and then - just think of the concept of parts of speech and the terminological fustercluck that are Wolof conjugated pronouns. Latin method, however, is not all there is.
As noted above, Bar Malkōn's work remains unedited and unpublished - hell, this hastily put-together post might be the most comprehensive study of his work to date. If anyone wishes to change it, for example as an MA thesis (his short treatise on points would be perfect) or even a PhD dissertation, hit me up.
[1] See e.g. Talmon 2000, Daniels 2012 and of course Merx 1889 (and its translation in Merx 2023).
[2] Stadel 2025: 213.
[3] Baumstark 1922: 309-310 and Merx 1889: 111-112. Modern sources invariably rely on these two.
[4] Baumstark 1922: 309. Compare Seert's description of Kitāb al-ʔīḍāḥ: "L'auteur adapte au syriaque la méthode arabe le plus exactement possible" (Seert 1905: 73).
[5] Talmon 2008: 159.
[6] Baumstark 1922: 309, footnote 11 and 12.
[7] Baumstark 1922: 309. Van Rompay specifically refers to BnF Syr. 370 when repeating Baumstark's words about two columns.
[8] Talmon 2008: 179-180.
Anton Baumstark. 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, mit Ausschluss der christlich-palästinensischen Texte. A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag Dr. jur. Albert Ahn, Bonn.
Peter T. Daniels. 2012. The Native Syriac Linguistic Tradition: Resources Ancient and Modern. Historiographia Linguistica, 39(2–3):327–340.
Adalbert Merx. 2023. A history of the study of grammar among the Syrians: an English translation of Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros. Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Adalbertus Merx. 1889. Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros. Brockhaus, Leipzig.
Seth M. Stadel. 2025. The Catalogue of Books of ‘Abdisho’ bar Brikha: Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Brill, Leiden Boston.
Rafael Talmon. 2000. Foreign influence in the Syriac grammatical tradition. In Sylvain Auroux et al., editor, History of the Language Sciences, pages 337–340. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Rafael Talmon. 2008. Jacob of Edessa The Grammarian. In Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, pages 159–187. Brill, Leiden.
Scher, Addai. 1905. Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothéque épiscopale de Séert (Kurdistan). Avec notes bibliographiques. Mosul, Imprimerie des péres dominicains.
No comments:
Post a Comment