Preface to Baḥya Ibn Paqūda’s Duties of the Heart (I)

Translator’s Introduction to Part 1

[In the past, I turned down previous translation proposals, for several reasons.] I will tell some of them, as follows.

Of all the books that I have seen that were translated from the Arabic language into Hebrew, there is not one in which the translators did not ruin its style, change its content, and lose its sense. This failure was due to three factors. First, they were not expert and keen in the Arabic language from which they were translating. Second, if they were expert and keen in Arabic, perhaps they were not expert in the Hebrew language, into which they were translating. Third, if they were expert in both these languages, perhaps they did not understand the words of the author, what he had in mind, and they would be translating in accord with their own understanding and viewpoint, which was different from that of the author. It is even possible that someone in whom all these deficiencies were combined did the translating, whereupon it is patent to every knowledgeable reader that each of the factors distorts the content and makes it say something else.

The third class is itself subdivided into two. The first consists of those who are not expert in a particular science and do not understand its topics and methods, but who nevertheless proceed with the objective of translating the language in accordance with their apparent understanding of it. The second consists of those who are indeed expert in that science and understand its topics and methods, but because the translator did not receive that book from its author or from another who received it directly from him, it is possible that he understands many topics in a different sense, however his own viewpoint tends. He therefore translates the words of the author in accord with his own viewpoint. Perhaps for this reason he creates objections to the author’s viewpoint from the text itself, so it turns out that some parts of the text contradict other parts. This happens because of reading the text in the wrong way, combining words that ought to be read separately and vice versa,¹ treating ideas as related or unrelated, including a particular statement within a generalization or excluding it, and the like. I have seen some great sages who have erred in this matter.

Furthermore, we are unable in Hebrew to express all our thoughts in a style that gets to the point of the argument economically and in elegant phrase as we can in Arabic, for the Arabic language is wide ranging and crisp, convenient for expressing oneself on any topic that one desires for those who know it, whereas Hebrew is not adequate for all our needs. [ . . . ]

[Some words have many meanings, and translators err by choosing the wrong meaning for a given context.] If the translator were able to translate word for word without adding or subtracting the meaning, he could avoid this pitfall and error, though a translation produced in this fashion would be hard to understand except by those great sages who understand the ways of the sacred tongue. The language would not be so pleasing and accessible, and the difficulty in the language could also make the subject matter harder to understand.

For all these reasons, we see that the translator should take great care in all these matters. If he knows that he is well qualified in all those respects that make for a good translator—let him translate; and if not—let him refrain. For a translator cannot perfect the language of his translation unless he is willing to put the later word earlier, and the earlier later, to add here and subtract there. Sometimes he must translate the sense of the word by another term that is similar and close to it in the target language, or to exchange a metaphor or expression that is not customary in that language for a similar metaphor or expression that is customary. The general rule is that he should understand the ways of the language from which he is translating, as well as those of the language into which he is translating, and the content of the work that he is translating, so that they may be reconciled in his mind and clear in his understanding. He may then translate however he sees fit, with whatever words he chooses, provided that they be easily understandable and not change the intention of the author. [ . . . ]

We may learn from the author of this work, R. Baḥya ben R. Joseph, of blessed memory. For even though he composed this work himself in a matter that he conceived in his own mind and was not translating the work of others, he wanted to reverse himself and refrain from writing, because he considered himself deficient in understanding the elegance of the Arabic language. This is so even though it is evident from his work that he was a master of language, and all the more because like myself he shied away from translation for all the reasons I have mentioned. Furthermore, it is the custom of most people at this time to abuse and accuse anyone of their contemporaries who produces any innovation, whether of translation or authorship or poetry or anything similar to these. The prudent will be cautious of entering this path and take warning from his neighbor to save his soul from the tongues and accusations of the populace. [ . . . ]

[The reader should not blame me for borrowing Arabic grammatical constructions where the Hebrew is deficient.] Expert translators of previous times have engaged in similar practice, using the Hebrew conjugations in imitation of the corresponding Arabic ones, for Arabic is similar to Hebrew in many respects.