Ами не знам. Английският превод е от 1916 г. Ето какво е написано за текста, ако ти е интересно.
§ 1. JOHN, BISHOP OF NIKIU AND HIS CHRONICLE.
JOHN OF NIKIU 1 was probably born about the time of the Mohammedan invasion of Egypt. He was the Coptic bishop of Nikiu and 'rector' of the bishops of Upper Egypt who took part in the election of the successor of John of Samnыd in 690 A.D. In 696 he was appointed administrator general of the Monasteries, but was later deposed from these offices on the ground that he had abused his powers.
His Chronicle, though even imperfectly preserved, is of immense value to historians of Egypt. As Butler2 remarks : 'It is the acquisition of John's manuscript by the British Abyssinian expedition which has made it possible to write a history of the Arab conquest of Egypt.' Unhappily, however, his Chronicle has suffered in the course of transmission. Large portions of it have been lost. That some of these losses, were sustained after it had been translated into Arabic is shown by the fact that the rubrics (see pp. 1-14 of this book), which were prefixed by the Arabic translator, do not always correspond to the chapters they profess to summarize. Thus rubric CXIV (CXV)3: 'How the Moslem took Misr in the fourteenth year of the cycle and made the fortress of Babylon open its gates in the fifteenth year', has no relation to the actual contents of that chapter. Again, there is a lamentable gap of thirty years, from 610 to 640, from the accession of Heraclius to the arrival of the Arabs before Babylon in Egypt. Hence we are without John's account of the Persian wars, |iv of the Persian occupation of Egypt, and of their evacuation of it early in 627 under pressure of Heraclius's victories : also of the ten years' persecution of the Copts by Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, and of the first acts of the invasion of Egypt by the Arabs. When John resumes his story Theodore the Commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in Egypt has just learnt the defeat of the local levies under John and the death of that general.
Those who wish to gain a coherent and historical knowledge of the contribution made to the history of Egypt by John of Nikiu have only to read the resumй in Butler's The Arab Conquest of Egypt, pp. 8-27. But this work must be read as a whole for the new light it throws on Egyptian history of this date. In this field Gibbon fails us, since he often misconceives the role played by Egypt at this period. Seeing that Egypt took a prominent part in the revolution against Phocas and was one of the most turbulent countries in the whole Empire, as we now learn from John of Nikiu and other less authoritative sources, it is clear that he could not have described the rebellion of Heraclius against Phocas in the terms he did (v. 66-7, Bury's ed.) and declared that Egypt was 'the only province which had been exempt, since the time of Diocletian, from foreign and domestic war' (v. 71) if he had had John of Nikiu's Chronicle at his disposal.
§ 2. VERSIONS OF JOHN OF NIKIU.
John of Nikiu was written originally in Greek, but it is not improbable, as Zotenberg points out, that some chapters which dealt with purely Egyptian affairs were written in Coptic. This hypothesis is supported by the Coptic forms of proper names. But this question needs to be critically and fully threshed out. It is impossible at present to attempt to delimit the boundaries of the Coptic sections.
A Sahidic fragment was discovered in the Berlin Museum, which according to its discoverer, Dr. Schafer, is closely related to John's Chronicle. Future investigation must determine whether this Sahidic fragment is derived directly from the original work or translated from one of its versions, |v or whether it is merely an independent document dealing with the same material as our Chronicle.
From Greek the Chronicle was translated into Arabic, and from Arabic into Ethiopic in the year 1602. The Arabic version is wholly lost, though Amйlineau, in his Vie du Patriarche Copte Isaac, p. xxiv, n, states that he knows of an Arabic manuscript of John's Chronicle. But when asked for further information by Dr. Butler, none was forthcoming (see Butler, op. cit., p. ix, n.).
The Ethiopic version gives the student the impression of being a literal reproduction of the Arabic. It is rather of a hybrid description. The Ethiopia itself is very late and unclassical, and exhibits idioms impossible in the earlier period. It contains many transliterations from the earlier languages in which the Chronicle was written. Thus we have 'Iw_ ma&kaira transliterated in 224, pano&pthj in 33, o9 pa&ntarxoj in 5162, h9liakh& . . selhniakh& in 746, a1nagnw&sthj in 7913, filalh&qhj in 8953, &c., &c. The Arabic names of five of the planets are transliterated in 21, and other Arabic words in 8430, 972,16, 10210, 10718,33, 1093, &c., &c. Amharic words appear occasionally, as 962, 10710, 10810, but this is due to the Ethiopia translator's use of Amharic colloquially. The Coptic article has survived in 311, 10714, as Zotenberg has shown.
§ 3. THE ETHIOPIC MANUSCRIPTS.
There are only two manuscripts at present known of this version, which for convenience are designated A and B.
A is No. 146 in Zotenberg's Catalogue of the Ethiopic manuscripts in the Bibliothиque Nationale. It is written on vellum, being about 368 mm. by 296. Each page has three columns of thirty-two lines each. According to Zotenberg it was written in the seventeenth century. Our Chronicle begins on fol. 62 and ends on fol. 138.
B. This manuscript is Orient. 818 in the British Museum (391a in Wright's Catalogue of the Ethiopic manuscripts there). It is written on vellum, being about 14 7/8 in. by 13, and contains 191 folios. Each page has three columns of thirty-six lines each. It is well written, and belongs to the first half of the eighteenth century. |vi
John of Nikiu begins on fol. 48a and ends on fol. 102b. In the last column it is stated that it was translated from the Arabic version in 1602 by Gabriel the Egyptian, son of John of Kaljыb, at the order of the Abyssinian general Athanasius and of Mariam Sena (Malak Mogasa), the wife of Jacob, Malak Sagad the younger (1597-1603 A.D.).
These two manuscripts are not copies of the same manuscript, but are derived, and not distantly, from one and the same exemplar.
§ 4. ZOTENBERG'S ETHIOPIC TEXT.
Zotenberg's text (Chronique de Jean, Йvкque de Nikiou, Texte йthiopien publiй et traduit, Paris, 1883) is on the whole reasonably good as a first edition. Since there are only two manuscripts, and these are closely related, there was little difficulty experienced in forming the text. But Zotenberg's chief merit lies not in the making of the text, but in the great ingenuity he has shown in deciphering the very corrupt forms under which a considerable number of the proper names are disguised. The corruptions in question are due to the fact that the Ethiopic translators were using an unpointed Arabic text, and were largely ignorant of the historical persons and events described in John of Nikiu's Chronicle. But this merit should be dealt with rather in connexion with Zotenberg's translation than with his text.
We have observed that the text is reasonably good. This qualified praise will become more intelligible as we proceed. Thus, frequently, where the text is unquestionably and sometimes hopelessly corrupt, no attention is drawn to this fact either by the use of obeli in the text or footnotes, and not unfrequently the translation proceeds as if the constructions were quite normal. In footnotes in my translation I have called attention to some of these passages. Here I mention a few cases either where an absolutely corrupt text has been reproduced, or the text has been wrongly emended. First let us take the proper name [Ethiopic] (i.e. Maximian), which is allowed to stand wrongly in 7747,48,73,74,83,88,92, where it should have been emended into [Ethiopic] (i.e. Maximin). |vii On the other hand, he wrongly allows the latter to remain in 772,25. .In his translation, however, these errors are set right silently save in two instances. In 8869 Zotenberg omits the clause 'to set free her mother' ([Ethiopic]), and thus fails to recognize the meaning of this verb in 8867, where he renders it by permettre, i.e. 'de permettre а Vйrine de demeurer dans le chвteau d'Isaurie'. But this gives exactly the opposite sense to what we require. See my emendation on p. 117, note 4.
In the passage just dealt with we have a very common kind of error into which Zotenberg falls. He emends a passage in such a way as to make it inconsistent with its context or with the universal tradition on the subject. Thus in 8867 Zotenberg emends the vox nulla [Ethiopic] into [Ethiopic] (='to put her to death'), but the rest of the verse suggests that Zeno only intended to keep the empress under guard. Hence we should read [Ethiopic].
Another instance of Zotenberg's wrong restoration of the text occurs earlier in this chapter. In 8844 he renders his reconstructed text as follows, the words enclosed in brackets being Zotenberg's addition to supply an indubitable loss: 43. 'Quant au patriarche Pierre, on le transporta, chargй de chaоnes, dans la ville d'Euchaпtиs . . . . 44. [On nomma ensuite patriarche d'Antioche Йtienne] qui proscrivait la secte de Nestorius. En consйquence tous les habitants de la ville le dйtestaient, et il fut massacrй par la population d'Antioche et le clergй.' Here, according to Zotenberg's restored text, Peter the Fuller is transported to Euchaites, and his successor Stephen is put to death by the clergy and laity of Antioch because he had persecuted the Nestorians. Now the facts are exactly the opposite. Peter was a persecutor of the Nestorians, but Stephen was charged before a Council of Nestorianism and, when his enemies failed to prove their accusation, the inhabitants of Antioch, who were strong opponents of Nestorianism, took the law into their own hands and put Stephen to death. See my note on p. 113.
In 821 Zotenberg inserts [Ethiopic] after [Ethiopic], and [Ethiopic] before [Ethiopic]. Thus he arrives at the following translation, in which he omits [Ethiopic]: 'Aprиs la mort de Jovien, l'ami de Dieu, |viii [rйgna] Valentinien. Comme il y avait une grande affliction parmi les officiers, а cause de la mort de 1'empereur Jovien, [il йtait venu] pour pleurer avec les autres.' I have inserted in square brackets Zotenberg's additions. Now this is not John of Nikiu, but Zotenberg. John's text is literally as follows: 'And after the death of the Godloving Jovian, Valentinian, being the foremost amongst the officers, came to mourn with them over the death of the emperor Jovian.'
In 12046 the text is not defective and is perfectly right historically and grammatically. The literal rendering of the text is: 'This letter was sent by Martina ... to David . . . (urging him) ... to put down the sons of Constantine, who had been emperor with Heraclius, his brother.' The persons referred to are as follows: Heraclius I married first Eudocia and had by her Constantine III here mentioned, and married secondly Martina and had by her the Heraclius II here mentioned. Thus 'brother' in the text means in reality 'half-brother'. Again, 'the sons of Constantine III' in the text were Constantine (i. e. Constans II) and Theodosius. Now it is these grandchildren of Heraclius I that Martina requested David to remove in favour of her own children by Heraclius I. Zotenberg, however, misconceives the passage utterly and emends it. His rendering then is : 'Une lettre que l'on disait avoir йtй adressйe par Martine . . . а David . . . pour l'engager . . . а depossйder les fils de Constantin, c'est-a-dire Constantin (le jeune), qui gouvernait avec Heraclius et son frere.' The phrase 'c'est . . . Constantin' is needlessly inserted by Zotenberg, and 'et' quite wrongly added before 'son frere'. This last addition makes the text unintelligible.
I will content myself with adducing another erroneous emendation. On p. 25 of his text Zotenberg quite rightly follows his manuscripts in reading [Ethiopic], but as a footnote on p. 236 of his translation, and in the list of 'Corrections' on p. 487, he writes that [Ethiopic] must be emended into [Ethiopic] or [Ethiopic]. Thus he takes [Ethiopic] to be a transitive verb and accordingly translates 'tu dйtruiras bientфt le gouvernement'. But [Ethiopic] is always intransitive. Hence the manuscripts are right, and the text should be rendered: 'the kingdom . . . will speedily be destroyed.' |ix
This list could be largely increased, but sufficient facts have been given to prove that Zotenberg's text needs to be carefully revised.
Маготин, обърни внимание на това изречение:
From Greek the Chronicle was translated into Arabic, and from Arabic into Ethiopic in the year 1602.
Ако е станала някаква интерполация, тя ще да е била извършена в гръцкия текст (препис), а едва ли в арабския (изцяло изгубен) или етиопския.