Dating krusenstern Free no sign up chat

The fact that they shared the task in that way may indicate that they were in a great hurry, which might explain the mediocrity of their work. Four fragments of an unbound manuscript or several manuscripts? It is printed with a paper colour and ornementation inspired from the famous “yellow books” () used in Koranic schools, but in a luxurious (and expensive) fashion, like rare and precious objects that one is proud to exhibit in one’s personal library. This point of view was current in the 19th century but has long lost all reason to persist. There are three recensions of the text (plus a few hybrid versions and editions), that are commonly known as the “Winstedt,” the “short,” and the “long” recensions.The use of several manuscripts could explain that the final text is difficult to classify among the different versions of the . asserts a few times that K is a copy of good quality, much better than that of the most famous manuscript of the text, Raffles 18 of the Royal Asiatic Society (henceforth manuscript R18), but the unique criterion of that excellence lies in the claim that Old Javanese words are better preserved (p. However, since a few years back, each volume is also printed with a soft cover at a much more reasonable price, which allows this series to be the principal publisher of Malay classical texts today. adds a stone to this fanciful building: for him, the text has been revised under five Malacca sultans (p. Roolvink (1970: xxii) and Revunenkova (2006: 63) have stated that K belongs to the short recension, but A.

dating krusenstern-32dating krusenstern-16

He was responsible for making the drawings and paintings - both ethnographical and zoological.Before being appointed captain in the Russian imperial navy he served for a while on commercial vessels of the British East India Company. Its contents, however, remained unknown until the publication, in 1821, of John Leyden’s translation. As Krusenstern was already in Canton in November 1798, the manuscript has to date from June to October 1798 (Kulikova). follows three uncommon principles: a) he numbers the folios in Roman numerals; b) he starts with folio ii; c) he considers a folio as made of two facing pages (a double spread).This is when, on a travel from India to China, while his ship was under repair in Penang, he spent a few months in Malacca, in the second half of 1798, and took the opportunity to order a copy of the has been mentioned by Nuruddin al-Raniri, a famous Malay author, in Aceh, around 1640 and by several European authors starting in 1708 (P. This is why Krusenstern’s decision to obtain a copy, while he did not know the Malay world and was spending a few months in Malacca by mere chance, is surprising. It bears a watermark dated 1794, which fits perfectly with that estimate. Kulikova in 1989 and subsequently published for the first time by E. That edition consists in a facsimile (with no transcription) and a 105-page commentary in Russian. Revunenkova has published an article in English in 2006 (listed in A. reproduces the facsimile in his own book (as the result of a recent and excellent policy of the Karya Agung series). A.’s book therefore consists in a long introduction (120 pages), the annotated edition of the text, and the facsimile of the manuscript. He fortunately preserved the original presentation of the manuscript, the text starting on a verso, the layout of which, together with the following recto, makes a kind of frontispiece.in a perfectly standard way in many Malay manuscripts; b) A. introduces into the text, inside square brackets, the Jawi lettering of difficult words, despite the fact that the whole Jawi text is published in the same book; c) an enormous amount of archaic spellings are followed by “[sic]” (“Malay philology is at a critical point of its history, because there is presently no debate on theories and methods, no handbook that would offer more than general considerations, and no individual reflexion that one would be able to find in the edition of a particular text. 353) that a whole page of the manuscript has been copied twice and he comments on the scribe’s sloppiness, but in fact, it is not the manuscript that repeats itself, it is merely the facsimile (the comparison of ff. This means that the facsimile has been established page by page and that, starting on this point, versos have become rectos and vice versa: the whole manuscript and the pagination are from here onward disorganised. It is of course necessary to signal lacunae and to summarize their content, but to integrate into a version several pages of another is to bring about voluntary contamination. has been struck by the same phenomenon, but he talks mainly about words of Old Javanese origin, and this amounts to confusing several things: the fact that a word exists in both Malay and Old Javanese does not mean that it has been borrowed by the first from the latter; it may have been borrowed independently by both languages from Sanskrit (or from another language: A. also claims that the word ], well-known to be a loanword from Chinese, is of Old Javanese origin, fn. Moreover, even if it were established that a Malay word is of Sanskrit or Old Javanese origin, it would not necessarily have a spelling identical to that of the original word (not to mention the possibility of spelling variation in the source language itself). draws conclusions from the quantity of those “Old Javanese” words: the author would have borrowed them directly from ‘classical’ Javanese texts (p. This thesis is a priori attractive because the “Winstedt” recension is only known through one complete manuscript and another containing half of the text only. Even if there have been some debates or pronouncements since then, the sole theoretical synthesis on the subject is a 15-page article by a German scholar published 36 years ago (see Kratz, 1981). It is not necessary to number chapters to “facilitate reading”. Fourth, as this edition is light-years away from a diplomatic one, evident mistakes—and there are plenty—should have been corrected in one way or another. 33, in “, passages borrowed from other, more recent, versions of the text (e.g. originate from Old Javanese and that they are particularly numerous in manuscript K, which in turn would prove the antiquity of this version. What is more, a word of foreign origin does not always have the same meaning in the source and the target languages. lii), therefore the author of the first version of the , that at the origin of all others, would have been a man of Javanese ascendency, or a Malay-Javanese mestizo, in any case a man who spoke fluent Javanese or was accustomed to utilizing Old, Middle or Modern Javanese words in writing (p. This obsession with Old Javanese and Sanskrit leads A. to correct, often erroneously, the text of the manuscript according to Sanskrit or Old Javanese vocabulary. 12-13, in the phrase “This Old Javanese frenzy affects names too: p. 324: the diacritical sign over the seems to have first been a eulogy, in Sanskrit, of the king to be enthroned, that was read by a priest. But, in reality, a comparison of the available versions of the text shows without any doubt that K belongs to another recension, namely the “short” one, and it represents an original version of that recension by comparison with the two versions known until now.

Leave a Reply