[Andalusi Studies] Meaning and translation of Mudejar

[Davila, Carl (cdavila)]

Dwight,

Per your questions:
Your opinion is obviously correct. Nobody willingly refers to him/herself using terminology that implies they are animals. Certainly not in their mother tongue!

I was unaware of this curious translation, and I have no direct evidence at hand for the original use(s) of this term in European sources.

And yes, it makes all the sense in the world to address this, going forward.

Be well,
CD

Dr. Carl Davila
Associate Professor of History
History Graduate Program Director
S.U.N.Y. College at Brockport
350 New Campus Drive
Brockport, NY  14420
O: +1 585 395-5699<tel:+1%20585%20395-5699>
F: +1 585 395 2620<tel:+1%20585%20395%202620>


"Let us not be English, French or German any more.
Let's be European. No, not European, let's be men.
Let's be humanity. All we have to do is get rid of one
last piece of egocentricity - patriotism."

- Victor Hugo (d. 1885)
________________________________
From: andalusi_studies-bounces at lists.uoregon.edu <andalusi_studies-bounces at lists.uoregon.edu> on behalf of Dwight Reynolds <dreynold at religion.ucsb.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 5:19 PM
To: Dwight Reynolds <dreynold at ucsb.edu>
Cc: andalusi_studies at lists.uoregon.edu <andalusi_studies at lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: [Andalusi Studies] Meaning and translation of Mudejar

Warning: Message from non-Brockport Email Server. Treat message, links, and attachments with extra care.


Dear Colleagues,

For a while now, I have been arguing in lectures and in print (see my Musical Heritage of al-Andalus, p. 213, for example) that the translation of "domesticated" or "tamed" for mudéjar (said to derive from Arabic mudajjan) is probably incorrect, and may reflect the derogatory attitude of whoever first used that translation.

Does anyone know how far back this accepted translation goes?

First of all, if we look at the medieval Arabic dictionaries, such as  Lisān al-‘Arab, they do give that meaning for animals, but the basic meaning for people is to remain or stay at home (dajana fi baytihi idha lazimahu).

In addition, since this is an Arabic term, it is presumably one that was created by Arabic-speakers and it seems to me much more likely that they referred to themselves as those who had "stayed at home" (i.e., did not flee or emigrate) than referring to themselves as people who had been "domesticated" or "tamed" like farmyard animals, unless they were doing so sardonically.

I suspect that the translation "domesticated" reflects the viewpoint of the Western scholars who first promoted that meaning of the term, rather than the viewpoint of the people who most likely coined it.

So I have three questions:

Do any of you have an opinion about or reaction to this argument?

Do you know of early examples of Western scholars translating the term as "domesticated" (perhaps 19th-century Spanish sources)?

And IF we agree that "domesticated" is probably a mistranslation, could we perhaps begin to note this in our publications and eventually correct this error?

Dwight Reynolds


******************************************************************
Dwight F. Reynolds, Distinguished Professor
Arabic Language &  Literature
Department of Religious Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
<dreynold at ucsb.edu<mailto:dreynold at ucsb.edu>>
******************************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/andalusi_studies/attachments/20220925/65963849/attachment-0001.html>