JJL 001 02 229-260

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/22134638-12340015

Journal of Jewish Languages 1 (2013) 229–260 brill.com/jjl

Preliminaries to the Critical Edition of the Judeo-Italian Translation of the Siddur

Michael RyzhikBar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

AbstractThis article analyzes five translations of the siddur (‘prayer book’) into Judeo-Italian. Three of the versions are manuscripts from the 15th century, one is the printed 1506 Fano edition, and the last is a manuscript from the 17th century. A common tradition underlies all of these translations and has much in common with Judeo-Provençal translations; this likely represents an ancient Judeo-Romance tradition of translation, which expresses itself differently in each manuscript. The 17th-century translation displays northern linguistic features; it is more Toscanized and normalized than the four other translations and has lost many typical traits of “classical” Judeo-Italian. The 15th-century translations also differ from one another in their spelling, phonology, morphology, vocabulary, and syntax. The main reason for this great variety seems to be the fact that the common old tradition prescribed only the general lines of translation. The biblical passages such as the Shema‘ Israel, are translated in a much more standardized way, but these passages nevertheless retain peculiarities. It therefore seems that a synoptic edition rather than a critical one must be made, in order to describe and analyze the different variations of the Judeo-Italian translations.

KeywordsJudeo-Italian, Judeo-Romance languages, translations, siddur

Introduction

Our knowledge of classical Judeo-Italian (i.e., the written medieval language as opposed to the oral dialects mostly spoken in the ghettos at a later period) is almost exclusively based on translations of the Bible or parts of it, of the Jewish prayer book (the siddur), and of some passages of post-biblical litera-ture (midrashic texts, for the most part). The major manuscripts containing the translations of the Bible are described by Cassuto (1937). Cassuto was the first to study their language (1934) and to undertake a comparative study of the medieval dialectal translations with the later “Toscanized” ones (1930a). The translations of the Book of Isaiah were the object of an important study by

230 M. Ryzhik / Journal of Jewish Languages 1 (2013) 229–260

Berenblut (1949); even more important for the development of Judeo-Italian studies was Terracini’s review (1956–57) of Berenblut’s book. Sermoneta pub-lished a seminal study on the translation of the Song of Songs (1974; impor-tant considerations concerning different Judeo-Italian versions of the Song of Songs can be found in Cuomo 2000), as well as a fine comparative analysis of the different translations of the Book of Psalms, with an emphasis on the lexi-cal aspect (1978). The most important contribution to the description of the Judeo-Italian dialect used to translate the Bible was made by Cuomo in her book about the translation of the Book of Jonah (1988).

The translations of post-biblical literature are not as common, and are the object of fewer studies, the most interesting one being Cuomo’s article dedi-cated to the translation of a collection of midrashic texts (1985).

In the corpus of literature translated into Judeo-Italian, the translation of the siddur holds a special place.1 Cassuto (1930a) described the manuscripts containing the ritual and presented important considerations concerning the language of these translations, including a comparison of translations of the Song of the Sea [Ex. 15] in various manuscripts.2

These translations of the siddur constitute a perfect corpus for the first criti-cal edition of Judeo-Italian translations. There are several reasons for this. (1) The translations are of considerable size (each manuscript is nearly 200 pages long); from a linguistic and a literary point of view, they are quite diverse, i.e., they include all sorts of biblical and post-biblical literature (prayers of very dif-ferent natures; biblical texts—mostly but not exclusively Psalms; piyyutim and other liturgical poetry written in different times, places, and styles, from the first centuries in Palestine to the late medieval period in Italy). (2) The siddur is one of the books that are most commonly used by Jews in communities around the world. Presumably, the translations directly or indirectly derive from old, well-developed traditions of translations; they are therefore likely to include linguistic features geographically and dialectologically connected to areas of ancient Jewish settlements (southern Italy, in the case of Judeo-Italian). (3) All of the Italian siddurim analyzed are based on the same Hebrew text; the Ital-ian rite has been scrupulously preserved. The differences between the manu-

1) For general discussions concerning the translations of the Siddur and other liturgical literature in different languages in the Middle Ages, see Peri 1955. For the Judeo-Provençal translations, which are used in this article as comparative material and which seem to be close to the Judeo-Italian ones, see Jochnowitz 1981 and the literature cited there. In addition, a Ph.D. thesis is in the works (Baricci ms).2) It is in this article and speaking about the translations of the siddur that Cassuto called medi-eval Judeo-Italian “un veritable yiddisch italien” (Cassuto 1930a: 262).

M. Ryzhik / Journal of Jewish Languages 1 (2013) 229–260 231

scripts must therefore be the result of different translations; this makes the comparison between translations more feasible.

The Texts Selected for the Edition

My edition of the siddur translations will be based on four manuscripts and one printed edition described by Cassuto (1930a). All of these works include only the Italian translation, not the Hebrew original.

The printed edition, an editio princeps of the siddur, was printed in 1506 at Fano: it is the [. . .] Siddur di tutto l’anno, tralatato per man di R. Ya‘qov Israeli3 [Finzi] e stampato per mano del [Gershom] Soncino in Fano [. . .] (‘Siddur of the whole year, translated by R. Ya‘aqov Israeli [Finzi] and printed by [Gershom] Soncino in Fano’). This edition contains the entire text of the Italian rite, includ-ing a chapter of Mishna (Shabbat 2: Ba-me madliqin) as well as the Hosh‘anot, which are not included in the 15th-century manuscripts. In this article, this edition will be referred to as F.

The three 15th-century manuscripts are as follows:

– Ms. Parma de’ Rossi ital. 7, written in 1484 (according to the colophon) in Florence or in its vicinity. Its siglum in this article is Q1.

– Ms. London 625 [Or. 2443], written in 1483 in Montalboddo [Ostra] (accord-ing to the colophon). Its siglum in this article is Q2.

– Ms. JTS Mic. 4076, written in the 15th century in the same area (Tuscany-Umbria); there is no colophon. Its siglum in this article is Q3.

All three manuscripts include the text of the Italian rite without the passage from the Mishna or the Hosh‘anot.

The fourth manuscript used in this article is the 17th-century Ms. London Or. 10517, written in northern Italy. It contains the text of the siddur in its entirety, including the Shabbat 2 and Zevahim 5 (’Ezehu meqoman) chapters from the Mishna, but it omits the Hosh‘anot. The text is not purely from the Italian rite; some of its benedictions seem to be influenced by the Ashkenazi rite. In this article, this manuscript will be referred to as S.

Based on a few sources of evidence, it seems that these translations were written for women. First, most translations of liturgical literature made in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern period seem to have been written, at

3) So is written in the colophon at the end of the siddur: פיניטו איל סידור די טוטו לאנו טרלטאטו פיר מאן די רבי יעקב ישראל אי סטאנפטו פיר מאנו דיל שונצינו אין פאנו אדי סיטי די מרחשוון רס"ו


least officially, for women.4 Second, the blessings for tallit and tefillin seem not to be found in these manuscripts. Third, the three early manuscripts (Q1, Q2, Q3) omit the text of Ba-me madliqin (Mishna Shabbat 2), which is found in the standard Italian rite manuscripts at least from the 14th century (see Ryzhik 2008c: 12–18). This stems from the prohibition against women studying Talmud and its parts. The later translations (F, S), however, include this chapter from the Mishna.

Finally, and most convincingly, in the case of the siddurim in which the first page with the morning benedictions is preserved (Q3 and S), the version of the prayer is the one women should recite. Thus, instead of including a transla-tion of שלא עשני אשה, ‘that has not made me a woman,’ the “male version” of this benediction,5 these two manuscripts include translations of the women’s benediction שעשני כרצונו, ‘that has made me according to his will’:

Q3: בנדיטו טו דומדת דית נושטרו רי דלו עולם קי פיצי מי קומי לבולינטה סואהbenedetto tu Domedet Det noštro re dello ‘olam che fece me come la-volenta soa6S: לאודאטו טו סינייור אידיאו נוסטרו רי דיל מונדו קוואל מי קריאו קונפורמי אלה וולונטה סואהlaodato tu Sinjor Idio nostro re del mondo qual mi creo conforme ala uolonta sua

Similarly, the benediction “that has not made me a slave” is translated with feminine versions of ‘slave’:

Q3: פחה בנדיטו טו דומדת דית נושטרו רי דלו עולם קי נון פיצי מי שbenedetto tu Domedet Det noštro dello ‘olam che non fece mi šifhaS: לאודאטו טו סינייור אידיאו נוטסרו רי דיל מונדו קי נון מי פיצי סקיאווהlaodato tu Sinjor Idio nostro re del mondo che non mi fece schiaua

4) See Schwarzwald 2012, passim, especially pp. 5–15, notes 10, 11 on p. 5, and the bibliography. This book is also an important edition of the Ladino translation of the siddur made explicitly for women. Another Ladino translation of the siddur made for women was edited by Lazar 1995 (see review in Minervini 1998). As demonstrated by Schwarzwald (2010, 2011) this latter translation was made in Italy, probably in Venice. These Ladino translations are adjusted in all of their par-ticuliarities to the use of women (see Schwarzwald 2012: 7–15). The general question of women’s literacy in Italy in the Middle Ages is very complicated. On women’s literature in general, see Steinschneider 1888. Although the Judeo-Italian translations were made for women, it is clear that there were women who used the common Hebrew text. See, for example, the collophon of Italian rite Ms. Firenze-Lorenziana Or. 475 (p. 177), written in 1485: אני אברהם פריצול. . . השלמתי זה הסידור מכל השנה אל הכבודה והנעימ' מרת דונינא . . . אשת הגביר ר' שמואל בכ"פ יצחק מרווירי,cited in Ryzhik 2008c: 16.5) About the interesting form of this benediction (. . . “who made me a woman”) in the Judeo-Provencal siddur, see Jochnowitz 1981.6) The principles of transliteration are described below.


The same is true for the benediction “that has not made me a non-Jew,” translated with the feminine form of non-Jew (in S: “that made me Jewess”):7

Q3: בנדיטו טו דומדת דית נושטרו רי דלו עולם קי נון פיצי מי גויהbenedetto tu Domedet Det noštro re dello ‘olam che non fece me guyaS: לאודאטו טו סינייור אידיאו נוטסרו רי דיל מונדו קוואל קריאו מי יהודיתlaodato tu Sinjor Idio nostro re del mondo qual creo mi yehudit

Although the translations were intended for women, it seems that they were also meant to be used during synagogue services. This is clear from the instruc-tions and notes, which are not limited to prayers designated for women but actually describe the full service in the synagogue. For example, in F, an account of the reading of the Torah on Saturday is provided, p. 71b:

קווה קיימה לו כוהן אי ליי אספר אי דיצי לה תהילה אי ריפוני לו ספר אי דיצי לו מוסףqua chiama lo kohen e lejje a-sefer e dice la tehilla e repone lo sefer e dice lo musaf.<here he calls the kohen and reads in-sefer and says tehilla and returns the sefer and says musaf>

Another indication that these translations were probably meant to be used at synagogue rather than at home is the presence of passages that can be read only in the presence of a minyan. Thus in S (in which the morning benedictions appear only in their “women’s version”), one finds translations of the Shemona ‘Esre and Modim de-Rabanan (pp. 41a–b), as well as the Qeduša (pp. 35b–36a).

As I hope to show in this article, the translations, although evidently belong-ing to the same general tradition, are quite different, so the edition that I plan to create on their basis will be synoptic and not critical. All of the translations exhibit similarities (with F being closer to Q2 and Q1 being closer to Q3), but the differences between them are too great to suppose the existence of a com-mon “ancestor” and to try and reconstitute it. As I discuss below, each manu-script bears clear indications that the translation was made directly from the original Hebrew text (although it follows the same old translation tradition as the other translations).

Principles of Transliteration

Generally speaking, I write the text of the edition with the alphabet used in modern Italian, using today’s graphemes, in order to make this edition more readable. In a similar vein, I use the signs commonly used in the Italian critical

7) Similar blessings using feminine pronouns are found in Ladino prayer books (see Schwarzwald 2012: 13–15).


editions, such as italics to signify an absent or uncertain letter, for example. The transliteration of the Hebrew alphabet with the Latin letters will be as follows.

Consonants

without dagesh or rafeh is transliterated either by b or v ב ;v = ב ;b = ב ;0 = אin italics—choosing the most probable option for each word—for example: ,g before a, o, u, ua, = gh before e, i = ג ;avere = אבירי ,benedizione = בינידיצייוניfor example ליגאראי = legarai, גובירנה = governa, לרגורה = largura, גווארדיטי = guardeti, אלבירגיראי = albergherai, ליגי = leghi; ד = d; ה is used in Italian words only as mater lectionis for /a/ at the end of the word, for example טירה = terra; is used as mater lectionis for /o/ and /u/, but also as the consonant /v/ or as a וpart of the diphthong /ua/; in these two cases, I use the letter /u/ to distinguish lenis, and on the basis of the widespread use of /u/ for /v/ in Italian ב from וin the 13th–19th centuries, for example: וולונטה = uolonta, גורישי = guarisci; ז is rarely used in Italian words. In the Shema‘ and Shemona ‘Esre found in the selected texts, there is only one case of its use, in the northern S: ייורנו = מיזו meşo jorno (this case is unique yet important from the phonological and dia-lectal points of view; the symbol here is ş);8 ח is not used in Italian words but is transliterated as ḥ in Hebrew-origin words; ט = t; י is used as mater lectionis for /i/ or /e/, and also as a palatal consonant /j/ and for the affricate /dž/. I use /j/ in the last two cases (e.g., /nj/ rather than /gn/ for ני, /lj/ rather than /gl/ for לי, /j/ or /jj/ rather than /gi/ or /ge/ for י or 9,(יי for example: סינייו = senjo, פיליולי = filjoli, אויי = ojji; ראייונאר = rajonar, ליי = lejje; כ, transliterated /k/, is very rarely used in Italian words. In the selected texts, it is found only in Q2 and almost only for the Italian word “che”10 (written here as כי), translation of the Hebrew is not used in Italian words but ע ;s = ס ;n = נ ;m = מ ;l = ל ;in Judeo-Italian כיis transliterated as ‘ in Hebrew-origin words; פ = p, פ = f, פ without dagesh or rafeh is transliterated as either p or f in italics depending on the word (like ב, see above), for example פטרי = patri, פרה = fra, אינפיריאו = enperio, פאקולטה = faculta; צ is either the affricate /ts/ or the affricate /tš/. The choice between the two was made considering the highest probability (the scholar using the edition must also consider the other possible pronunciation of the letter). In

8) I use this sign because the precise pronunciation of that letter is difficult to establish and because this use of ş is found in Medieval Italian. 9) About its use in Judeo-Italian, see Cuomo 1976: 30–33.10) Besides כי, the word כומי = kome appears only once, in Q2 as well.


the case of /ts/ it is transliterated with /z/, and in the case of /tš/ with /ci/ or /ce/, for example: ריצאר = rizar, לנצולי = lanzoli, ציילי = cieli, ייאציר = jacer; ק = c before a, o, u, = q before ua, ue, ui,11 = ch before e or i, for example: קאסה = casa, אוניקו = unico, סקודיאטורי = scudiatore, קוואלי = quale, קוויסטו = questo, ,sci before a, o = ש ;r = ר ;antichi = אנטיקי ,che = קי ,aquistator = אקוויסטאטורu, i, = sc before e, = š before consonants (only t), for example: שוליי = sciolji, is rare in Italian. It ת ;noštro = נושטרו ,discender = דישינדיר guarisci,12 = גורישיis found in the written Judeo-Italian name of God דומדת דית. This expression is very frequent in religious Judeo-Italian literature (as is the name of God in reli-gious literatures around the world); in this specific case, I simply transliterate is very rarely used and appears in only six words ת ,Otherwise .(ט as) with t תin Q2: תינפו, אסינייאתי ,מורתורי, תורנא ,נושתרא, and לסא]ס[תי. In such cases, the transliteration for ת is t.

Vowels

Qamats and patah = a; tsere and segol = e; hiriq = i; holam = o; shuruq and qub-buts = u. The shwa is a bit more complicated. In the Judeo-Italian translation of the siddur, most consonant graphemes are vocalized, i.e., each one has a dia-critic vocal sign. A consonant directly preceding another consonant is written with a shwa. This shwa is a shwa quiesciens that does not need to be transliter-ated, for example: נושטרו = noštro. Shwa is also used under a consonant that precedes a vowel, frequently represented by a mater lectionis jod. This shwa-jod combination is transliterated by an italicized /e/, for example: קורי (“core,” ‘heart’), פורטי (“porte,” ‘gates’), וויריטיוולי (“uereteuole”), רביפיקי (“rabbefechi,” ‘to keep alive, to resuscitate’), מיאי (“mee,” ‘mine’). The vowel designated by this shwa-jod combination is evidently /e/, but it seems that it sometimes also stands for /i/, or /i/ > /e/, for example in Q2: אדיאי אלטרי (“a-dei altri,” ‘to other gods,’ transliterated a-dei altre). This type of shwa is very common in Q2 in par-ticular (where it is used more than tsere or segol), but it is also quite common in F, Q1, and Q3 (it is not found in S). Finally, sometimes a shwa appears under a consonant that we would expect to be followed by a vowel, and the follow-ing grapheme is not a mater lectionis, as in ס in איסרי (“essere,” ‘to be’) and ל in In cases like these, the shwa .(’le-balištratichi,” ‘the doorposts“) לבלישטראטיקיitself is transliterated as an italicized /e/.

11) In the selected passages, no word contains קוו, “quo.” 12) There are no examples of /scia/ and /sciu/ in the selected passages.


Consonant Gemination

Consonant gemination is phonemic in the central-southern Italian dialects. It must be expressed in the transliteration of F and the 15th-century manuscripts, these translations being written in that area and belonging to the central-southern tradition (coiné, in the terminology of Cuomo 1976 and Sermoneta 1976).13 Gemination in these sources is often expressed with the dagesh forte, as in טוטו = tutto, קומנו = comanno (“commando” with the southern charac-teristic assimilation nd > nn). In most cases, however, the dagesh is omitted. In the majority of cases, it is clear that the omission is casual and that the con-sonant should be duplicated according to the norms of these dialects. In such cases, the second consonant is transliterated in italics: טוטו = tutto, אנטיני = entenne (“intendi,” ‘hear’), פוילארי = fauellare.

In S, the dagesh is totally absent. This manuscript, written in northern Italy, presents many linguistic features of this area, some of which will be discussed later. One of the main phonological traits of the northern Italian dialects is the complete loss of gemination. Because of this concordance between the graphemes (absence of dagesh) and pronunciation (absence of gemination), my transliteration omits the duplication of the letter which would be gemi-nated according to literary Italian: טוטו = tuto (for “tutto,” ‘all’), אני = ani (for “anni,” ‘years’).

Word Division

The written words are often joined, not only because the letters are sometimes written close to each other. The words are also deliberately joined by vocaliza-tion on the word boundary, for example: לנימו .(”con tutto l’animo“) קונטוטו In most cases, this juncture obviously happens with the article, as in למלאטי (“l’ammalati”), but other types of junctures are widespread, for example: איניסי (“en essi”). In all these cases, the joined words are hyphenated in the translit-eration as in the aforementioned examples: קונטוטו לנימו = con-tutto l-animo; -en-essi. Of the five works used for this critical edi = איניסי ;l-ammalati = למלאטיtion, only S shows the use of the apostrophe to divide between the /l/ of the arti-cle and the word beginning with a vowel. This apostrophe, doubled in Hebrew, is transliterated by a single apostrophe, as in Italian: ל"אנימה = l’anima, ל"אוליו

13) About the southern traits in the Judeo-Italian of the Central Italy see also Jochnowitz 1976. About the relation between this written Judeo-Italian and spoken Judeo-Italian see Jochnowitz, Sacred Texts and Standartization: The Example of Judeo-Italian (http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/SacredTexts.html). See also Ryzhik 2010.

http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/SacredTexts.html

http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/SacredTexts.html


= l’oljo. In S, the single apostrophe is also usually used after the preposition “a” (‘to’); these passages are transliterated accordingly: א' וואי = a’ uoi.

The Relationship between the Different Translations: The Lexicon

It seems clear that all the selected translations stem from one old tradition. This tradition finds its expression not only in the technique of the translation, but also in the common lexicon, sometimes restricted to the Jewish Italian dia-lects. For instance, the verb יפתה (‘be seduced’) in the Shema‘ Israel (from Dt. 11:16) is translated with the verb “semonire” in all five translations, including in the later one (S):

The Hebrew text reads: השמרו לכם פן יפתה לבבכם וסרתם F: גווארדיטי אוואי אין קוונו סימוניסקה לו קורי ווסטרו אי ציסריטיווי guardeti a-uoi en quanno semonisca lo core uostro e cessarete-ueQ1: גוארדיטי אבואי אינקואנו סיסימוניסקה לוקורי בושטרו אציסריguardeti a-voi enquanno se-semonisca lo-core voštro a-cessareQ2: גוורדטי אבויי נון קוואנו סיסימוניסקא לוקורי בושטרו איצסריטיווי guardete a-voje non quanno se-simonisca lo-core voštro e-cesserite-ueQ3: גוורדיטיבי אוואי קינון סי סימוניסקה לוקורי וושטרו אי ציסריטיבי guardeti-ve a-uoi che-non se semonisca lo-core uoštro e cessareti-veS: גווארדאטיווי א' וואי קי נון ]ווי[ סימוניסקה איל קור ווסטרו אי ווי ליוואריטי guardate-ui a’ uoi che non [ui] simonisca il cor uostro e ui leuarete

In Christian translations, other words are used to translate that Hebrew verb:14

The Vulgate: cavete ne forte decipiatur cor vestrum.Bibbia Volgare: Guardatevi ne per ventura il vostro cuore sie ingannato.Diodati: guardatevi che talora il vostro cuore non sia sedotto.Brucioli: Guardateui dunque, che perauentura il vostro cuore non sia disuiato.

The verb “semonire” (with the general meaning of ‘to seduce’) is found only in Judeo-Italian sources: in Judah Romano’s glossary published by Debenedetti Stow (1990: 246), for instance, and in the Maqre Dardeqe, the Hebrew-Italian-Arabic dictionary published in Naples in 1488. In both sources, the root פתה is translated by the word סימונימנטו = simonimento, and the Biblical example provided is precisely the verse quoted above (Dt. 11:16).

14) The Christian translations used for comparison with the Judeo-Italian ones include the Cle-mentine Vulgate, the Bibbia Volgare, originally published by N. Jenson in Venice in 1471, and the translations of the Bible by Brucioli and Diodati (see bibliography). But the problematic nature of the Vulgate’s Latin text and of the translations of the Bible in the Italian vernacular is well known and complex. For an introduction to the topic, see Berger 1894, Ramello, 1992, and the following contributions to an overview of Bible translations: Leonardi 1996, Leonardi 1998.


In spite of its evident Christian origin (from “simonia”—‘simony,’ the trade of sacraments, named after Simon Magus, who appears in the Acts of Apostles), the verb “semonire” (in the sense of seduction) is completely absent from the Christian sources and is found only in the Jewish ones. The total absence from Christian sources of a word with such a clear Christian etymology may be the reason for its being kept in Judeo-Italian texts.

The use of the same verb in all sources offers evidence for the existence of a common tradition underlying all of the Judeo-Italian translations analyzed here.

Sometimes, this common tradition even extends out of Italy, as is the case in the translation of the word מזוזה, ‘doorpost,’ in the following verse (Dt. 11:20) by variants of balestrati (‘doorpost’):

The Hebrew text: וכתבתם על מזזות ביתך ובשעריךF: אי סקריווי איסי סופרי לי באליסטרטי די לה קסה טואה אי ני לי פורטי טואיe scriui essi sopre li balistrati de la casa toa e ne li porti toiQ1: אי סקריויראי איסי סופרי אלי באלישטראטיקי דילקאסה טואה אנילי פורטי טואיe scriuerai essi sopre alli baleštratichi della-casa toa e-nelli porti toiQ2: טראטיקי דלקסה טואה אידיליפורטי טואי איסקריוויראי איסי סופרי לבלישe-scriuirai esse sopre le-balištratichi della-casa toa e-delle-porte toiQ3: טראטיקי די לקסה טואה אי דילי פורטי טואי אי סקריויראי איסי סופרי ליבלישe scriuerai essi sopre li-baleštratichi de la-casa toa e delli porti toi

In this case, the translation in S does not follow the common tradition (the late and northern S generally shows more variation from this supposed common tradition than any other source used here):

S: אי סקריוויראי קווילי סופרה לי סטיפידי די לה קאסה טואה אי ני לי פורטי טואיe scriuterai quele sopra li stipidi de la casa tua e ne le porte tue

But in a 15th-century Provençal translation of the siddur, we find a cognate word:15

E escriuras elz sobre plasteraias de ton ostal e en tas portas.

This word (“plasteraias”) or similar ones are not found in other Provençal sources; here, it seems to come from the same old tradition.

In other medieval Judeo-Italian sources, a very similar word—“balestrati” / “balestratichi”—is used in this sense. This is the case in the translation of the

15) I am deeply indebted to Erica Baricci, who is finishing her Ph.D thesis on Judeo-Provençal (Baricci ms), and who showed me the transliteration of the Shema‘ Israel from this 15th-century translation of the siddur, Leeds, Brotherton Library, Roth 32.


Book of Amos published by Cassuto (1930b) and in the Maqre Dardeqe: מזוזה .(balestratichi = (בליסטראטיקי

In non-Jewish Italian sources this word (“balestrati” / “balestratichi”) is mostly absent. For example, in the Christian translation of Dt. 6:9 and of Dt. 11:20, other words are used:

Vulgata: scribesque ea in limine et ostiis domus tuaeBibbia Volgare: E si’ le scriverai al piede dell’ uscio della casa tua [Dt. 6:9]; E fa che tu le scriva sopra il sogliaio dell’ uscio e delle porte della casa tua [Dt. 11:20].Diodati: scrivile ancora sopra gli stipiti della tua casa, e sopra le tue porte. Brucioli: Tu scriuerai ancora quelle ne gli stipiti de la tua casa, e ne le tue porte.16

Two exceptions can be found in the Bibbia Volgare. In the Book of Ezekiel, the word מזוזה is translated by “balestrade”:

Ez 43:8: i quali hanno fabbricato il suo sogliaro appresso il mio, e le sue balestrade appresso le mie (the Hebrew text: בתתם ספם את-ספי ומזוזתם אצל מזוזתי; Vulgate: postes)Ez 45:19: e nelle balestrade di dentro della porta dell’ atrio di dentro (the Hebrew text: ונתן (Vulgate: postibus ;אל-מזוזת הבית

In this case, we see evidence of an old tradition, which was fully developed in Judeo-Italian but was rare and limited in Judeo-Provençal and very rare in the Christian tradition of Bible translation (and is not documented in other Chris-tian sources).17

Sometimes, a Judeo-Italian word is found in a Christian source, though iso-lated and rare. Such is the case with the word גואל, ‘redeemer,’ traditionally translated by “sconperatore” or by another similar word; see, for example, this translation of the first benediction of the Shemona ‘Esre:

The Hebrew text: ומביא גואל לבני בניהם למען שמו באהבהF: :אי פאי ווינירי לו סקונפירטורי אלי פיליולי די לי פיליולי לורו פיר לו נומי סואו אין אמוריe fai uenire lo sconperatore alle filjoli de li filjoli loro per lo nome suo en amore:Q1: איפא וינירי איסקונפיראטורי אלי פיליולי דלי פיליולי לורו פיר לונומי סואו קון אמורי

16) As in S; but in S with the northern sonorization between the vowels: stipidi. 17) In the Lessico Etimologico Italiano (LEI), in the entry balaustium (‘fiore del melograno’), there are many examples of the lexeme in the meaning colonna, ‘column,’ and similar, e.g., balaustri (little carved columns). LEI cites also palistratichi from Maqre Dardeqe and balestratichi from the Judeo-Italian 16th-century sources in this entry. So we see that in this case the common Ital-ian word (or member of the group of similar words) developed in this sense in Judeo-Italian, and only remnants of this use are found in common Italian (in the Bibbia Volgare, Ez. 43:8; 45:19, see above). In old Italian one of the developments of this term is balestriera, which is used mostly in the sense of ‘chamber’; see the entry balestriera in the TLIO, e.g., in the Bibbia Volgare, Jr. 35:7 where it translates the Latin exedra (הלשכות in the Hebrew text). I am greatly indebted to Prof. Luisa Ferretti-Cuomo, who directed to me these data.


e-fa uenire esconperatore alli filjoli delli filjoli loro per lo-nome suo con amoreQ2: אי פא ווינירי[ איסקונפראטורי אליפילייולי דליפלייולי לורו פיר לונומי סואו קון אמורי[ [e fa uenire] esconparatore alli-filjoli delli-filjoli loro per lo-nome suo con amoreQ3: אי פאו וינירי סקונפירטורי אלי פיליולי דילי פיליולי לורו פיר לו נומי סואו קון אמוריe fao uenire sconperatore alli filjoli delli filjoli loro per lo nome suu con amoreS: אי קונדוצי סקומפיראטור א' לי פילייולי די לי פילייולי לורו פיר איל נומי סואו קון אמוריe conduce scomperator a’ li filjoli de li filjoli loro per il nome suo con amore

The verb “scomparare,” ‘to redeem,’ is very common in Judeo-Italian, and the form סקונפיראו = sconperao also appears in the Maqre Dardeqe as the transla-tion of the root גאל (Cuomo 1985: 111). The verb is documented at the end of the 16th century in the elegy in Judeo-Italian published by Roth (1950: 155). In the Christian sources, this word is found only once, in a Venetian document written in 1371.18 In this case, the tradition is well established in Judeo-Italian and is quite absent from the Christian world (where the use of the word seems independent from any Jewish influence, as opposed to the translation of מזוזה by “balestrade,” discussed above).

For certain words, it seems that the tradition that unifies the Judeo-Italian translations and the Provençal one stems back to the Midrashim and Tar-gum Onkelos, the bases of many Jewish translations. For example, in the first verse of the Shema‘ Israel (Dt. 6:5), the word מאד is translated not as ‘might’ or ‘strength,’ but rather with avere and facolta, terms meaning ‘possession,’ as in Targum Onkelos (ובכל נכסך) and Sifri 32, quoted in Rashi (בכל ממונך):

The Hebrew text: ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך [. . .] ובכל מאדךF: אי אמראי אדומידית דית טואו אין טוטו לו קורי טואו [. . .] אי אין טוטו לו אווירי טואוe amarai a-Domedet Det tuo en tutto lo core tuo [. . .] e en tutto lo auire tuoQ1: אי אמראי אדומדת לודית טואו קון טוטו לוקורי טואו ]. . .[ אי קונטוטו לאבירי טואוe amarai a-Domedet lo-Det tuo con tutto lo-core tuo [. . .] e con-tutto l-avere tuoQ2: אי אמראי דומדיד דיד טואו קון טוטו לוקורי טואו ]. . .[ קון טוטו לאווירי טואוe amarai Domedet Ded tuo con tutto lo-core tuo [. . .] con tutto l-auere tuoQ3: אי אמראי דומדת דית טואו קון טוטו לוקורי טואו ]. . .[ אי קון טוטו לו אוירי טואוe amarai Domedet Det tuu con tutto lo-core tuu [. . .] e con tutto lo auere tuo

18) “Nui, Johann de Bona, rector di Ragusa, iudesi, consilieri et comun dela dita terra, a vui, mis-ser lo consolo deli Viniciani in Salonich, et ser Lucha Pençin dela dita çitade de Vinesia, over a çaschuno altro de qualchuncha stado over condicion si sia che vorra’ scomparar Çugno de Sorgo, nostro çintil homo de Ragusa, da carçere, in la qual sta in Salonich”; “et una terza littera scripta per man delo dito Çugno, chomo lo dito Çugno sera’ liberado et affranchado da carcer, et quello che reschatara’ over scomparara’ lo dito Çugno de carçere”; “sicho’ havera’ pagado per scompa-rar lo dito Çugno”; “per li quali tormenti et per la fame muolti deli detti presonieri sono morti, et muolti se scompare; et tolse lor di rescato circa IVM ducati; et puochi so’ romasi vivi in le lor mane” (Johann de Bona 1896: 129–130).


S: אי אמיראי איל סינייור אידיאו טואו קון טוטו איל קור טואו ]. . .[ אי קון טוטה לה פאקולטה טואהe amerai il Sinjor Idio tuo con tuto il cor tuo [. . .] e con tuta la faculta tua

In the Provençal siddur, the translation is identical to that of F and those of the 15th-century Judeo-Italian manuscripts:

E amaras sant e benezet, ton Dieu, en tot ton cor [. . .] e en tot ton aver.

The Christian translations use words meaning ‘strength’ and ‘might,’ as in these examples:

Vulgata: diliges Dominum Deum tuum [. . .] ex tota fortitudine tuaBibbia Volgare: Ama Iddio tuo Signore [. . .] con tutta la fortezza tuaDiodati: ama dunque il Signore Iddio [. . .] con tutto il maggior potere Brucioli: Tu amarai dunque il Signore Dio [. . .] con tutte le tue forze

In this verse, as in many others, we see that the Jewish tradition differs from the Christian ones. We also see that this Jewish tradition is very labile and that translations are meant to convey the general principles and the general sense of the prayers rather than specific words. Unlike its predecessors, the S manu-script does not translate מאד by “avere” but by “faculta,” ‘faculty,’ which also meant ‘possessions’ in medieval and early modern Italian, like in Latin.

Differences between the 15th-Century and 17th-Century Translations

In the previous section, I offered evidence of a common tradition underly-ing the selected Judeo-Italian translations, connecting them to other Judeo-Romance translations, such as the Provençal one, and distinguishing them from the Christian tradition of translation. As I stated above, this common tradition does not entail identical versions or even a genetic relationship among the ver-sions. Our last example shows one type of differences that exist between S and the other translations. In fact, S differs from the other manuscripts in many ways and at all linguistic levels. While the language of the medieval transla-tions (F and the three 15th-century manuscripts) displays numerous southern phonological features, S displays modern and northern traits (or absence of southern features):

1) the absence of gemination, as discussed above;2) intervocalic sonorization (Rohlfs 1966–69: 201), also discussed above

ייורנו ;stipidi instead of stipiti = סטיפידי) meşo jorno in the Modim = מיזו benediction instead of “mesa di” in other versions);


3) elimination of the final vowel; for example: ראייונאר קווילי [. . .] סידיר טואו = rajjonar queli [. . .] seder tuo, ניל קאמינאר טואו [. . .] ניל ייאציר טואו אי ניל nel caminar tuo [. . .] nel jacer tuo e nel rizar tuo;19 = ריצאר טואו

4) absence of nd > nn assimilation (Rohlfs 1966–69: 253), which is standard in F and in the 15th-century manuscripts; for example: קומאנדו = comando in S vs. קומנו comanno in Q3; פינדאליי = pendalji (translation of ציצית) in S vs. .pennalji in Q3 = פינליי

The differences among the manuscripts are clear at other linguistic levels as well.

One notable morphosyntactic difference, among others, is the use of passato remoto (characteristic of southern dialects; see Rohlfs 1966–69: 672, 673) in F and in the 15th-century manuscripts vs. the use of passato prossimo (character-istic of northern dialects) in S, as in Nm. 15:41 (in Shema‘ Israel):

The Hebrew text: אני ה' אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצריםQ1: איאו דומדת לו דית בושטרו קי טראסי בואי דלטירה די מצריםio Domedet lo Det voštro che trassi voi della-terra de MisraimQ2: איאו דומדיד דיד בושטרו קי טראסי בואי דלטירה דמצריםio Domeded Ded voštro che trasse voe dalla-terra de-MisraimQ3: איאו סו דומדת דית וושטרו קיטראסי וואי דלטירה דמצריםio so Domedet Det uoštro che-trasse uoi dalla-terra de-Misraim20S: איאו איל סינייור אידיאו ווסטרו קוואל או קאוואטו וואי דה לה טירה די מצריםio il Sinjor Idio uostro qual o cauato21 uoi da la tera de Misraim

Another such example of passato remoto in the 15th-century translations vs. passato prossimo in S appears in Selah Lanu, in the Shemona ‘Esre:

The Hebrew text: סלח לנו אבינו כי חטאנו מחול לנו מלכנו כי פשענוF: פירדונה אנואי פטרי נוסטרו קי פקמו אטי מחלה אנואי רי נוסטרו קי ריווילמוperdona a-noi patre nostro che peccammo a-ti a-noi re nostro che reuellammoQ1: פירדונא אנואי פטרי נושטרו קי פיקאמו מחלה אנואי רי נושטרו קי רבילאמוperdona a-noi patre noštro che peccammo maḥla a-noi re noštro che revellammoQ2: פירדונה א"ר אנואי פטרי נושטרו כי פיקמו פירדונא אנואי ריי נושטרו קי רבילאמוperdona a”r a-noi patre noštro ke peccammo perdona a-noe reje noštro che revellammoQ3: אמו פירדונה אנואי פטרי נושטרו קי פיקאמו אי מחלה אנואי רי נושטרו קי ריבילperdona a-noi patre noštro che peccammo e maḥla a-noi re noštro che revellammo

19) The language of S is Toscanized and normalized and the dialectal northern traits are therefore almost absent. The elimination of the final vowel is recorded almost only after /r/, for example. But as all the quoted examples show, this vowel is eliminated when the following word begins with a consonant, an environment in which the final vowel is usually kept.20) The different ways to write the name of God, Domedet Det / Domeded Ded, must be due to the pronounciation of the ת rafa in the Judeo-Italian, which is /d/.21) In this case the lexemes (trarre / cavare) are also different.


S: פירדונה א' נואי פאדרי נוסטרו א' בין קי אבייאמו פיקאטו פירדונה א' נואי רי נוסטרו א' בין קי אבייאמו ריבילאטוperdona a’ noi padre nostro a’ ben che abiamo pecato perdona a’ noi nostro a’ ben che abiamo revelato

In the lexical field, S differs from other translations in several ways. First of all, the southern and archaic lexicon found in F and in the 15th-century manu-scripts is replaced in S by a modern one. See, for instance, Dt. 6:7 in Shema‘ Israel:

The Hebrew text: ובלכתך בדרך ובשכבך ובקומךF: אינילו יירי טואו פיר לה וויאה אי נילו קולקארי טואוe-nello jire tuo per la uia e nello colicare tuoQ1: אינילו יירי טואו פיר לאביאה אי נילו קוליקארי טואוe-nello jire tuo per la-via e nello colicare tuoQ2: נילויירי טואו פיר לויאה נילוקולקאר טואוnello-jire tuo per la-uia nello-colcare tuoQ3: אי נילו יירי טואו פיר לויאה איני לוקולקארי טואוe nello jire tuu per la-uia e-nne lo-colcare tuuS: אי ניל קאמינאר טואו פיר לה וויאה אי ניל ייאציר טואוe nel caminar tuo per la uia e nel jacer tuo

It appears that the older Judeo-Italian versions of this passage differ from Chris-tian translations, while S shows similarity to Diodati’s translation, which was popular among the Jews as well (Cuomo 2000b: 136):

Vulgata: et ambulans in itinere dormiens [atque consurgens]Bibbia Volgare: e andando si’ le penserai; e rauna nella mente tua, e dormendoDiodati: e quando tu camminerai per via, e quando tu giacerai Brucioli: e quando tu andarai per la via, e quando sarai nel letto

The “classical” Judeo-Italian tradition of translation for this verse seems to be quite old; the Judeo-Provençal siddur also shows (partial) lexical similarity to the older Judeo-Italian versions:

e en ton anar per camin, e en ton colcar

Archaic Italian “ire” (‘to walk, to go’) and “colicare” (‘to lay down’) of the 15th-century translations are replaced by modern Italian “caminar” (‘to walk, to go’) and “jacer” (“giacere” = ‘to lay down, to lie’) in S, maybe under the influence of Diodati. We see this only in the lexicon; the syntactic structure of the transla-tion, calqued on the Hebrew original, is preserved in S and confirms the exis-tence of a Jewish translation tradition, even in a document that includes more modern language than the older versions.


Note that the form recorded in F and Q1 is not “colcare” (from “collocare”), but “colicare,” which seems to be a hybrid form of “colcare” and “coricare.” This form (“colicare”) exists in non-Jewish medieval Italian but is very rare: only 7 occurrences according to TLIO, six of them in the Trecentonovelle by Sacchetti (1946: 39, 183, 226, 532, 583),22 while “coricare” is documented in TLIO 190 times and “colcare” 100, including in Bibbia Volgare: “e tale si colca la sera sano e salvo, che è trovato morto la mattina in sul letto” (Pr. 27:1). Again we see that the Judeo-Italian form (“colicare”) is found in non-Jewish Italian dialects too, but is very rare there. The similarity between the “classical” Judeo-Italian and Provençal traditions must be mentioned here as well.

Another significant example of this phenomenon is the use of the Judeo-Italian verb “nescere,” ‘to teach’;23 in the 15th-century sources, it is used to translate the Hebrew ולמדתם in Dt. 11:19:

Hebrew text: ולמדתם אתם את בניכם לדבר בם בשבתךF: אי נישריטי איסי אלי פיליולי ווסטרי אפווילארי איניסיe nescereti essi alli filjoli uostri a-fauellare en-essiQ1: אי נשיריטי איסי אלי פיליולי בושטרי אפוילארי אניסיe nescereti essi alli filjoli voštri a-fauellare en-essiQ2: יריטי איסי אליפילייולי בושטרי אפבילארי איניסי אנישe-nescerete esse alli-filjoli voštri a-favellare en-esseQ3: יריטי איסי אלי פיליולי וושטרי אפוילארי איניסי יש אינe-nnescereti essi alli filjoli uoštri a-fauellare enn-essiS: איט אינסינייאריטי קווילי אלי פילייולי ווסטרי א' פארלאר אין קוויליet insenjerete queli ali filjoli uostri a’ parlar in queli

Here again the word choice in S is similar to that of the Christian translations (not just to Diodati’s):

Vulgata: docete filios vestrosBibbia Volgare: Insegnate e ammaestrate i vostri figliuoliDiodati: e insegnatele a’ vostri figliuoli Brucioli: Et insegnatele a’ i vostri figliuoli

In this case, though, the Judeo-Provençal translation is similar to S, not to the 15th-century texts:

E ensenharas elz a vostres enfanz a parlar en elz.

22) For example: “colui che s’ era colicato”; “s’ avvide ogni cosa esser ita su per lo letto, e colican-dosi, appena trovo’ un poco d’ asciutto”; “colicandosi un frate minore con una sua donna”; “elli si colico’ da piedi” (Sacchetti 1946). 23) About this verb, see Cuomo 1976: 49.


The verb “nescere,” “a/ennescere,” is one of the most characteristic Judeo-Italian lexical peculiarities. It is the verb most commonly used to render the important meaning ‘to teach’ (in Maqre Dardeqe, the root למד is translated by This verb .(ולמדתם אותם :ennesce, and our verse is cited as an example = אנישיis found also in non-Jewish Italian, but only in the 14th-century “Storie de Troia e de Roma,”24 written in Rome in the local dialect, i.e., the dialect that is prob-ably closest to “classical” Judeo-Italian.

From what we have seen, the deviations of S from the older tradition seem to be influenced by non-Jewish translations of the Bible in Italian and by the Vulgate, the official Latin Christian translation of the Bible, which was espe-cially important in Catholic Italy. The first verse of Shema‘ Israel (Dt. 6:4) pro-vides a good example:

Hebrew text: שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחדF: :אין טיני ישראל דומידית דית נוסטרו דומידית אונוen tenni Isra’el Domedet Det nostro Domedet uno:Q1: אנטיני ישראל דומדת דית נושטרו דית אונוentenne Isra’el Domedet Det noštro Det uno25Q3: י ישראל דומדת דית נושטרו דומדת אונו אינטינintenni Isra’el Domedet Det noštro Domedet uno S: אבדי ישראל איל סיניייור אידיאו נוסטרו אי סינייור אוניקוavdi Isra’el il Sinjor Idio nostro e Sinjor unico

The 15th-century translation of the verb שמע by “entenne” is usual and com-mon in “classical” Judeo-Italian (Cuomo 1985, 1988). The term “audi” is the choice of the Vulgate:

Vulgata: audi Israhel Dominus Deus noster Dominus unum est.

The two Protestant translators of the 16th century opt for “ascolta,” the most common verb to render the concept of שמע in Italian:

Diodati: ascolta, Israele Il Signore Iddio nostro e’ l’unico Signore.Brucioli: Ascolta Israel, Il Signore Dio nostro e’ solo Signore.

The “avdi” in S seems to be influenced by the Vulgate. Diodati’s translation may also be important in this case: “unico” in S (as opposed to “uno” in the 15th-century translations) is found only in Diodati. In this case, the translation of the Bibbia Volgare follows the Vulgate and adds a gloss:

24) Monaci 1920: 210, 289, 301. For example: “Et a li cavaleri novilemente nescea cavallaria, allora li romani usavano uno proverbio e diceano: ‘Lo cavaleri nesce la cavalleria’ ” (210).25) In Q2 the verse is not translated, and only the Hebrew text is present: 'שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה .This is also the case in the Judeo-Provençal siddur .אחד


Bibbia Volgare: Odi, Israel, e ascolta: Iddio, nostro Signore, e’ Iddio uno.

That is, the Bibbia Volgare takes the translation of the Vulgate and adds the common Italian word. A similar gloss in S is analyzed below.

The influence of the Vulgate is even more obvious in the case of the transla-tion of the word בהמתך in Dt. 11:15 (in Shema‘ Israel). In the 15th-century trans-lations, בהמה is translated by “bestia”:

The Hebrew text: ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעתF: אי דראיו אירווה נילו קנפו טואו פיר לביסטיאה טואה אי מניקראי אי סטולראיe darajo erua nello canpo tuo per la-bestia toa e manecarai e satollerai:Q1: דאריו אירבה נילו קנפו טואו פירלה בישטיאה טואה אי מניקראי אי סטולראטיdarajo erba nello canpo tuo per-la beštia tua e manecarai e satollara-teQ2: טיאה טואה אימניקראי איסטולראייטי אדרייו אירבה נילו קנפו טואו פיר לבישe-darajjo erba nello canpo tuo per la-beštia toa e-manecarai e-satollarai-teQ3: טיאה טואה אי מניקראי אי סטולראי אי דראיו אירבה נילוקנפו טואו פיר לבישe darajo erba nello-canpo tuu per la-beštia toa e manecarai e satollarai.

The Jewish Provençal translation of the siddur reads:

e darai erba en ton canp a ta bestia, e mannara e sadolaras.

In S, the translation of בהמה is different:

S: אי איאו דארו ל"אירבה ניל קאמפו טואו פיר לה ייומינטי טואה אי מאנייראי אי טי סאציאראיe io daro l’erba nel campo tuo per la jumente tua e manjerai e ti saziarai.

This “jumente” is a literary Latinism, and in the Christian translations of this verse, “jumente” is found only in the Vulgate:

Vulgata: faenum ex agris ad pascenda jumentaBibbia Volgare: e lo fieno de’ campi per pascere i vostri animaliDiodati: faro’ ancor nascere dell’erba ne’ vostri campi per lo vostro bestiameBrucioli: Et io daro’ l’herba nel tuo campo per le tue bestie

In this passage, the translations of Diodati and especially of Brucioli are similar to the older Judeo-Italian and Judeo-Provençal variants, while Bibbia Volgare differs. The influence of the Vulgate in S appears also in its using the plural form of the word—“jumente” (sing. “giumenta”)—similar to “jumenta” in the Vulgate (sing. “jumentum”). At the same time, in S, the article (“la”) and the personal pronoun (“tua”) remain in the singular, as in the Hebrew original -and in other Judeo-Italian translations. Here, S evidences the com (בהמתך)bined influence of an older Jewish tradition of translation with the Vulgate’s translation.


Sometimes the influence of the Vulgate is highlighted by the fact that its translation choice is adopted and incorporated into the sentence next to a first translation. This is the case for the translation of the word תכלת (Nm. 15:38, part of the Shema‘ Israel):

The Hebrew text: ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלתF: אי דרנו סופרי לי פינאליי לה לנצולה אונו פילו די וויניטו e daranno sopre le pennalji la lanzola uno filo de uenetoQ1: אי דראנו סופרי לפינלייה דלאנצולה פילו דויניטוe daranno sopre la-penalja de-lanzola filo de-uenitoQ2: אידרנו סופר לפינליי דללנצולא פילו דוויניטוe-daranno sopre le-pennalje della-lanzola filo de-uenetoQ3: אי דראנו סופרי ליפינליי דיללנצולה פילו דיויניטוe daranno sopre li-pennalji della-lanzola filo de-ueneto26S: אי פוניראנו סופרה לי פינדאליי דיל קאנטוני און פילו ציליסטו צייואי די ייאצינטוe ponerano sopra li pendalji del cantone un filo celesto cioe de jacinto

The term “veneto,” which translates תכלת in the 15th-century Judeo-Italian texts, comes from the Late Latin venetus ‘azure, light blue’; it is found nowadays only in the southernmost dialects.27 In medieval non-Jewish Italian, the word is very rare; it has been recorded only twice: in Bono Giamboni (1815: 179; the text was written in the second half of the thirteeth century): “di colore Veneto, il quale è all’ acqua del mare assomigliante” and in the 14th-century Libro pietre preziose (author unknown): “De’ Jacinti. Tre sono le generazioni de’ jacinti: [. . .] li veneti ci anno colore di cera e sente l’ aiere; imperciò che quando l’ aiere è nuviloso et elli è obscuro, e quando è sereno sì è risplendente e chiaro.”28 In this latter case, “veneto” represents one of the types of “jacinto” (‘blue’).

The term “jacinto” in S is cognate to the word used in the Vulgate (and by Brucioli, who follows the Vulgate in this case):

Vulgata: ponentes in eis vittas hyacinthinasBibbia Volgare: e ponetevi per quattro canti delle vestimente legami azzurriDiodati: un cordono di violatoBrucioli: vna benda di hiacinto

In S, the influence of the Vulgate can be seen in the use of the word jacinto, added as a gloss to celesto, as well as in the way this part of the sentence is constructed.

26) In this case, the Judeo-Provençal translation is very different: “e metan sobre tzitzit del angle filo blau.”27) In Calabria “venatu,” “venetru”; in Puglia “venetu” (Rohlfs 1977: 760f; 1976: 805).28) Enrico Narducci, Intorno a tre inediti volgarizzamenti del buon secolo della lingua, Pr, vol. II, parte I, 1869, 121–46, 307–26 [text 309–26], 317.


Differences among the Earlier Translations (Q1, Q2, Q3, and F)

The later S manuscript clearly differs from the 15th-century translations. Despite clear indications of the existence of a common tradition of transla-tion, Q1, Q2, Q3, and F are sufficiently different from each other that a synoptic edition of these four sources rather than a critical edition is called for. Three aspects must be considered: the types of differences (the fact that the distinc-tions among the translations concern various levels of language), the distinc-tion between the biblical texts and the prayers in this respect, and the possible reasons for this wide diversity.

The distinctions among the four translations are found at all levels of lan-guage. Let us analyze a passage in the דוד -benediction from the Shem צמח ona ‘Esre. To present a fuller picture of the Judeo-Italian translations, S is also cited here, but only the differences among the 15th-century translations will be addressed:

The Hebrew text: את צמח דוד עבדך במהרה תצמיח וקרנו תרום בישועתך כי לישועתך קוינו כל היום. ברוך אתה ה' מצמיח קרן ישועהF: לו פיורי די דוד סירוו טואו אין איינו פה פיורירי אי לפורטיצה סואה אינאלצה נילה סלוויציאוני טואה קי אלה סאלוויציאוני טואה נואי ספירימו טוטה לדי בינידיטו סיאי טו דומדית קי פאי פיורירילפורטיצי די לה ישועה:lo fiore de Dauid seruo tuo en ajino fa fiorire e la-fortezza soa ennalza nella saluazione toa che alla saluazione toa noi speremo tutta la-di. benedetto sii tu Domedet che fai fiorire la-fortezze de la ješu‘a:Q1: סלבציאוני נילה אינלצה סואו קורנו אילו פלורירי פא אינאינה טואו סירבו דדוד לופלורי טואה קי אלאסלבציאוני טואה איספיראמו טוטה לאדי. בנידיטו טו דומדת קיפא פלורירי קורנודסלבציאוניlo-flore de-Dauid servo tuo inaina fa florire e-lo corno suo ennalza nella salvazione toa che alla-salvazione toa e-sperammo tutta la-di. benedetto tu Domedet che-fa florire corno de-salvazioneQ2: לופייורישימינטו דדוד סרבו טואו אין ניינא פה פלורירי אילו קורנו סואו נלצא נלסלואצייוני טואה קי אלסלואצייוני טואה ספיראמו טוטה לדיי. בנידיטו סיאי טו דומדיד קי פא פייורירי קורנודסלוואצייוניlo-fioriscimento de-Dauid servo tuo en najina fa florire e-lo corno soo nalza nella-saluazione tua che alla-saluazione toa sperammo tutta la-dije. benedetto sie tu Domeded che fa fiorire corno de-saluazioneQ3: לו פלורי די דוד סירבו טואו אינאיינו פה פלורירי אילסיניוריאה סואה סינלצה נילה סלבציאוני סיניוריאה פלורירי קיפה דומדת טו בנידיטו לדי. טוטה ספירמו טואה אלסלבציאוני קי טואה דיסלבציאוניlo flore de Dauid servo tuu inajino fa florire e-la-sinjoria soa s-ennalza nella salvazione toa che alla-salvazione toa sperammo tutta la-di. benedetto tu Domedet che-fa florire sinjoria de-salvazioneS: איל פייורימינטו די דוד סירוו טואו טוסטו פאראי פייורירי אי לה סינייוריאה סואה איסאלטאראי סינייור סיאי טו ייורנו. לודאטו ספירימו אוניי אלה סאלוטי טואה קי ני לה סאלוטי טואה פואי קוואל פה פייוריר סינייוריאה די סאלוטי


il fjurimento di Dauid seruo tuo tosto farai fjorire e la sinjuria sua esaltarai ne la salute tua poi che ala salute tua speremo onji jorno. lodato sii tu Sinjor qual fa fiorir sinjuria di salute.

The overall similarity among the various 15th-century translations is obvious, but a more detailed analysis of their language reveals several differences. The analysis here focuses on translations of two prayers, Shema‘ Israel and Shem-ona ‘Esre.

Differences in Orthography: The Hebrew Letters

For /v/, F and Q2 prefer ו while Q1 and Q3 usually use ב. F is more consistent than Q2 (ו is used both in “saluazione” and in “seruo,” while in Q2, it is used in “saluazione” but not in “servo”). :is used only in Q2 (ה instead of the usual) /for word-final /a א

.פא in addition to פה but Q2 includes ,פא, נלצא ,ניינא

Differences in Orthography: The Hebrew Diacritics

The shwa for /e/ is found in all 15th-century translations, but it is much more prevalent in Q2 (17 shwa [e] and 2 tsere [e] in the benediction cited here), is present in F (8e:15e) and in Q1 (3e:17e), and is almost absent from Q3 (com-pletely absent in the text cited here: 0e:20e).

The sign of rafeh is used in Q3 (6 times in the cited text) and in F (6 times), more often than in other versions (in Q1 and Q2 it does not appear in the selected passages).

Differences in Italian Orthography or Phonology

The Latin consonant cluster /fl/29 is preserved in all occurrences in Q1 (“flore, florire, florire”) and Q3 (“flore, florire, florire”); it is preserved partially in Q2 (“florire, fioriscimento, fiorire”) and is absent from F (“fiore, fiorire, fiorire”). This distribution is observed also in the case of other Latin clusters; in the pas-sages chosen for this article, /pl/ and /pj/ are distributed as follows:

Q1: 12 pl [“plojja” (4×), “adenplita,” “placemento” (3×), “pleno,” “tenplo,” “placenuto,” “con-pliro”] / 0 pj

29) About the development of this cluster in Italian see Rohlfs 1966–69: 183, 249.


Q3: 10 pl [“ploja” (4×), “adenplita” (2×), “placemento” (3×), “pleno”] / 0 pjQ2: 3 pl [“adinplita” (2×), “pleno”] / 5 pj [“pjojja” (3×), “pjacemento,” “enpjacemento”]F: 0 pl / 10 pj [“pjojja” (3×), “adenpjita” (2×), “pjacemento” (4×), “pjeno”]

The variations in the number of similar forms in these passages can be explained based on word choice: Q1 has “refu’a šelema” where Q3 has “medicina adenpl-ita” in the benedection רפא נא. Q3 has “auitacolo” where Q1 has “tenplo” in the benediction רצה. Q3 has “se-finaro li pjatadi” where Q1 has “conpliro li pjatadi.” Q1 has “placenuto” for one occurence of “placemento” in רצה. This great degree of variability is another argument in favor of a synoptic rather than critical edition.

Differences in Morphology

Only in Q3 do we find the 2sg. possessive pronoun “tuu” (instead of the stan-dard “tuo”), typical of the Marchigian dialect (Rohlfs 1966–69: 427). According to Rohlfs, this form is found in Ancona, a city rich in Jewish traditions. But the language in Q3 is not purely “Anconian”: “tuu” and “suu” are systematically used instead of “tuo” and “suo” (ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד is translated “Bene-detto lo-nome dell-onore dello-nperio suu a-secolo e a-senpre”). It nonetheless uses the standard “mio” for 1sg. (והגיון לבי is translated “e-llo fauello de lo-core mio,” for instance), while the Anconian dialect has “miu” (Rohlfs, ibid.).

The cited Q2 passage reads “lo-fioriscimento de-Dauid” for דוד an ,צמח expression translated in other versions as “fiore” / “flore.” In S, צמח דוד is trans-lated as “fjurimento” without the suffix -isc-. The forms with the suffix -isc- are characteristic of southern Italian dialects (Rohlfs 1966–69: 524). For the Shema‘ Israel and Shemona ‘Esre, Q2 also includes another two words formed with -isc-: “guariscitore rappjatoso” for רופא רחמן in the benediction רופא חולי עמו ישראל (the word “medico” is used in Q1, Q3, and S; about F, see later); “alla-liber[t]isce-mento noštro” for לחרותנו in the benediction תקע בשופר גדול (“libertade” in F, Q1, and Q3). In F, there are two similar forms in our passages: “guariscetore” for רופא רחמן (as in Q2) and “entaljetiscemento” for בינה (twice) in the bene-diction אתה חונן לאדם בינה. In Q3, “intaljetiscemento” for בינה appears only once, as in F (Q2 translates בינה by “entelletto”). In Q1, such forms are absent. All of the specific forms mentioned above (“fioriscimento,” “guariscitore,” “libertiscemento,” “entaljetiscemento”) appear in the translations of the siddur but are not found in other Italian sources.30 Once again we see the uneven

30) For similar and closely related forms in the southern dialects, especially in the Calabrian dia-lect, such as “guariscire,” see Rohlfs 1966–69: 524. A term very close to “guariscitore” exists in one


presence of a southern dialectal trait (suffix -isc-, in this case) in different trans-lations: 3x in Q2, 2x in F, 1x in Q3, 0 in Q1.

There are many other grammatical traits that differ among the translations, e.g., the old Roman dialectal forms fao ‘does’ and veo ‘comes’ compared to fa and viene in other dialects (Ernst 1970: 144; Cuomo 1988: 57–58). The form fao is the only one used in F for 3sg. of the verb fare ‘to do,’ as in the following examples: “fao fiatare lo uento e fao scennjere la-pjojja” (Heb. משיב הרוח ומוריד מצמיח לנו ישועה בקרוב .fao fiorire a-noi saluezione en appresso” (Heb“ ,(הגשםin the benediction המתים ,This form is present in Q3; for example .(מחייה “e fao uenire sconperatore” (Heb. ומביא גואל in the benediction מגן אברהם), but it is otherwise very rare in Q3 (it appears only once in the selected passages; in other occurrences, fa is used). In Q1 and Q2, this form is absent.

Differences in Syntax

In the quoted benedictions, there is one salient example of the different syn-tactic traits of the various translations: the translation of the concluding for-mula of the benediction ברוך אתה ה' מצמיח קרן ישועה. There are two issues in the translation of this formula into Italian (Ryzhik 2009): (1) How should the nominal phrase ברוך אתה be translated, with or without the verbal copula? (2) In which person should the verb that translates the Hebrew participle מצמיח be (second—because it is subordinated to אתה—or third)? It appears that all of these possibilities are realized in the different translations. The copula is present in F (“benedetto sii tu”) and Q2 (“benedetto sie tu”) and is absent in Q1 and Q3 (“benedetto tu”). The verb that translates מצמיח is in the second person in F (“che fai fiorire”) and appears in the third person in Q1, Q2, and Q3 (“fa”). In all benedictions, the verb in this position is in the second person in F, while it is always conjugated in the third person in Q1; in Q2, the ratio in the benedictions of the Shemona ‘Esre is 2 in 2sg. vs. 2 in 3sg, and in Q3 this ratio is 2:6.

Differences in Lexicon

Although the selected texts can all be traced to a common old tradition, they differ in their lexicon. In the aforementioned benediction, for instance, the Hebrew קרן is translated by “fortezza,” ‘force’ in F, by “corno” ‘horn’ in Q1 and Q2, and by “sinjoria” ‘lordship’ in Q3 (and in the late S as well). The various

non-Jewish Italian source: “E quali Melibeo abondantemente riguidordenò, e pregolli che ellino procurassero studiosamente del guariscimento de la sua figliuola” (da Grosseto 1873: 167).


translations also use the Hebrew component in different ways: F has “ješu‘a” where Q1, Q2, and Q3 have “salvazione” (and S has “salute”). This distribution of the Hebrew component is typical of each text; for example, in the benediction is rendered by “refu’a” in F and by “medicina” in רפואה the Hebrew word ,רפאנוQ1, Q2, and Q3 (“sanita” in S). However, in the same benediction, the distribu-tion of other Hebrew words is different: for מכותנו, Q1 reads “makkot nostril” where F, Q2, and Q3 have “feruti nostril”31 (and S has “percosi”).

The great degree of variability in the translations of the siddur is obvious. Two aspects of this variability are of particular note:

(1) Each translation features interesting traits that are often absent in other translations: for example, “tuu” in Q3, “fao” and “veo” in F; the preservation of the clusters /pl/and /fl/ in Q1 and in Q3; and the widespread use of the suffix -isc- in Q2.

(2) The relationships among the manuscripts and the printed edition we have in hand are not simple. Table 1 presents the differences visually (the 2nd and 3rd traits in the table were analyzed only in the benediction מצמיח קרן all others were analyzed in the Shema‘ Israel and in the Shemona ;ישועה‘Esre).

We see that F and Q1 differ the most; they are diametrically opposed with regards to traits 1, 3, 4, 5, 7b, 7d, 8, 9, and 10. Q2 is much closer to F than to Q1, but it shows gradual differences in some cases, such as in traits 1, 4, 5, 10. This grad-uality of the differences is evident in traits 2 and 7: F is most similar to Q2, and Q1 is most similar to Q3, but they are not identical. Analysis of trait 7 also shows that a general trait common to F and Q2 can have very different expressions in each of the versions: the suffix -isc- is widespread in both but is found in different words. Finally, there are traits, like trait 3, whose distribution in the versions differs from the distribution of other traits: in this case, F is similar to Q3, while Q2 resembles Q1.

If the distribution of grammatical traits shows a wide variety, the distribution in the lexical field is even more diverse. Aside from the preservation in all ver-sions of a few words, such as “scomperatore” for גואל or “nescere” for למד, there seems to be a great degree of freedom in the translation choices (קרן translated by “fortezza” in F, “corno” in Q1 and Q2, “sinjoria” in Q3) or in the choice of the Hebrew words transcribed rather than translated (“refu’a” / “medicina” or

31) In Q3: “feriti.”


“ješu‘a” / “salvazione,” or “makkot” / “ferite,” see above). The latter case seems of particular significance, because the Hebrew component is almost absolutely absent from the Judeo-Italian translations of the Bible. Its presence in different places in the translations of the siddur may be due to the fact that the transla-tors followed the same general tradition that included Hebrew loanwords but were flexible in their use.

There are a few explanations for the differences among the four earlier trans-lations: (1) local dialectal traits, such as “tuu” and “suu” in Q3; (2) the tendency to use the Hebrew diacritics (a sort of “Jewish normativity,” i.e., the vocaliza-tion signs should be used similarly to their use in the vocalized Hebrew text), like the use of rafeh in F and Q3 and the regular use of dagesh forte in Q3, a trait that was not displayed in the table but that is very salient; (3) the tendency to follow Toscan and Italian orthographic norms in the printed edition, such as the use of the clusters pj- and fj- in F.32

32) This latter fact is important from the point of view of the general tendency followed by Judeo-Italian to parallel the non-Jewish Italian language in evolving towards normativity (which was

Table 1. Differences among the Early Translations

F Q2 Q1 Q3

for v ב / ו .1 ו ו, ב ב ב 2. shwa:e (e:e) 8:15 17:2 3:17 0:20 3. use of rafeh 6 0 0 6 4. fl:fj 0:5 1:3 5:0 5:0 5. pl:pj 0:10 3:5 12:0 10:0 6. 2sg. and 3sg. pronoun tuo, suo tuo, suo tuo, suo tuu, suu7a. -isc-

fioriscimento– + – –

7b. -isc- guariscitore

+ + – –

7c. -isc- libertiscemento

– + – –

7d. -isc- entaljetiscemento

+ – – +

8. fao:fa 5:0 0:5 0:5 1:4 9. copula in “benedetto sii tu” + + – –10. verb in “tu che . . .”: 2nd:3rd

person8:0 2:2 0:7 2:6


The translations are thus similar in many ways and different in many ways. Each one is characterized by the unique combination of grammatical and lexi-cal traits, similar to individual dialects, or individual forms of “written Italian,” and especially of “printed Italian.” Only a synoptic edition would enable us to identify the linguistic choices in each translation and investigate the reasons behind them.

To sum up, an old tradition lies at the basis of all Judeo-Italian translations, but this tradition finds different expressions in the various versions. The works analyzed here are not mere copies of preceding manuscripts, but result from different translations according to “general guidelines” suggested by the tradi-tion. In fact, there are clear indications of translations made ad hoc from the Hebrew original,33 and not copied from earlier Judeo-Italian manuscripts.

Signs of Translation Made Ad Hoc

Here are three passages from Q2, in which it seems that the scribe had the Hebrew original in hand.

(1) From the קדושה in the Shemona ‘Esre:

The Hebrew text: ושבחך מפינו לא ימוש לעולם ועדQ2: אי ללאודא טואה דיד נושטרו דלבוקא נושטרא )לא( נון סיציסירה אסיקולו אסנפריe la-laoda toa Ded noštro dalla-bocca noštra (lo) non se-cessera a-secolo a-senpre

The Hebrew word לא was written, crossed out, and the Italian translation (“non”) was written in its place.

(2) From the benediction חונן הדעת in the Shemona ‘Esre:

The Hebrew text: אתה חונן לאדם דעת ומלמד לאנוש בינהQ2: טו קורדוליי אלומו ספרי אינישי אלומו )ב( אינטיליטוtu cordolje all-omo sapere e-nesce all-omo (b) entelletto

The first letter of the Hebrew word בינה was written, crossed out, and the Ital-ian translation “entelletto” was written in its place.

the result of the processes united under the name questione della lingua, i.e., discussions about the nature of the Italian literary language), in connection with the development of printing (see Ryzhik 2008b).33) A similar technique existed in the case of the interlinear translation made for teaching pur-poses (described by Cuomo 2000).


(3) From the benediction בונה ירושלים in the Shemona ‘Esre:

The Hebrew text: ולירושלם עירך ברחמים תשובQ2: אסופרי ירושלם ציטאדי טואה קון פייאטדי תורנאe-sopre Jerušalajim cittade toa con pjatade torna

The scribe wrote “torna” with a taw, which is not used in Italian words in other manuscripts and very rarely appears in Q2. This is likely due to the same letter beginning the Hebrew word תשוב, and the scribe did not correct it because the Italian translation, “torna,” begins with the same consonant, /t/. He there-fore simply continued writing the word, keeping the unusual letter in its beginning.

These cases are more common in Q2, because its translator seems to have been generally more negligent; for example, Q2 has the highest percentage of shwa for /e/ (and /i/); see Table 1. But the great diversity in linguistic traits documented above demonstrates the autonomy of these manuscripts.

Relative Uniformity of the Translations of the Biblical Passages

Finally, the difference between the translations of the prayers proper (the Shemona ‘Esre, in our case), and of the biblical passages included in the rit-ual (here, the Shema‘ Israel) must be addressed. The lexical and grammatical uniformity among the selected texts is much greater in the translations of the Shema‘ Israel, as we see in the examples cited above and in Dt. 6:8:

The Hebrew text: וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטטפת בין עיניךF: ילין אין פרה לי אוקיי טואי אי ליגי איסי אסינו סופרי לי מאני טואי אי סיאינו אתפe leghi essi a-senno sopre li mani toi e sieno a-tefillin en fra li occhji toiQ1: אי ליגאראי איסי אסינו סופרי למאנו טואה אסיראנו אתפלין אינפרה ]לו[קלי טואיe legarai essi a-senno sopre la-mano toa e-seranno a-tefillin enfra [l-o]cli toiQ2: ]אי לגאראי איסי אסינו סופרי למאנו טואה אי סיראנו אתפילין אין פרא לאוקילי טואי[[e legarae essi a-senno sopre la-mano toa e seranno a-tefillin en fara l-occheli toi]Q3: ין אינפרה לוקלי טואי ל אי ליגאראי איסי אסינו סופרי למאנו טואה איסיראנו אתפe legarai essi a-senno sopre la-mano toa e-seranno a-tefillin infra l-ocli toiS: אי ליגאראי קווילי פיר סינייו סופרה לה מאנו טואה אי סאראנו פיר פרונטאלי אינפרה לי אוקיי טואיe legarai queli per senjo sopra la mano tua e sarano per frontali enfra li ochji toi.34

34) The Judeo-Provençal text is similar to that of the 15th-century manuscripts (closer to F), with a slight but interesting difference: אות על ידך is translated in the plural: “E liaras els a senhas sobre tas mans a tefillin enfre tos ulhz.”


Q1, Q2, and Q3 are practically identical. F is slightly different: “leghi” and “sieno” are in the present tense, while Q1, Q2, and Q3 use the future “legarai” and “seranno.” It seems that the (ancient?) translation of the biblical passages is much more conservative than that of the prayers, but it is so only for the lexicon and the grammar.35 Indeed, the orthographic peculiarities of the dif-ferent versions are the same in the translations of the biblical passages and of the prayers: shwa for /e/ and /i/ in Q2, rafeh above the פ (peh) in F and in Q3. The phonological peculiarities are also the same, such as /i/ or /e/ in unstressed syllables, e.g., “infra” in Q3 vs. “enfra” in other translations.

Finally, it must be said that this conservatism in the translation of the bibli-cal passages is not absolute, of course, and that important differences are also found in their translation, as this passage of the Shema‘ Israel (Dt. 6:9) shows:

The Hebrew text: ושננתם לבניך ודברת בם בשבתך בביתךF: :אי מאלטראי איסי אלי פיליולי טואי אי פווילראי איניסי ני לו סידירי טואו ני לקאסה טואהe maltarai essi alli filjoli toi e fauellarai en-essi ne lo sedere tuo ne la-casa toa:Q1: אמילטראי איסי אלי פיליולי טואי אי פוילראי איניסי נילוסידירי טואו נילקאסה טואהe-meltarai essi alli filjoli toi e fauellarai en-essi nello-sedere tuo nella-casa toaQ2: איריקאפיטראי איסי אלפיליולי טואי איפבילאראי איניסי נלוסידירי טואו נילקסה טואהe-recapetarai esse alle-filjoli toe e-favellarai en-esse nello-sedere tuo nella-casa toaQ3: אי מילטראי איסי אליפיליולי טואי אי פוילראי איניסי נילו סידירי טואו נילקסה טואהe meltarai essi alli-filjoli toi e fauellarai enn-essi nello sedere tuo36 nella-casa toaS: לי ני סידיר טואו ניל קווילי אין פארלאראי אי פילייולי טואי אלי קווילי ראייונאר פאראי אי קאסי טואיe farai rajonar queli ali filjoli toi e parlarai in queli nel seder tuo ne le case toe

The 15th-century translations are almost all identical, as in other passages of the Shema‘ Israel, with one important exception in the lexical field. In F, Q1, and Q3, ושננתם is translated by the Judeo-Romance verb “malterai.”37 This verb in its Provençal form also appears in the Judeo-Provençal siddur: “E maudaras elas a tos enfanz e parlaras en elz, en ton sezer a ta maizon.” For the same passage, Q2 reads “recapetarai.” This seems to be one of the multiple signs of the shift from the “classical” Judeo-Italian to the Toscanized and standardized

35) In future work I hope to investigate this “common biblical translation” by analyzing Judeo-Italian Bible translations.36) Here, the 2sg. possessive pronoun is “tuo” rather than the Marchigian “tuu,” which is usual in this manuscript. In other occurrences of this pronoun also in the translation of Shema‘ Israel, it is written “tuu”; but this exception may be due to the fact that the translation of the Shema‘ Israel is ancient and has retained more “general” traits.37) About this verb, its origin, and use in the different Jewish-Romance languages, see Blondheim 1925: 75–79.


Judeo-Italian of the late 16th and 17th centuries, before the disappearance of this language, replaced by standard literary Italian.

Conclusion

This article has analyzed five Judeo-Italian translations of the siddur: three manuscripts dating back to the 15th century, the printed 1506 Fano edition, and the late manuscript from the 17th century. As can be seen from the lexical and grammatical similarities, a common tradition underlies all of these trans-lations, and this tradition is similar to the Judeo-Provençal one; therefore there must be some common ancient Judeo-Romance tradition of translation. Based on the many differences, we see that this tradition expresses itself distinctly in each manuscript. Especially different are, expectedly, the 15th-century verions on one side and the 17th-century manuscript on the other: the 17th-century translation is more Toscanized (displays northern features) and standardized than the four other translations and has lost many traits typical of “classical” Judeo-Italian. The 15th-century translations also differ from one another in their spelling, phonology, morphology, vocabulary, and syntax. It seems that the common old tradition prescribed only the general lines of translation, but not all of the details. The biblical passages, such as Shema‘ Israel, are trans-lated in a much more unified way, maybe because the tradition of their trans-lation was more archaic, or more detailed, or simply more “sacred”; in each verion, though, these passages display the version’s idiolectic features. It thus seems that a synoptic edition rather than a critical one must be made, in order to describe and analyze the different variations of Judeo- Italian, defined by dialectal peculiarities and personal preferences of the translators. Only an in-depth comparative analysis may expose the Judeo-Italian language in all its variants, with all its lexical and grammatical peculiarities, so important in the study of the language of the Jews in Italy.

Bibliography

Baricci, Erica. Manuscript. “Studio filologico e linguistico del corpus di testi giudeo-provenzali, con un’edizione critica del frammento Roma Casanatense 3140.” Ph.D. thesis in progress, Uni-versity of Siena.

Berenblut, Max. 1949. A Comparative Study of Judaeo-Italian Translations of Isaiah. New York: Bloch.

Berger, Samuel. 1894. “La Bible italienne au Moyen Age.” Romania 23: 358–431.Bibbia Volgare—La Bibbia Volgare. 1882–1887. Eds., Niccolo Malermi & Carlo Negroni. Bologna:

Presso Gaetano Romagnoli.


Blondheim, D.S. 1925. Les parlers judeo-romans et la Vetus Latina. Paris: H. Champion.Bruccioli = Bruccioli, Antonio. 1562. The Bible (La Bibbia). Geneva: F. Durone.Cassuto, Umberto. 1930a. “Les traductions judeo-italiennes du rituel.” Revue des études juives 89:

260–281.——. 1930b. “Il Libro di Amos in traduzione giudeo-italiana.” In Miscellania di studi ebraici in

memoria di H.P. Chajes. Firenze: Israele, 19–38.——. 1930c. “La tradizione giudeo-italiana per la traduzione della Bibbia.” In Atti del I Congresso

nazionale di tradizioni popolari. Firenze: Olschki, 114–121. ——. 1934. “Saggi delle antiche traduzioni giudeo-italiane della Bibbia.” In Annuario di studi

ebraici I: 101–135.——. 1937. “Bibliografia delle traduzioni giudeo-italiane della Bibbia.” In Festschrift zum siebzig-

sten Geburtstage A. Kaminska. Vienna: Maimonides Institut, 129–141.Contini, Gianfranco. 1960. Poeti del Duecento. Milano-Napoli: Ricciardi, v. I.Cuomo, Luisa. 1976. “In margine al Giudeo-italiano: note fonetiche, morfologiche e lessicali.” Ita-

lia 1: 30–53.——. 1985. “Pesicheta Rabbati: un florilegio midrascico giudeo-italiano al confine tra Toscana e

Umbria nel XVI sec.” In Judeo-Romance Languages, eds. Isaac Benabu & Giuseppe Sermoneta. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 69–126.

——. 1988. Una traduzione giudeo-romanesca del libro di Giona. Tübingen: Niemeyer.——. 2000a. “Una traduzione interlineare giudeo-cristiana del ‘Cantico del Cantici.’ ” Studi di Filo-

logia Italiana 58: 53–171.——. 2000b. “Rashi in Italy”. Pe‘amim 83: 132–146.Da Grosseto, Andrea. 1873. Dei Trattati morali di Albertano da Brescia volgarizzamento inedito del

1268, a cura di Francesco Selmi, Commissione per i testi di lingua. Bologna: Romagnoli.Debenedetti Stow, Sandra, ed. 1990. Yehuda ben Moshe ben Daniel Romano, 14th cent. La chiari-

ficazione in volgare delle ‘espressioni difficili’ ricorrenti nel Mishneh Torah di Mose Maimonide: glossario inedito del XIV secolo. Rome: Carucci.

Diodati = Diodati, Giovanni. 1607. La Bibbia, cioè, I libri del Vecchio e del Nuouo Testamento nuoua-mente traslatati in lingua Italiana da Giovanni Diodati, di nation Lucchese. Geneva: Jean de Tournes.

Egidi, Francesco, ed. 1940. Le rime di Guittone d’Arezzo. Bari: Laterza.Ernst, Gerhard, 1970. Die Toscanisierung des roemisches Dialekts im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Tuebin-

gen: Niemeyer. Giamboni, Bono. 1815. Arte della guerra di Vegezio Flavio volgarizzata libri IV, ed. Francesco

Fontani. Florence: Marenigh.Goldschmidt, Daniel. 1980. “The liturgy of the Jews of Rome.” In On Jewish Liturgy: Essays on Prayer

and Religious Poetry. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 153–176 (in Hebrew).Jochnowitz, George. 1976. “Formes meridionales dans les dialectes des juifs de l’Italie centrale.”

In Actes du XIIIe Congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes, eds. M. Boudreault and F. Möhren. Quebec: Presses de l’Université de Laval, 527–42; also printed in 1972 without maps as “Forme meridionali nei dialetti degli ebrei dell’Italia central.” La Rassegna mensile di Israel 38: 424–429.

——. 1981. “. . . Who Made Me a Woman.” Commentary 71/4: 63–64.Johann de Bona, 1896. “Lettera ‘autentica’ del rettore di Ragusa Johann de Bona a dei giudici e

consiglieri della città, al console dei Veneziani a Salonicco, a Lucha Pençin veneziano.” In Monumenta Ragusina. Libri Reformationum, t. IV, ed. J. Gelcic, Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum, 129–30.

Lazar, Moshe. 1995. Siddur Tefillot: A Woman’s Ladino Prayer Book. Culver City: Labyrinthos.


LEI = Lessico Etimologico Italiano on-line, Hg. von Max Pfister and Wolfgang Schweickard. http://www.adwmainz.de/index.php?id=55.

Leonardi, Lino. 1996. “ ‘A volerla bene volgarizzare . . .’: teorie della traduzione biblica in Italia (con appunti sull’Apocalisse).” Studi medievali 37: 171–201.

——, ed. 1998. La Bibbia in italiano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento—La Bible italienne au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance. Atti del Convegno (Firenze, 8–9 novembre 1996). Firenze: SISMEL–Edizioni del Galluzzo.

Minervini, Laura. 1998. “Review of Moshe Lazar’s Edition of Siddur Tefillot: A Woman’s Ladino Prayer Book.” Romance Philology 31: 404–419.

Monaci, Ernesto. 1920. Storie de Troja et de Roma, altrimenti dette Liber Ystoriarum Romanorum. Roma: Società Romana di Storia Patria.

Peri, Chayim. 1955. “The Prayer and the Piyyut in the Spoken Languages (La‘az) in the Middle Ages.” Tarbitz 24: 426–440 (in Hebrew).

Ramello, Laura. 1992. “Le antiche versioni della Bibbia: rassegna e prospettive di ricerca.” Quad-erni di filologia romanza della Facoltà di Lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Bologna 9: 113–128.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966–1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.

——. 1976. Vocabulario dei Dialetti Salentini. Galatina: Congedo.——. 1977. Nuovo Dizionario Dialettale delle Calabrie. Ravenna: Longo.Roth, Cecil. 1950. “Un’elegia giudeo-italiana sui martiri di Ancona (1556–57).” Revista Mensile di

Israele 16: 147–156.Ryzhik, Michael. 2005. “La somiglianza grafico-fonetica del termine nella lingua di partenza e in

quella di arrivo nelle traduzioni giudeo italiane della letteratura ebraica postbiblica.” In Lin-gua, cultura e intercultura: l’italiano e le altre lingue, Atti del VIII Congresso della Società Inter-nazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, ed. Iorn Korzen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press, parte CD-Rom.

——. 2006. “The Judeo-Italian Translations of Ba-me Madliqin and Pittum ha-Qetoret in Italian Prayer Books.” Massorot: Studies in Language Traditions and Jewish Languages 13–14: 181–202 (in Hebrew).

——. 2007. “The Linguistic Traits of the Judeo-Italian Prayer Book Translation According to the Fano Edition, 1506.” Italia 17: 7–17 (in Hebrew).

——. 2008a. “Lessico delle traduzioni dei testi liturgici ebraici in dialetti giudeo-italiani, in Pros-pettive nello studio del lessico italiano.” In Atti del ix Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, ed. E. Cresti. Firenze: FUP, 165–172.

——. 2008b. “I cambiamenti nel giudeo-italiano in corso del Cinquecento: le prediche.” In Il mio cuore è a Oriente, Studi di linguistica storica, filologia e cultura ebraica dedicati a Maria Luisa Mayer Modena, eds. Francesco Aspesi, Vermondo Brugnatelli, Anna Linda Callow, & Claudia Rosenzweig. Milan: Cisalpino, 527–545.

——. 2008c. The Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew in Italy According to the Medieval Jewish Rituals. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (In Hebrew).

——. 2009. “La proposizione nominale nelle traduzioni giudeo-italiane dei formulari di preghiera e della Bibbia.” Medioevo Romanzo 33: 121–149.

——. 2010. “The Grammar and the Lexicon in Medieval Judeo-Italian vs. Dialects of the Ghetto: The Differences and Similarities.” Massorot 15: 155–172 (In Hebrew).

Sacchetti, Franco. 1946. Il Trecentonovelle, ed. Vincenzo Pernicone. Florence: Sansoni.Schwarzald, Ora. 2010. “Two Sixteenth Century Ladino Prayer Books for Women.” European Juda-

ism 43/2: 37–51.

http://www.adwmainz.de/index.php?id=55

http://www.adwmainz.de/index.php?id=55


——. 2011. “Lexical Variations in Two Ladino Prayer Books for Women.” In Lexicologia y lexicogra-fia judeospañoles (Sephardica, 5), eds. Winfried Busse & Michael Studemund-Halévy. Bern: Peter Lang, 53–86.

——. 2012. Sidur para mujeres en ladino (Salónika, siglo XVI). Jerusalem: Instituto Ben Zvi.Sermoneta, Giuseppe. 1974. Un volgarizzamento giudeo italiano del Cantico dei Cantici. Firenze:

Sansoni.——. 1976. “Considerazioni frammentarie sul giudeo-italiano.” Italia I: 1–29.——. 1978. “La traduzione giudeo italiana dei Salmi e i suoi rapporti con le antiche versioni

latine.” In Scritti in memoria di U. Nahon, ed. Robert Bonfil, Jerusalem: Fondazione di S. Mayer e R. Cantoni, 196–239.

Steinschneider, Moritz. 1888. “Zur Frauenliteratur.” Israelitische Letterbade 12. 49–95.Terracini, Benvenuto. 1956–57. “Recensione a M. Berenblut, A Comparative Study of Judaeo-Italian

translations of Isaiah.” Romance Philology X (= E.P. Armstrong Memorial, Part I): 243–258.TLIO = Tesoro della lingua italiana di origini. Direttore, P. Beltrami, Firenze, 1997–, http://tlio.

ovi.cnr.it/.Vulgata = Biblia sacra Latina Veteris Testamenti Hieronymo interprete ex antiquissima auctoritate

in stichos descripta, Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus, 1873; Novum Testamentum graece et latine, Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus, 1885.

Michael Ryzhik is an associate professor in the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at Bar-Ilan University. His research focuses on Mishnaic and Medieval Hebrew, Judeo-Italian and other Jewish languages, and Italian literature. He received his MA and PhD in Hebrew language at The Hebrew University. He is the recipient of the Y. Kutscher Prize, the Nehemia Aloni Prize, The Vigevani Grant, the Ben Yehuda Center Grant for Research on the Hebrew Language, and the Israeli Science Foundation Grant.

http://tlio.ovi.cnr.it/

http://tlio.ovi.cnr.it/

Date post:	14-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

JJL 001 02 229-260

Documents