HE ORIGINALL SURVIVES in fragments as well as in toto. Although the text was not printed until 1911, three excerpts had appeared in print in 1693 and 1695, in letters by Charles Blount to the earl of Rochester (published twice), and to Thomas Hobbes.MATERIAL COPIED AND PRINTED BY CHARLES BLOUNT
December 1678 and 1693: letter from Blount to Thomas Hobbes (“Arrians”) appeared in Charles Blount’s The Oracles of Reason (London, 1693), 97–105. The letter corresponds to fols. 38–41 in University of London MS 537. The letter is reproduced in Thomas Hobbes, The Correspondence, ed. Noel Malcolm (Oxford, 1994), 2:759–763.
December 1678 and 1693: letter from Blount to the earl of Rochester (“republic”) appeared in The Oracles of Reason, 157–166, and in Charles Blount’s Miscellaneous Works (1695), 158–168. The letter corresponds to fols. 3–8 in University of London MS 537. The letter is reproduced in Jeremy Treglown, The Letters of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (Oxford, 1980), 206–213.
Blount sometimes made alterations in punctuation, word order, and omission of biblical references. Where differences suggest change of meaning, they are listed in the notes that follow.
Late Seventeenth Century. British Library Sloane 1709 and Sloane 1786
The first fragment in BL Sloane 1709, fols. 94r–115r, corresponds to fols. 48–107 in MS 537 of the Senate Library, University of London. This fragment contains the unit on “The hist. of the Saracens & of Mahomet.” The writer/scribe used folded papers and wrote on four-page clusters. He then numbered them 1–12. This pagination suggests an autonomous unit. The second fragment in BL Sloane 1786, fols. 186r–190r, corresponds to fols. 107–118 in MS 537 and contains the unit “Concerning the Justice of ye Mahometan Warrs.” Like the previous fragment, this unit appears as autonomous. The third fragment in Sloane 1786, fols. 181r–185v, corresponds to fols. 130–142 in MS 537. This fragment begins in the middle of a sentence because the preceding folios have been lost; the first surviving folio has “fol. 3” at the top left-hand side of the page. It includes the chief part of “concerning God, purgatory, Judgement & paradise.” This fragment appears at the end of MS 537 and was written at a later stage—since Stubbe refers in it to his previous discussion of “Aly.”
All three Sloane fragments are by the same hand, written densely on the same kind of folios, and with frequent marginalia. In comparing this hand with the hand in the letters to Hobbes (BL Letters from Stubbe to Hobbes, MS 32553, fol. 5 and fol. 25v), most probably by Stubbe himself, it is clear that the two are not the same.
While it is difficult to speculate about the time or place in which Stubbe wrote the material in the fragments, he must have worked on it when he had access to books that he did not own in his library—or at least were not listed in BL Sloane 35, the posthumous inventory of his books. The units relied heavily on Erpenius’s translation of al-Makīn (1625) and Pococke’s Specimen (1650): neither of these appears in the inventory. But others do appear: Hottinger’s Historia Orientalis (1651), Geographia Nubiensis (1619), and works by Selden and Salmasius.
1701, University of London, Senate House Library, MS 537
Complete manuscript, University of London, 537. Since this manuscript is edited in this volume, I requested from the Senate House Library information about its provenance. Ms. Tansy Barton kindly sent me the following paragraph:
This MS. bears the bookplate of the Rev. John Disney, D.D., of The Hyde, Ingatestone Essex. Items 1559, 1562, and 1564 disposed of with other property of Disney’s at Sotheby’s in April 1817 were all versions of this same work, but none corresponds with the present MS. Two manuscripts at least in the British Museum, Harl. 1876 and 6189, contain longer versions of the main text of MS. 537, but neither includes the letter. “An account of the life of Mahomet … from an MS. copied by Charles Hornby of the Pipe Office in 1705”, was edited and published by Hafiz Mahmud Khan Shairani in 1911. It would seem therefore that MS. 537 is the earliest dated MS. copy of this text to survive. The gift of New College, Hampstead, 1960.
There was no further information on its provenance.
The inner leaf of the manuscript includes reference to “Charles Hornby” and “January 3rd 1701.” See Champion’s 2010 study for information about Hornby.
Two hands appear in this manuscript of the treatise. There is another treatise that follows upon Stubbe’s with new pagination and in a different and very elegant hand.
Hand A: this hand is of the scribe who copied the whole manuscript. The scribe abbreviated words (“Xtians” for “Christians”), was inconsistent in spelling (spelling “Islamism,” “Islanisme,” and “Islamisme”), and was not familiar with the terminology he was copying—thus wrote “Reblah” instead of what must have been “Keblah”/qibla. He copied mechanically and did not pay attention to meaning: thus “fund a Mentall” (fol. 74). The scribe paid little attention to new sentences, capitalizations, or other stylistic or syntactical markers. There are duplications of words, some blank spaces, and many mistakes in subject-verb agreement. There are numerous mistakes in the Latin passages, and the Greek words are sometimes illegible. Still, the scribe made some corrections, either inserting them above the lines, or adding them in the margins. Some of the corrections were significant: for instance, in fol. 28, the scribe corrected “Jews” to “Gentiles”—by deleting the first word and writing the second above it; fol. 30, “rights” is corrected to “rites.”
Hand B: this hand added chapter divisions and titles, as if preparing the manuscript for publication. This hand also indicated the sections that Charles Blount had copied and made page references to another (lost) manuscript. The publication of the Blount letters in 1693 and 1695 shows that although Blount had copied from another version of the manuscript with its own stylistic variants, the text was taken from Stubbe’s Originall.
Toward the end of the manuscript there were references to folio numbers, written in Hand A, next to specific paragraphs or sections. It is not clear what the purpose was—unless they indicated passages that were to be copied in, or were copied from, another manuscript.
This manuscript does not include the heavy marginal notes of the Sloane fragments. But the scribe either used the Sloane manuscripts or the Sloane scribe and this scribe were using the same (lost) manuscript/s. The difference between this manuscript and the Sloane manuscripts is that this manuscript contracts sentences and sometimes omits whole sentences or phrases. Occasionally, the scribe of MS 537 corrects egregious mistakes: Sloane 1709 fol. 115r writes that it was the will of Muḥammad “yt Moslemin should be deceived”; this manuscript corrects the sentence that it was the will of Muḥammad that “the Moslemin should be undeceived” (fol. 106). What suggests a link between this manuscript and the two Sloane fragments is the following:
1. Many of the stylistic features of the Sloane manuscripts appear unchanged in this manuscript, such as the opening and closing of parentheses for exactly the same (but not all) sentences.
2. On some occasions the Sloane scribe writes a word and then deletes it to replace it with another. MS 537 does not include the deleted word, but copies the replacement word that appears in Sloane.
3. On numerous occasions, the scribe of the Sloane manuscripts and this manuscript start paragraphs at the same point.
4. The Sloane fragments include extensive comments in the margin—some of which appear as part of the text in this manuscript.
5. Transliterations of Arabic words/names are the same in Sloane and in this manuscript.
6. The scribe of this manuscript did not know Greek and either copied what he saw or left blank spaces where Greek appears in later manuscripts. His Latin was as erratic in spelling and punctuation as the English.
This manuscript ends on fol. 142. It is followed by a new paragraph that is not completed and is crossed out.
The organization of the material in this manuscript is as follows (there is no title):
Fols. 1–48: History of Christianity
Fols. 48–56: “Chap 3. A Brief Account of Arabia & the Saracens/The History of the Saracens & of Mahomet.”
Fols. 56–65: “Chap 4. The Transactions from the birth of Mahomet to his Flight from Mecca.”
Fols. 65–91: “Chap 5. Mahomet’s Conduct at Medina the Embassy of Aly to the Agarens & Saracens.”
Fols. 91–101: “Chap VI. The Return of Aly & the Wars of Mahomet.”
Fols. 101–107: “Chap VII Mahomet’s last Pilgrimage his Death & Burial.”
Fols. 107–113: “Concerning the Justice of the Mahometan Warrs & that Mahomet did not propagate his Doctrine by the Sword/with a vindication of Mahometts Carriage towards the Christians.”
Fols. 114–128: “Concerning the Christian Additions.”
Fols. 129–142: “As to their opinions concerning God, purgatory, Judgmt & paradise they are these.”
Early Eighteenth Century (?), British Library Harleian 1876
Complete manuscript, BL Harleian 1876 (“The Life of Mahomet” on spine). The Sloane scribe of BL 1709 and 1786 and the scribe of this manuscript were copying from the same manuscript, or the scribe of this manuscript was using the Sloane fragments along with another manuscript to produce a complete copy of Originall. The marginalia of references and notes are the same in this manuscript as in the BL Sloane fragments. But this manuscript “improves” on both the BL fragments and the University of London manuscript. One example will suffice.
University of London MS 537, fol. 47:
It appears by Pauls carriage Acts 23.6. that he did Act by Somwhat like to Judging In his proceedings, how else could he cry Christianity assuring each of them singly that he was in the truth, and that afterwards when Paul was dead, each of ‘em ptended his Religion to bee the true Religion derived from Paul whence arose great Feuds amongst them.
BL Harleian 1876, fols. 64–65:
It appears by Paul’s carry age, Acts 23.6. that he did act by somewhat like unto Jugling in his proceedings. How else could he cry there, He was a Pharisee, & called in question of the hope of the Resurrection of the Dead? And in his Preaching unto the Jews, he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews; to them that were under the Law, as under the Law, that he might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without Law, as without Law, (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ, that he might gain them that are without Law; To the weak, he became as weak, & became all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. 1 Cor. 9.20, 21. This behavior of Paul, though it multiplied the number of Christians, yet it did lay the foundation of perpetual Schisms & Heresys; for they would not relinquish, as erroneous or evil, those Tenets or Usages, which he without reprehension indulged them in, & complyed actually with himself. When he had layd in them his Foundation, That Jesus was the Messiah, he permitted any Superstition, in Wood, Hay or Stubble, any variety of Doctrines, not ending in direct Idolatry; assuring his Confidents, that notwithstanding this they might be saved, 1 Cor 3. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. And who knows how sincere, or how complacential he was in his Writing, whose Deportment otherwise <65> was thus related? I remember a Mahometan Story of Achmed Ben Edris, that Paul instructed Three Princes in Religion, & taught each of them a different Christianity, assuring each of them singly, that he was in the Truth;* & that afterwards when Paul was dead, each of them pretended his Religion derived from Paul, whence arose great Feuds amongst them.
This manuscript is similar to University of London MS 537 in that words that were changed in the last dated manuscript (BL Harleian 6189, 7 July 1718) are not changed in this manuscript or in MS 537. For instance, MS 537 has “criminal” (fol. 19), which appears in BL Harleian 1876, but in BL Harleian 6189 the word is changed to “Ceremoniall” and a different hand adds in the margin: “Criminal … d over it Ceremonial” (fol. 33) suggesting that the scribe of BL Harleian 6189 was using a manuscript that had changed “criminal” to “ceremonial.” At the same time, MS 537 includes words and sentences that are in BL Harleian 1876 but not in BL Harleian 6189. Sometimes the Sloane scribe starts a marginal comment, but then deletes or discontinues it (fol. 186r “This practice of his,” which appears in full in BL Harleian 1876).
The scribe of this manuscript started by adding the references to the sources at the time of copying the manuscript. But then, on fol. 22, he stopped and later returned to add the references, along with longer comments, in a smaller script. He then went over the manuscript again and made a few additions: fol. 42: “Dr Pococke, histo. Arab. P. 212, 313” after “Pococke” the word “specim.” is added above the line (see also fols. 46, 48, 49). Whether the comments were Stubbe’s cannot be determined, but there is no reason not to think they were his. It would not have been easy for someone else—a scribe, for instance—to locate the page and chapter references. At the same time, and in all his publications, Stubbe added precise references to his sources.
Both the BL Sloane fragments and BL Harleian 1876 include marginalia referring to the sources, although a small number is missing from Sloane. But when both scribes record a reference, it is exactly the same title, chapter, and page. Neither manuscript introduces a different page or chapter, but on a few occasions BL Harleian 1876 enters a reference the BL Sloane fragments do not—perhaps suggesting a hasty or careless Sloane scribe; after all, the folios in BL Sloane 1709 and 1786 are tightly packed, unlike BL Harleian 1876, which is written in a clear and beautiful hand, with wide line spaces, in a manuscript dedicated solely to Originall (unlike the BL Sloane fragments, which are included among other manuscripts; Sloane 1709 consists of “Miscellaneous Pieces”).
In some cases what appears as marginalia in BL Harleian 1876 appears in brackets within the text in BL Sloane (cf. BL Sloane fol. 187r and BL Harleian fol. 225). The titles in BL Sloane and BL Harleian are the same: “Concerning the Christian Additions” (Sloane 1786 fol. 187v and Harleian fol. 230). But it is interesting to note the titles of the unit from Grotius:
BL Sloane 1709, fol. 188r: “Grotius de veritate relig. Christ. 1.6. cum notis”
University of London MS 537, fol. 115: “Grot. De Veritate Rel. Christianae lib.6”
BL Harleian1876, fol. 207 “Grotius de veritat. Relig.Christian. lib.6. cum notis
Was “cum notis” forgotten or did the scribe use another manuscript?
The title and the organization of the material in this manuscript are as follows:
“An Account of the Life of Mahomet” [title]
Fols. 1–55 (the unit on Christian history)
Fol. 55 “The History of ye Saracens and of Mahomet”
Blank folio
Fols. 57–100: “A generall Preface to the account of the originall & progress of Mahometanisme”
Blank folios
Fols. 103–193: “The History of the Saracens and of Mahomet”
Blank folio
Fols. 195–203: “Concerning the justice of the Mahometan wars & that Mahomet did not propagate his doctrine by the sword”
Blank folio
Fols. 205–210: “Concerning the Christians Additions”
1705. Bodleian MS Eng. Misc. c. 309
Complete manuscript, Bodleian MS Eng. Misc. c. 309. This manuscript was used by Shairani, although he re-arranged its chapters in his printed edition. It is the longest of all existing manuscripts, as it was rewritten and heavily “improved” by Hornby, who relied on a lost manuscript.1
It is likely that Hornby wanted to publish this manuscript by Stubbe, whose name he mentions on the title page as the “supposed” author. Evidently, the manuscript was circulating, but there was no definite knowledge about its author. Hornby wrote elegantly, gave clear and separate titles of chapters, but he did not include the annotations that appeared in the BL Sloane and the Harleian 1876 manuscripts. Another hand entered few of the references in bolder ink, more in the first than in the second part of the treatise; toward the end there is barely any reference.
Hornby “improved” the text by consulting further sources and adding material—but he did not contradict Stubbe’s views, nor the general tenor about Muḥammad or Islam. One comparison of entries from University of London MS 537, BL Harleian 6189, and Oxford MS Eng.. Misc. c. 309 will suffice to show the range of intrusion on the part of Hornby. He introduced a reference to John Gregory M.A. 1631, also of Christ Church, Oxford, which does not appear in the other manuscripts:
MS 537 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, SENATE HOUSE LIBRARY
I do not find any understanding Author who doth controvert the Elegancy of the Alcoran, & it hath this advantage over the Xtian Bible, that being a poem, there is a greater Liberty allowed to fiction figurative expressions & Allegories then is allow’d of in prose also defects in Chronology & Errors in History are here tolerable, tho’ for my part I beleive that many of the incoherencies & Chronologicall & Historical defaults are voluntary, partly because the vulgar being prepossessed wth them (in many cases this is evident to have dissented thereform would have been prejudicial to his Aims the universall Credit of the Errors being likely to overbear ye reall truth of things, partly because it was a received tradition among the Jews & Judaizing Xtians (& ’tis now made use of as an Apology for our Scripture that the Spirit of God in the prophets is not confined to the Gramatical Rules ordinary Methods.
MSS BL HARLEIAN 6189 AND BL HARLEIAN 1876
I do not find any understanding author who doth controvert [fol. 301 in BL Harleian 6189] the Elegancy of the Alcoran; And it hath this advantage over the Christian Bible, that being a Poem, there is greater liberty allowed for fiction, figurative expression and Allegories, than is allowed of in prose. Also defects in Chronology, and Errors in History are here tolerable: though for my part, I believe that many of the incoherences and Chronological or Historical defaults were voluntary: partly because the vulgar being prepossesed with them, (in many cases this is evident) to have [fol. BL 96 Harleian 1876] dissented therefrom, would have been prejudicial to his Aim, the universal credit of the Errors being likely to overbear the real truth of things; partly because it was a received Tradition amongst the Jews, and Judaizing Christians, and ’tis now made use of as an Apology for our Scripture, that the Spirit of God in the Prophets, is not confined to Grammatical Rules or ordinary methods:
MS OXFORD ENG. MISC. C. 309 AND BL HARLEIAN 6189; ADDITIONS IN THE OXFORD MANUSCRIPT ARE IN BOLD; THE ITALICIZIED PASSAGES ARE IN BL HARLEIAN 6189
¶ The truth is I do not find any understanding author who doth controvert [fol. 301 in Harleian 6189] the Elegancy of the Alcoran, it being generally esteemed as the standard of the Arabian Language and Eloquence, but they raise great exceptions against it for incoherency & confusion Errors in History & [fol. 138 in Oxford Eng. Misc. c. 309] chronology and charge it with numberless trifles fables and absurdities.
The late learned Mr. John Gregory in the preface to his works has this passage. “I was (says he) asked once by an able and understanding man whether the Alcoran as it is of it’s self had so much in it as to work any thing upon a rational belief: I said yes. Thus much only I required that the believer should be brought up first under the engagement of that book. That which is everywhere called Religion hath more of Interest and the strong impressions of Education, then perhaps we consider otherwise for the book it’s self it is taken for the greater part out of our Scripture, and would not appear altogether so ill if it were look’d upon in it’s own Text, or through a good Translation.”
We see this learned Man had not so ill an opinion of the Alcoran, and we shall likewise find upon examination that those who have most diligently perused that and the other books of the Mahometans, have abated much of the general prejudices of the Christians against that Religion and it’s Author and entertained more favourable thoughts of both, then others whose aversion is kept up by their ignorance. If we look upon the Alcoran with the same indifferency as upon any other book we shall find that And it hath this advantage over the Christian Bible, that being a Poem, there is greater liberty allowed for fiction[, Parables], figurative expression and Allegories, than is allowed of in prose. Also defects in Chronology, and Errors in History are here tolerable: though for my part, I believe that many of the incoherences and Chronological or Historical defaults [are here tolerable, tho’ I believe most of those we call so Mahomet grounded upon the ancient Accounts in the Books of the Arabians or the general Traditions among them, and upon the Apocryphal books of the Jews and heretical Christians] were voluntary: partly because the vulgar being prepossesed with them, (in many cases this is evident) [which being respectively received as Authentic by those of the several Religions and the vulgar prepossessed with them,] to have dissented therefrom, would have been prejudicial to his Aim, the universal credit of the Errors being likely to overbear the real truth of things; [Many of the mistakes and incoherencies therein might be voluntary] partly because it was a received Tradition amongst the Jews, and [fol. 139 in Oxford Eng. Misc. C. 309t] Judaizing Christians, and ’tis now made use of as an Apology for our Scripture, that the Spirit of God in the Prophets, is not confined to Grammatical Rules or ordinary methods.
Gregory lived a short life, and his work appeared posthumously—and then went through numerous editions, attesting to the popularity of his polylinguistic research.2 That Hornby brought him into his improvement shows to what degree Stubbe was following in the scholarship about Muḥammad and Islam that emanated from Christ Church, the college founded by Cardinal Wolsey where the first chair of Hebrew had been established.3
This manuscript formed the basis of the Shairani edition. But Shairani edited out passages of which he did not approve..
The title and the organization of the material in the manuscript are as follows:
“An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometanism with the life of Mahomet and a vindication of him and his Religion from the Calumnies of the Christians Supposed to be Written by Dr. Stubb Copied by C.H. Anno Dni 1705 With some variations and additions” [title, on a separate sheet]
The Contents [on two separate pages]
Chapter 1. An Introduction to the History of Mahomet, conteyning an Account of the State of Judaism, and Christianity, from the time of Jesus Christ to the birth of Mahomet pa. 1
Chapter 2. The Authors Apology for the foregoing Account of the primitive Christians. 47
Chapter 3. A brief Account of Arabia and the Saracens. 54
Chapter 4. Conteyning the Transactions from the birth of Mahomet to his flight from Meccha. 65
Chapter 5. Mahomet’s Conduct at Medina, the Embassy of Aly to the Agarens & Saracens. 78
Chapter 6. The Return of Aly, & the Wars of Mahomet. 104
Chapter 7. Mahomet’s last Pilgrimage, his Death and Burial 115
Chapter 8. The Character of Mahomet, and fabulous Inventions of the Christians concerning him & his Religion. 123
Chapter 9. Of the Alcoran, and Miracles of Mahomet, the prophesies concerning him, and a brief Account of his Religion and Policy. 136
Chapter 10. Concerning the Justice of the Mahometan Wars with a Vindication of Mahomet’s Carriage towards the Christians, and that he did not propagate his Doctrine by the Sword. 258
1718. British Library Harleian 6189
Complete manuscript: British Library Harleian 6189 (“History of Mahometanism” on spine). The date is given at the end of the manuscript in the same hand that transcribed the whole text: 7 July 1718. As noted previously, the scribe was using a manuscript that included corrections. On several occasions, the scribe referred to those corrections: “These words were underlined by the Corrector” (fol. 34); “Interlined by the corrector of the Or.[iginal]” (fol. 35). These notes by the scribe point to a different set of manuscripts that were not available to the copyists in cluster introduced heretofore.
Hornby and the copyist of this manuscript must have used similar versions of the Originall. The word “Metaphysicks” appears in BL Harleian 1876 (fol. 42), but in University of London MS 537 and in this manuscript the word is “Mathematicks” (fols. 35 and 60 respectively), which is the same as in Hornby (fol. 60). On other occasions the scribe used the same word/s that appear in MS 537 and BL Harleian 1876: thus “revolutions” appears in BL Harleian 1876 (fol. 47), but in this manuscript it appears as “Resolutions” (fol. 66). There are passages in University of London MS 537 and in BL Harleian 1876 that do not appear in this manuscript. Was the scribe of this manuscript “editing” out passages, as for instance in the description of Muhammad, which is omitted from the beginning of this manuscript?
He had a ready Wit, & such an Elocution as no Arabian before or since hath ever equalled: whensoever He pleased He could be facetious without prejudice to his Grandeur; He perfectly understood the Art of placing his favours aright. He could distinguish betwixt the deserts, the inclinations, & the interests of Men, He could penetrate into their Genius’s & Intentions, without employing vulgar [3] espialls, or seeming Himself to mind any such thing: In fine, such was his whole deportment, so was his naturall freedome tempered with a befitting reservedness, that He instructed others not to importune him with unbecoming proposalls, but never suffered any to understand what it was, to be denyed.
(BL Harleian 1876, Fols. 2–3)
The title and the organization of the material in this manuscript are as follows:
“The Rise and Progress of Mahometanism” [title]
Fols. 1–78: “The Rise and Progress of Mahometanism”
Fols. 78–216: “Of Mahomet and the Saracens”
Fols. 216–230: “Concerning the Justice of Mahometan Wars and that Mahomet did not propagate his Doctrine by the Sword”
Fols. 230–240: “Additions Concerning the Christians”
Fols. 240–308: “A generall preface to the account of the Original of Mahomentanism Progress”
Lost Manuscripts
In University of London MS 537 and in BL Harleian 6189 the scribes make reference to manuscripts they were using. These manuscripts are presumed lost. Hand B, in the former manuscript, mentions a “blew book” (fol. 113). There may well have been other manuscripts of Stubbe’s treatise.
Final Remarks
Based on these manuscripts, it is possible to venture the following clusters:
BL Sloane, University of London MS 537 and BL Harleian 1876 Oxford MS Eng. Misc. c 309 and BL Harleian 6189
There are no two manuscripts that are alike. Each scribe deleted, added, and rewrote passages in his own style, at the same time that he left other passages unchanged.
The two manuscripts that are closest to each other are BL Sloane and University of London MS 537.
The other manuscripts exhibit significant differences: as shown, BL Harleian 6189 has a different sequence of chapters from Bodleian MS Eng. Misc. C 309 at the same time that the latter deletes/excludes passages that appear in University of London MS 537 and in BL Harleian 6189.
THE PRESENT EDITION
The present edition is a modernized version of the earliest complete version of Originall: University of London MS 537. My goal is to make Stubbe’s text as accessible as possible to today’s reader while preserving its seventeenth-century syntax and style.
I have regulated all spelling in accordance with current usage (American). Also, I changed “then” to “than” (when appropriate); “their” to “there,” expanded ampersands and contractions (“enthron’d” to “enthroned,” “’tis” to “it is”), added or removed punctuation, introduced or removed capitalization, closed parentheses, removed double letters (“originall” to “original” and “ff” to “f”), and introduced new paragraph divisions. I have indented speeches and long quotations and added inverted commas to statements. I also regularized the spelling of place names that the scribe confused: “Pallestine,” “palestine,” “Palestine” and others. I also modernized them to correspond to today’s geographical usage: thus “Affrick” becomes “Africa,” and others.
I have not deleted or added words, even when the sense is unclear.
In the case of Latin and Greek phrases and passages: it is unlikely that in the original version of the manuscript by Stubbe, who was a master of those languages, there would have been mistakes in spelling. The scribe, however, made a vast amount of mistakes. I have corrected those mistakes by quoting the original Greek and Latin sources Stubbe consulted.
In the case of Arabic names and phrases: Stubbe knew no Arabic and therefore could not determine the accurate spelling of words. Relying on the works of numerous Arabists and scholars, he was confused by their different spellings of the same words. In frustration, he sometimes listed the variants: “the Caab Alccab Caaba Kabe Cabea” (MS 537, fol. 53). The scribe must have been equally confused, and so in the manuscript the same word is sometimes spelled differently, even on the same page. There are, however, words that are always spelled the same: “Medina,” “Zamzam,” “Omar,” and “Edris.” And there are names that are spelled consistently the same, but then are changed for a few pages, after which the old spelling is resumed (“Ismael” and “Ismaell”).
On the first occurrence of words or names with variants, I have listed the variants in the note. In order to make the text as accessible as possible, I have chosen the spelling that is closest to today’s pronunciation and used it throughout the edition. In the case of names that appear infrequently, I have retained the originals and explained them in the notes.
I have left unchanged but italicized all the Arabic words, names, and phrases that Stubbe transliterated. These transliterations are significant for the following reasons:
1. In some cases the transliteration shows the exact source from which Stubbe borrowed it. Most of his transliterations of names and phrases came from Pococke, Hottinger, and Selden.
2. Words such as Musulman and Moslemin; Coran and Alkoran; Islamism, Islanism, and Islamisme and other variants: by bringing names and titles from the Latin texts into his treatise, Stubbe may have introduced them into English for the first time.
3. In specific cases, Stubbe deliberately kept the Arabic nomenclature to emphasize the Islamic context. While he used “Abraham” and “David” and other biblical/Hebrew names in their English form, he used “Ismael,” rather than Ishmael, and “Isa” rather than Jesus (even though his sources used “Jesu”),4 and “Edris” rather than Enoch (or alongside). Further, he sometimes used the Arabic word where an English word would have been quite satisfactory: sallah and a few others.
I have included reference to the marginalia made by the two hands on the manuscript, as well as all significant variants and notes from the Sloane fragments and BL Harleian 1876 and 6189. In my notes I have corrected and elaborated on the sources mentioned in the marginalia
The transcript of MS 537 is available through Columbia University Press.
