Zusammenfassung:
<jats:p>There are many primary sources that allow us to reconstruct Old
Uighur medicine. This article considers those that demonstrate the following
influences: folk medicine, Syriac medicine, Indian and Chinese medicine. The
article includes general remarks on the Uighur translations of the Siddhasāra
and its role in the history of Uighur medicine: the bilingual version, a list of
the preserved parts of the monolingual Uighur version, medicinal plant names,
and comments on general translation methods. The Uighur translation deviates
considerably from the Sanskrit, but it exploits the medical knowledge it
contains in interesting ways. A translation of such a medical compendium like
the Siddhasāra was, nor is, an easy task. That we observe equivalents,
substitutes and Turkic equivalents in the Uighur version is no wonder. Each of
these has to be evaluated carefully. Much scholarly work has already been
carried out by H. W. Bailey, R. Emmerick and D. Maue. In particular I would like
to mention the contriburion of the first editor Reşid Rahmeti (Arat) [Rachmati]
who read the texts first and translated them without knowledge of their real
source. At that time he had already surmised that the model for the translation
must have been a substantial work.</jats:p>
Beschreibung:
<jats:p>There are many primary sources that allow us to reconstruct Old
Uighur medicine. This article considers those that demonstrate the following
influences: folk medicine, Syriac medicine, Indian and Chinese medicine. The
article includes general remarks on the Uighur translations of the Siddhasāra
and its role in the history of Uighur medicine: the bilingual version, a list of
the preserved parts of the monolingual Uighur version, medicinal plant names,
and comments on general translation methods. The Uighur translation deviates
considerably from the Sanskrit, but it exploits the medical knowledge it
contains in interesting ways. A translation of such a medical compendium like
the Siddhasāra was, nor is, an easy task. That we observe equivalents,
substitutes and Turkic equivalents in the Uighur version is no wonder. Each of
these has to be evaluated carefully. Much scholarly work has already been
carried out by H. W. Bailey, R. Emmerick and D. Maue. In particular I would like
to mention the contriburion of the first editor Reşid Rahmeti (Arat) [Rachmati]
who read the texts first and translated them without knowledge of their real
source. At that time he had already surmised that the model for the translation
must have been a substantial work.</jats:p>