Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition 1000226220, 9781000226225

Professor Gutas deals here with the lives, sayings, thought, and doctrines of Greek philosophers drawn from sources pres

124 48 8MB

English Pages 336 [335] Year 2000

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition
 1000226220, 9781000226225

Citation preview

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:05 pm

Page 2

— (j)-

Also in the Variorum C ollected Studies Series:

JOHN MARENBON Aristotelian Logic, Platonism, and the Context of Early Medieval Philosophy in the West

EDWARD P. MAHONEY Two Aristotelians of the Italian Renaissance: Nicoletto Vemia and Agostino Nifo

CHRISTOPHER STEAD Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity: Arius, Athanasius, Augustine

CHARLES TRINKAUS Renaissance Transformations of Late Medieval Thought

MAJID FAKHRY Philosophy, Dogma and the Impact of Greek Thought in Islam

FRANZROSENTHAL Greek Philosophy in the Arab World: A Collection of Essays

JOHN M. RIST Man, Soul and Body: Essays in Ancient Thought from Plato to Dionysius

CARYJ. NEDERMAN Medieval Aristotelianism and its Limits: Classical Traditions in Moral and Political Philosophy, 12th—15th Centuries

MARIE-THERESE D?ALVERNY (Ed. Charles Burnett) La Transmission des textes philosophiques et scientifiques au Moyen Age

H.J. BLUMENTHAL Soul and Intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism

FERNAND BRUNNER (Ed. Daniel Schulthess) Metaphysique d’lbn Gabirol et de la tradition platonicienne

DOMINIC O’MEARA The Structure of Being and the Search for the Good: Essays on Ancient and Early Medieval Platonism

4

-

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES

Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition

Dimitri Gutas

Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition

Routledge Taylor &Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:05 pm

Page 6

First published 2000 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X 14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition copyright © 2000 by Dimitri Gutas. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN 9780860788379 (hbk) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition. (Variorum Collected Studies Series: CS698). 1. Philosophy, Ancient. 2. Greek language-Translating into Arabic. 3. Islamic Empire-Intellectual Life. I. Title. 180 US Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition/Dimitri Gutas. p. cm. (Variorum Collected Studies Series: CS698). Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Philosophy, Ancient-Translations into Arabic-History and criticism. 2. Transmission of texts. I. Title. II. Variorum Collected Studies: CS698. B180. G88 2000 180-dc21 00 - 060897

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS698

CONTENTS

Foreword

lX-Xl

Acknowledgements

Xll

PRESOCRATICS AND MINOR SCHOOLS

I

Pre-Plotinian Philosophy in Arabic (Other than Platonism and Aristotelianism): A Review of the Sources

4939-4973

Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, Part II,

Vol. 36.7 =Rise and Decline of the Roman World, ed.

W Haase and H Temporini. Berlin/New York, 1994

II

475-518

Sayings by Diogenes Preserved in Arabic Le Cynisme ancien et ses prolongements. Actes du

colloque international du CNRS (Paris, 22-25 July

1991), ed. M-0. Goulet-Caze and R. Goulet. Paris, 1993

III

Adrastus of Aphrodisias, (Pseudo-) Cebes, Democrates 'Gnomicus', and Diogenes the Cynic in the Arabic Sources

1-6

Revised original English version of the entries that were

submitted to the Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques,

ed. R. Goulet. Paris. 1994

PLATO

36-60

IV Plato's Symposion in the Arabic Tradition Oriens 31. Leiden, 1988

V

Galen's Synopsis of Plato's Laws and Fiirabi's

Talffi~

The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences dedicated to HJ Drossaart Lulofs on his Ninetieth Birthday, ed. G Endress and R. Kruk. Leiden, 1997

101-119

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:05 pm

Page 8

4

-

CONTENTS ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLY PERIPATOS

VI

VII

The Spurious and the Authentic in the Arabic Lives of Aristotle Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 11 = Pseudo Aristotle in the Middle Ages: The Theology and Other Texts, ed. J. Kraye, W F Ryan and C.B. Schmitt. London, 1986 The Life, Works, and Sayings of Theophrastus in the Arabic Tradition Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 2 = Theophrastus ofE resus: On His Life and Work, ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh, P.M. Huby and A.A. Long. New Brunswick/ Oxford, 1985

VIII Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition First Publication (forthcoming in Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 11).

15 - 36

63 - 1 0 2

1 - 23

LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE INTERFACE BETWEEN G REEK AND ARABIC

IX

X

XI

Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosopy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Baghdad Der Islam. Zeitschrift fu r Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients 60.2, ed. B. Spuler and A. Noth. Berlin/New York, 1983 The Starting Point of Philosophical Studies in Alexandrian and Arabic Aristotelianism Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 2 = Theophrastus ofE resus: On His Life and Work, ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh, P.M. Huby and A.A. Long. New Brunswick/ Oxford, 1985 Philoponus and Avicenna on the Separability of the Intellect: A Case of Orthodox Christian-Muslim Agreement G reek Orthodox Theological Review 31, nos. 1 -2. Brookline, MA, 1986

4

-

2 3 1 -2 6 7

115 - 123

121 - 129

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:05 pm

Page 9

— (j)-

CONTENTS

XII

The Malady of Love

vii

21 - 5 5

(In collaboration with Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt) Journal o f the American Oriental Society 104, no. 1. New Haven, CT, 1984 Index

1 - 12

This volume contains xii + 322 pages

4

-

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 10

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

The articles in this volume, as in all others in the Variorum Collected Stud­ ies Series, have not been given a new, continuous pagination. In order to avoid confusion, and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been referred to elsewhere, the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible. Each article has been given a Roman number in order of appearance, as listed in the Contents. This number is repeated on each page and is quoted in the index entries.

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 11 — (j)-

FOREW ORD

As a result of the massive G raeco - Arabic translation movement in Baghdad from the middle of the eighth to the end of the tenth century, an enormous amount of texts by and about Greek philosophers became available in Arabic.1 Indispensable as the use of the Arabic evidence for the study of Greek philosophy accordingly is, it is nevertheless not without complications, for the translated Greek material fared variously in the Arabic transmission that has come down to us. Some of it survived intact and some of it disappeared, while a sizable amount survived in indirect transmission, as it was actively used in the Arabic tradition - which is one of the main reasons why there was demand for the translations in the first place. It was excerpted and quoted, paraphrased and reworded for various purposes, misattributed to other authors (Greek and Arab alike), incorporated in derivative works, and on occasion submerged in different contexts, often irrelevant. This repeated casting and recasting in new texts and contexts necessarily made for a very complicated transmission history. One of the tasks of Graeco -Arabic studies is to reverse the process of historical incrustation of alien material on the original texts and recover from the maze of the late Greek and Arabic transmission whatever can be reliably extracted for the benefit of classical scholarship. Another task, and equally as important, is to unravel the transmission history of the translated texts in an effort to clarify how and why Arabic authors used them, and thereby con trib u te to a more precise and historically informed understanding of Arabic literature by lending specificity and purpose to their reception in Arabic. The studies collected in this volume, though many-sided, address themselves to these two tasks as a unifying theme. Because of the complexity of the transmission of much of this

1. For an account of this movement see D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, London and New York 1998. A conspectus of the material translated into Arabic is listed in its Appendix, pp. 193-6.

4

-

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

x

9:06 pm

Page 12 — (j)-

FOREWORD

material, first within the Greek tradition, then from Greek into Arabic, and then within the Arabic tradition until the specific manuscripts that have com e down to us, m ethodological considerations cannot be divorced from the actual philological work. It has been my good fortune to be associated with classicist colleagues throughout the two decades during which these studies were written, and my discussions with them convinced me of the necessity both to understand precisely and explain the details of the transmission and to adopt methods of investigation appropriate to it.2 For this reason some of the studies in this volume have a section devoted to methodology, to which I would like to draw the reader’s attention. Apart from the general orientation into Graeco -Arabic studies with special reference to philosophy that is provided in Article I (pp. 4939-4949), Article VII (pp. 63-67) presents in general terms textual critical approaches to both directly and indirectly transmitted texts, and Article VI (pp. 18 -22) discusses textual criticism specifically in the case of biographical material. The indirectly transmitted material is most abundantly found in collections of sayings attributed to philosophers, known as gnomologia, which enjoyed great popularity in both Greek and Arabic. A number of Articles (II, IV, V I - V III, X II) is concerned with presenting the Graeco -Arabic gnomologia, analyzing them, and using them as sources for the lives and sayings of the philosophers studied. A section in Article I (pp. 4949 - 54) offers a convenient introduction to them with bibliographical references. The philosophical school of Alexandria in late antiquity naturally constituted the most significant source of information for the Arabic authors. The nature and transmission of this information took many fo rm s, h o w ev e r, and its evalu ation and influence on A rabic philosophical literature form the focus of Articles IX - X I. Similar is the focus of Article IV, except that instead of Alexandria, it is Harran, the ancient Carrhae in southeastern Asia Minor and a center of pagan religiosity well into Islam ic tim es, that appears to have been instrumental in the transmission into Arabic of information on Plato’s

2. I am deeply grateful for these discussions to the Theophrastus team, and in particular to my co-editors of his fragments, Pamela Huby, Bob Sharpies, and our primus inter pares, Bill Fortenbaugh.

4

-

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 13

FOREWORD

XI

dialogues.3 A popular means of indirect transmission, both in the Greek and Arabic traditions, was paraphrasing. An edifying example is provided by Galen’s epitomes of Plato’s dialogues. His epitome of the Laws was translated into Arabic by ‘Isa ibn -Yahya and, as analyzed in Article V, further paraphrased by two Aristotelians of Baghdad, the famous al-Farabi in the tenth century and the Christian scholar Abu-l-Farag ibn-at-Tayyib in the eleventh. The last Article (XII), co-authored by Dr. H.H. Biesterfeldt, offers a particularly illustrative example, on the basis of a charming text on the malady of love ultimately drawn from the Problemata physica, of the intensive use in Arabic of the translated material and its complex and multifarious transformations. I have taken this opportunity to correct some printing errors in the original publications and make a few additional comments to enhance their usefulness. I would like to express here my gratitude collectively to the publishers of the original articles for their permission to repro­ duce them, and to thank Dr. John Smedley for his advice, encourage­ ment, and patience during the preparation of this volume. It is a pleasure, finally, to address a particular word of thanks to Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt, my collaboration with whom in Bochum in preparation of Article XII remains to this day one of my fondest memories. DIMITRI GUTAS New Haven, March 2000

3. It has become fashionable among classical scholars in the last fifteen years to mistake for fact Tardieu’s theory that the last Neoplatonist philosophers, after leaving Athens in 529 following Justinian’s prohibitive edicts and upon their return from Persia, went to Harran to continue with the Academy there. This theory has no basis in the Arabic sources and has not been accepted by any Arabist; it should not be credulously repeated by classical scholars who have no control over those texts. For critical reviews of the theory see my references below, Article I, p. 4943, note 3; Article IV, p. 44, note 34; and especially the more recent and elaborate article by J. Lameer, "From Alexandria to Baghdad: Reflections on the Genesis of a Problematical Tradition," in The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism, ed. G. Endress and R. Kruk, Leiden (Research School CNWS) 1997, pp. 181-91.

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 14 — (j)-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment is made to Dr. H.H. Biesterfeldt, co-author of Article X II, and to the following publishers and journals for kindly permitting the reproduction of the articles included in this volume: W a lte r de G ru y ter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin (I, IX ); Presses U niversitaires de France, Paris (II); CNRS Editions, Paris (III); Koninklijke Brill N.V., Leiden, The Netherlands (IV); Research School CNWS, University of Leiden (V); The Warburg Institute, London (VI); Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S.A. (VII, VIII, X); Holy Cross Orthodox Church and The G reek Orthodox Theological Review, Brookline, Massachusetts, U.S.A (XI); The American Oriental Society and its Journal (XII).

4

-

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 15

Pre - Plotinian Philosophy in Arabic (Other than Platonism and Aristotelianism) A Review of the Sources Contents I. I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................................................................... 4 93 9 1. Preface

................................................................................................................................................... 4 939

2. W h a t was T ransm itted

intoA r a b i c ? ..................................................................................... 4941

3. T he Problem of the “ H idden ”Transm ission and G raeco ­ A rab ic Studies . . . 49 4 4 II. T he T ransm itted W o r k s ........................................................................................................................ 49 49 1. G nom ologia

.......................................................................................................................................

4 949

2. D o x o g r a p h ie s .......................................................................................................................................

4 95 4

3. H istories of Philosophy andC h r o n o g r a p h ie s .................................................................... 495 6 III. Philosophical S c h o o l s ............................................................................................................................ 4 95 7 1. T he P r e s o c r a t i c s ............................................................................................................................... 2. Cynicism

4 957

............................................................................................................................................... 4 959

3. S t o ic is m ................................................................................................................................................... 495 9 4. S c e p tic is m ............................................................................................................................................... 4963 5. N e o - P y th a g o re a n is m ........................................................................................................................ 4963 IV. B ib l io g r a p h ie s ...........................................................................................................................................

I. 1.

4 96 4

Introduction

Preface

After more than a century of sustained research by orientalists, the importance of Arabic philosophy1 both in its own right and as recipient and

1 A note on term inology is in order here. T here now seems to have developed a kind of consensus am ong scholars to call the philosophy th at w as produced and practiced in medieval Islam ic civilization ' A ra b ic ’ , putting the em phasis on the language in which it

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 16 — (j)-

I

transmitter of Greek philosophy is now acknowledged by classicists and medievalists alike, and historians of pre -Renaissance Western philosophy are increasingly coming to view its study as an integral part of their discipline and indispensable for further research. Like other newborn disciplines, however, admission of Arabic philosophy into the canon of Western philosophy is neither easy nor automatic, and there are good reasons for that. The historian of ancient and medieval philosophy, at home with Greek and Latin, finds in his education nothing to help alleviate the estrangement that he inevitably feels when confronted with Arabic; and although the investment of time required to learn the language will handsomely repay the scholar, the language barrier, artificial and accidental though it might be, has yet to be overcome. On the other hand, Arabist research itself has still to present its findings to classicists and historians of philosophy in a systematic and rationalized way that will exploit the common points of reference and contact. The field is vast, significant primary texts have yet to be edited and translated — let alone studied — and research has proceeded, inevitably as in all such cases, haphazardly and without a view to addressing the overall significant. Although other reasons could be easily adduced, the purpose of this article is not to inquire into the history of contemporary scholarship but, in view of what has just been said, to familiarize the non -Arabist with both the theoretical issues and the specific facts concerning the transmission of prePlotinian philosophy into Arabic, and to provide a sufficiently detailed but far from exhaustive review of the primary and secondary sources. I will concentrate on pre -Plotinian philosophy, which is the special con ­ cern of this part of the ANRW (II: 'Principal), leaving aside the major traditions of Platonism and Aristotelianism. These two traditions, apart from being heavily represented in Arabic philosophy and thus in need of wider treatment than can be accorded to them in this article, cannot in any case be fruitfully discussed without a concurrent analysis of the post-Plotinian Neoplatonism and Neoaristotelianism which were the vehicles of their trans­ mission — and these will be the concern of future volumes of the ANRW

was overwhelm ingly w ritten, rather than ' A rab 5 or ' Islam ic5 (cf. for instance the title of the periodical th at recently started publication, ' A rab ic Sciences and Philosophy5). The ethnic term ' A ra b 5 would be less app ropriate because the individuals who participated in the enterprise were ethnically not only A rab but quite diverse, while the religious term ' Islam ic5 would be misleading in suggesting a religious content th at was not there. By contrad istin ction , the medieval civilization th at expressed itself prim arily in A rabic is com m only called ' Islam ic5 (rather than ' A ra b 5 or ' A rab ic5) both because religion was the single m ost im portan t fa cto r th at originated it and subsequently unified different peoples in the vast territories from Spain to C entral Asia th at cultivated it, and because it is accordingly m ore com prehensive than the ethnic and linguistic designations. This having been said, how ever, it m ust be em phasized th at 'Islam ic civilization5 includes both the religious and secular culture th at was generated not only by M uslims but by m em bers of other religions as well, pagans, Jew s, C hristians, and Z oroastrian s. In the expression ' Islam ic civilization ’ , therefore, the term ' Islam ic ’ has m ore of a cultural than a religious conn otation .

4

-

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 17

I P R E - P L O T IN IA N P H IL O S O P H Y IN A R A B IC

4941

(Part III: 'Spatantike ’). The latest research on Plato and Aristotle in Arabic as well as on Arabic philosophers proper was recently presented in a Forscbungsbericbt by E n d r e s s , while an overall picture of the transmission of Greek knowledge into Semitic languages was also provided a few years ago by D a i b e r . The present article thus complements these two, to which the reader is kindly referred. The bibliographies (below, pp. 4964 —73) are an integral part of this survey and should be consulted in themselves, for not every item listed in them is necessarily also discussed in the body of the article. In order to facilitate their use, bibliographies bear the same number as the sections to which they correspond; it is to be noted that sections 1.1 —3 have a joint bibliography. To avoid, furthermore, unnecessary annotation, works by au­ thors who are mentioned without any specific references will be found listed in the bibliography of the section concerned. Works that are referred to in more than one section are listed only by short title when they recur.

2. W hat Was Transmitted into Arabic? To understand Greek philosophy as it was available to the Arabs and assimilated by them it is necessary to view it from a vantage point that is the opposite of that of classical scholars and historians of ancient philosophy. It is necessary to stand in the seventh century A .D . and look back into history. W hat looms large from such a perspective are the towering figures of late Alexandrian Aristotelianism — Ammonius and his school, John Philoponus — and the philosophers whom th e y elevated to eminent positions: Aristotle, naturally, but transformed, as the title of the volume recently edited by S o r a b j i aptly puts it, Plato to a certain extent, and the commentators that were hallowed in the tradition, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, and Themistius. Scholars of ancient Greek thought, on the other hand, stand in the sixth century B. C. and look forward into history. They see the early hills of the Presocratics and beyond them at the formidable mountain range of the fifth and fourth centuries with the august peaks of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Pythagoras, the early Stoics and the Cynics, Epicurus, and their immediate followers. The landscape of subsequent Greek philosophy up to the end of antiquity thus lies for them in the shadow of these ranges and is accordingly diminished both in size and splendor. Whatever the merits of the cultural relativism I have just depicted, the fact remains that the philosophical activity in Alexandria during the fifth to the seventh centuries, its tendencies and intellectual orientations, as well as the written material it both possessed and produced, were determinative of the amount and nature of Greek philosophy that was transmitted to the Arabs. From this derives the first rule of thumb in Graeco -Arabic studies, which says that whatever was not available, either as an idea or a cited text, or as a discrete written work, in the philosophy of late antiquity is by the same token not to be expected to appear in Arabic.

Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 18

I 4942 By the time of the floruit of the school of Alexandria, the lesser philosophi­ cal schools of old, Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, and Neopythagoreanism, had become extinct socially and institutionally. The two surviving philosophi­ cal traditions of Platonism and Aristotelianism had been homogenized along the lines made necessary by an ascendant Christianity and were fused into a Platonizing Aristotelianism. The imposition of Christianity with renewed vigor by the court at Constantinople after the abortive attempt to restore paganism by the Emperor Julian, named the 'Apostate5 by his victorious enemies who wrote the history, dissolved forever the commonwealth of competing but co ­ existing philosophical schools of all denominations that flourished during the early centuries of the Empire. The forceful closing of the Academy in Athens by Justinian in 529 and the effective termination of the school of Alexandria by the appointment by Heraclius in Constantinople of the Alexandrian scholarch Stephanus after 610 are but two of the most visible — and dramatic — manifestations of this long process. The literary production that accompanied this trend toward uniformity of thought in the later Empire followed suit. The literary genres par excellence of this period for philosophical writings were the commentary and the anthol­ ogy, the former addressed to scholars and the latter to the educated. The commentary, however radical its interpretation of specific passages, avoided the provocation of seeming to promulgate novel ideas by commenting on authorities that could not be easily impugned in the context of whatever was left of the Greek paideia , while the anthology by its very nature shirked responsibility for contents that were ostensibly presented for the purposes of literary and ethical edification. By contradistinction, the intellectual struggle among philosophical schools as well as between paganism and Christianity generated, also among Christians, another literary genre, doxography. Al­ though the purpose of most of these works, and especially of the Christian, was polemical, i.e ., to refute the pagan ideas quoted, they nevertheless did contain philosophical material which could be, and was, taken as a doxography. The heavy hand wielded by the central authorities in Constantinople in their attempts at intellectual uniformity is also to be seen in their imposition of 'orthodoxy5 on other Christians. Ironically, the exercise generated precisely the opposite of the intended effect. The secession of the Nestorian and Jacobite churches following the christological controversies ensured the survival in the Near East among Semitic speaking peoples of alternative traditions and different approaches to Greek learning than those officially espoused by Constantinople and its satellites.2 Furthermore, and in view of the fact that the translators into Arabic were predominantly Nestorian and Jacobite Christians, Arabic letters was assured access to Christian literature containing philosophi­ cal material, i. e., mainly the polemical doxographies as well as the theological treatises of church fathers. From this derives the second rule of thumb in

2 See B r o c k , Syriac Attitudes, and K l i n g e , Syrische Theologen.

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 19 — (j)-

PRE-PLOTINIAN PHILOSOPHY IN ARABIC

4 94 3

Graeco -Arabic studies, which says that whatever was not and could not have been available, either as an idea or a quoted text, or as a discrete written work, to Syriac-speaking Christians is by the same token not to be expected to appear in Arabic. Alternatively put, the literature of Syriac speaking Christians is replete with ethnic Greek philosophical material that could have passed into Arabic.3 Taken together, these two rules indicate that the following philosophical material was or could have been transmitted into Arabic both directly and indirectly. First, one could expect to have direct transmission of whatever philosophical texts were available to the Alexandrian school in late antiquity, but not texts which we know to have been lost or unavailable even then. Second, one could expect to have indirect transmission of whatever philosophi­ cal material was quoted by the Alexandrians in the directly transmitted texts as well as in anthologies and doxographies. It therefore becomes obvious that with regard to the pre -Plotinian philosophical writings, we could expect to find in direct transmission basically only the writings of Plato and Aristotle and the major Aristotelians (like Theophrastus and Alexander of Aphrodisias). O f the writings of the lesser philosophical schools with which we are concerned here — Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, and Neopythagoreanism — there is little hope that any would be found in direct transmission. The place to look for them would be the literary genres most conducive to indirect transmission. These are, primarily, gnomologia and doxographies, and to a lesser degree historical works dealing with philosophy: the histories of philosophy of late antiquity and chronographies, both pagan and Christian. Apart from the Alexandrian scholars of late antiquity and the Christians, however, there are other authors in whose writings indirectly transmitted material can be sought. These fall roughly into two groups. The first includes pre -Plotinian philosophers and physicians who, for reasons of their subsequent canonization in the Greek tradition, were translated and widely respected in Arabic; foremost among them are Alexander of Aphrodisias and Galen. These two authors were chronologically closest to the periods of activity of the lesser philosophical schools and hence their works contain numerous references to them; they were also translated into Arabic to the largest possible extent. For both these reasons, they are among the main carriers into Arabic of the tenets

3 In addition to Syriac-speaking C hristians, Syriac-speaking pagans were also instrum ental in the transm ission of Greek ideas and texts in A rabic. T he Sabi’ ans of H arra n were responsible for the diffusion of scientific, H erm etic, astrological, as well as philosophical (and particularly Platonic) writings in A rabic in ways th at have yet to be fully understood (see G u t a s , Sym posion). Saying this, how ever, is a far cry from claim ing, as Tardieu has done in a num ber of publications, th at the Platonic A cadem y of Athens m oved to H a rra n after its closing by Justinian. This claim , which is wholly w ithout foundation, will prove, just like the “ hidden transm ission ” theory discussed below in Section 1.3, p. 4 9 4 5 ff., m ore of a hindrance than a help for further research. F o r the m ajor objections to T a r d i e u ’ s thesis see E n d r e s s ’ s review of H a d o t ’ s ' Sim plicius ’ .

4

-

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:06 pm

Page 20 — (j)-

I 4944 of the lesser schools.4 Plutarch also belongs to this group, but his influence was limited because very few of his works were available in Arabic.5 Another body of writings from late antiquity that was heavily translated into Arabic and helped transmit philosophical ideas of all sorts was that of the so -called 'occult5 sciences, Hermetism and astrology, alchemy and magic. By the very nature of these writings, their value in transmitting to the Arabs, and hence to us, identifiable philosophical texts is relatively slight, although some of the research that has been conducted so far would tend to indicate otherwise.6 Nevertheless, much more detailed work will be required before these texts can yield usable information for the purposes of the history of philosophy. They will therefore not be considered in this review. All this makes for a potentially significant amount of philosophical material from the Pre- Plotinian lesser schools available in Arabic. It was, however, derivative — that is, indirectly transmitted, frequently anonymous, and on occasion pseudonymous - a state of affairs that made it relatively difficult to distinguish it from the philosophical context in which it was found. If one adds to this the consideration that there was little or no direct information about the biographies, and especially the chronology, of most of the philosophers belonging to these schools, the enormity of the difficulty faced by Arabic philosophers is better appreciated. They had little explicit knowledge about them and most of what they had was anecdotal and impres­ sionistic.

3. The Problem of the “Hidden ” Transmission and Graeco Arabic Studies So far we have been discussing the transmission of Greek philosophical texts into Arabic through lite r a r y means - the translation, that is, of specific texts, belonging to one of the genres enumerated above, that either directly or indirectly contained information about Presocratic, Stoic, Sceptic, Cynic, 4 See the articles on them in preceding parts of this volum e of the A N R W : II 3 6 , 3 - 6 , 1 9 8 9 -1 9 9 2 . 5 T w o of his essays were translated into both Syriac and A rabic ( 'Flepi aopyr|aia B agdadl th eological circles through the transferral of physicians from Gundlsabur by the caliph M ansur. N o supporting evidence accom panies this suggestion. See G e n e q u a n d / L a s s e r r e about Y a ' qubl, whose report m ay perhaps be related to NawbahtT ’ s ' O pinions and R eligions ’ (cf. v a n E s s , A ra ’ ). T he A rabic te x t from Ibn - A bl - U saybi ' a was translated and com pared with the Greek by R o s e n t h a l , Z enon 4 3 - 5 6 ; cf. R o s e n t h a l , Fithaghuras, and W a l z e r , Furfuriyus 949a. F o r the Syriac Pythagoras see the studies by G i l d e m e i s t e r , L e v i D e l l a V id a and W u n s c h listed in the bibliography; for the N eopythagorean sources of these sayings see the discussion in G u t a s , Greek W isdom 216 —275 and especially 268 —270. Fo r the transm ission of the ' Sym bola ’ and the 'IluOayopeicov yvajpai ’ in A rabic see G u t a s , Greek W isdom 3 4 6 —35 3 and 30 —3 1 , 248 —251 respectively; the 'Golden Verses ’ , its translation s, editions, and com m entaries were discussed by R o s e n t h a l , Pythagorean

|Gutas

1-64

3/10/00

9:07 pm

Page 40 — (j)-

I 4964 The other Neopythagorean works that were translated into Arabic deal with household management (oiKovopia), the main subject treated in this late literature. They include the pseudo -Platonic 'Testament on the Education of the Young5 ('Wasiya fl ta’dTb a l - a h d a f ) ” 89 and 'Testament to Aristotle5,90 fragments from a treatise on the duties of the wife, attributed to a Pythagorean woman philosopher and excerpted by 'Amiri (Sa'dda 389 —395), and the famous 'Tabula Cebetis5.91 The pride of place among these writings, however, is occupied by the 'OiicovopiKoq5 of Bryson, a work which nearly monopolized the discussion on the subject in the works of Arab authors. It eclipsed the pseudo -Aristotelian 'Oeconom ica5 ( M a 5l O f ) , which in any case does not appear to have been widely known, and served as the principal treatise on the second of the three divisions of practical philosophy in the Aristotelian tradition.92

IV. Bibliographies Bibliography 1 .1 —3 A bu S h a n a b , R o b e r t E l ia s : Stoicism and Islam ic C om m unity, in: A ctas del V Congreso

Internacional de Filosofia M edieval, M adrid (Editora N acional) 1979, 1,483 —487 ( ' U t m a n A m I n ): Stoic Ethics in Classical A rabic Culture, in: A ctas del V C ongreso Internacional de Filosofia M edieval, M adrid (Editora N acional) 1979, 1 ,8 9 -9 4 A r n a l d e z , R o g e r : L’histoire de la pensee grecque vue par les arabes, in: Bulletin de la Societe Fran^aise de Philosophic 72 ,3 (1978) 1 1 7 - 1 6 8

A m in , O sm a n

B e r g h , S im o n v an d e n : Averroes ’ Tahafut al ­ Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence)

[E. J. W. Gibb M em orial Series, N . S. 19 — Unesco C ollection of G reat W orks, Arabic Series], 2 vols., O xford and London (O xford University Press and Luzac &c C o.) 1954 B e r g h , S im o n v a n d e n : Ghazali on ' G ratitu de tow ard s G o d ’ and Its Greek Sources, in: Studia Islam ica 7 (1957) 7 7 - 9 8 B e r g h , S im o n v a n d e n : review of M a x H o r t e n , Die Philosophic des Islam in ihren Beziehungen zu den philosophischen W eltanschauungen des westlichen O rients, M u ­ nich (Ernst R einhardt) 1924, in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 28 (1925) 513 — 51 7

89 90

91 92

D ocum ents 1 0 4 - 1 1 5 and U l l m a n n , Spruchdichtung 21 —51. See further L i n l e y , Ibn atT ayyib, for an edition and translation o f one of the late com m entaries, and D a i b e r ’ s review of L i n l e y for further discussion and bibliography. Studied by R o s e n t h a l , Pythagorean D ocum ents 383 —3 95 . T h e te x t is now to be found on pp. 2 7 0 - 2 7 8 of M iskaw ayh ’ s ' E tern al W isdom ’ ( ' al - H ikm a al - halida ’), ed. B a d a w I. Preserved by M iskaw ayh, H ik m a 2 1 7 —218 and subsequent authors, this collection of exh o rtation s appears to have distinct affinities with both the 'FluOayopsicov yvoopai’ and the 'G olden Verses ’ ; see G u t a s , Greek W isdom 358 —63. T ext in M iskaw ayh, H ik m a 229 —2 6 2 ; the brief interpretive sum m ary by Ibn - at ­ Tayyib (d. 1043) was edited and translated by R o s e n t h a l , Tabula Cebetis. Edited and translated by P l e s s n e r , B ryson; for the use m ade of the w ork by Arab authors see pp. 29 — 138.

4

-

I PRE-PLOTINIAN

PHILOSOPHY

IN ARABIC

4965

BROCK,SEBASTIAN: From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning, in: East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period [Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1980], eds. NINA GARSOIAN,THOMASMATHEWS,and ROBERT THOMPSON,Washington, D.C. (Dumbarton Oaks) 1982, pp. 17 ~ 34; repr. in lo., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity [Collected Studies Series CS 199], Hampshire/London (Variorum) 1984 DAIBER,HANS: Semitische Sprachen als Kulturvermittler zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 136 (1986) 292 -313 ENDRESS, GERHARD: Die Arabisch-Islamische Philosophie. Ein Forschungsbericht, in: Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 5 (1989) 1 - 47 ENDRESS,GERHARD:review of HADOT,Simplicius (see below under TARDIEU),in: Der Islam 68 (1991) 134-137 Ess, JOSEFVAN:l)irar b. 'Amr und die 1Cahmiya'. Biographie einer vergessenen Schule, in: Der Islam 43 (1967) 241- 279 Ess, JosEF VAN:The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology, in: Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G. VONGRUNEBAUM [First Giorgio Levi Della Vida Biennial Conference], Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz) 1970, 21-50 Ess, JosEF VAN:Skepticism in Islamic Religious Thought, in: al-Abba! 21 (1968) 1 -18 GuTAS, DIMITRI: Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation. A Study of the GraecoArabic Gnomologia [American Oriental Series 60], New Haven (American Oriental Society), 1975 GUTAS, DIMITRI:Plato's 1Symposion' in the Arabic Tradition, in: Oriens 31 (1988) 36 ~ 60 Ibn-an-Nadim,

Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. GUSTAVFL-OGEL,2 vols., Leipzig 1871-1872

JADAANE,FEHMI: Uinfluence du Sto"icisme sur la pensee musulmane [Recherches publiees sous la direction de l'Institut de Lettres Orientales de Beyrouth; Serie I: Pensee Arabe et Musulmane 41], Beirut (Dar el-Machreq) 1968 KLINGE,GERHARD:Die Bedeutung der syrischen Theologen als Vermittler der griechischen Philosophie an den Islam, in: Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 58 (1939) 346-386 KRAUS,PAUL:Jabir ibn l:fayyan. Contribution Phistoire des idees scientifiques clans Plslam. Vol. I: Le Corpus des Ecrits Jabiriens [Memoires de Plnstitut d'Egypte 44], Cairo (Institut Fran~ais d 1Archeologie Orientale) 1943. Vol. II: Jabir et la Science Grecque [Memoires de Pinstitut d'Egypte 45], Cairo (lnstitut Fran~ais d 1Archeologie Orientale) 1942, repr. in the 'Collection Sciences et Philosophie Arabes' (Etudes et Reprises), dirigee par J. JouvET et R. RASHED,Paris (Les Belles Lettres) 1986

a

LEDER, STEFAN:Das Korpus al-Hai1am ibn 1AdI (st. 207/822) - Herkunft, Oberlieferung, Gestalt fri.iher Texte der ahbar Literatur [Frankfurter wissenschaftliche Beitrage: Kulturwissenschaftliche Reihe 20], Frankfurt a. M. 1991 LEDER, STEFAN:Prosa-Dichtung in der ah bar Oberlieferung, in: Der Islam 64 (1987) 6 =41 RITTER, HELLMUTand MARTIN PLESSNER:1Picatrix'. Das Ziel des Weisen von PseudoMagrirI [Studies of the Warburg Institute 27], London (Warburg) 1962 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ:review of VANDENBERGH,Tahafut, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956) 195 ~ 198 ScHOELER,GREGOR: Die Frage der schriftlichen oder mi.indlichen Oberlieferung der Wissenschaften im fri.ihen Islam, in: Der Islam 62 (1985) 201-230 ScHOELER,GREGOR: Weiteres zur Frage der schriftlichen oder mi.indlichen Oberlieferung der Wissenschaften im Islam, in: Der Islam 66 (1989) 38 -67 SHEHABY, NABIL:The Influence of Stoic Logic on al-Ja~~a~1s Legal Theory, in: The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Philosophy, Science and Theology in the Middle Ages, September 1973, ed. J. E.

I 4966 MURDOCH and E. D. SYLLA [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26], Dordrecht / Boston (Reidel) 1975, 61-85 SoRABJI, RICHARD, ed.: Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their Influence, Ithaca (Cornell UP) 1990 TARDIEU, MICHEL: Les calendriers en usage a Barran d)apres les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius a la Physique d'Aristote, in: Simplicius - sa vie, son ceuvre, sa survie. Actes du Collogue International de Paris (28 sept.= ler oct. 1985) [Peripatoi 15], ed. ILSETRAUTHADOT, Berlin (W. de Gruyter) 1987, pp. 40 ~ 57; reviewed by GERHARD ENDRESS in: Der Islam 68 (1991) 134 - 137 THILLET, PIERRE: Sagesse grecque et philosophie musulmane, in: Les Mardis de Dar el Salam

1955, 55 ~ 93 VERSTEEGH, C. H. M.: Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic Thinking [Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 7], Diss. Nijmegen 1977, Leiden (Brill) 1977 Bibliography

11.1

La BADAWI,1ABDURRAI;IMAN:

transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe [Etudes de philosophie medievale 56], Paris (Vrin) 1968 BAFFIONI,CARMELA:Sulle tracce di Sofia. Tre ,,divini' 1 nella Grecia classica [Saggi Bibliopolis 36], Napoli (Bibliopolis) 1990 BARNS, J.: A New Gnomologium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies, in: The Classical Quarterly 44 (1950) 126 -137; 45 (1951) 1- 19 BROCK, SEBASTIAN:The Laments of the Philosophers over Alexander in Syriac, in: Journal of Semitic Studies 15 (1970) 205 -218 BROCK, SEBASTIAN:Secundus the Silent Philosopher: Some Notes on the Syriac Tradition, in: Rheinisches Museum 121 (1978) 94 ~ 100 BROCK: Syriac Attitudes (Bibliography 1.1 ~ 3) DAIBER, HANS: Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Oberlieferung [Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veroffentlichungen der Orientialischen Kommission 33], Wiesbaden (Franz Steiner) 1980 DAIBER, HANS: Der Siwan al-hikma und Abu Sulaiman al-MantiqI as-SigistanI in der Forschung, in: Arabica 31 (1984) 36-68 DUNLOP, D. M.: Biographical Material from the $iwan al-Hikmah, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1957) 82 -89 EsBROECK, MICHEL VAN: Les sentences morales des philosophes grecs dans les traditions orientales, in: Ueredita classica nelle lingue orientali [Acta encyclopaedica 5], ed. MASSIMILIANO PAVAN and UMBERTO Cozzou, Roma (lstituto della Enciclopedia ltaliana) 1986, 11 ~ 23 GILDEMEISTER, J., and F. BOCHELER: Pseudo-Plutarchos Ifapi aCJKT)CJEro~, in: Rheinisches Museum 27 (1872) 520-538 GILDEMEISTER,J., and F. BucHELER: Themistios 11£pi apE,fj~, in: Rheinisches Museum 27

(1872) 438-462 GuTAs: Greek Wisdom (Bibliography 1.1-3) GuTAS, DIMITRI: The Life, Works, and Sayings of Theophrastus in the Arabic Tradition, in: Theophrastus of Eresus. On His Life and Work, ed. W. W. FoRTENBAUGH[Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 2], New Brunswick, N.J./Oxford (Transaction Books), 1985, pp. 63 = 102 GuTAS, DIMITRI: The $iwan al-Hikma Cycle of Texts, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 102 (1982) 645 - 50 GuTAS, DIMITRI: The Spurious and the Authentic in the Arabic Lives of Aristotle, in: PseudoAristotle in the Middle Ages. The Theology and Other Texts, eds. JILL KRAYE, W. F. RYAN, and C. B. SCHMITT [Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 11], London, 1986, pp. 15 =36

I PRE-PLOTINIAN

PHILOSOPHY

IN ARABIC

4967

I:Iunayn ibn-Ishaq, Adab al-falasifa, igtasarahu Muhammad b. YAlIb. Ibrahim b. Ahmad b. Muhammad al-AnsarI, ed. 'ABOURRAl:IMAN BAoAwI, Kuwayt (MaFhad al-Mabtutat aPArabiya) 1406/1985 Ibn-Hindu, K. al-Kalim ar-ruhaniya fI 1-hikam al-yunaniya MUSTAFAAL-QABBANI,Cairo 1318/1900

li-AbI 1-Farag b. Hindu, ed.

KrNOSTRANo,JAN FREORIK:Anacharsis, The Legend and The Apophthegmata [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 16], Uppsala (Almqvist & Wiksell International) 1981 KLINGE:Syrische Theologen (Bibliography 1.1-3) al-Mubassir ibn-Fatik, Mubtar al-hikam wa-mahasin al-kalim, ed. 'ABOURRA}:IMAN BAOAWI, Madrid (lnstituto Egipcio de Estudios Islamicos) 1958 Muhtasar Siwan al-bikma: see under Siwan al-hikma Muntagab $iwan al-hikma: see under Siwan al-hikma AL-QAOI,WAoAo: Kitab Siwan al-I:Iikma: Structure, Composition, Authorship and Sources, in: Der Islam 58 (1981) 87 ~ 124 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: Art and Aesthetics in Graeco-Arabic Wisdom Literature, in: lo., Four Essays on Art and Literature in Islam, Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1971, 1 = 19 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ:Das Fortleben der Antike im Islam [Bibliothek des Morgenlandes, G. E. VONGRUNEBAUM,ed.], Zurich/ Stuttgart (Artemis) 1965; English trans.: The Classical Heritage in Islam, by E. and J. MARMQRSTEIN[The Islamic World Series, founded by G. E. VONGRUNEBAUM],London (Routledge and Kegan Paul) and Berkeley/Los Angeles (University of California Press) 1975 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: Al-Mubashshir ibn Fatik. Prolegomena to an Abortive Edition, m: Oriens 13/14 (1960/61) 132 ~ 158 RosENTHAL, FRANZ: Sayings of the Ancients from Ibn Durayd's Kitab al-Mujtana, in: Orientalia 27 (1958) 29- 54, 150-183, repr. in: lo., Greek Philosophy in the Arab World. A Collection of Essays [Variorum Collected Studies Series 322], Hampshire (Variorum) 1990, VII and ~Additional Notes" p. 3 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: The Symbolism of the 'Tabula Cebetis' according to Abu l..f araj ibn at-Tayyib, in: Recherches d'Islamologie. Recueil d'articles offert Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet par leurs collegues et amis [Bibliotheque Philosophique de Louvain 26], Louvain/Louvain-la-Neuve (Peeters) 1977, 273 =283 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: Witty Retorts of Philosophers and Sages from the Kitab al-Ajwibah al-muskitah of Ibn AbI 1Awn, in: Graeco-Arabica 4, Second and Third International Congress on Greek and Arabic Studies, Athens 1991, 179-221 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: review of ULLMANN,Menandersentenzen, in: Orientalia 32 (1963) 364~ 367 RYSSEL,VrcTOR: Neu aufgefundene graeco-syrische Philosophenspriiche iiber die Seele, in: Rheinisches Museum 51 (1896) 529 ~ 543

a

as-SahrastanI, Kitab al-Milal wa-n-nihal, ed. WILLIAMCURETON, Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects, 2 vols., London 1846; repr. Leipzig (Otto Harrassowitz) 1923 as-SahraziirI, Nuzhat al-arwah wa-rawc;lat al-afrah fI ta'rib al-hukama' wa-1-falasifa, ed. AS• SAYYIDIj0Rsio Al:IMAO,2 vols., Hyderabad (Da'irat al-Ma'arif aPU!maniya) 1396/ 1976 SANGUINETTI, B. R.: Cinquieme extrait de l'ouvrage arabe d'Ibn Aby Ossaibi'ah, in: Journal Asiatique 8 (1856) 175 ~ 196 Siwan al-hikma (a) Muhtasar Siwan al-hikma, cod. Istanbul, Fatih 3222. (b) Muntabab Siwan al-hikma, ed. D. M. DUNLOP,The Muntakhab Siwan al-I:Iikmah of Abu Sulaiman as-SijistanI [Near and Middle East Monographs 4], The Hague (Mouton) 1979. See the reviews by DAIBER,Siwan al-hikma and GuTAs, $iwan alI:Iikma

I 4968 STROHMAIER,GOTTHARD:Ethical Sentences and Anecdotes of Greek Philosophers in Arabic Tradition, in: Actes du Ve Congres International d 1Arabisants et d 1Islamisants, Bruxelles 1970, 463 ~ 471 at-TawbTdT, al-Ba$a'ir wa-d-daba'ir, vols. 1-10 in 6 parts, ed. WAD.ADAL-QApT,Beirut 1408/ 1988 TILL, WALTER: Griechische Philosophen bei den Kopten, in: Melanges Maspero, (lnstitut Frans:ais d'Archeologie Orientale 67), 2 (1934-37) 165-175

Cairo

ULLMANN, MANFRED: Die arabische 0berlieferung der sogenannten Menandersentenzen [Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes 34,1], Wiesbaden (Franz Steiner) 1961 ULLMANN,MANFRED: Griechische Spruchdichtung im Arabischen, unpublished PhD. Diss. Tiibingen 1959 YOUSEF,MAY A.: Das Buch der schlagfertigen Antworten von Ibn AbI 'Awn. Ein Werk der klassisch-arabischen Adab-Literatur. Einleitung, Edition und Quellenanalyse [Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 125], Berlin (Klaus Schwarz) 1988 ZEEGERS-VANDERVoRST, NICOLE: Une gnomologie d 1 auteurs Grecs en traduction syriaque, in: Symposium Syriacum 1976 [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205], 1978, 163 77 Bibliography 11.2 1.AmirT, as-Sa 1adah

wa'l-is~ad, ed. MoJTABA MINOVI, Wiesbaden (Franz Steiner) 1957-8

DAIBER: Aetius (Bibliography 11.1) Ess, JOSEF VAN: al-Ara' wa'l-DTanat, (1987) 200 ~ 201

m: Encyclopaedia

Iranica. London

(Routledge),

II

GIBB, HAMILTONA. R.: The Argument from Design. A Muftazilite Treatise Attributed to al-Jabiz, in: lgnace Goldziher Memorial Volume, ed. S. L6WINGER and J.SOMOGYI, Budapest 1948, 150 ~ 162 GuTAS, DIMITRI: review of DAIBER, Aetius, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1982) 113~123 Miskawayh, al-I:Iikma al-balida, ed. 1ABDURRAJ:IMAN BADAWI[Dirasat Islamiya 13], Cairo (Maktabat an-Nahc;la al-Mi$riya) 1952 RowsoN, EVERETTK.: A Muslim Philosopher on the Soul and Its Fate: APAmirT's Kitab al-Amad 'ala 1-abad [American Oriental Series 70], New Haven (American Oriental Society), 1988 RUDOLPH,ULRICH: Christliche Theologie und vorsokratische Lehren in der 'Turba Philosophorum', in: Oriens 32 (1990) 97 ~ 123 RUDOLPH,ULRICH:Die Doxographie des Pseudo-Ammonias. Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen Oberlieferung im Islam [Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes 49,1], Diss. Tiibingen 1986/87, Stuttgart (Franz Steiner) 1989 SAMIR,KHALIL:Les versions arabes de Nemesius de Born$, in: l!eredita classica nelle lingue orientali [Acta encyclopedica 5], ed. MASSIMILIANOPAVANand UMBERTOCozzou, Roma (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana) 1986, 99-151 WEISSER, URSULA:Sirr al-balTqa. Buch iiber das Geheimnis der Schopfung und die Darstellung der Natur (Buch der Ursachen) von Pseudo-Apollonios von Tyana [Sources and Studies in the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Natural Sciences Series 1], Aleppo (Institute for the History of Arabic Science) 1979 WEISSER, URSULA:Das 1Buch iiber das Geheimnis der Schopfung' von Pseudo-Apollonios von Tyana [Ars Medica III,2], Berlin (Walter de Gruyter) 1980

I PRE-PLOTINIAN

PHILOSOPHY

IN ARABIC

4969

Bibliography 11.3 f.AmirT,Sa \ida (Bibliography 11.2) BROCK,SEBASTIAN: Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2 (1976) 17-36, reprinted in ID., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity [Collected Studies Series CS 199], London (Variorum Reprints) 1984, No. VII GENEQUAND,CHARLES,and FRANC,:OIS LASSERRE:Chapitres d'une histoire de la philosophie grecque chez al-YafqubT, in: Museum Helveticum 42 (1985) 191-204 GuTAS, DIMITRI: Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition. Introduction to Reading Avicenna's Philosophical Works [Islamic Philosophy and Theology 4], Leiden (E. J. Brill), 1988 GuTAs: Siwan al-l:-likma (Bibliography 11.1) GuTAS, DIMITRI: The Starting Point of Philosophical Studies in Alexandrian and Arabic Aristotelianism, in: Theophrastus of Eresus. On His Life and Work, ed. W. W. FORTENBAUGH [Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 2], New Brunswick, N.j./Oxford (Transaction Books), 1985, pp. 115 =23 KLAMROTH,M.: Ueber die Ausziige aus griechischen Schriftstellern bei al-Ja,.qubT, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 40 (1886) 189 ~ 233, 612 ~ 638; 41 (1887) 415 -442; 42 (1888) 1-44 MasfudT, Kitab at-TanbTh wa-1-israf, ed. MICHAEL]AN DE GoEJE [Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum 8], Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1894 Muntagab Siwan al-}:iikma (Bibliography 11.1) ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden (E. J. Brill) 2 1968 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: Is}:iaq b. l:-lunayn 's Ta'rTg al-atibba', in: Oriens 7 (1954) 55 = 80 RowsoN: f.AmirT (Bibliography 11.2) Safid al-AndalusT, Tabaqat al-umam, ed. L. CHEIKHO,Beirut (al-Matba~a al-Ka1ul1k1ya) 1912 STERN,SAMUELM.: Abu 'Isa ibn al-Munajjim's Chronography, in: Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Essays presented by his friends and pupils to Richard Walzer on his seventieth birthday [Oriental Studies 5], eds. S. M. STERN, ALBERTHOURANI, VIVIANBROWN,Oxford (Bruno Cassirer) 1972 and Columbia, South Carolina (University of South Carolina Press) 1973 WESTERINK,L. G.: The Alexandrian Commentators and the Introductions to their Commentaries, in: R. SoRABJI,Aristotle Transformed (Bibliography 1.1 =3) 325 =348 YafqubT, Ibn-Wadhih qui dicitur al-Ja,.qubT, Historiae, ed. M. TH. HouTSMA, Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1883 ZIMMERMANN,FRITZ W.: The Chronology Arabica 21 (1974) 324~330

of Is}:iaq ibn l:-lunayn's Ta,,rib al-atibba', in:

Bibliography IIl.1 BAFFIONI,CARMELA:Atomismo e antiatomismo nel pensiero islamico, con un'Appendice di M. NASTI DE VINCENTIS[Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 16], Napoli (lstituto Universitario Orientale) 1982. See also the references to her earlier publications on atomism in Arabic on p. ix, note 4, as well as to references of earlier literature. DAIBER, HANS: Democritus in Arabic and Syriac Tradition, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on Democritus, Xanthi (International Democritean Foundation) 1984, 251 ~ 265 DAIBER,HANS: review of LINLEY,Ibn at-Tayyib (Bibliography 111.5),in: Der Islam 65 (1988) 134~ 137

I 4970 PINES, SALOMON:Beitrage zur islamischen Atomenlehre, Grafenheinichen (A. Heine) 1936 PLESSNER,MARTIN: Vorsokratische Philosophie und griechische Alchemie in arabisch-lateinischer Oberlieferung. Studien zu Text und lnhalt der Turba Philosophorum. Nach dem Manuscript ediert von FELIX KLEIN-FRANKE[Boethius. Texte und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der exakten Wissenschaften 4], Wiesbaden (Franz Steiner) 1975 RowsoN: 1AmirI (Bibliography 11.2) RuooLPH: Turba (Bibliography 11.2) ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: Arabische Nachrichten iiber Zenon den Eleaten, in: Orientalia 6 (1937) 21 =- 67; repr. in: lo., Greek Philosophy in the Arab World. A Collection of Essays [Variorum Collected Studies Series 322], Hampshire (Variorum) 1990, I Bibliography

111.2

GuTAS, DIMITRI: Sayings by Diogenes Preserved in Arabic, in: Le Cynisme ancien et ses prolongements (Actes du Colloque International du C.N.R.S, 22- 25 juillet 1991), ed. MARIE:0DILE GouLET-CAzt, Paris (Presses Universitaires de France) 1993, 475 -518 GuTAs: Greek Wisdom (Bibliography 1.1-3) STROHMAIER,GOTTHARD:Diogenesanekdoten auf Papyrus und in arabischen Gnomologien, in: Archiv for Papyrusforschung 22 (1973) 285 - 288 STROHMAIER,GOTTHARD: TO KAKON YTTO KAKOY. Zu einem weiberfeindlichen Diogenesspruch aus Herculaneum, in: Hermes 95 (1967) 253 -255 STROHMAIER,GOTTHARD: Die arabische Sokrateslegende und ihre Urspriinge, in: Studia Coptica [Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten 45], ed. PETER NAGEL, Berlin (AkademieVerlag) 1974, 121-136 Bibliography

111.3

ABU SHANAB:Stoicism (Bibliography 1.1 ~ 3) AFNAN, SoHEIL M.: Philosophical Terminology

in Arabic and Persian, Leiden (E.

J. Brill)

1964 ALTHEIM, FRANZ, and RUTH STIEHL: Neue Fragmente Zenons von Kition aus dem Arabischen, in: Forschungen und Fortschritte 36,1 (1962) 12-14 AMIN, 1UJMAN: ar-Riwaqiya wa-1-Islam, in: al-Masriq 58 (1964) 397 -410 AMIN 1UJMAN: Al-falsafa ar-Riwaqiya, Cairo (Maktabat al-Anglo al-Misriya) 3 1971 AMIN: Stoic Ethics (Bibliography 1.1-3) AMINE, OsMANE (~UTMANAMIN): Le stoi"cisme et la pensee islamique, in: Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts (Cairo University) 17.2 (1955) 13 ~ 34 and Revue Thomiste 59 (1959)

79-97 AL-AZMEH, Aziz: Arabic Thought and Islamic Societies [Exeter Arabic and Islamic Series], London (Croom Helm) 1986 BAFFIONI, CARMELA: Filosofia della natura e alchimia nei commenti ad Aristotele della Scuola di Alessandria, in: Gli interscambi culturali e socio-economici fra !'Africa settentrionale e PEuropa mediterranea [Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Amalfi, 5-8 Dicembre 1983], Napoli 1986, 403-431 BAFFIONI:Sofia (Bibliography 11.1) BERGH, SIMONVANDEN: Die Epitome der Metaphysik des Averroes, Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1924 BERGH, SIMON VANDEN: Tahafut (Bibliography 1.1 ~3) BERGH, SIMON VAN DEN: review of MAX HORTEN, Die Philosophie des Islam in ihren Beziehungen zu den philosophischen Weltanschauungen des westlichen Orients, Munich (Ernst Reinhardt) 1924, in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 28 (1925) 513-517 BERGSTRASSER,GOTTHELF: I:-Iunain ibn Ishaq, Ober die syrischen und arabischen GalenObersetzungen [Abhandlungen for die Kunde des Morgenlandes 17,2], Leipzig 1925

I PRE-PLOTINIAN

PHILOSOPHY

4971

IN ARABIC

BORGEL,J. CHRISTOPH:Averroes 'contra Galenum 1 . Das Kapitel von der Atmung im Colliget des Averroes als ein Zeugnis mittelalterlich-islamischer Kritik an Galen, in: Nachr. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1967, Nr. 9, 263 - 340 CHENU, M.-D.: Un vestige du sto'icisme, in: Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 27 (1938) 63 ~ 68 DAIBER,HANS:Das theologisch-philosophische System des Mu'ammar ibn 1Abbad as-SulamI (gest. 830 n. Chr.) [Beiruter Texte und Studien 19], Beirut (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden) 1975 ENDRESS,GERHARD:Grammatik und Logik. Arabische Philologie und griechische Philoso= phie im Widerstreit, in: Sprachphilosophie in Antike und Mittelalter, ed. BURKHARD MoJSISCH [Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie 3], Amsterdam (B. R. Griiner) 1986, 163 ~299 Ess, JosEF VAN:()irar (Bibliography 1.1 ~3) Ess, JosEF VAN: Die Erkenntnislehre des •'Adudaddin aJ.-IcI. Obersetzung und Kommentar des ersten Buches seiner Mawaqif [Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veroffentlichungen der Orientialischen Kommission 22], Wiesbaden (Franz Steiner) 1966 Ess, JOSEFVAN:Kumun, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, V (1986), 384--385 Ess, JOSEFVAN:Logical Structure (Bibliography 1.1~3) FRANK,RICHARDM.: Meanings Are Spoken of in Many Ways: The Earlier Arab Grammarians, in: Le Museon 94 (1981) 259-319 FURLAN!,GIUSEPPE:Sur le stoi'cisme de Bardessane d'Edesse, in: Archiv Orientalni 9 (1937) 347 ~352 GATJE,HELMUT:Zur Psychologie der Willenshandlungen Saeculum 26 (1975) 347 -363 GIBB: Design (Bibliography 11.2) GOMEZ NOGALES, SALVADOR:Influence du Stoi'cisme in: Actes, Ve Congres International d'Arabisants d'Orient 11], Brussels (Centre pour l'Etude des Contemporain) 1972, 239-253 GuTAS: Avicenna (Bibliography 11.3)

in der islamischen Philosophie, in:

dans la philosophie musulmane, et d'Islamisants [Correspondance Problemes du Monde Musulman

HOROVITZ,S.: Ueber den Einfluss der griechischen Philosophie auf die Entwicklung des Kalam, in: Jahres-Bericht des Jiidisch-theologischen Seminars FraenckePscher Stiftung, Breslau (Th. Schatzky G.m.b.H) 1909, 3-92; repr. Westmead, Farnborough, Hants. (Gregg International Publishers Ltd.) 1971 HOROVITZ,S.: Ober den Einfluss des Stoicismus auf die Entwickelung der Philosophie bei den Arabern, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 57 (1903) 177 ~ 196 JADAANE:Sto'icisme (Bibliography 1.1- 3) KRAUS:Jabir (Bibliography 1.1-3) MAROTH,MIKLOS:Ibn Sina und die peripatetische ,,Aussagenlogik 11 [Islamic Philosophy and Theology 6], Leiden/Budapest (E. J. Brill / Akademiai Kiad6) 1989 ORMSBY,ERIC L.: Theodicy in Islamic Thought. The Dispute over al-GhazalI's Possible Worlds\ Princeton 1984

1Best

of All

PINES, SHLOMO:The Arabic Recension of Parva Naturalia and the Philosophical Doctrine concerning Veridical Dreams according to al-Risala al-Manamiyya and Other Sources, in: Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974) 104-153, repr. in: ID., Studies in Arabic Versions of Greek Texts and in Mediaeval Science [The Collected Works of SHLOMOPINES2], Jerusalem / Leiden (Magnes / Brill) 1986, 96 = 145

I 4972 PINES, SHLOMO:The Spiritual Force Permeating the Cosmos according to a Passage in the Treatise on the Principles of the All Ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias, in: ID., Studies in Arabic Versions of Greek Texts and in Mediaeval Science [The Collected Works of SHLOMOPINES2], Jerusalem / Leiden (Magnes / Brill) 1986, 252-255 PoHLENZ, MAx: Die Araber und die griechische Kultur, in: Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 200 (1938) 409-416 PmG, JosEP: Un tratado de Zenon el Mayor. Un comentario atribuido a AI-Farabi, in: La Ciudad de Dios 201,2 (1988) 287 - 321 RIAD, EvA: Miskawayh sur la colere. Quelques remarques, in: Orientalia Suecana 21 (1972) 34-52 RIAD, EvA: A propos d>une definition de la colere chez al-KindI, in: Orientalia Suecana 22 (1973) 62 - 65 RIET, SIMONEVAN:Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Arabica. Apropos de Nemesius d'Emese, in: Melanges d>Islamologie, ed. P. SALMON[Festschrift A. Abel], Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1974, 254~263 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: review of jADAANE,Stoitisme, in: Der Islam 46 (1970) 89- 91 ROSENTHAL,FRANZ: review of VANDEN BERGH,Tahafut (Bibliography 1.1-3) RuNDGREN,FRITHJOF:Stoica Semitica, in: Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients, eds. H. R. ROEMERand A. NOTH [Festschrift fiir Bertold Spuler zum siebzigsten Geburtstag], Leiden (E. J. Brill) 1981, 355-361 ScHAEDER,HANS HEINRICH:Bardesanes von Edessa in der Oberlieferung der griechischen und der syrischen Kirche, in: Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 51 (1932) 21 - 74 SCHULTHESS, FR.: Der Brief des Mara bar Serapion, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 51 (1897) 365 -391 SCHMIDT,ERNST GUNTHER:Neue Fragmente Zenons von Kition aus dem Arabischen und Armenischen?, in: Forschungen und Fortschritte 36,12 (1962) 372-375 SHEHABY, NABIL:The Influence of Stoic Logic on Al-Ja~~a~>sLegal Theory, in: The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Philosophy, Science and Theology in the Middle Ages, September 1973, eds. J.E. MURDOCHand E. D. SYLLA[Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26], Dordrecht/Boston (D. Reidel) 61 -85 VERSTEEGH:Greek Elements (Bibliography 1.1 - 3) WENLEY,R. M.: Stoicism and its Influence, New York 1963 ZIMMERMANN, F. W.: Al-Farabi>s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's 1De lnterpretatione1 [The British Academy. Classical and Medieval Logic Texts 3], London (Oxford University Press) 1981 Bibliography III.4 BADAWI,1ABDURRAl;IMAN: Dirasat islamiya min ta 1rib al-ilbad fI 1-islam, Cairo 1945 BAFFIONI:Atomismo (Bibliography 111.1) BAFFIONI,CARMELA:Per Pipotesi di un influsso della scepsi sulla filosofia islamica, in: Lo scetticismo antico, Atti del Convegno Organizzato dal Centro di Studio del Pensiero Antico del C.N.R, Roma 5 - 8 Novembre 1980, Napoli (Bibliopolis) 1982, 415 -434 U .l:.,u s.p.ms.

:,.'y

3

IV 56 Test. 3.3

3.

Imtizac al-arwa~/an-nufus a) Mugultai, Kitab a/-Wa,

~J .,,

.,,

JJ\:.:.\JLl.i\ (~I ~

• ,~

~I ,._,~J ~..la.JI -

✓~\ cl_?I ~l:S' j (~I)

0},':>ul (S•~ ~\ (SI) .GI j>-

v-:.)~~

• ,~

:~ 1.l"µJJ~ u-1.J-'-.)~J~ .,,

~J

L:a ~I

~.I':

>

>

>

-

JI ._;-.A.J .. ul< i.J..r"J - " I.~:~ .-J ..:..,~ ~ .

.)4 Jli J

Jl.i__,

t ~lbl.6-)

01

'ii j

rj



~__,s:; ~~\ t

J>-.)JI~

ul 0lSJ✓~~\ J J~ ~~~\ ~~\ ✓ ~ 01 lS..&1 .}7~

~ j (!_}lS.#- ~J J w ~ ~ ~fJ

~I

J.

~J

~ o}>J.l~lt

.1~

~

JI ~I

~I

JI

~I .,,

~_,.II '-~)I

.,,

✓ ~~ L. ~ -½.1.. -01 3

i~I

L. Jw ~~Lt~ j ~)I J ~ 1..k ~ !J~~ L.J

~~✓~~

JWI

~~ ~ ✓

0~ J.

0>-~\..t.a,.~ ~..,.-,:-) ~!;JI

fa

t ~ ~ L. ~ 0

J

"'

yij

~I

~~~

~ ~

s

_ ;J\ ~1~~11 o..k ~I "'

!J~

~J

~J

~ 01 I .

~

~

j

0~

J

,,,,,,.,,,

..:.i~JJ ~

!:.i.?~ L. .1~ ~

J ~f

j 0:--UI

"'"'

~I .k.t o}>-j ~}I

~J ✓ ~I

l..k ~J

..:.,.?~ U ~I Ju L.~ )J .1~ ~

~

j

t

9

~ 015"L. ~

~

7

~-

2 ~I ~I] 011x0Eic; um'Jt&v tv J.11~I J\.4-t ~I

~.f..> .ill ~I • U:\

o_jill✓ ~lb j. v"'l:JI J~l

~J~J

if"

u""r.-ik: ~J 1---•lH•.aJ

"'1. ~ ~ if J,-!-J•IJI Gr"\ U"'WI ~ ~I c_~J~I '-:"'JIA;J ~ JI ~~\ ~ 01ijJ ~ l:l:k)I ~ ~~~ ~l.!11 if .!,l!~J •.• ~\k:~.jj~\ 1 Jw ... jh:-,J] ~I ~ rjJ lbn Diiwiid: ~')Llll if ~U. ~~J Mas'iidi 11.JllJ ~J .r add. ;JJ..L- lbn Dawiid 11 l:lunain: oj~ ~ add. Ibn Dawiid: ~ ~ ~J .r add. Mas'iidi: 11~I

t+JaiJ t..i_;,:Mas'iidi:112 li~IJ ~I Ibn Dawiid II j>JJ _js;lbn Dawiid 113OJJ..r'~ Mas'iidi: 11~l:.ll o_;JIif om. lbn Dawiid II 4J..li] ~J ~ lbn Diiwiid Badawi: II .::..,JL.i:;JJ'-:"')A::;Jms Escorial II~~

Kitab az-Zahra a) lbn I:Jazm, Tauq al-~amama, ed. L. Bercher, Le Collier du Pigeon, Alger 1949, 14.-2 - 16.1

Frg. B1.2 2. Text based on lbn Dawiid's

IV 59

Plato's Symposion in the Arabic tradition

b) Ibn Qaiyim al-Cauziya, Raurjat al-mu~ibbfn (test. 3.3b), p. 73.11-13 c) Mugultai, Kitiib al-Wiirji~ al-mubfn (test. 3.3a), pp. 34.16-35.1 A.A__,..-A-4 )1 C~J')'I ~I ~I

~ :_r .JJI ~J

~I

~ ~ j l;JJ~J L$}JI

~Jb J. ~

4-1~ _:;..j

~!_,.i~l:.,.

o_fl\4"'~

C~J')'I

J.l.>JW .JJI ~I 0),JUI

~✓

r-¥Rosenthal

I \+lS'J

J')'

"L;.

Jli

✓ 0--½j ~

:.f.-~

II 2 ~ J ...Z':>I.>Rosenthal.

4. Ibn ad-Dabbag, Masiiriq anwiir al-qulub, H. Ritter, ed., Beirut 1379/1959, pp. 54.21-55.2 ..

j5:..~ ~

..

J

J

..

~ o)I~ JS',- iJ)~~ ~ ~ U"'_;:JI01 "\)JI~

JliJ

Q

~ ;;b ~ Frg. Bl.5

~ ~

3. Ad-Dailami, Kitiib 'A!f al-a/if al-ma'luf a) J.-C. Vadet, Livre de /'Inclinaison (Textes et Traductions d~Auteurs Orientaux 20), Cairo 1962, p. 40.5-6, # 144 b) F. Rosenthal, "'On the Knowledge of Plato's Philosophy in the Islamic World," Islamic Culture 14 (1940) 420 note 9

tJs-~")\>JI~~?

Frg. B1.4

~~

Ja-I ~ ._r] o_.,.A)I '-:"'l:S"j

l .t.J. om. Mugul!iii 11.J.11..__1 om. lbn Qaiyim, Mugul!iii 11~I Mugul!iii II 01 om. Mugultiii II 2 j (first) om. Mugul!iii.

Frg. B1.3

o~

'½ l>jjl ~I

~ tWI j ~~

5. a) Abu Talib al-Makki, Qut al-qulub, Cairo 1351/1932, IV,146.4-7 b) al-Gazali, I~ya· ·utum ad-din, Cairo 1967, II,206.4-5-

~\1i ? lj~ ~ J~J Lill~ J.LitC~J')'I ~ .JJI ~I J~ "\)JI ~J ..i w1'JJ- L..LII .... ".>l,.,I ~~ t..'.)w 0..·Lt~'.r J'J>" l>'J J· ,~ 'Y- , Ll.:lti - / if• i...J::>JJ ·.J_~ ~\.t ,2Ni_r,.11 j ~li ~~ I'J-'~ · · 3 ~ / J :, , J ._,r:)J ,, if i...J::>"JJ U•

\_)l:j'J l:l;

i_nll ~ I~\

l .J.11... ~J] JL.u.Jll 01 J\i J~ l..iA ✓ ..l),JI ~ ~ -liJ al-Gaziil'i 11 ~..u... J..UJ] om. alGaziili II {] J al-Gaziili 'ii 2 4-!;...f' J _)..,JI al-Gaziili II 4,1>om. al-Gaziil'i II 2-4 \}\;;J ... w\jJ om. alGaziili.

IV 60 Frg. Bl.6

6. ad-Dailam'i, Kitiib 40.9-11, #145

~if

al-alif al-ma·tuf, J.-C. Vadet, ed. (frg. Bl.3a), p.

~ ~ 1..-l>-~l>-JJ ~~I [JJ JW .J.ll ~ (~'Yuill

"'

"'

li_,..;. J_r=jl~J

_;..:JI~

"'

"' .:.>~I

L>I) ~

Jli \ . .c ~ l~t,; ~--½ ~~

"'

_;..:JIJI _;..:JIj>

~I

41:..JI 2 ~I

,.:.rJ cf. Mugul!ai (test. 3.3a), 36.16-37.2: 4,15" 0) ..., ... ~jli

JI ~'

l~I (.~J ';I ... 01 l.i.kJ

t~o..l>-~[!.?

J.!ll ~ Frg. Bl.7

3

7. SaFadya Gaon, Kitab al-Amanat wa-l-rtiqiidiit, S. Landauer, ed., Leiden 1880, p. 295.10-12

~

JS' ~J

r

~µ 0..1..x..-. _j' ':115" Jb,JI c_~) ~ (Jl>JI L>I) .GI ~ ~ 4--i ~..G:-J ~ l~I ~I ~JL,., .!.ll~~I _) .:.,L...;Ij 2

Frg. B2

Muxtar min kalam al-~ukama' al-arba'a al-akabir (recension of the $iwan al-!Jikma): D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation, New Haven 1975, p. 100.7-12 (Sokrates, No. 27 • Symposion 217-219)

ANONYMOUS,

~ ~ .1~

JI

j ~ ,.~ ~ .1~ J Jw ~ ~ .,,,

c.

~ 0\5'•.i.;~j~I Jw

~j

~':1 ~h ..

c- t

..:.,.l;I t.. ~I

~j ~ G. ✓ u1

u-4 (.£J:.s.

u-4!J)ll ,.~\ u-4V>\? 01 ~J

~\

1~ Jt. J .:.>~_id~.i..iG_;s.;~1 JJi u~ JG ;s-L>~L:.....1 ~ Jw J:lll ,,,.

>

"'

0

~ ~ ~ ~ 01 ~ t,; ~_r.a.i I .1~

1-4 Cf. frg. A2.

ADDITIONAL NOTES p. 37, note 4: My volume in the Supplementum Platonicum series on The Life and Sayings of Plato in the Arabic Tradition is in preparation. ,,. p. 55, penultimate line, read: perhaps ..r'i II p. 57, last line, read: 218D II8 ~] ne:rt0v8a

'

3

V

GALEN'S SYNOPSIS OF PLATO'S LAWS AND FARABi'ST AL/j l S

The transmission of Plato)s Laws in Arabic, like that of all Greek political philosophy, is a complicated subject. The reason is the dearth of documentary evidence on both the Greek and Arabic side of the line of transmission. This in turn is due to the precarious position which Greek political philosophy occupied in the Greek speaking world immediately before the advent of Islam, as well as to the limited appeal which this branch of Greek philosophy exerted on Arab intellectual circles. It is therefore all the more necessary to study with great care and precision the evidence that we do have. I propose here to have a close look at FarabPs exposition of Plato>sLaws. The editio princeps of FarabPs work by Francesco Gabrieli was based only on the Leiden manuscript Golius 133.1 When this edition appeared in 1952, the existence in an Escorial manuscript of a shorter version of what appears to be the same work was noted by none of the many reviewers 2 , despite the fact that this version had already been explicitly mentioned in Casiri>sEscorial catalogue: Platonis Liber De Legibus, with the Arabic title given in a note as Kitab Afla_tunfz n-Nawamzs.3 There is 1

No. 1429 in P. de Jong and M. J. de Goeje, Catalogus codicum orientalium Bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae, vol. 3 (Leiden, 1865), p. 306f.; edited by F. Gabrieli. Alf arabius. Compendium Legum Platonis, Plato Arabus, III (London: Warburg, 1952, repr. Nendeln: Kraus, 1973). 2 I know of the following: M. Alonso, Al-Anda/us 21 (1956): 220-221; G. Furlani, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 28 (1953): 213-214; H. Langerbeck, Gnomon 27 (1955): 101, 106-107; M. Soreth, Oriens 8 (1955): 309-310; S. M. Stern, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17 (1955): 398; W. M. Watt, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1953: 160. 3 M. Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (Madrid, 1760- 70), p. 300b, no. 883,8 and note 1. The existence in Kabul of another ms containing Farabi's work became known after Gabriel i's edition; see S. de Laugier de Baurecueil, M anuscrits d' Af ghanistan (Cairo: IFAO, 1964), p. 295, ms no. 217, part 83. 1 Abd-al-Ra9man Badawi edited Fara bi's work anew in his Af la!iin fi l-l slam (Tehran, 1974), pp. 34-83; this edition also is based on the Leiden ms alone. See further the references and summaries of discussions concerning Farabi's work cited by R. Paret, 'Notes bibliographiques sur quelques travaux recents consacres aux premieres traductions arabes d'reuvres grecques: Byzantion 29-30 (1959-60): 430ff. 1

V 102

Galen's Synopsis of Plato's Laws

a series of mistakes behind this oversight, which ultimately goes back to de Jong and de Goe je, the cataloguers of the Leiden collection. First of all, it must be noted that there exists a pseudepigraphic work also entitled Kitab an-Nawamzs and attributed to Plato, consisting of three chapters (maqalat). It is extant in numerous manuscripts, one of which is the Leiden ms Golius 169. In their 1865 catalogue of the Leiden collection, de Jong and de Goe je suggested that this pseudepigraph preserved in ms Golius 169 (rather than the Farabi exposition preserved in ms Golius 133) may be identical with the work contained in the Escorial manuscript. Catalogus (n. 1 above), p. 307, no. 1430 (i.e. Golius 169): «Idem fortasse opusculum exstat in Bibi. Escur. 883 (8).» - This pseudepigraph was edited, but not on the basis of the Leiden ms, by s text] qui est done le texte original». 6 and suggested that it was likely that the summary was made by Abu-I-Farag Ibn-ar-Tayyib, to whom are attributed some of the other abridgments contained in the Escorial manuscript.7 In the same year, in a cursory examination of the Escorial manuscript in a different context, Franz Rosenthal also reached the same conclusion as Druart: «It is ... clear that [the text on which the Escorial abridgment is based] was identical with the text ascribed to alFarabi in the Leiden manuscript and did not just go back to a common source». 8 Upon closer inspection of the version in the Escorial manuscript, however, I came to the conclusion that rather than being a summary of each other, the two texts in question do derive from a common source. I will first try to establish this and then I will discuss the implications of such a conclusion, namely, that this common source, analyzed in the light of all the available evidence, appears to be Galen>s Synopsis of the Platonic Laws. I will proceed from a comparison of the texts of the two versions to that of their contents. I have four main arguments.

First, in at least three passages, cited below in parallel columns, the text in the Escorial ms version has preserved readings which are found in the Greek but are absent from Farabi>sexposition:9 Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20 (1961): 1-24. 6 'Un sommaire du sommaire farabien des «Lois» de Platont, in: Bulletin de philoso phie medievale 19 ( 1977): 44. 7 The edition is forthcoming in the Damascus Bulletin d'Etudes Orientates, as Professor Druart informed me in a private communication. She also had the extreme kindness, upon my request, to send me the typescript of her introduction to her edition in which she discusses the manuscripts and their affiliation. I wish here to acknowledge this generous gesture, and also to state, since I do not agree with her on the point on which I just quoted her, that I am taking issue with her position as it is stated in an unpublished work that may not yet have taken its final shape; the discussion between us that affects the particular points in contention is therefore provisional and it should so be taken. 8 'The Symbolism of the Tabula Cebetis according to Abu I-Faraj lbn a!-Tayyibt, in: Recherches d''islamologie: recueil d''articles off ert a Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet (Louvain/Louvain-la-Neuve, n.d. [1977]), p. 276. 9 The references to Farabi are to Gabrieli's edition (note 1 above), but the text itself is given according to the readings of the Leiden ms, as indicated by Soreth (note 2 above) and Mahdi (note 5 above), without any attempt to smoothen the syntax.

V Galen's Synopsis of Plato's Laws

104

TABLE 1.1

Laws 691Cl-3

ms. Esc. f. 131v 6-10

Fiiriibz p. 20.6-10

Ka-ma anna 1-badana la budda lahu mina 1-giga)i wa-s-safinata la budda laha mina s-sirac:i

Ka-ma anna 1-badana la budda lahu mina 1-giga)i wa-s-safinata la budda laha mina l-mallii~i

wa-n-naf sa la budda laha min siyasatin

kag,iilika n-nafsu la budda laha min siyasatin wa-illa fasada 1--amru,... wa-kama ... kagalika n-naf su 1-mariqatu la tumayyizu wa-la tagtaru s-say)a 1-agwada wa-1-anfa'a.

7'Eav ttc; µEtsova OtOq> lOt, whose traces have been obliterated and whose name only remains, [b] or from beasts and their states, [c] and then from marvels which baffle the mind. 2. He described astonishing things concerning the benefits of these marvels: [a] One of them is the inclination in the natures of inexperienced individuals, as well as of most people, toward that which escapes their intellects and whose innermost nature they cannot grasp except with difficulty; [b] another is their evident fascination with newfangled things; [c] and yet another is that

Escorial version

1. Parables are derived from [a] virtuous people whom time has obliterated,

[c] and from marvels which baffle the mind. 2. Those who benefit from these are

inexperienced individuals, on account of the inclination of their intellects

toward objects of fascination.

3. In the fact that things are the law abides through the abiding absorption [of individuals] in figuring out the sense of these marvels.

recorded lies the abidance of the law, on account of the investigation into its truths through time,

V 109 3. As a follow-up to this he next mentioned books that were famous among the people of these cities. [These people] would delve into the meaning of these books, and this practice became so widespread that poets, like Homer and others, mentioned it in their poems.

of the diftusion of this [ practice],

and of the great number of its promoters.

4. Then he took up another subject, which he explained in great detail, namely, that the lawgiver ought to enjoin upon the people of that city the preservation of those statements and their study, and to make this [stipulation] one of the most important provisions of his law.

4.

It is necessary to impose upon the people of the law the preservation of these things in order that they remain in their hearts and not be wiped out.

In comparing the two versions, it is immediately apparent that the differences in the first half of the passage (§§ 1-2) are of a different quality than those of the last half(§§ 3-4), namely, that in§§ 1-2 one version is either the abridgment of or elaboration upon the other - the differences, that is, are based only on omission or addition - while in §§ 3-4 the two versions have slightly different meanings, which indicates that either one or both of the compilers were deliberately changing the sense of their archetype. A parallel reading of the two versions as given above is enough to illustrate the nature of the differences in the first half of the passage. For the second half, it should be noted, first, that Farabi speaks of the abidance of the law as coming about through the continuous attempts of people to figure out the meaning of parables and fables, and in so doing expands, if one were to assume that the short (Escorial) version is primary, the idea of the interpretation of fables into an independent

V Galen's Synopsis of Plato's Laws

110

conceptual unit (§ 2c). The Escorial ms version, on the other hand, talks of the abidance of the law as being due to its having been set down in writing, and thus conflates, assuming the long (Farabi) version to be primary, the concepts in §§ 2c and 3 in Fara bi. Second, in § 4 the word dars is understood differently by the two compilers: Farabi takes it to mean ~study',while the Escorial version prefers the meaning yefface. These are substantive differences and cannot be explained by assuming a direct relationship between the two versions, that is, one version being an abbreviation of or elaboration upon the other. Such an assumption could have been justified only if the differences between the two versions were restricted to the kind we observe in the first half of the passage above: either Farabi expands, in order to render it more intelligible, the skeleton text represented by the Escorial ms version, or the compiler of the Escorial version drastically summarizes, while remaining faithful to the sense, the fuller text of Farabi. The first alternative, however, is impossible because Farabi•s text contains passages that reflect genuine Platonic material 10 that is omitted from the Escorial version; Farabi therefore must have gotten it from a fuller version than that represented by the Escorial ms. The second alternative is also impossible because (a) the Escorial version, as discussed above (section I), has words and phrases that reflect genuine Platonic material that is absent in Farabi>s text, and (b) there is no readily discoverable reason why lbn-at-Tayyib, assuming him to be the abbreviator, as Druart and Rosenthal suggest, should have changed the sense in FarabPs text in the two instances shown above (and many others); the short (Escorial) version, therefore, is not an abbreviation of the Farabi text as we have it. The two versions, however, are related because of the unquestionable verbal similarity between them. The only explanation that satisfies all these observations is that both Farabi and the compiler of the Escorial version drew upon a common source.

III Third, there is the argument of the purpose of the textual variation between the two versions. We have seen above the kind of textual variation in general that exists between them. The question is, which one reflects the original better? Here I would like to add yet another item of evidence concerning the syntactical variation between the two versions.

10 For example, the Homeric citation in Plato's text, 681 E, summarized version (p. 18.5 Gabrieli), is absent from the Escorial version, f. 130vl-2.

in Fariibi•s

V 111

It has to do with the reasons behind the different formulations of the construction «not only ... but also», which we encounter in them: TABLE 3 Farabi p. 22.3-5 (Gabrieli)

Iona n-namiisa llagi yiiC,aculi-ahli 1-madinati laysa 1-garaC,ubi-ha [sic] an yakiina ahluha samicina muWina f aqa_tbal wa-an ya~irii gawi ablaqin mahmiidatin.

ms Escorial

f. l 33r 1-3

Wa-laysa 1-garaC,ufi n-namiisi lladi yiiC,aculi-ahli madinatin an yasmacahu ahluha

wa-yuWiihu qasran /akin an ya~irii gawi ablaqin mahmiidatin.

This paragraph is based on the passage in the Laws (705D3- 706D2) where the Athenian tries to explain his remark that a state should not «copy the wicked customs of its enemies». He says that people who live by the sea and are plagued by seaf earing enemies should not imitate their enemies and develop a navy to defend themselves because sailors, as opposed to infantrymen, have evil habits, namely, «they see nothing disgraceful at all in a craven refusal to stand their ground and die as the enemy attacks». As an example the Athenian cites the ancient Cretans, the object of whose laws was warfare, and in particular King Minos, who through his superior naval power forced (JtaQEOt~oato, 706B1 a qasran in the Escorial version) the Athenians to pay tribute. Here Plato draws the moral of the story: Even if the Athenians had been able to build a navy, it would have done them more good to pay the tribute repeatedly «rather than get into bad habits by forming themselves into a navy»; for «men ought never to be trained in bad habits (f811 rrov11Qa, 706D1, rendered affirmatively in the Arabic, ablaq ma~muda)». 11 The original Greek synopsis of this passage, whose author was manifestly interested in the information it provides about lawgiving and not the ceaseless bavardage of Plato's Athenian, reformulates the gist of the argument as follows (with the justification for this synopsis, on the basis of Plato)s text, provided in parentheses): The ultimate purpose of legislation (even if its immediate object is warfare, as was the case with the ancient Cretans and Minos) is not to make the people that are 11

All translations of Plato•s text are by T. J. Saunders: Plato, The Laws, Penguin Classics (Middlesex. 1970), pp. 160-162.

V 112

Galen's Synopsis of Plato's Laws

subject to it (as the Athenians might be considered subject to the law the tribute - imposed by Minos) obey the laws by force (like the Athenians, who were powerless against the exaction of the tribute), but rather to foster virtue and morality among them (as it happened with the Athenians who, for the small price of the tribute that they paid, had not developed a navy and thus maintained their virtue and their bravery; Plato goes on later to claim that even after the Athenians had developed a navy it was the land battles that made them better (f3cATtouc;, 707C4), and that this is the highest good in a society, to make people as good as possible (f3cAttGTOUs the more specific expression laysa ... f aqa/ bal wa- («not only ... but also»). The reason for this shift is due to the ambiguity of the laysa ... liikin construction: As M. Ullmann has shown, it could mean either «not ... but only» or «not only ... but (also)», depending on how the first clause is understood. 12 Fara.bi, who was working only with the source common to him and the Escorial version, which apparently did not provide enough information to explain the reference of «by force», omitted the incomprehensible word qasran and interpreted the laysa ... liikin construction as «not only ... but also». In so doing he both removed the ambiguity in his source and shifted its meaning to say that the purpose of legislation is to make citizens both obedient and virtuous. Such editorial intrusions are consistent with FarabPs modus operandi in other works and with his stated purpose in this one, and suggest a possible answer to the question posed at the beginning of this section: 1. We know that Fara.bi used original sources (i.e. translations) in Arabic and modified them to suit his explanatory purposes. 13 12 13

M. Ullmann, «Nicht nur ... , sondern auch ...», Der Islam 60 (1983): 26-27. Cf. my remarks in •Paul the Persian•, Der Islam 60 (1983): 243-4, 251-2, and especially note 61.

255-6

V 113 Farabi says in his prologue and epilogue that he explained the sense of Plato>s Laws according to his own understanding. In the prologue he says, to be precise, that he drew out the main concepts to which Plato had pointed (wa-qad along the explicatory and doctrinal lines customary with this philosopher. 29 In addition, it appears also to be an abridgment, though less drastic than the one in the Escorial version. This is indicated by the title given to FarabPs work in the mss. The colophon of the Leiden ms designates it as a talbi$, while the Kabul ms calls it a talbi$ gawii.mt nawii.mzsAflii..tun.3° Both mss thus agree in calling it a talbi$, a talbi$, that is, of Galen>s Gawii.micN awii.mis Aflii.!iin.According to the early meaning of talbi$ in this context3 1, then, Farabi>s title would be, Precise Exposition [of the Main Points] of the Synopsis [by Galen/ of Plato's Laws. That Farabi should have used Galen for the purposes of this work was to be expected; Pines had suggested that Farabi may have modelled his work on Galen already in 1937.32 More recent research has indicated that FarabPs understanding of the Platonic corpus in general and his arrangement of the tetralogies in particular may have been influenced by Galen. 33 Galen thus appears as a major transmitter into Arabic also of Platonism.

27 F. 145r: wa-hiuja abiru 1-gawamici. See the discussion of the meaning of the word gawamic and its application to Galenic works in D. Gutas, •Aspects of Literary Form and Genre in Arabic Logical Works•, in Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts, ed. Charles Burnett (London: Warburg, 1993), pp. 37-38. 28 In addition to the arguments adduced by Druart and Rosenthal (nn. 6 and 8 above), see also al-Bayhaqi•s Tatimmat $iwan al-~ikma p. 32.8-13 Safi' (- p. 47.10-15 Kurd 'Ali), which cites certain statements from the Synopsis of the Laws (p. 17 Gabrieli = f. 130r Escorial ms) under the name of Abu-I-Farag. The question of the transmission, nature, and style of Abu-1,Farafs abridgements known as Iimar deserves separate and detailed study; only on that basis will the issue of the authorship of the Escorial version be resolved. 29 See above, section III and note 13. 3 For the Leiden ms see p. 43.15 of the Arabic text in Gabrieli; the information concerning the Kabul ms is in the introduction to the forthcoming edition by Professor Druart (above, note 9); see also de Beaurecueil's catalogue (above, note 3), p. 295. 31 See Gutas, 'Arabic Logical Works' (above, note 27), pp. 38-41. 32 S. Pines, •Some Problems of Islamic Philosophy', / slamic Culture 11 (1937): 70, n. 1. 33 Harold Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (Ithaca & London: Cornell, 1993), pp. 32-38.

°

V 119

The two independent abridgments and adaptations of what is in all likelihood Galents Synopsis of Plato's Laws, as preserved in the Escorial ms and in Farabits Precise Exposition (tal{fi~).open interesting areas of research. On the one hand, the Escorial ms version offers the possibility to study in greater detail the Greek exegetical tradition and reception of Platots Laws from Posidonius to Galen; on the other, a close comparison of Farabits Taibi~ with the Escorial ms version will best highlight the precise ways in which Farabi molded transmitted material to fashion his own philosophy.34

34 The recent interpretation of Farabi•s Taibi~ by Joshua Parens, Metaphysics as Rhetoric: Alfarabi"s Summary of Plato''s ''Laws' (New York: State University of New York Press, 1995) is predicated on the assumption that in this work Farabi had access to the integral text of Plato•s Laws. To maintain this assumption, Parens, to whom I had supplied an earlier draft of this paper, is forced to disregard the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented here, especially in Sections I-III; he says, in effect, «I did not feel the need to include in the body of my text an in-depth analysis of Gutas•s three arguments (in Sections 1-3 of his article) 'proving' that the third text [i. e. the common source of Farabi and the version represented by the Escorial ms] is non-Alfarabian» (p. 152, note 31). His study is thus not of the text of Farabi•s Taibi~ as composed and transmitted in a specific historical context - the object of my discussion in this paper - but an ideological reconstruction of what Farabi might have thought had he shared Parens•s Straussian convictions and read Plato•s Laws in Pangle•s English translation. A historical study of Farabi's T albi~ has yet to be written.

VI

THE

SPURIOUS

AND THE AUTHENTIC LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

IN THE

ARABIC

Gerade beim Bios des Aristoteles ist die Uberlieferung ungewohnlich diffus und kaprizios. (Olof Gigon, Aristoteles-Viten,p. 163.)

of the Arabic lives of Aristotle is an old and tired subject; it can fairly lay claim to the distinction of being the first area of sustained scholarly concentration in Graeco-Arabic studies. I would not undertake an extensive treatment anew in a volume on Pseudo-Aristotle were it not for the fact that, despite considerable discussion for more than a century now, much light can still be shed on the scope and nature of this material from the vantage point of an examination of the spurious and the authentic in it, and for the rather ironic state of affairs that the secondary literature has itself generated its own share of the spurious. A review of the whole subject, then, that would list in detail the sources and remark on the ways of analysing them, remove the incrustations of outdated or misguided scholarship, and put the tasks of future research in perspective would seem to be in order. For the purposes of the present discussion, all the Arabic biographical material on Aristotle can be conveniently categorized under the following six headings:

T

HE STUDY

1)' Reports in Arabic biographies of scholars; 2) Information in Arabic histories and chronographies, in so far as it does not derive from No. 1; 3) The story of young Aristotle, the precocious orphan, in l:lunayn's Nawadir alfalasifa ("Anecdotes of the Philosophers'); 4) The story of Aristotle's death in The Book of the Apple; 5) Various scattered reports, the Aristotelian adespota; 6) The voluminous material on Aristotle in his relation with Alexander: anecdotes, stories, correspondence, the ~legend' of Aristotle. In this paper I shall concentrate mainly on No. 1, deal very briefly with Nos 2 to 5, and omit altogether No. 6 which, in addition to being biographical only peripherally, clearly requires a volume-if not volumes-of its own. 1

I a) The State of Research The Arabic biographies of learned men provide by far the most extensive and reliable information about the life of Aristotle. With the exception of the material relating to Aristotle and Alexander, the bulk of scholarly literature has concentrated on these biographies, the most significant of which are listed below in section (c).This secondary literature falls into two distinct categories: that originating from the last third of last

VI 16

century, written by orientalists, and that inaugurated by the publication in 1957 of lngemar Diiring's Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Goteborg), written by classicists. The first comprehensive treatment of this material by an orientalist was that by Moritz Steinschneider, in an appendix to his celebrated volume on al-Fara.bi. Steinschneider's work was continued by other orientalists, notable among whom were August Muller and Julius Lippert, the editors of the works oflbn Abi U~aybi~a and al-Zawzani, respectively, and culminated in the first and only volume of Anton Baumstark's Aristoteles bei den Syrern (Leipzig, 1900). 2 The accomplishment of these pioneering studies consisted in having made an attempt to analyse and tabulate the various constituent parts of these biographical reports, to isolate the main traditions and sources, and to offer suggestions about their probable course of transmission from Greek via Syriac into Arabic. 3 Baumstark, in particular, identified three distinct Greek sources which he claimed had become interwoven in Arabic texts: Ptolemy's Vita, transmitted through lsl:iaq b. I:Iunayn's Ta' rzkh al-a[ibba' ('Chronology of the Physicians'); an anonymous biography, previously identified by Lippert as Neoplatonic in origin, transmitted through al-Szra al-falsafiyya ('The Philosophical Life') by Rhazes; and an anonymous biography (genos) transmitted again through the same work by lsl:iaq. 4 In retrospect, and in the light of present knowledge, Baumstark's general postulation of three distinct sources can be said to have withstood the test of time fairly well, although his specific suggestions about the details of transmission can now be proven unfounded: Ptolemy's Vita, which was, indeed, one of the major sources of information for the Arabic biographers, was transmitted independently oflsl:iaq's Chronology,as has become evident from the subsequent discovery of both lsl:iaq's work and a manuscript of the Vita; the anonymous Neoplatonic biography can now be identified as the report in the $iwan al~ikma ('The Depository of Wisdom Literature'), which was transmitted independently of The PhilosophicalLife by Rhazes, both also discovered subsequently; and finally no other anonymous biography (genos) was transmitted through lsl:iaq's work, although Baumstark's assumption of still a third Greek source, in addition to Ptolemy and the Greek original of the report in the $iwan al-~ikma, may yet prove to be true. 5 All these scholars were trained classicists as well as orientalists, and the method they used was accordingly Quellenuntersuchung based both on philological evidence provided by a detailed analysis of the transmission process from Greek through Syriac into Arabic, and on an examination of the arrangement and context of the contents of these biographies. Given the state of knowledge a century ago, the conclusions they reached, although in detail now outdated, thus pointed in the right direction. Nevertheless, their excessively positivistic and reductionist approach, and particularly Baumstark's haste in making specific suggestions despite the presence of many variables, resulted in the creation of an unnecessarily elaborate and, as it turns out, spurious scheme of transmission which through its sheer complexity hampered, in an indirect way, subsequent research conducted by classicists u~able to verify it independently. A study of the method employed by the nineteenth-century scholars, therefore, is quite edifying: it can teach both how to proceed on the basis of firm philological evidence and how to curb one's zeal for hasty conclusions in its absence. Of the problem of the spurious and the authentic there is almost no discussion in this literature. However, the implicit assumption behind the whole enterprise of Quellenuntersuchung and the attempt to trace everything to a Greek source is precisely that these

VI 7 biographical reports are authentic in Arabic and that accordingly the onusprobandi of the spurious rests with the classical scholar and the Greek sources. I shall return to this point in section (b) below. The other category of secondary literature on the Arabic biographical reports consists essentially of Part II ofDiiring's book (pp. 181-246); the numerous reviews and responses by classicists it elicited, 6 and even the one recent account by an Arabist, 7 refer to the Arabic sources only in terms ofDiiring's analysis. It is therefore all the more important to arrive at an accurate assessment of what he achieved. Unfortunately the verdict is negative: apart from his merit for havi_ng resuscitated the old discussion about the Arabic lives of Aristotle, not only does he fail to advance knowledge beyond the point where the orientalists left it, but he actually retrogresses by claiming to have invalidated all their arguments through a combination of methodological opacity and simplistic assumptions in an area where clarity of approach and greater sophistication are of the essence. 8 The reason for Diiring's failure is not hard to fathom: in contra-distinction to the earlier orientalists who were also trained classicists, During is not a trained Arabist though he presumes to act like one. 9 First, because he is not a trained Arabist, he is often unable to follow the arguments of the orientalists, and not being able to understand them, he pronounces them invalid. He does this not, as one might have expected, as a result of a counter-argumentation, but on the basis of a sweeping a priori rejection of their study of the sources. He says in no uncertain terms, 'I must confess that I regard [Baumstark's] elaborated stemmas ... with great scepticism. His Quellenuntersuchungis of exactly the same kind as the nineteenth-century work on Diogenes Laertius' (p. 192), as if the mere analogy, and not a serious study, were justification enough for invalidating Baumstark's arguments. Second, despite the fact that he is not an Arabist, he proceeds to translate and analyse on his own the contents of the Arabic biographies. What he does, in effect, is to try to improve upon the work of the orientalists in an area in which, since it was their metier, they could be relied upon implicitly, even if one were to disagree with their methods. But since he does not perform the task properly, and is unwilling to be guided by previous research, he substitutes an idiefixe for detailed analysis: i.e. that everything in the Arabic biographies 'is either (a) derived from Ptolemy's work (including additions from the [Neoplatonic] prolegomena [ to Aristotle's philosophy]), or (b) a fictitious addition made in the Syriac or (most probably) the Arabic tradition' (p. 191, emphasis added). Leaving aside the cultural bias expressed in this statement, 10 Diiring's thesis, even if it could not be disproved on objective grounds, would still be very implausible: Aristotle had already attained near-legendary status before Islam, and the spurious and the authentic about his life circulated both in isolated and combined forms before the Graeco-Arabic translation period. It would be to argue against the law of probability were one to claim that out of all this variegated material available to them the Arabic translators singled out only one tradition, that represented by Ptolemy, and translated it. During's formulation thus preempts by definition the whole question of the spurious and the authentic: whatever is, according to During, authentic, derives from 'Ptolemy' ('including additions from the prolegomena'), and whatever is spurious, again according to his thinking, is a fictitious addition in Syriac or Arabic. Third, having rejected outright the method of the orientalists, and having substituted the idea of a universal Ptolemaic derivation for detailed analysis of the Arabic biographies, During is left with no method or criteria whereby he can discriminate THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

I

VI 18

judiciously either among the different layers ofhis sources or between the spurious and the authentic in them. Constrained as he is to fit everything onto the Procrustean bed of Ptolemy's imaginary Urtext,11 he is left with no alternative but the arbitrary selection of whatever fits his purpose from among the conclusions of the orientalists, 12 and dubious hypotheses when nothing of use is available from them. One such hypothesis that should be mentioned explicitly here is Diiring's assumption that the defence of the poets, grammarians, and rhetoricians by Aristotle found in the Neoplatonic Vita in the $iwan al~ikma (lines 6go-6 in Table I, part (c) below) "is based on a genuine quotation from one of Aristotles lost dialogues[!]' (p. 203). If this totally unwarranted assumption had gone unobserved, perhaps no harm would have been done; but it was noticed by one of the reviewers of Diiring's book, and there is a real danger that it may reappear in a future edition of the fragments of Aristotle's dialogues. 13 Diiring's conclusion is, in his own words, that the 'nine late epitomes of a Vita Aristotelis, two Greek [the Vitae Marciana and Vulgata], one Latin, two Syriac, and four Arabic vitae ... were extracts from a vita written by a certain Ptolemyl . 14 This completely misrepresents both the contents and the sources of the Arabic biographies, to say nothing of the Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The confusion it has created about the Arabic biographies is adequately summarized by an unsuspecting classicist's description of them: 'the garbled and derivative Arabic vitae'. 15 The Arabic biographies are neither, of course, but such is the impression of them generated by Diiring's book. Even worse, however, is the fact that this conclusion has created a spurious scholarly tradition which, I am afraid, given the renown of Diiring's work, 16 will be perpetuated primarily among classicists, but perhaps also by some Arabists who may not bother to look closer at the material since the whole subject is not central to their concerns. 17 Shortly after the appearance ofDiiring's book, A.-H. Chroust already talked in his Aristotle of the Arabic biographies as the Vita Aristotelis Arabica I, II, III and IV, as if they were independent and primary sources, and added to the overall confusion about their derivation by stating that they "are related to, or are more or less accurate abridgments of, either the Vita AristotelisofHermippus [!] or the Vita Aristotelis of Ptolemy' (pp. 1-2). Even During himself (or perhaps, especially Diiring) fell victim to the spurious results he generated: contrary to all logic, he persisted in maintaining the conclusion quoted above in the verysamearticlein which he announced the 'rediscoveryllB of the Arabic manuscript of Ptolemy's Vita which showed that the text known since last century through lbn Abi U~aybi'a is in fact the entire text (except the Introduction), and that consequently the "nine late epitomes of a VitaAristotelis' cannot be extracts from it! Only recently does it seem that the chain of errors is about to be broken: Marian Plezia, who read the Arabic manuscript of Ptolemy's Vita in a Polish translation prepared for him by his colleague, the orientalist Joseph Bielawski, realized that the Greek and Latin vitae do not derive from Ptolemy, and promised a renewed study; he said nothing of the Arabic lives, however, and this justifies, to a degree, the present study. 19

b) Methods of Research The question of method in the study of the Arabic biographies and the spurious and the authentic in them has two aspects: one concerns procedure, the other definitions. Because of the very nature of the material we are dealing with, viz. translations from Greek into Arabic, the procedure has of necessity to be based upon an investigation of the sources that will take into account, following the nineteenth-century orientalists, firm philological

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

evidence. In addition, however, the search for sources should be conducted in a way that will pay full regard to the context in which each discrete report occurs, and this in turn entails a thorough understanding of the nature and form of the Arabic biographies containing the reports. It was a failure to appreciate this point that proved to be the greatest stumbling block of classicists' research and the cause of much of the confusion in the proper evaluation of the significance of ~Arabic Life I, 11', etc. The contents of the Arabic biographies are motley and the compositional techniques of their respective authors vary widely. In reading them it is imperative to keep in mind that these authors compiled their entries from a great variety of sources. In the case of Greek learned men in general, and ol Aristotle in particular, they had at their disposal material from at least the following categories: independent Greek biographies available in Arabic translations done by others before them; reports, incidental and otherwise, in historical, chronographic, and earlier biographical literature in Arabic; incidental reports of a biographical nature in Arabic philosophical literature; biographical information in gnomological literature; and incidental biographical information in pseudepigraphic literature, both that translated from the Greek and that fabricated in Syriac, Pahlavi, or Arabic. With these sources on hand, the biographer's task was twofold, selecting and editing. In the performance of the former task, apart from considerations of brevity and length which determined the amount of material to be included in the entry, the biographer was guided solely by his unaided critical sense in selecting the quality of his material, i.e. in discriminating between the spurious and the authentic. What he knew as Greek material presented itself to him as a mass of undifferentiated reports for whose sorting and sifting he did not and could not have the requisite knowledge of (ancient) history, society, or personalities, as he did in the case of Arabic and Islamic material. His critical sense, we should further remember, was formed in and conformed to the standards of a tenthcentury Baghdad or an eleventh-century Cairo, not a contemporary bourgeois society. It is an indication of the continuity of a certain tradition and criteria that the amount of overlap between what both would consider 'accurate' is indeed phenomenal. In the performance of his editorial tasks, the biographer availed himself of the options most consistent with his purpose, training, and temperament: he could copy his sources eponymously or anonymously; in full or in abridged form; verbatim or paraphrastically; in order or haphazardly; and with or without editorial glosses. The biographers under consideration here employed, by and large, most of these methods. It follows that in order to arrive at their sources, the selecting and editing performed by them have to be traced in reverse, the historical process of their composition unravelled, so to speak. This is done, in the case ofretracing their process of selection, by isolating and identifying the source of each discrete element in the biographical entry, and in the case of their editing, by comparing the edited text with that of the source. This reverse procedure presupposes that the sources originally used, both immediate and ultimate, are available for the purposes of identification and comparison-and for Aristotle's biography they mostly are. In cases where the source of a report cannot be isolated or recognized, the context in which it occurs, to the extent that it can be determined, will have to provide guidance. Otherwise confession of ignorance is the best policy. It is worth emphasizing here that it is of the utmost importance to trace the provenance of a report back in history first within the Arabic tradition, to the point of its

VI '20

entrance into Arabic, and then, if at all possible, into Greek. Failure to heed this procedure, and attempts to associate a report at random in an Arabic author directlywith the Greek, even when the Greek is thought to be known or to be adequately surmised, can lead to erroneous conclusions. Since the subject of recovering 'fragments' of lost dialogues of Aristotle was mentioned above, I may cite as an example Richard Walzer's 'discovery' of a fragment of Aristotle's Erotikos in a late tenth-century mystical author, al-Daylami. Walzer's arguments in support of his thesis are all very learned and, given our slight knowledge of Aristotle's dialogues, very plausible; his mistake, however, consisted in not having asked about the concrete means of transmission of these "fragments' from their point of entrance into Arabic to al-Daylami. Had he done so he would have found that the alleged Aristotelian passage was in circulation in Arabic in at least four interdependent versions of varying form and length, all attributed to different authors, and ultimately and demonstrably deriving from a passage ascribed to Hippocrates in I:Iunayn's Nawadir. He would thus have been able to determine that the 'fragment' in dialogue form in alDaylami was an elaboration ofl:lunayn's text and other translated Greek material within the Arabic tradition, and not a passage from the Erotikos.20 The second aspect of the problem of method deals with definitions: how are spurious and authentic to be understood in the context of the Arabic sources? It should be made clear at the very outset that, again because of the nature of the material that we are dealing with, 'authentic' in this context is to be understood as equivalent to 'derived from the Greek' because the Arabic biographers themselves, for the reasons just mentioned, so considered it; and in this we are again in agreement with the nineteenth-century orientalists. We should not forget, however, that whatever is "authentic' in this sense in Arabic may well be spurious in Greek; and although the view may then be advanced that this becomes the concern of the classical scholar, can the Arabist justifiably disclaim responsibility for evaluating the authenticity of a text which, even if ultimately Greek, is none the less attested only or primarily in Arabic? If we decide to answer the question in the negative, as I think we should, we can derive much benefit from two recent works on the subject: W. Speyer's book, Die literarischeFalschungim heidnischenund christlichenAltertum (Miinchen, 1971), and Sir Ronald Syme's article, 'Fraud and Imposture' in the Fondation Hardt colloquium on Pseudepigrapha I (Geneva, 1972). Both works discuss exhaustively and with sophistication the definition, motivation, generation, history, and detection of spuriousness, and leave little else to be said; here I would like to bring up an aspect of spuriousness that has not found adequate formulation in these works perhaps because it lies outside their scope: it can be called 'tendentiousness' rather than fraud or forgery, but in literary history it has played a role at least equally as significant as either. In the case of the Arabic lives of Aristotle it can be discussed most appropriately in connection with the $iwan al-~ikma report about the pre-Platonic education of Aristotle (Table I, lines 680--96). According to this report, Aristotle was taken to Athens by his father at the age of eight and enrolled in a programme of studies with poets, grammarians, and rhetoricians, with whom he stayed until he was seventeen. During this time Epicurus and another (unidentified) 2 l philosopher attacked this programme of studies, saying that these subjects were absolutely of no value for philosophy since they taught, for the most part, falsehood. Aristotle took up the defence of his teachers by arguing that these subjects were instruments of philosophy, and that since philosophy represents truth, it has to be expressed in the most appropriate style and in the most fitting terms, some-

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

21

thing which can be learned only after apprenticeship with grammarians, poets, and rhetoricians. After finishing his study with them, Aristotle then took up philosophy with Plato. As far as historical fact is concerned, there seems to be none in this report. There is no indication whatsoever in the early Greek sources that Aristotle went to Athens before he was seventeen, nor that he defended the positions ascribed to him in the report before his association with Plato, even if it were to be granted that these positions do indeed reflect his later stand. How, then, did this report originate? The suggestions that have been offered are the following. During says (p. 202) that since the Neoplatonists had no interest in rhetoric[!], the (imaginary) anonymous Arabic author of the summary of Ptolemy's Vita could not have obtained his information from the Neoplatonists; he must therefore have received it from Ptolemy himself. During forgets, however, that by his reckoning Ptolemy was also a Neoplatonist, contemporary or slightly younger than Porphyry, and that therefore he should not have had an interest in rhetoric either; furthermore, he also fails to see the contradiction between this report and other parts of Ptolemy's biography (see Table I), and that they could not have co-existed in one and the same account by a Greek writer. As a motive for this report, During suggests a 'tendency to romanticism, combined with a desire to extol Aristotle' (p. 107). In his review ofDuring's book, Gigon suggests that the compiler of the Vita Marciana (which has only a brief mention of Aristotle's pre-Platonic liberal education) concluded from the fact that Aristotle wrote philological works that he must have had a liberal education; the mention in the $iwan al~ikma report that Aristotle had his liberal education in Athens Gigon ascribes to the assumption (on the part of the author of the report) that such an education could not have been had in provincial Stageira. 22 Chroust, finally, in addition to considering the report an "enlargement' and 'embellishment' by al-Mubashshir [!] of the traditional story of Aristotle's early education, introduces the hypothesis that Aristotle may in fact have gone to Athens before he was seventeen and studied with Isocrates. 23 All these hypotheses are patently weak and they miss the tendentious historicism implicit in this reconstruction of Aristotle's early life. The passage in the $iwan al-~ikma, identified as Neoplatonic already a century ago by Lippert, derives incontrovertibly from the Ammonius school oflate Alexandrian Aristotelianism. 24 The report is thus Greek, and therefore authentic in the Arabic tradition. The question, however, is, in what way is it spurious in the Greek tradition, or more specifically, is it possible to detect tendencies in this school that would account for the rise of such a story. Late Alexandrian scholars developed a stylized conception of the history of philosophy in which the march of knowledge was depicted as a progression from the practice of a discipline through the establishment of its theoretical foundation to its final elaboration. This sequence was suggested to them by the epilogue of Aristotle's De sophisticiselenchis, which they generalized and applied to the development of all branches of knowledge, with Aristotle representing the point of culmination. 25 The incipient stages of this view are already apparent in the extant Vita vulgata (otherwise known as the Vita Ammoniana, coming from the school of Ammonius), in which Aristotle is said to have transcended human standards by having missed nothing in his treatment of philosophy which he •erected fully' (medenellipesperi autespragmateusamenos... tenholenkatorthosephilosophian,par. 25, During). In particular his achievements in logic are described in the Vita vulgata through the use of the cobbler metaphor which was borrowed, apparently via Olympiodorus, from De sophisticiselenchis( 184a):

VI 22

to logic by distinguishing the rules from the subject matter (apo ton method. For his predecessors (hoi palai) knew how to use demonstration but were unable to construct demonstrative syllogisms, just like people who are unable to make shoes but know how to use them. 26

Aristotle made additions

pragmaton) and by creating the demonstrative

It was against this framework that the history of philosophy, of which the life of Aristotle was seen as an integral-indeed, the crowning-part, was reconstructed. The particular details in this case about his position on rhetoric and philosophy were readily available in the historical controversy between the Epicureans and the Aristotelians, 27 which could then be projected backwards into his early education and grafted on to the stylized account. The stages of the development of this backward projection are again evident at their inception in both the Vita Marciana and the Vita vulgata, where it is mentioned that Aristotle, ~while still young, had a liberal education' (par. 4 and 3, respectively, During), and reach their final form in what must be a later recasting in Greek of the same material, the report in the $iwan al-~ikma, preserved only in Arabic translation. The rationale behind this development is thus twofold: one is to have Aristotle reproduce, in his own education, the history of philosophy up to his time in order to be able to develop it further, and the other is to have him reflect, again in his own education, the curricula and school practices contemporary with those of the biographer(s). In other words, the purpose of this tendentious biography is to justify, through the invocation of the authority of Aristotle's life, both the late Alexandrian curriculum in general, from the trivium on through 'graduate' work, and the Aristoteliancurriculum in particular. The need for such justification is to be sought, I believe, in the conflict between paganism and Christianity in sixth-century Alexandria, a subject whose serious treatment is long overdue. 28 The tendentiousness of the Alexandrian scholars, which clearly colours their very understanding and recordingof the history of philosophy in general and of the life of Aristotle in particular, is thus a spuriousness different in kind from fraud and forgery in that it seems to be a collective enterprise, reflecting unconsciously the views of a society, or at least the prevalent views of a segment of a society, as opposed to the work of the individual forger which addresses itself consciously to the prevailing views and tastes of a (segment of a) society. 29 For this reason tendentiousness is also harder to detect and guard against in the documents exhibiting it. Nevertheless, particularly in the case of late Alexandrian tendentiousness, which was transmitted wholesale into Arabic and presented itself to Islamic civilization as factual information, its detection and definition at every instance is a task of primary importance if we are ever to trace with any degree of precision the contours of the path that led from Alexandria to Baghdad. c) The Sources:the Tasks of Future Research The Arabic biographies of Aristotle containing material that is significant both for being original, i.e. deriving immediately and demonstrably from a Greek source, and for helping to control the original material, ar~ listed below in chronological order. The contents of each biography are analysed and their sources presented in accordance with the procedural guidelines discussed in the preceding section. Although an effort has been made to take into account every detail of the contents that is relevant for the present tabulation, variations among the biographies of a purely verbal or philological nature have been disregarded; these will be the concern of the future editor and translator. Table I, which follows after the list, presents in parallel columns the two principal Greek

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

sources, Ptolemy and the report in the $iwan al-~ikma, and the way in which they were incorporated in the texts of al-Mubashshir and Ibn Abi U~aybifa.

I. II. III. IV.

I. II. III.

IV.

V. VI. VII. VIII.

IX.

I. II. III. IV.

V.

VI.

1) PTOLEMY, The Will of Aristotle, the Pinax of His Works, and a Brief Life, to Gallus (early 4th (?) 30 century AD, Greek; 9th (?) century, Arabic translation 31) ff.10v1-11'13. Dedication to Gallus and lntroduction. 32 ff.11'13-13'14. Life of Aristotle. Detailed list of contents in Table I. ff. 13'14-14v4. Aristotle's Will.33 ff. 14v4-18'3 (end). Pinax of Aristotle's works. 34 2) IBN AL-NADIM, Index (Al-Fihrist, compiled 377/987) 35 246.26. Etymology of Aristotle,s name. 246.26-29. Summary of PTOLEMY I. a) 246.29-30. Transition by lbn al-Nadim: Aristotle was one of Plato's students. b) 246.30. From PTOLEMY 2.a.i. c) 246.31. From PTOLEMY 2.b. d) 246.31-247.1. From PTOLEMY 2.c. e) 247.1. Summary of PTOLEMY 5.b. a) 247.1-4. Transition by lbn al-Nadim: introduction to Aristotle's letter to Alexander. b) 247.4-13. From On GoverningCities.36 c) 247. 13-14. Epilogue by lbn al-Nadim admiring the preceding quotations. 247. 14-17. Summary of PTOLEMY 6.d, e. 247. 17-19. a) Aristotle dies aged 66; b) succeeded by Theophrastus. 247.19-248.13. From PTOLEMY III: Aristotle's Will. 248.13-14. ls9aq b. I:Iunayn says: Aristotle died at 67. 248.15-252 .4. Bibliography of Aristotle,s works and their commentaries by lbn alNadim himself, with additional information about their translation into Arabic.37 3) IBN JULJUL, Generationsof P}rysiciansand Philosophers( Tabaqat al-a(ibba', compiled 377/987) 38 25.5-7. a) Name, origin, fame; b) activities: medicine and philosophy. 25. 7-1 7. Partial list of works. 26. 1--8. From the Proem of Secretumsecretorum(67.6-7, 68.8-69.4 Badawi) 39 : Aristotle and Alexander. a) 26.g-21. From Secretumsecretorum(126--127 Badawi): the •Octagon of justice'. b) 26.21-22. The •Octagon of Justice, was inscribed on Aristotle's tomb. 40 27. 1-4. From the Proem of Secretumsecretorum(67. 10-68.3 Badawi) 41: Aristotle's death and apotheosis: some say that he simply died and has a well-known grave; others say he was taken up to heaven in a pillar oflight. God revealed to Aristotle: •It is more appropriate that I should call you an angel rather than a man.' Aristotle's philosophical sciences are too numerous to mention. 27.5--6. Reference to The Book of the Apple. 4) $IW ANAL-If I KMA ( The Depositoryof WisdomLiterature,corn piled between 375-42 I/ 985-1030)42

A. Biographical Section I. II.

678=--713.Life of Aristotle. See the detailed list of contents in Table I. 713=717. From AL ..FARABi, ·extolling Aristotle's accomplishments. 43

VI 24

B. Gnomological section III. IV.

718-879. Sayings of Aristotle, including selections from his correspondence Alexander. 880-894. From AL-TAWI:IiDi 1 s al-Ba.fa'ir wa-l-1a~a'ir.44

with

5) AL-MUBASHSHIR b. FA.TIK, ChoicestMaxims and Best Sayings (Mukhtar al-~ikam wa-ma~asinal--kalim,compiled 440/1048--49). 45 A. Biographical Section I 78. 14-184 ult. See the detailed list of contents in Table I. B. Gnomological section 185---222.7. Sayings of Aristotle, including selections from his correspondence with Alexander. The section ends with the quotation of the •Octagon of Justice, from the Secretumsecretorum(see lbnjuljul IV.a). 6) ~A.'ID AL-ANDALUSI, Generationsof Nations (Tabaqat al-umam, compiled 460/ 1068)46 24.1---5.From AL-MAS•'UDI's Funun al-ma'arif(cf. his Tanb'ihn5--16, de Goeje). a) Etymology of Aristotle and Nicomachus. b) Nicomachus of Gerasa [!] was a Pythagorean; wrote on arithmetic. c) Aristotle was the student of Plato, with whom he studied twenty years. 24.6--26. 14. Aristotle's philosophical activity: a) 24.6-g. Aristotle was the seal of Greek philosophers, founder of the demonstrative method. b) 24.g-26.6. Classification of Aristotle's works; from AL-F A.RA.Bi,s Introductionto the Study of Philosophy.47 c) 26.7-14. Quotation from the Epilogue of Aristotle's De sophisticiselenchis. a) 26.15----17.Mention of the correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander. b) 2 7. 1-4. Reference to the 'l'..etter of the Golden House' ,'i.e. the Ps.-Aristotelian De mundo.48 I

I.

II.

III.

I. II.

III. IV.

V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

XI.

7) AL-ZA WZANi, Selections from al-QifWs Historyof thePhilosophers(Al-Muntakhabatmin Akhbar al-~uka1!fa',compiled 64 7/I 249) 49 27.18-28.1. From ~~'ID I. a) 28. 1-2 r. From ~A'ID II.a, b, up top. 25.9. b) 28.21-29.2. Editorial excuse by al-Zawzani (Ibn al-Qifti?) for abbreviating the classification of Aristotle,s works. 29.3-6. From ~A.'ID III.a. a) 29.6--7. Transition by Ibn al-Qifti (al-Zawzani?): It was on account of Aristotle that philosophy and other ancient sciences spread in Islamic lands. b) 29.7-31.21. The transmission of the Greek sciences to Islam, mostly from the FIHRIST. 50 31.22-32.11. From the FIHRISTI, II, III, IV.a. 32. 11-15. From the FIHRISTV, VI. 32. 16--g4.7. From the FIHRISTVII, Aristotle,s Will. 34.8-9. From the FIHRISTVIII. a) 34.10-42.12. From the FIHRISTIX, Aristotle,s works. b) 42.13-14. Adde_nga bv lbn al-Qif!i_t~Aristotle,s bibliography. 42.15-48.8. From PTOLEMY IV~ Pinax. 48.g-17. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (184.11-19).

VI THE ARABIC

XII. XIII.

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV.

xv.

XVI. XVII.

XVIII. XIX. XX. XXL

25

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

48.18-49.16. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (182.5-183.12); the last part (49.12-16) is abbreviated and ends with an editorial comment by Ibn al-Qifti (al-Zawzani?). 49. I 7-53 ult. Review of the history of philosophy in antiquity and Islam. 8) IBN ABI U~A YBI'A, Essential Informationon the Generationsof PhysiciansCUyiin al-anba'ft {ab_aqat al-a{ibba', final recensio!l c~mpleted 667 / 1268)51 54.3.7. From ~A.ID I.a, b, from AL-MAS'UDI. 54.7.9. From IBNJULJUL I.b. 54.9--56.2. From PTOLEMY 11, paragraphs 1 through 6 (See Table I). 56.2-18. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (179.5-180.10, from ,?'/WAN Ab-lf/KMA 680-698). 56.18.-21. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (180.13-16). 56.21-28. From AL-MUBA~HS_HIR (182.13-183.5). 5&.2g-57-4- From AL-MASfUDl"s AI-Masalik wa-1-mamalik. 57.4-11. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (183.6-13). 57. 11-17. From AL-MUBASHSHIR ( 184.11-18). 57. q-18. From I:IUNAYN''s_N~wadir (Merkle par. no. 7): 52 Signet ring. 57.18-21. From AL-SIJISTANl"s Ta•atiq: Theophrastus was the trustee of Aristotle. Age of Aristotle and Plato at their death. 57.21-22. From the FIHRISTVI.a. 57.22. From the FIHIJ.ISTVIII. 57.23----58.32.From ~NIQ II:. _ 58.3~60.20. From AL-FARABl"s l~ra' al-'uliim 46.11-54.3 (Gonzalez Palencia). 60.20-61.17. From PTOLEMY III. Aristotle's Will. 61.17--63.29. From I:IUNAYN~s Nawadir (Merkle par. nos.): 11: Origin of the gatherings of the philosophers. 12: The story of Aristotle, the 'precocious orphan' (see section 3, below). 13: Sayings of Aristotle at the court ofRwfst 1nys. 14: Curriculum of studies. 63.29--32. A saying by Aristotle on the preservation of health. 63.32-67 top. From AL-MUBASHSHIR (selectively 187.12-222.7): Aristotle's saymgs. 67 top-69.5. From PTOLEMY IV. Pinax. 69.5-21. Addenda by Ibn Abi U~aybf a to Aristotle's bibliography. 53 TABLE I

PTOLEMY II [P]

$!WAN AL-/-f/KMA [$}:I]

AL-MUBASHSHIR

[M]

IBN ABl U$AYBI' A [IAU]

678-680. Etymology of name; father's name and occupation; birthplace of A. IAU # III: 54.g-56.2=P 1-6

1. PEDIGREE a) Origins: A. is from Stageira b) Father's name c) Mother's name d) Father physician of Amyntas; descendant of Asclepius e) Mother also desc. of Asclepius

54.10-12=P 1a 179,2"'P 179.2;=P

680-696. At 8, A. taken by his father to Athens, where he studies 9 years with poets, grammarians, rhetoricians. Epicurus attacks them but A. comes to their defence.

IC

Id

179.4-5=P 1e 179.5-188. 7=$}:I

54.12=P JC 54.12-14=P Id 54..l4--is=P 1e [IVa: 56.2-16=M=$}:I]

VI 696-699. Finished with that at 17, A. studies philosophy with Plato in the Academy. 2. 1st SOJOURN IN ATHENS: ACADEMY a)Upon Nicomachus' death, Proxenus takes A. to Athens: i) following Pythian oracle; or ii) because Prox. & Plato were friends. b) A. stays 20 years with Plato. 699-703. A. studies directly with Plato and not with Xenocrates, as was the case with Plato's other students.

180.11-12.aP 2b 180.12-13.a~l::I

18o.13-16. Saying: 'ho nous apesti'. 18o.16-e-18=P 2C

c) During Plato's'2nd trip to Sicily, A. heads the Academy. 703-704. Upon Plato's death, A. moves to the Lyceum in order 704-705 to teach philosophy, leaving Xenocrates behind in the Acad. to teach Platonism. d) Upon Plato's return, A. moves to the Lyceum. e) A. establishes in the Lyceum the Peripatetic school.

181. 1.a.P 2e

54.21=P 2e

181 13---15=P 4b 181 15-182.2=P 4c

54,-,i5-28=P 4b 54..21k-3eaaP 4c

706-709. Plato advocated exercise of mind and body; following him, A. & Xenocr. taught while walking; hence the name Peripatetic Academicians. 709-711. Later the Xenocrateans called the Aristotelians Peripatetics only. 711-713. A.'s books deposited in Lyceum. 3. A. WITH HERMIAS & PHILIP a) Upon Plato's death, A. goes to Hermias, and when he dies, returns to Athens. b) Upon Philip's invitation, A. goes to Macedonia where he teaches until Alexander's Asian campaigns. 4. 2nd SOJOURN IN ATHENS: LYCEUM a) A. leaves Callisthenes in Macedonia in his place and returns to the Lyceum where he teaches for I o years. b) Eurymedon accuses A. of impiety. c) In order to avoid the fate of Socrates, A. leaves for Chalcis. d) A. left Athens without delivering an apology.

182.2-3. lfl Euboea, A. studies the flow of Euripus. 182.3-4. A. dies & is buried there, aged 68. 5. DEATH a) A. stays in Chalcis the rest of his life; dies at age 66.

VI THE ARABIC

27

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

b) It is not true that A. was first engaged in politics and then studied philosophy after 30. c) Stageirites transfer his body to the Aristoteleion, which they use as an assembly place. d) A. was the lawgiver ofStageira.

55.g-5=P 5c [=VIa: 56. 2124=M: DOUBLET] 55-5--.6=P 5d

6. LEGACY a) A. was honoured by commoners & kings. b) A. was a philanthropist and intercessor with kings on behalf of commoners. c) Athenians erect a stele in the Acropolis in his honour. Story about Himeraeus. d) When Alexander set out for his Asian campaigns, A. abandoned politics, went to Athens, and established the Peripatetic school. e) A.'s philanthropic activities. I) A.'s character traits: modesty etc.

55.7-10=P 6b

182.14-183.5. A.'s tomb used as meeting place by Stageirites: purifies the mind.

183.6-15. A.'s pupils (=~J:II I 72-75) & children (=P, A.'s will). 183. 16-184-4- Summary note on A.'s books. 184.5-IO. Plato & A. on whether to write down philosophy. 54 184.11-18. Appearance & character. 184.19. A. dies at 68.

55.28--31 =P 6e 55"31-56.2=P 6f Vlb: 56.24-28=M

VII: 56.2g-57.4. Note by Mas'udi on temple in Sicily=A.'s tomb? VIII: 57.4-11=M

IX: 57.11-18'-=M

The results to be obtained from the above tabulation about the contents of the Arabic biographies are self-evident. Briefly, they are the following: Most of the biographical information in the Fihrist (par. II, III, V, and VII) derives from the Arabic translation of Ptolemy's Vita. Of the two mentions of Aristotle's age at the time of his death (par. VI.a and VIII), the former derives either from Ptolemy (par. II.5.a.) or from a chronography, and the latter, transmitted from Isl_iiiqb. J:Iunayn, most likely from a chronography. That Theophrastus was Aristotle's successor (par. VI.b) was a commonplace. The bibliography (par. IX) is mercifully Ibn al-Nadim's own contribution. The remaining two paragraphs are unrelated to Aristotle's biography: par. I derives from the comments on the meaning of Aristotle's name by a translator into Arabic, 55 and par. IV contains three quotations from the correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander. The bulk oflbnJ uljul's report consists of quotations from the Secretof Secrets(par. III, IV, V) with a final reference, appropriate because the subject is Aristotle's death, to The Book of the Apple (par. VI). The bibliography (par. II) appears to be Ibn Juljul's own summary of traditional Alexandrian material and is unrelated to Ptolemy's Pinax.

VI 28 Biographical information proper is supplied in the first paragraph only, which alone mentions Aristotle as having discoursed on medicine. The source of this report remains to be investigated. The entire first part (A.I) of the biographical section in the $iwan al-lJ,ikmaconsists of an independent life of Aristotle of late Alexandrian origin, as discussed in section (b) above. The second part (A.II), transmitted through al-Fara.bi, appears to be an encomium of Aristotle's achievements stemming from the same tradition and possibly at some time attached to a biography (seen. 43). The analysis of the composition of al-Mubashshir's text given in Table I indicates that it consists of a very skilful blend, or braiding, of two sources, Ptolemy and the life in the $iwan al-~ikma. Unspecified remain(s), at this stage, the immediate contextual source(s) of the following major paragraphs (along with some other minor details) in al-Mubashshir: a) lines 180.13-16, the saying 'the intellect is absent (ho nous apesti); b) 182.2-3, Aristotle's studying the flow ofEuripus in Euboea; c) 182. 14-183.5, Aristotle's tomb used as a meeting place by the Stageirites because it purified the mind and sharpened the intellect; 56 and d) Aristotle's appearance and character. Whether these passages derive from Ptolemy's work (assuming the original translation to which al-Mubashshir had access was fuller than the text preserved in the late manuscript), or from the life in the $iwan al-lJ,ikma(in its original recension and not that represented by the Muntakhab which is available to us), or from both, or from a third source, are all questions that have yet to be answered. The biographical information in ~afid's Tabaqat is also limited (par. I): it is expressly attributed to a work by al-Mas'iidi (d. 956 AD) that has not survived, the Funun al-ma'arif, and it seems to belong to the chronographic tradition. It is unclear whether the mention in the same paragraph that Plato used to call Aristotle ~the intellect' was inserted by ~aFid, by al-Mas'iidi, or by his source. The remaining two sections in ~afid's work are unrelated to Aristotle's biography: par. II derives, both through al-Fara.bi and in an independent, but as yet unspecified, way, from the familiar by now late Alexandrian classification of Aristotle's works and reconstruction of the history of philosophy, even to the citation of the epilogue of De sophisticis elenchis; par. III refers to the correspondence between Alexander and Aristotle. Al-Zawzani's (Ibn al-Qifti's) entry on Aristotle is completely derivative and does not add any biographical information beyond that presented by the preceding sources. Both the section on the transmission of the Greek sciences to Islam (par. IV. b), which is derived mostly from the Fihrist, and the last section on the history of philosophy, interesting as it is, are unrelated to Aristotle's biography. Ibn Abi U~aybifa, finally, combines almost all of the information given by the preceding sources and adds a few more: par. VII, X, XI, XV, XVII, XVIII, XXI. Of these only three have any biographical relevance: par. VII is about Aristotle's alleged tomb in a temple in Sicily, reported from al-Mas'iidi (see section 5, below); al-Sijistani's paragraph (XI) consists of otherwise readily available information; and 1:f unayn's story about the young Aristotle (XVII) will be mentioned below (section III). To recapitulate and conclude with the tasks for future research. The lives of Aristotle found in the Arabic biographies of learned men were compiled by drawing upon the following sources: i) Ptolemy's Vita. All the biographers who drew upon Ptolemy's text knew it largely in

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES .OF ARISTOTLE

the form in which it is extant in the Aya Sofya Manuscript. (I say 'largely' because of the existence of a number of significant variants between it and the texts drawing upon it which have yet to be explained.) Since the transmission of Ptolemy's text in the manuscript is independent of the biographical tradition and there is no contamination between the two, it is evident that the manuscript text represents the only recension in which Ptolemy's Vita was known in Arabic. The next question, whether it also represents the text of the Syriac translation, assuming, with Baumstark, that there was one, cannot be answered with similar finality. It is to be noted, however, that the very presence, in the manuscript text, of Ptolemy's introduction, which was irrelevant in an Arabic context (as its omission by all the biographers shows), and the fact that one set of the Syriac fragments deriving from Ptolemy contains nothing that is not also to be found in the Arabic text, 57 indicate strongly that the Arabic translation faithfully reflects its Syriac original. The final question of the Greek archetype and of the fidelity of the Syriac translation to it will have to be left open for lack of documentation. The most pressing future task is thus a critical edition of the Arabic translation of the Vita. This edition will have to be based on a careful comparison and collation of the Aya Sofya Manuscript with the texts of the biographers. As mentioned in note 31, the manuscript is late and its text may in places be corrupt; the texts of the biographers, on the other hand, being older than the manuscript, may occasionally provide better readings; the factor that can never be overlooked in deciding between the two, however, is the possibility of editorial intrusions by the biographers themselves, given their compositional techniques discussed in section ( b). Only a careful sifting of these variables will establish the Arabic text of the original translation and its probable date, resolve the issue of the significant variants among the witnesses, and determine the source of the problematic passages in al-Mubashshir. It is to be hoped that the prospective edition by Plezia and Bielawski, announced in 1975, will successfully complete this task. 58 ii) The tendentious Alexandrian biography preserved in the ,$iwanal-~ikma. It is used directly only by al-Mubashshir, and through him by Ibn al-Qiffi and lbn Ahi U~aybifa. Al-Mubashshir's text derives from the original recension of the ,$iwanal-~ikma (cf. n. 42), while the text available to us is that of the Muntakhab, i.e. an abridgement made some time in the first half of the thirteenth century AD. It would be desirable to arrive at an improved text of this biography through the use of the evidence provided by al-Mubashshir. iii) Fragments of the biographical tradition. This category is tentative and intended to cover all reports which cannot be currently assigned to a specific source. These are primarily the unidentified paragraphs in al-Mubashshir, particularly the one on Aristotle's appearance and character, and the opening paragraph of lbn Juljul which mentions Aristotle's medical expertise. It is very likely that the former may turn out to belong to Ptolemy or the ,$iwan al-~ikma report, while the latter should be investigated within the context oflbnJuljuPs Western sources (Orosius, Stjerome, Isidore), a subject that requires further study. iv) Histories and chronographies. See below, section II. v) Aristotle, "the precocious orphan'. See below, section III. vi) The Book of the Apple. See below, section IV. vii) "Adespota'. See below, section V. viii) Correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander. In the biographies listed above there are quotations from this cycle of material belonging to the 'epistles' known as On GoverningCities, The Secretsof Secrets,and The GoldenHouse (De mundo).These quotations

VI 30 represent the individual selection of each biographer, and because they can be thereby dated, allow a certain amount of control in the study of the form and diffusion of this correspondence. ix) Gnomological literature. x) Philosophical literature. The selections under this heading, mostly from al-Fara.bi, indicate once more the close connection that existed, in Alexandrian scholasticism and hence in Islam as well, between the introductions to Aristotle's philosophy and the study of his tendentious biography. xi) Bibliographies of Aristotle. In addition to Ptolemy's Pinax, the other major bibliographical source was the Alexandrian writings on the classification of Aristotle's works (cf. n. 47). To this the biographers appended information based on their own knowledge of the books circulating in their time under the name of Aristotle.

II Brief summary reports on Aristotle, his fame, his dates, and his relation to Plato and Alexander are derived, as a rule, from Arabic histories and chronographies which in turn follow Syriac and Greek prototypes. Baumstark discussed these (Aristoteles,pp. 3-4), and attempted to trace the information on Aristotle to a brief Syriac biography (genos)which he called the 'Anonymous of Is}:iaq b. I:Iunayn' (pp. 105-25). Baumstark's suggestion cannot be maintained any longer since a) the material which he lists under 'Historiker' on pp. 1 17-25 is not related to that presented in the parallel columns and is mostly derived from Ptolemy, and b) as already mentioned Is}:iaq's Chronologydoes not contain any of these passages. A study that would collect and translate anew these reports ought to arrive, in the light of present knowledge, at a more accurate understanding of their sources. 59 III The story of Aristotle 'the precocious orphan' is found primarily in I:Iunayn's Nawadir alfalasifa. According to this story, Aristotle was an orphan whose high-mindedness led him to become a servant of Plato who at that time was teaching Nitafiirus, the son of the king Riifistanis. The prince, who was extremely dull, could not remember what he had been taught from one day to the next; the precocious Aristotle, on the other hand, who would secretly listen to the iessons, learned everything. On the day of his public examination, a lavish event by its description in the text, the prince was unable to answer any of the questions posed to him by Plato. Plato then addressed the questions twice (or thrice, according to some versions) to his other students, but each time Aristotle impertinently volunteered to answer. In the end Plato allowed him to speak, and Aristotle reproduced every single word that Plato had taught the prince. Plato thereupon took him as his student and taught him his philosophy. The story is found both in l:Iunayn's Nawadir alj"alasifa and, independently ofit, in the Istanbul manuscripts Aya Sofya 4260 and Fatih 5323 which contain the correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander. In I:Iunayn, it is told within a larger frame which begins with an account of the gathering of the philosophers for the purpose of the education of the children of aristocracy (Merkle, par. 11 ), includes the above event as an example (Merkle, par. 12), is folio.wed by the text of seventy-four maxims which Aristotle recited on the day

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

of the examination (Merkle, par. 13), and ends with a description of the Alexandrian curriculum of the trivium, quadrivium, and philosophy (Merkle, par. 14). In the Fatih Manuscript, the introductory section on the gatherings of the philosophers and the last section on the Alexandrian curriculum are omitted. 60 The story has not been studied to any appreciable degree, and it would be premature to speculate about its origins. It appears, however, to belong to the Alexandrian tradition, though perhaps not to the Alexandrian milieu: the names point to a non-Greek origin because they seem, even allowing for their garbled form, not to be Greek but intended to sound Greek. Furthermore, if the transmission of the story is related, as the Istanbul manuscripts would tend to indicate, to that of the 'epistolary romance' cycle of Aristotle and Alexander which, according to Grignaschi, dates from late Umayyad times (ea. 72050 AD), it would mean that the story itselfis in all probability of non-Arabic origin as well. These indications would point to a date of composition during that obscure period of the transmission from Greek into Arabic, the century and a half between about 650 and 800 AD. Baumstark suggests Persia as the place of origin; a Syriac milieu would be the other alternative. A careful comparison of the J:Iunayn and 'correspondence' versions, which differ in significant points, and a study of their respective sources, may provide a better understanding of the situation.

IV Research on the Arabic version of The Book of the Apple belongs properly to the field of the transmission of the Platonic dialogues into Arabic, not of the Arabic Pseudo-Aristotle. The Book of the Apple, which is patently an adaptation of the Phaedo,circulated in Arabic first under the name of Socrates and then of Aristotle: this is indicated by the fact that of the five known manuscripts of the Arabic text, two attribute it to the former and three to the latter. 61 Had the text first entered (rather than been composed in?) Arabic under the name of Aristotle, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it was subsequently also attributed to Socrates. The specific problem facing research on Pseudo-Aristotle is thus to account for and locate the misattribution of the work to Aristotle within the Arabic tradition, not to study its origins. It would help future investigation if these two problems were kept separate.

V Under the rubric of• Adespota' may be classified all individual stories about Aristotle which are strewn throughout Arabic literature and which derive from none of the above categories. They may be called the folklore of Aristotle, and they seem to portray images of him that caught the imagination of the peoples of the Middle East, over whose intellectual leaders he held sway for more than two thousand years. The collection of these stories would be a desirable undertaking. They include, for example, the story about Aristotle's tomb, suspended in the basilica of Palermo and venerated by the local Christians (Ibn Abi U~aybi~a, par. VII), 62 as well as the following interesting story, with which I conclude: 63 In the district ofTiberias [in Palestine], there is a hot water spring called al-l:lamma. Whoever takes a bath in it for three days and then bathes in another spring, cold this time, is cured of pustules, abscesses, fistulas, and of all other diseases, with God 1s permission. I heard the people

VI of Tiberias mention that all around this spring there were special clinics for each disease. All patients who washed in the appropriate clinic were cured. This lasted until the time of Aristotle, who asked the king of his time to have these clinics destroyed so that people would not dispense with physicians.

NOTES 1 A previous symposium organized at the Warburg Institute in May of 1980 dealt with but one text in the repertory of the pseudonymous correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander, the famous Secretumsecretorum.The papers presented at that symposium have now been published in the series of the Warburg Institute Surveys IX: W. F. Ryan and Charles B. Schmitt (eds), Pseudo-Aristotle. The Secretof Secrets.Sourcesand Influences(London, 1982). It would be desirable to organize in the future a 'state of the art' conference on this material as a whole. 2 Most of the orientalist literature is conveniently listed by During, Biographical Tradition, pp. 183-4. (One correction: the article by Muller 2 appeared in the Festschrifl for Fleischer, not Fischer, as printed on p. 183.) The only twentieth-century works cited there, those by R. Walzer, do not deal specifically with Aristotle's biography. 3 Classical scholarship before the appearance of Du ring's book used with benefit the results of the orientalists (see A. Dihle, 'Der Platoniker Ptolemaios', Hermes, 85 (1957), pp. 314-25, and the literature cited there); these accomplishments remained somehow hidden to subsequent classicists who had Dilring's list mentioned in the previous note to refer them to the publications themselves. What the studies of the orientalists achieved was certainly more than simply 'bestimmte Fragenkomplexe gesondert aufzuklaren', as M. Plezia puts it in one of his reviews ofDilring's book (Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 82, 6 Oune 1961), col. 517), and by no stretch of the meaning of the terms could the field of the Arabic lives of Aristotle be called the 'nahezu Unerforschte', as F. Dirlmeier describes it in his review (lychnos (, 95 7-8), p. 288). It would seem that this lack of appreciation of the orientalist studies by later classicists is due to their uncritical and uninformed adoption of Dilring's attitude toward them, which itself was formed through his lack of understanding of these accomplishments. See the discussion that follows. 4 See Baumstark's stemmata in his Aristoteles,pp. 36 and , 17, and his own summary on p. 126. The work by Lippert referred to is his Studienauf dem Gebietedergriechisch-arabischen Obersetzungslitteratur(Braunschweig, 1894), Heft 1: 'Quellenforschungen zu den arabischen Aristotelesbiographien', pp. 3c--38. 5 For the manuscript of Ptolemy's Vita and its.contents see below, section (c) and n. 31; Is~aq's work was discovered in a manuscript independent of the biographical tradition and published with a translation by F. Rosenthal, 'ls~aq b. I:Iunayn's Ta 1rih al-A~ibba 1 ', 0riens, 7 ( 1954), pp. 55-80. Baumstark's assumption of Ibn al-Khamma?s Fi sirat al-faylasiif as the intermediary between Is~aq's 'Ptolemy' and lbn al-Nadim (Aristoteles, pp. 21-3) was disproved by Lippert, 'Zur Bedeutung des Titels "Sirat al-

Failasiif" (Fihrist 265, 6)', Mitteilungen des Seminars fur 0rientalischeSprachen,Berlin, 7 ( 1904), pp. 22-4, an article that is missing from Dilring's list of orientalist literature referred to in n. 2. For the $iwan al-~ikma see below, n. 42. The Philosophical Life of Rhazes was published and translated into French in 0rientalia, 4 ( 1935), pp. 300--34, by P. Kraus, who revised the edition of the text in his subsequent Ra_zisoperaphilosophica(Cairo, 1939), pp. 97-111. There is an English translation by A. J. Arberry, 'Rhazeson the Philosophic Life', The Asiatic Review, 45 ( 1949), pp. 70313. About the various titles of the work, see the article by Kraus in 0rientalia, pp. 302-3. With his usual careful scholarship, Kraus had already noted (p. 302, n. 4) that 'les graves consequences que A. Baumstark, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, p. , , 5, , 26 ss., tire de ce titre ne nous semblent nullement justifices'. On the relation of Baumstark's three sources to my conclusions see below, section (c). 6 The most substantial reviews are those by 0. Gigon in -Giittingische gelehrteAnzeigen, 2 12, 1-2 ( 1958), pp. 1-1 g, and by M. Plezia in Gnomon, 34 ( 1962), pp. 126-32 (Plezia's second review, above, n. 3, is more descriptive than critical). The companion pieces to these reviews are, by Gigon, 'lnterpretationen zu den antiken Aristoteles-Viten', Museum Helveticum, , 5 ( 1958), pp. 147---93,and by Plezia, 'Supplementary Remarks on Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition', Eos, 51 (1961), pp. 241---9.References to numerous other reviews can be found in L 'Annie philologique,vols 2g-34, cited along with Dilring's book. As far as I can tell, no review appeared in an orientalist journal. Among later literature directly bearing on the Arabic lives of Aristotle I may mention Gigon's edition of the Vita Aristotelis Marciana (Berlin, 1962); Dilring's 'Ptolemy's Vita AristotelisRediscovered', in R. B. Palmer and R. HamertonKelly (eds), Philomathes [Ph. Merlan Festschrijt] (The Hague, 1971), pp. 264---9; Plezia's 'De Ptolemaeo Pinacographo', Eos, 63 ( 1975), pp. 37-42; and the numerous articles by A.-H. Chroust, reprinted in his Aristotle, vol. I (London, 1973). Chroust's essays, as noted by Ch. Kirwan in one of the few reviews which his book received, is 'heavily indebted to During' (.The ClassicalReview, go ( 1976), p. 70). 7 C. E. Dubler, 'Uber arabische Pseudo-Aristotelica', AsiatischeStudien, 4 ( 1961), pp. 45-6, 50--3. Du bier's derivative treatment is inconsequential; it consists of uncritical and selective acceptance of statements in secondary and tertiary literature. Relevant to our discussion is the following: on p. 50 Dubler says that everything that the Arabic biographies of Aristotle contain 'konnte auch im Diogenes Laertios gestanden haben', a statement which, although not included in quotation marks, was taken verbatim from Gigon's 'Aristoteles-Viten', p. 193. For his part, Gigon arrived at this conclusion primarily because he was misled

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

by Di.iring into believing that all Arabic reports on Aristotle derive from Ptolemy's Vita, and by Gigon's account Ptolemy transmitted purely Hellenistic, i.e. pre-Laertian material. Di.iring, finally, made the corresponding assertion because, as we shall next discuss, he failed to understand Baumstark's and Lippert's analyses and to credit their conclusion ofa distinctly Neoplatonic stratum in the Arabic biographies. This stratum could not have existed in Diogenes Laertius; see the discussion about the $iwiin al-~ikma report in section (b), below. 8 The assessment by Drossaart Lulofs of the work as a whole applies in particular to the second part on the Arabic material: 'The author repeatedly displays a tendency towards simplification of complicated problems, and there is a strange contrast between the easy solutions advocated by the interpreter (who often does not even care to mention the opinions of others) and the austerity of the philologist who collated scores of manuscripts for the texts he edited' (review in Mnemosyne, 14 (1961), p. 56). Without the mitigating philological aspect in the Arabic section, there remain only the easy solutions. See next note. 9 Despite his stated reservations on p. 190, Di.iring says that the translations from Syriac and Arabic are his own and that they had been 'checked', in the former case, by 0. Lofgren, and in the latter, by B. Lewin (pp. 187, 193, 197, 213). But he alone is 'responsible for all shortcomings in this chapter' (p. 7), and they are so many that they seriously diminish the usefulness of the translations and the commentaries as a basis for further research (for examples see notes 10, 12, 21, 31, 33, 55). Even more questionable is his general knowledge of Arabic/Islamic culture: e.g., 'The Arabic scholars ... were passionately (!] interested in rhetoric, which to them was almost synonymous [!] with general education' (p. 202); or the following remark about Aristotle's alleged tomb in Sicily (see section V, below): 'Some unknown moslem wise-cracker re-interpreted the Christian symbol [i.e. the cross], substituting The Teacher of the Arab world of scholars for the great Teacher of the Christians' (p. 237). These are beyond comment. Dirlmeier's eulogy ofDi.iring's 'expertise' in Semitic studies thus SO!;lndsquite naive, to say the least: 'Was die arabischen Ubersetzungen betrifft, so lernen wir zu unserer Uberraschung den vieler Sprachen kundigen Gelehrten nun auch noch als Sachverstandigen [!] in Semiticis kennen' (review in Lychnos (1957-8), p. 288). to The way in which Di.iring allows his prejudices to influence his reading and use of the orientalist literature is well illustrated by the following example: In his section on Aristotle's life in the Fihrist, lbn al-Nadim cites quotations from the pseudo-Aristotelian letter to Alexander known as On GoverningCities (below, section (c), par.IV.b).A. Millier assumed these quotations, which he could not find in a Greek source, to be Arabic fabrications on the insufficient basis of their style. For this he was severely castigated by Steinschneider: 'Millier is stets geneigt, Alles, was nicht in griechischen Quellen nachgewiesen ist, der Phantasie der Araber beizulegen. Allein kennen wir denn die byzantinische und syrische Literatur genug, um das Argument a silentio hier geltend zu machen? Es ist unwahrscheinlich, class die Araber so fruh das Bedurfnis empfanden, unter dem Namen des Aristoteles ethische und politische Schriften einzuschmuggeln' ('Die arabischen Ubersetzungen aus

33

dem Griechischen', Beiheft XII zum Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen( 1893), p. 30). One thus finds both biased and critical attitudes expressed in the orientalist literature; in his translation of the report in the Fihrist, Di.iring chose to follow Millier and not Steinschneider: 'as Muller already saw(!], these extracts must be considered as Arabic fiction' (p. 193). Indeed, since Di.iring put himself in a cul-de-sac with his Ptolemy fixation, he would have been hard pressed to try to fit the quotations from On GoverningCities into his Ptolemaic model, and Steinschneider's wise words were thus conveniently disregarded. Another instance where cultural bias takes the place of reasoned discussion is Di.iring's naive dismissal of the 'correspondence' between Plato and Aristotle on the permissibility of writing down philosophy-an important subject that deserves full study-as 'a typical Arabic elaboration' (p. 207). See also below, n. 54. 11 Good examples of such forced argumentation can be found on pp. 202 and 204. 12 For example: In his effort to derive all information in the Arabic biographies from Ptolemy, During appropriates Baumstark's assumption of an abridged recension of Ptolemy's Vita, made by lbn al-Khammar, as the source of Ibn al-Nadim (Aristoteles,pp. 18-23), and presents it as his own conclusion allegedly based on a remark by Ibn alNadim: '[Ibn al-Nadim] says in ( 14) that his own notes are a brief epitome [of Ptolemy]. Our conclusion is that before 950 there was in circulation in Baghdad an Arabic summary of Ptolcmy's Vita, including a full translation of the Will' (p. 195, emphasis added). This is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First of all, Ibn al-Nadim's statement to which Di.iring refers has nothing to do with Ptolemy's Vita; the author of the Fihrist merely says (p. 247.17, Fli.igel), 'the reports on Aristotle are many and we have cited only some essential points (jumla) from them' (for this meaning of jumla see Blachcre-Chouemi-Denizeau, DictionnaireArabeFranrais-Anglais (Paris, 1971), III, 28, p. 1724). Second, even iflbn al-Nadim's statement referred to Ptolemy's Vita, there is nothing in his words to imply that he is abridging from 'an Arabic summary' ofit and not from the full text of the translation. Diiring's 'conclusion' is thus a sheer nonsequitur. Third, by appropriating in this concealed manner Baumstark's assumption of Ibn al-Khammar's abridged recension as the source of lbn al-Nadim, Di.iring is in fact accepting a conclusion that was reached by the method of Quellenuntersuchungwhich he has derided but three pages previously. And last but not least, Baumstark's postulation of a recension by Ibn al-Khammar was shown to be chimerical already by Lippert in 1904 (seen. 5). This is but one example among many of the confusion reigning in Di.iring's analysis of the Arabic biographies. 13 The reviewer is R. Weil, talking about 'la trace d'un dialogue perdu', in Revuedesitudesgrecques,73 ( 1960), p. 295. As I have tried to show elsewhere, the passage in question derives from the Neoplatonic discussions on to eidos tis Aristotelikis apangelias:see D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation (New Haven, 1975), pp. 396---8. Unfortunately in that analysis I assumed, following Di.iring uncritically, that the passage was originally Ptolemaic; this is now to be corrected. 14 During, 'Rediscovered', p. 264. The 'four Arabic vitae' Di.iring has in mind are those oflbn al-Nadim, al-Mu bash-

VI 34 shir, al-Zawzani (Ibn al-Qif!i), and Ibn Abi U~aybi 1a (nos 2, 5, 7, and 8 in section (c), below). 15 Christopher Kirwan in his review ofChroust's Aristotle, p. 70. The mistakes and confusion in During were repeated and compounded by Chroust. 16 With the possible exception of the reviews by Drossaart Lulofs and A. Mansion (Revuephilosophiquede Louvain, 56 (1958), pp. 624-9), which I would consider mixed, all the others were flattering; the book was even called a work of reference by both G. B. Kerferd (The Classical Review, 73 (1959), p. 129) and M. Plezia (Gnomon, 34 (1962), p. 130), the latter in particular specifying Part II, the one containing the Arabic material, 'als Nachschlagewerk gerade fiir Nichtorientalisten'[!). Drossaart Lulofs, finally, despite his extensive criticism, still calls it ktima es aei! 17 For the ramifications, among both classicists and Arabists, of the implications ofDiiring's conclusion see the example given inn. 7. This conclusion is now unfortunately the accepted dogma and has found its way into general handbooks such as that of A. Lesky (A History of Greek Literature, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966), p. 548), and in Diiring's article on Aristotle in the Pauly-Wissowa (Suppl. XI, 1968, coll. 168--70), from which it will be difficult to uproot. 18 For the 'rediscovery' of this manuscript see n. 3 1. 19 In Plezia's own words, 'Quae cum ita sint, luce clarius apparet, quanto in errore versati sint omnes (quorum a numero me ipsum non afuisse ingenue profiteor), qui affirmavissent Ptolemaei librum µrincipalem fontem fuisse eorum, quae de Aristotele in vitis tribus infima antiquitate conscriptis: Marciana, Vulgata, Latina traderentur' ('De Ptolemaeo Pinacographo', p. 42). Since the Arabic lives have to be added to the three mentioned by Plezia, I can do not better than to adopt his parenthetical confiteor(cf. n. 13). 20 R. Walzer, 'Aristotle, Galen, and Palladius on Love', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Sociery (1939), pp. 407-22; reprinted in his Greek into Arabic (London/Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 48--59. The peregrinations and transformations of l:funayn's Hippocratic passage within the Arabic tradition are traced in H. H. Biesterfeldt and D. Gutas, 'The Malady ofLove',Joumal of the American Oriental Sociery,104, 1 (1984). 21 The manuscripts of the Muntakhab $iwii.nal-4ikma have an unpointed skeleton for the Greek name which is impossible to read (cf. Dunlop's edition, ad Loe.,I. 684); in later Arabic writings the name was read as the more familiar Pythagoras. For During, Biographical Tradition, p. 202, this 'Pythagoras is of course[!) Lycon Pythagoreus', whom he discusses later on p. 391, but without explaining why he is 'of course' the person referred to in the Arabic. Chroust is quick to appropriate the 'identification': Aristotle, p. 100. 22 Gott. gel. Anz., pp. 16-17. Cf:. further Gigon's extended discussion in his Vita Marciana, pp. 35-6, which, however, relied completely on During's erroneous information about the Arabic biographies. 23 Aristotle, pp. 97 ff., and elsewhere in this 'astonishingly repetitive' volume (Kirwan): 'Nothing[!) prevents us from assuming that Aristotle first studied rhetoric in the school of Isocrates' (p. 100). 24 In addition to the parallels between this report and later Alexandrian texts discussed by Lippert, 'Quellenforschungen ', pp. 29-38, many more could be cited; cf., e.g.,

$iwii.n al-4ikma 11. 7o6-11 (Dunlop) with Ammonius, In Porph. ls. (GAG IV, 3), p.46.4-17) (;During, Biographical Tradition, p. 409); more elaborate in Elias (GAG XVIII, 1), pp. 112.17-113.4 (;During, p. 451). A detailed comparison is a task for the future editor and translator of the $iwii.nal4ikma biography. Cf. below, p.29, no. ii. 25 I have discussed different aspects of this stylized history of philosophy in my 'Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle's Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Bagdiid', Der Islam, 60 (1983), section III, pp. 256 ff.; 'The Starting Point of Philosophical Studies in Alexandrian and Arabic Rutgers Universiry Studies in Classical Aristotelianism', Humanities, vol. 2, W.W. Fortenbaugh, ed., New Brunswick, N. J. and Oxford, 1985, pp. 115-123; and, in greater detail, in my forthcoming Avicennaand theAristotelian Tradition, Part II, chapter 4, 'Avicenna's Conception of the History of Philosophy'. & Par. 26, During. The source of Olympiodorus is the epilogue of Soph. El. and not, as stated by During (Biographical Tradition,p. 135, test. to par. 26; p. 139), Eth. Nie. 1101a4. Gigon ( Vita Marciana, p. 73) also overlooked this: 'Der Text [scil. Vita vulgata par. 26) ist ohne Parallele in den erhaltenen Pragmatien [des Aristoteles)'. Moreover, During's reference (loc. cit.) to Themistius (Or. XXVI, 311d, Dindorf 376-7sDowney-Norman II. 119) is irrelevant to this passage in the Vita vulgata. 27 The testimonia were collected by During, Biographical Tradition, pp. 299-314; cf. pp. 385-6. 28 L. G. Westerink's statement should lead the way in such a study: 'The compromise philosophy of Alexandria was developed under the stress of constant pressure and occasional persecution', The Greek Commentarieson Plato's Phaedo. Volume I: Olympiodorus(Amsterdam, 1976), p. 25. See also the introduction to his Anonymous Prolegomenato Platonic Philosophy(Amsterdam, 1962), pp. x-xxv, and cf. Gutas, 'Paul the Persian', p. 247 and note 38, and p. 249and note 41. 29 Cf. the list of motives for forgery given by R. Syme in the Fondation Hardt Entretiens,pp. 7-9. 30 This is the consensus of classical scholars about the date of this otherwise unknown Ptolemy. Plezia calls him Ptolemaeus Pinacographus, to distinguish him from Ptolemy the Platonist, Ptolemy Chennus, and Ptolemy the astronomer. For all references to this Ptolemy in classical and modern authors see Plezia's 'De Ptol. Pinac.', pp. 3742, and cf. Gigon's review in GottingischegelehrteAnzeigen, pp. 14-15. The literary genre of Ptolemy's biography is discussed by Plezia in an article that is to appear in the Festschrift for P. Moraux (Berlin), 'De Ptolemaei vita Aristotelis'. I am grateful to Professor Plezia for graciously sending me a typescript of this article before its publication. 31 The unique manuscript of the Arabic translation known so far, Aya Sofya 4833, was discovered in Istanbul by H. Ritter, not by M. Mahdi, as stated by During ('Rediscovered', p. 266) and repeated by Plezia ('De Ptol. Pinac.', p. 38); Professor Mahdi simply brought it to their attention. See F. Rosenthal and R. Walzer, Alfarabius. De Platonis Philosophia(London, 1943), p. xix, and J. van Ess, review of M. Mahdi's Al-Fara.bi's Philosophy of Aristotle (Beirut, 1961), in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, 113 ( 1963), p. 658. In addition to Ptolemy's

VI THE ARABIC

LIVES OF ARISTOTLE

work, the manuscript contains al-Farabi's The Philosophyof Plato and The Philosophyof Aristotle, edited by Rosenthal/ Walzer and Mahdi, respectively, in the publications just cited. The date of the part of the manuscript containing Ptolemy's biography (the other two works were copied by a different hand) appears to be not much earlier than 1152/ r 739-40; see Mahdi's edition, pp. 26-g. The date of the Arabic translation is unknown. Baumstark's suggestion (Aristotelesbei den Syrem, p. 33) of the intermediacy of lsJ:iaq b. l:funayn in the transmission of the work in Arabic has led During to insist that 'it seems probable that it was IsJ:iaq who translated Ptolemy', despite B. Lewin's warning to him that 'no evidence can be found for th[el hypothesis' that lsJ:iaq included parts of Ptolemy in his Chronography(Biographical Tradition, pp. 190, 240). Chroust repeats the error without even knowing the difference between lsJ:iaq b. l:funayn and l:funayn: in a single paragraph (Aristotle, pp. 183-4) he calls the same person 'Ishaq lbn Hunayn', 'lbn Hunayn', and 'Hunayn'!-My references in what follows are to the folio and line numbers of the manuscript, photographs of which were kindly lent to me by Professor Mahdi. 32 This is the only part of Ptolemy's Vita which was not copied by subsequent Arabic biographers, and hence largely unknown in contemporary scholarship. A preliminary translation, on the authority of B. Lewin, was given by Diiring, 'Rediscovered'. The translation is quite tentative and in need of revision. A brief summary of the contents of the Introduction is also given by Plezia in 'De Ptol. Pinac.', and again in 'De Ptolemaei vita Aristotelis'. 33 The Will, as it appears in the Arabic of Ptolemy, has been translated three times: a) Latin: M. Plezia, Aristotelis privatorum scriptorumfragmenta (Leipzig, 1977), pp. 3g--41. Plezia based his translation on an Arabic text that is apparently the result of a(n unpublished) collation of the text in the manuscript with the versions in lbn al-Nadim, lbn al-Qif~i, and Ibn Abi U~aybi'a. Plezia also gives on facing pages a critical edition of the Greek text and provides in the apparatus all the pertinent secondary literature. b) English: Diiring ('checked' by B. Lewin), BiographicalTradition, pp. 2 r 9-20. Diiring's translation is based on the version oflbn Abi U~aybira, although in his notes on pp. 238--40 he also refers to the variants in lbn al-Nadim. c) English: Chroust, Aristotle, I, pp. 185-8. Chroust would have us believe that the translation he offers-he nowhere states who is responsible for it-is based on An-Nadim [!], Usaibia [!], and Al-Qifti, but in fact it is an arbitrarily adapted and 'spruced up' version of Diiring's translation. For example: 'By this will I appoint Anti pater for ever to be executor of everything that I leave', Diiring; 'By this will and testament I forever appoint Antipater (chief) executor of everything of which I shall die seized', Chroust; 'Exsecutorem testamenti in omnibus, quae reliqui, constitui Antipatrum', Plezia. The Arabic in fact says on{y,'I appoint Antipater my executor forever in everything that I leave' ( inn"iJa' altu wa~iyy"iabadanft jami'i mii khallaflu An{iba{rusa), which renders precisely the Greek (epitroponmen einaipanton kai dia pantosAntipatron). This example, which is one among many, shall suffice to indicate the need for a serious edition and translation of the Arabic Will and a comparison with the Greek. 34 The last in a long list of inconclusive studies of this

35

notorious pinax is, I believe, that by Carmela Baffioni [sic lege], 'Antiche liste arabe delle Opere di Aristotele', Rassegna di scienzefilosofiche,29 ( 1976), pp. 83-114, where most of the earlier literature is also cited. See also Diiring, Biographical Tradition, pp. 221-31 and 241-6. Both Baffioni and Diiring study the Pinax on the basis of the text found in Ibn Abi U~aybi 1a and lbn al-Qif~i. 35 The references are to the page and line numbers of the edition by G. Fliigel (Leipzig, 1871-2). 36 SeeJ. Bielawski and M. Plezia, Lettre d'AristoteaAlexandre sur la Politique enversles Cites. Komitet Nauk o Kulturze Antycznej Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Archiwum Filologiczne XXV (Wrodaw-Warszawa-Krak6w, 1970). The first two passages quoted by lbn al-Nadim are to be found on pp. 29.3--4, 6; 30.14-31.3; I have not been able to locate the third quotation. On this letter see further S. M. Stern, Aristotle on the WorldState (O~ford/Columbia, S.C., 1970). 37 See F. E. Peters, AristotelesArabus (Leiden, 1968), and H. Daiber's review in Gnomon,42 (1970), pp. 538--47. 38 The references are to the page and line numbers of the edition by F. Sayyid (Cairo, 1955). 1 39 AbdurraJ:iman Badawi, Al-U~iil al:Jiiniiniyya li-lna~ariyyiital-siyiisiyyafi l-Isliim (Cairo, 1954). For the Secret of Secrets see now the Warburg Institute volume (n. 1 above). 40 Cf. M. Manzalaoui, 'The Pseudo-Aristotelian Kitiib Sirr al-asriir.Facts and Problems, Oriens, 23-24 ( 1974), pp. 185, 214. The famous eight maxims were incorporated into numerous Arabic works. See in particular lbn Khaldun's The Muqaddimah, trans. F. Rosenthal, 2nd ed. (Princeton, 1967), vol. I, pp. 81-2 and n. 29. 41 Cf. Manzalaoui, 'Sirral-asriir', pp. 158, 18g--91, 227. 42 See D. Gutas, 'The $iwiin aHikma Cycle of Texts', Journal of theAmericanOrientalSociety, 102 ( 1982), p. 646. The references are to the line numbers ofDunlop's edition of The Muntakhab $iwiin al-lfikmah (The Hague, 1979). 43 This passage has the same eulogistic attitude toward Aristotle as that exhibited in the final paragraphs of the Vita vulgata (Diiring, Biographical Tradition, pp. 135-6), and doubtless derives from similar late Alexandrian material. Of particular interest is al-Farabi's statement, 'By providing pure guidelines, Aristotle omitted nothing (miifarra{a)in establishing logic, and was unique in treating it most perfectly '(11. 714-15), which seems to reflect the passage from the Vulgatacited above in section (b) p.21. 44 This passage, which corresponds to pp. 151.5-152.6 in Badawi's edition (Tehran, 1974), is to be found in the part of al-TawJ:iidi's work which has not yet been published; see W. al-Qas sister." In the corresponding passage of the manuscript of Isbaq's work, the scribe deliberately omits the long list of names in which Theophrastus occurs (Rosenthal ••Isbaq,, 69.6, text; 79, translation). The "'sister'" variant can thus be traced back to Isbaq b. I:Iunayn, but Isl)aq himself can hardly be responsible for it. It has been repeatedly suggested that the statement is due to a "'confusion'" between the relationship of Plato to Speusippus and that of Aristotle to Theophrastus (Muller Griechische Philosophen 23 n. b, Lippert Studien

VII 78 16 n. 4, During Biographical Tradition 207); it would seem that Hdeliberate transferraPJ would be a more accurate explanation, and its origin is perhaps to be sought in the tendentious historiography of philosophy in late Alexandrian times or, as Zimmermann suggests ("Chronology"), in the (Ps.-?) Philoponus oflsD.aq>s source. The relationship of the two variants, finally, remains just as obscure. b. It was kindly brought to my attention by Professor G.B. Kerferd and Dr. M.G. Sollenberger that these four epithets are similar to those used by Diogenes Laertius 5.36-37: synetotatos, philoponotatos, euergetikos, philologos, and might conceivably derive from him. This, however, seems to be quite impossible at the present state of our knowledge. There is first the major difficulty that Diogenes was not known in the Arabic tradition directly, and we have so far no indications that any Laertian text was transmitted even indirectly. Admittedly very little research has been conducted in this area, but the initial investigations tend to favor the view that Diogenes and the Arabic tradition may ultimately have used the same sources, at least for some of the sayings of the philosophers reported by Diogenes (cf. Gutas Greek Wisdom index s.n. Diogenes Laertius, and especially pp. 330-31). Second, paragraph [Ila)2 appears to have been added by ZawzanI (Qif~I) presumably in order to justify and explain the reason why Theophrastus was chosen to succeed such a glorious master. In the Arabic tradition Theophrastus was very little known, whether by name or through his works, outside a very small circle of philosophers, and to the general educated public to which ZawzanI's (Qif~I's) book was addressed it may have seemed strange that Aristotle should have been succeeded by a relatively unknown philosopher. It would thus appear that ZawzanI (Qifp) took the liberty to complement Ibn anNadim's very brief and inadequate remarks by means of such an elaboration in order to justify and explain the received tradition that Theophrastus was, in fact, Aristotle 1s successor. The impression generated by paragraph [Ila )2, that this was indeed ZawzanI 1s (QiftI's) intention and that he had very little material to work with, is further supported by his repetition, in his own words (see note a above), of the alleged family ties between the two philosophers, and by the general nature of the epithets selected, which lack the specificity of the Greek ones in Diogenes. c. Paragraph [Ila)3 appears to derive from the ~iwan tradition, although perhaps not directly, since one would have expected the other material in it also to have been copied by ZawzanI (Qif~I). d. Bar Hebraeus slightly abbreviates the account of ZawzanI (Qif~I).

[III]

Abu Sulayman as-SijistanI al-Man~iqI said in his Scholia (Ta'aliq) that Theophrastus was the executor of Aristotle's will.a Text: IAU 1.57.19-20. a. The work in question by Abu Sulayman [d. after 988) is not extant. His brief remark derives from Aristotle's will in Ptolemy>s Vita.

AN ECLECTIC

[IV]

TEXT: MUBASSIR

1. Aristotle had many students among kings, princes, and others. The following are some of the most excellent ones among them who were famed for their knowledge, distinguished in philosophy, and known for their noble descent: Theophrastus, Eudemus, Alexander the King, Eudemus [sic], 'shwlws;' and others.b

VII Theophrastus

in the Arabic Tradition

79

2. After Aristotle, the instruction of the philosophical doctrines which he establishedc and classified was undertaken by the son of his maternal aunt,d Theophrastus, who sat in his [professorial] chair and inherited his position.e 3. Helping and assisting Theophrastus in this [task] were two men, one of them called Eudemus and the other 'shwlws.a They all wrote books on logic and philosophy. f 4. The issue Aristotle left behind was a young son, named Nicomachus, and a young daughter. He [also] left behind much property, many male and female slaves, and other things. He appointed Antipater executor of his will together with a group of his companions in order to help him, and left Theophrastus the option to participate with them, should they deem it convenient, in the disposition and management of the will.g Text:

Mubassir 183.6-15 = Lippert MS Ahmet III f. 89v, 3-13. Trans.: Lippert Studien 16-17.

Studien 8.10-19 = lAU 1.57.4-11

=

a. See note b to text (1]2 above. b. The proximate source of paragraph 1 is one of the two known Syriac lives of Aristotle (Baumstark Aristoteles 124); the ultimate source is the Vita Marciana (During Biographical Tradition paragraphs 44, 46 ). This Syriac life, which does not derive from Ptolemy's Vita as During suggests (Biographical Tradition 188; see my ~•Lives of Aristotle," part la), was apparently available to Mubassir in an Arabic translation. To the names mentioned in the Syriac life Mubassir added the two names he found in the Siwttn (text (I]2), which accounts for the double mention of Eudemus. The variation and corruption in the transliteration of the name of Eudemus in the Arabic sources prevented Mubassir from realizing that the two names were identical. c. Only the Istanbul manuscript has "'established" (watf,a-1 0-"..J

u-"

1::11 (1.:.i.5)

~

'i J..i..,JI y,-;- u-o J·l.5..:.1 ~I

..;~

..:;._,-y-bl ..;L.::...J'il

I,

u-i • t....,,....z. I

28

A • • • ~_;'=::...J'il

1,,.7-'-"

I

u I ~~_,.::, J Li ..J

,_,..;..J JJ 'i I ~I

.r

I - a 11 ? y.- .__.,..., J

·· ~

1.5jJI

'-"'I. u-"

...,..........

22

-:.,L.,,._;....,,J..,.

~I

ub JU I

u LS

'i I C:L.a.,,,I u-i..J ii,,,...:.u..JI o~I

_;y

Appendix

u-h u----1-> Ij I

~ ..,-a> L..o.J ..J

.y

L..AJI

d.L ~I I _,..JI "L.,,JJ I

.Ji..).> ,-

~_..-,> W

I y ..lJ

y.s

~I

I

J Wu

~I_..-,> I

~y.-1....:, J ~I

4....i.,,,_r ~ • L.:...i.ll _.-,>I t..::,j{J

l..li,?Y.- u-"

III

JLLl

u..,..,....

_;5::.i.::,J A.,,,-11 ~..J ~ L..a.::.-I ~ yl -.::.> L.::. _; l J '-i-,,JI . I, ._i;,._, . I ~ • ~\ ( I .:_i.5)I~ ..J I~ .._J __, t: L; ..r- \ ...\...,..) .. 'J-'·•

..l.:..s _ t..::-

II

L.:.;:,._l

c.~

I

'

0...::,...)..)

..)

VII Theophrastus

in the Arabic Tradition

101

NOTES 1. I am deeply grateful to Professor W.W. Fortenbaugh, Dr. M.G. Sollenberger, and the other participants in the Liverpool Conference for the many discussions which alerted me to the existence of the problem in its various aspects and helped me focus my comments on areas of unsuspected difficulties. 2. See, for example, the reconstructed readings of Aristotle's Metaphysics from the Arabic translation in M. Bouyges, ••La critique textuelle de la Metaphysique d>Aristote et les anciennes versions arabes/' Melanges de FUniversite Saint Joseph 27 (1947-48) 147-52, and especially the list in the same author's edition of Averroes, Tafsir Ma ba s method of compilation can be gained from the analysis of his biography of Aristotle in my ''Lives of Aristotlet Table 1. 11. I have thus made no references to B. Dodge>s translation of the Fihrist-The to Part II of Diiring's Biographical Fihrist of al-Nadim (New York 1970)-or Tradition. For the latter see the remarks in my ••Lives of Aristotlet Part la. 12. See above, paragraph on The Gnomological Tradition, and the reference in note 8. 13. It is, of course, possible that some extraneous material was interpolated in the course of transmission between the compiler of the $iwan himself and the recensors of the Muntab_ab and Muh_tafar and SahrastanI, and that therefore the reconstructed entry represents the original $iwan material plus the later accretions. Preliminary investigations indicate that the Muh_tafar does contain, for some entries at least, some material interpolated from sources other than the original $iwan: see Gutas Greek Wisdom, diagram on p. 450, and W. al-Qac,iI, •.iKitab

VII 102 Siwan al-l:iikma: Structure, Composition, Authorship and Sources," Der Islam 58 (1981) 91-92. However, the probability of such an interpolation for a relatively minor entry in the Siwiin like that of Theophrastus is minimal, and in any case cannot be ascertained without a broader investigation into the entire problem of the transmission of the Siwiin and its recensions.

ADDITIONAL NOTES p. 81, add at the end of paragraph [4] on Topica: The question of Averroes' quotations of Theophrastus is treated in my "Averroes on Theophrastus, through Themistius," in G. Endress and J. Aertsen, eds, Averroes and the Aristotelian Tradition, Leiden 1999, 125-144. p. 100, third line of no. 19, read: o\.k;.....J

VIII

Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition 1

I. Introduction The information on Eudemus of Rhodes that can be recovered in Arabic sources falls into three categories: there is a full collection of sayings (Section II below and Appendix), some incidental biographical notices that mainly state his relation to Aristotle and Theophrastus (Section III), and a number of references to his views on logic which he held in common with Theophrastus (Section IV). No work of his is reported to have been translated into Arabic or is known to be extant. Apart from the sayings, therefore, Eudemus has no independent persona or presence in Arabic but rides on the coattails primarily of Theophrastus. This is hardly surprising, given the little information on Eudemus that was available even in Greek at the time of the rise of Islam. What is surprising is the collection of sayings. It is found only in the major Arabic gnomologium known as the Siwan al-lJ,ikma(Depository 1

An initial draft of this paper was delivered at the Theophrastus Conference in Budapest, July 1997. I wish to thank the participants for a number of helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Franz Rosenthal for sharing with me, on this as on previous occasions, some of his insights and vast knowledge of matters gnomological.

VIII 2

Eudemus of Rhodes

of Wisdom Literature), compiled around 1000 A.O. from material translated from Greek in the previous two centuries. As reconstructed below (see the edition in the Appendix and the translation in Section II), it contains 29 sayings, 2 though the original entry may have been longer. Even so, 29 sayings is a goodly number for a philosopher who survived so poorly in late antiquity and who was virtually unknown in Arabic. Now this collection is unique when viewed from both the Arabic and Greek side. That no other Arabic gnomologium has any section on Eudemus or even a saying attributed to him is quite remarkable, given that he is introduced in the Siwan as a prominent student of Aristotle. On the Greek side, it is even more astonishing that, as far as I am aware, none of the very extensive Greek gnomologia has any sayings by Eudemus. The question of the sources of the Siwan for the entry on Eudemus thus imposes itself. Certain considerations limit the parameters within which the answer is to be sought. In the first place, the section on Eudemus in the Siwiin is so located as to make it certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the source was a Greek gnomologium. It comes right after the entries on Aristotle and Theophrastus, and it is followed by that on another, unidentified, philosopher ('sbwlws), who is also said to have been a student of Aristotle and a close colleague of Theophrastus and Eudemus (seen. 22 below). There is thus absolutely no doubt that the Eudemus in this part of the Si wan is indeed Eudemus of Rhodes and not another person whose name, in the complicated history of the transmission of these sayings within Greek, from Greek into Arabic, and within Arabic, was mistaken for or transformed into his. Second, since Eudemus was almost completely unknown in Arabic, as already mentioned, there would have been no incentive to attribute to him forged sayings or sayings by others. Not only was he unknown in philosophy, but what is even more important when considering possible cases of pseudepigraphous literature in Arabic, he was unknown even in alchemical and magical literature, which contained a long list of names of famous Greeks, including Theophrastus, who allegedly wrote on alchemical and magical subjects. Thus the entry on Eudemus in the Siwiin cannot but ultimately be of Greek origin. The compiler of the Siwiin may have been drawing here also, as in the 2

28.

Or possibly, in a conservative count, 27. See below in Section II, note to saying

VIII Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition

3

preceding section on Theophrastus, 3 upon different Greek sources in Arabic translation. This is partially substantiated by the disparate nature and contents of the sayings. There are sayings that are both apophthegmata and chreiai in form, as well as homoiomata (nos. 2, 4), and in one case (no. 9) we have what appears to be a double transmission of the same saying. There are sayings on the usual subjects of ignorance (nos. 2-3), the ethos theory of music (no. 8), death (nos. 11-12, 29), good fortune (nos 15, 23), rulers (no. 28), etc. There is also, however, misogyny (nos. 9-10), a subject which is not clear whether it was prevalent outside Cynic circles and the ancient philosophers they idolized (like Socrates); and although Eudemus was not among them, it may be significant that two of the sayings by Eudemus (nos. 13 and 26) are also attributed to Socrates in the Arabic gnomologia. There are, furthermore, some relatively extensive didactic passages (nos. 5, 7, 14) which appear like quotations from longer works. The one from Herodotus (no. 5) could easily be ultimately derived from one of Eudemus' Historiai, in which he demonstrably included material from the ancient Near East. 4 Finally, assuming the compiler to have worked from different sources, misattribution cannot be ruled out either: sayings under a different original name could have been mistaken or misread for those by Eudemus. None of this, however, can be established with any certainty; there is simply not enough evidence to help decide whether this selection from various sources was made by the compiler of the Siwan himself or it had already been made by his source, a translated gnomologium which included this section on Eudemus. The absence of Eudemus from any extant Greek gnomologium makes impossible even an educated guess about the Greek source of the Siwan. One immediately thinks of the Eudemian Ethics, but there are no specific correspondences between any of the 29 sayings and Aristotle's work, despite the superficial overlap between some of the topoi of the sayings and the Eudemian Ethics-one would like to compare, for example, saying number 12 with l 229b34- l 230a4, or number 19 with 1238a14-26. One would thus have to postulate one or more Greek gnomologia with some sayings attributed to Eudemus, which eventually found their way into Arabic. The origins of this gnomologium ( or 3

See the discussion in Gutas (1985) 83. Cf., e.g., the comments by Wehrli 119-20 on some of the sources of Eudemus for his astronomical information. 4

VIII 4

Eudemus of Rhodes

gnomologia), its transmission and disappearance in Greek, and the particulars of its reappearance in Arabic are problems that still need to be investigated.

II. Sayings by Eudemus from The Depository of Wisdom Literature EUDEMUS. He was also one of Aristotle's students who taught his knowledge and philosophy and wrote books on the strength of Aristotle's works, in the manner of his composition, and in his tradition. 1. He was asked, "Why do you refuse those who ask you?" "So that," he replied, "I will never have to ask anyone who may refuse me." 5 2. He said: That which prevents a drunk from feeling the prick of the thorn stuck in his hand also prevents an ignorant man from experiencing the pain of folly lodging in his heart. 3. He said: Do not confide a secret to an ignorant man because he cannot keep it; only a wise man 6 can keep a secret. 4. He said: Just as an arrow that hits a stone is deflected from it, so also an evil word shot at a good man has no effect on him but the fault reverts to the shooter. 5. He urged his students to be generous in dispensing philosophy. He said: "Take as model the practice prevailing in Assyria: 7 The practice 5

The addition of the negative by Dunlop in his Arabic edition, absent from all the manuscripts, may be required for the sense: a person who has a reputation of never refusing to give (more likely money than advice) can safely expect his fellow citizens to return the favor when he does the asking. Without the negative, however, the saying becomes sharper, if the sense could be elicited that one should never give (money) lest he becomes impoverished (because of excessive philanthropy) and finds himself in the position of having to ask and not being given. 6 Or, "a philosopher/' J;akfm. 7 The text has Assos, but this story from Herodotus 1.196 clearly refers to Assyria. Assos is the most likely reading of the spelling of the name esws) in the unique manuscript (Fatih 3222) of the Mubta~ar Siwiin af.J;ikma where this saying occurs. A parallel passage in another recension of the Siwiin, in which this saying is attributed to Plato, has "1as,Sus al,Aq~ii, ;,;"'the Farthest Sos/' this refers to the Moroccan Sos near the Atlas and is clearly a scribal "1emendationf 1 ; for this version see Gutas ( 1975) 11921 and 336-7. In Herodotus (1.196), however, the custom described here is attributed to the Assyrians, thus almost certainly making Assyria the reading of the proper name (see Gutas, ibid.). It is tempting to read the name as Assos in the Troad and thus put Eudemus also among the group of philosophers around Hermias, as W. Jaeger, Aristotle, would seem to believe (see p.110, n. 2 of the preceding page), though K. Gaiser does not mention him at all in this context. On the other hand, it seems more plausible that

VIII Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition

5

there is that the beautiful daughters of its inhabitants send their dowries to the ugly ones so that these can be in demand for their wealth just as the beautiful ones are in demand for their beauty. You, my students, are in demand for [your] philosophy; give, then, liberally some of it to the ignorant so that they can benefit from it and so that your excellence become manifest and your philosophy bear fruit among them!" 6. He said: The vocable is matter, the meaning form; speech is appearance, and sty le the beauty of appearance. 7. He was asked, "How far has your thought reached?" "It has reached," he replied, "a level encompassing the entire extent of the thoughts of my contemporaries. Whenever I examine the extent of a thought by reflection, I acquire a comprehensive knowledge of its extent, not having failed to gain cognizance of it, and I know that I have surpassed it. A man knows more than someone else only when he acquires a comprehensive knowledge of the sum total of his [the other person's] thought-I mean the farthest point to which his thought has reached, and the sum total of the paths it has become aware of and followed in accordance with the level it has reached in proceeding along the right way. 8 One then exercises his thought as if there were a limit[ ed scope] in everything that his thought concentrated on; and when a man knows the way to proceed, he is safe from erring and slipping." 8. He said: The true and clear melody is that which expresses fully the high-mindedness of the soul. Any craftsman who can reveal, to the highest possible degree, the form which is in the soul so that it comes out until it becomes perceptible, is wise. 9 .1 He said: The most vicious predator is a stepmother. 9 9.2 He was asked, "What can detract from [the viciousness of] a predatory animal?" "I don't know," he replied, "any predatory animal more vicious than a stepmother." 10 the story itself about Assyrians was retold by Eudemus, on the basis of Herodotus, in one of his cultural histories, and from there adapted, with the moral attached, for the gnomologia (this hypothesis, which I now consider more likely, I did not entertain in my study cited above). 8 There is a slight textual uncertainty here. With a different emendation of the text (preferred by Badaw1), the phrase "in accordance with~' could be read with the following sentence. The general meaning, though, seems to be clear: when one knows how to proceed, the thoughts that need to be considered become circumscribed and thus more amenable to analysis. 9 For imra)atu l-ab = µrrrpuux, see GALex, p.17, s. v. •abun ~ 6. 10 Apparently this saying was transmitted in two forms, as an an6cp0cyµa (9.1) and

VIII 6

Eudemus of Rhodes

10. He was told, "So-and-so, your enemy, has died." "I wish," he replied, "you had said that he got married." 11. He looked at a dead man and said, "Here is a wamer who, soundless, is calling out to the heedless; motionless, is moving those looking at him; and insentient, is arousing the senses." 11 12. He said: Just as death is something bad for those for whom life was good so also is it good for those for whom life was bad. So death is not absolutely bad but it is good it becomes good or bad only with reference to something [else]. 12 13. Asked whether there was anyone in the world that is faultless he replied, "No, because someone faultless is immortal." 13 14. He was asked about the amount of benefit people derive from philosophy. He said: "When a person brings together all [parts of] philosophy and is both surrounded by and encompasses them, he becomes like someone who, having completed his crossing of the sea and reached the destination of his journey, looks back at the others who are beset by encircling waves and raging winds." 14 15. He said: It is good fortune for a man that his appetites pass away; it is also good fortune for him to be obliged to serve philosophy and its adherents. 16. He also said: Be content with just enough [for a living]; 15for anything beyond that has a disastrous outcome and grave consequences. 17. He said: Beware of discord because it cultivates evil just as rain cultivates seed. 18. He said: Undertaking the unbearable is foolishness; pursuing the unattainable is distressing; promising the unrealizable is shameful; spending uselessly is mismanagement; and attaining undeservedly a high position is standing on the brink of disaster. as a xpria (9.2); the author or a redactor of the Siwcin put both together. 11 This saying is similar, though not exactly parallel, to numerous sayings uttered by philosophers at Alexander's tomb. For a general orientation see Brock. 12 This saying, in exactly the same wording, is attributed toAnaxagoras by Mubassir (p. 317 Badaw!) and by Tawl)'.idI in his Risalat al-lfayat (p. 68 KaylanI). Sahrazorn lacunose text above is completed from Taw):ITdT. 13 Cited under the name of Socrates by Ibn-Ab1- 4.1), while 'time,> zaman, would be a translation of xp6voi;. 17 •1Spiritual,> 1 rul:zanf,may be translating 8doi;, ' 1divine 1, here; see GALex, p. l 0, s.v. 'abadiyyun> 3.2. 18 Apparently here nobility and lowliness of birth are intended. Cf. F. Rosenthal lbn-Abf .-=; JI

0)~

A-Q

0LS' 11 J ~J

2~ JJJ(,)

~i ~ 0i ✓ JA~I ~ JUJ ('1')

o--½ ~ ~l..ul ~_,..:JI~ ~ 0i 0-- 51_µ1 ~

~ 'JJ ~L-6' ~ 'J ~~ 'f," ~ J.i21~I ~l ~~ ~ 'J JUJ (f)

~\11~10~ .!.\JlS"~ ~ i~

~I

y~i

1;1 r-115i

Title and biography Muntahab, Muhta~ar, Sahraziiri Muhta~ar 1 (2) Muntabab 2, Mubta~'ar 2 (4) Sahraziiri 2.

W

JliJ (t) (1) Muntabab

I,

(3) Sahrazuri

I

Title u"'..,...... /)..91 F Dunlop Badawi Abii~Rayyan : u"'.,...._.,)..91 A : u"'~->..91 Z Ahmed : (..l"'~.>l..91 Abii=-Suwayrib II Biography ~I F Mhb : om. Sz I ~\ Mhb : om. F Sz I u-4.,k_,h...,) ABdCd : ~U,_,h...,) Dunlop Badawi : ,_.6-.;I F Dd Sz editions : ~U,\..b.....,_;I Z I ~L ... ~.;...Lo.Jl..9 Mbb L~z: om. F Dunlop

I

yj

~..9

(2)

Mbb : om. F .~z

(1)

~..9

Mbb : ~ F

I

-i1;1o~

L ..

..

~

Q1c.J~~ :.,.c.~1

d'J~ _ ;_....... ► a I\ .!.l.,.WI U:), i:r ~1

(4)



illL.-JI ✓ ~~ L. )..l.A..A L-J ~~

41 ~YJ

(5) Mubta~ar 3

L ..

ill..LI - a·.. I

:a;al II Jili~ (,) _µ1

~),:A

JW ~..rV C':.

w~ ..r-110.Y-:. ~lJ ~jJ~ ~ ~i ~l ~i ~~fa)~-~ ~_j]

~ ~

.J--~

c_l:-i-11

r ..:;a·,..w o.LjWI

C~ :.. .~

-£J

- ( _

Jk.;JIJ ojJ~ ~IJ

.Jl.c-J ..ul~. C .. ~ .. is-..q d.>,j

...

,.

:;a·• w JW½ :;aa•..i ~

r----- (~

(o)

~J

5i .!.ll:.AWI 0Lii..J"'_J-'J I

0~1

·~

~ ~~ 1;1.._,_JI

~.L')Ll

~ IJ.;).,-,:J~~

d1--".-! J~I ,..A~

J~

J-½~

l_,..l.i=...I JW ~I

19

·,I~I

L ..

, .. ·,\

0:-JJ.JI".

~~ L. ~ ~ 5t5"~fa (7) Muntabab 4.

2 ~ read. Abii~Rayyan : ~ Z : ~ Ahmed

Abii,..Suwayrib

~~ Z Ja : ~.;J Ahmed Abii=-Suwayrib : ~.r!.-' Abii-=-Rayyan

~II,._,;,.,~ A : ,._,;,~~ : i ..,..auA : i ~ Dunlop

Dunlop Badawi.

I I

:

VIII 20

Eudemus of Rhodes

JJ)IJ t:)1 ~ ~i .!J..,WI ~I~

~iJ

1f _ 1c ~ 0i ~1

~J--

II .JA~ aao I\~-► all v►-Lil JliJ (A)

Q

i._~ ~ ~I

~ ~I

OJ_,...a-11 ~i ~~

~ .,+t lAJl+11 ~ L. ~i

J>-~L->- )11

t.~I 4i

y ~I oiyl

t_L:--JI✓ J ..,.ci':1L:,iJW t_L:--JI✓ , . I

.!

Ju J

~ ~1 0:J;WI

Siw Jli J ~)~_,_JI

~.,._II~ ~~J ~ o~I

0~

(8) Muntabab 5 (9) Muntabab 6 (10) Muntabab 7, Mubta~ar 4 (11) Muntabab 8, Mubta~ar 5 (12) Sahraziiri 3; cf. Tawl).idi p. 68.

(8)

1 ~ I.J Dd Dunlop Badawi : WI.J ABdCd II 2 ~~ A Dunlop Badawi

Cd I c_~ read. Dunlop Badawi : c_~ Bd : c_fa A (9) 2 ~j read. Badawi : WI A Dunlop I ,y;, A Dunlop : IJ"° Badawi I lii A (10) 4-iJMbb : om. F (11) JW F Dunlop Dunlop : om. Badawi (12) 1 l..5 Jli; Badawi : om. A I .r!.i; F A Dunlop Badawi : -½.r! Bd i)I Sz eds. : om. Z II 1-2 ~ ;;L.,JI ... o..\->ya Sz eds. : om. Z J8 L a II 2 " " . : tLAII

second ~ Z Ahmed Abii-Suwayrib : i~ Abu-Rayyan II 3 add. Gutas from Tawl).idi I ~L.;,":J~ Z Ahmed : .JL.;,":JI~ Abu-Rayyan Abfi:=·Suwayrib II 4 ;I i~ Z Ahmed : J i~ Abii-Suwayrib : om. Abu-Rayyan.

VIII Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition

t.Lc..il J..li ✓ J.L..iJ ('

1~10W)'I 01 JW ~~ 0W)'I '->..UI0W)'I Ji,. ~ 0lS' ~

~IJ

o~IJJ ~

~

~1

od,

_,+i o~

"-# 4..i~I

~ "J a

t)

LJs' ~I

~IJ

a• ~1 ~I

c_l:)IJ ~ 4..i~I

'->.J>"



~ or.:---!

c_l_J-A'11-! ½J~

~1 ~

l+LAiJ ~I;...~

o.,.t L. 5~ J~~ ~I 'La.:tJli J ( , , )

J 4~

; : ;,: IIJ ,.~

21

,.

I•

M

,cl QM%2f:.

(13) MuntalJ.ab 9

MuntalJ.ab11 I y

(13)

112

(16) MuntalJ.ab12

l;l i:,~~I

4,1.S'" ~IF

iJ!F

(14)

A Dunlop : i.5y

MlJ.b: ~I

4

( 15)

(17) MuntalJ.ab13, MulJ.ta$ar7

A Dunlop : ~ Cd Badawi

'-"'WI F I i.5y

Sz

(14) MuntalJ.ab 10, MulJ.ta$ar 6, Sahraziiri



9

1 first i)L....i~IMlJ.b Sz l;l Badawi : i)l...i~l i.5,-

Sz I \+! J=-i.;JI_, F

1;1

MlJ.b : om. Sz I

~ om. Badawi II 2-3 o~ ~ 1.5.i.JI i)Li~I F MlJ.b: ~l_,JI Sz 113 o..r::--! F Dunlop Badawi : or.:- A I ~I ~I F A Dunlop Badawi Sz : om. Dd I ~

o~

F MlJ.b: om.

Dunlop Badawi

:

Sz I ~ F MlJ.b, Sz editions: o~ Z JaLa I ulJ_, F om. A Sz 114 ~ F A Dunlop JaL a Sz editions : om.

va

Badawi I u~I read. ....~, F ABdDd Ja z : u~I

Dunlop Abii-Suwayrib Abu-Rayyan : cd : u_,...:;..,:-JI Badawi : u~I Ahmed I

add. t..>1_, u' h o .J-A-'Z Ahmed : add. t..>1_,,:;' h o .J-A-' "'► Abii-Suwayrib Abii-=-Rayyan (15) first ~ read. Badawi : ; A I .; y,.:;read. Badawi : .; .JA-!. read. Dunlop : .; ,Ju A (16) 4~ sic codd. after

~

and editions

instead

of ~W

/

Dunlop Badawi : ".,,..JI., A.

(17)

!.l~I F : !.l~I_, M lJ.bI :1~1.,

F

VIII 22

Eudemus of Rhodes

0~ __;JI i ..L~..

2 l)lj~IJ

2 ..f""..UIJL.i J

(' 4\)

01~~1

w)L: ~~ 0i ~ ':I ~i;~1[ ~1 ~ .f-½ .-0w ~ ~

i:r ~ i:r i--l>-i ~

), ,,. 0 J,

J~I

J,

,,. ...

v'"'WI)>"-:' v'"'WI__,..a:;,I Jt;J

Jw:J½ ~~ ~W

~J

JliJ (Y.)

01JliJ

...111

(

Y,)

(YY)

..

) .r"' ':II ij.. ~

(18) Mubta$ar 8

(19) Muntabab

(21) Muntabab 16, Mubta$ar 10

14 (20) Muntabab 15, Mubta$ar 9 (22) Muntabab 17 (23) Muntabab 18

(24) Muntabab 19.

2 C.._,..;;a.; read. Gutas : C.~ F I u_,.,:. appar. corr. from J..,.,: F '-? F A Dunlop : om. Badawi (21) )~ sic F : )~ A o J~I read. Rosenthal : J~I read. Badawi : J~I A: J~I with ~ written underneath by a second hand F I ~ ~ A Dunlop : ~ ~ Badawi : om. F (22) ~ A : ~ read. Dunlop : ~ read. Badawi. (18) (20) ,



o,

1

1

,

1

VIII Eudemus in the Arabic Tradition

~

JJ C.~," ...

I a~I 1;1JW ,.oJ~I ~ ~ ~ J.:.iJ(Yo)

,.J½ ~pi ~ lA~w10> ~i

23

~

'JJ

ol:->JI0> ~i

1;1Jw ~I

ri

,,~ 'J JuJ •

~I~~ oJy

M

'J ~ Jw Jb-JI if J~J (YV)

J- .r-1 01J 0l:......JI~ ~ ~ ~ 01..b.JII ~_:; 1;1JuJ (YA) ~ W

~J

~~

.!);l!~ j;)J ~ ~~I :r :rb ~ ~l

~

~I

~

if

.!J~I

(25) Muntabab 20, Mubta$ar 12

Muntabab 22, Sahrazuri 5

0 ,.

~ ~ .!J:.&~ Jt;J (Y°')

(26) Muntabab 21, MutJta$ar 11

(28) Mubta$ar 13

(27)

(29) Mubta$ar 14.

1 ii.-,~I A Dunlop Badawi : o.>~I F II 2 Jli.i F : Ju A Dunlop Badawi I i~ read. Badawi Daiber : i ,-4 A Dunlop : originally written i ~ and corr. to i ~ by the scribe F (26) 1 lA.>WI A Dunlop : t.A:,\.,i;IF Badawi Daiber II 2 ,~~ F : ~~ read. Dunlop : without vowel A Badawi (27) ~ ~.., Mbb : Lo" J.::.,.-,Sz editions, first version in Z : --! "J.::.,.., second version in Z I Jw MtJb Z Ahmed : Jli Abu-Suwayrib Abu-Rayyan I ~ MtJb Z Ahmed Abu-Suwayrib : ir Abu-Rayyan (29) i:r- corr. Gutas : ~ F. (25)

IX

Paul the Persian on the classification of the parts of Aristotle's philosophy: a milestone between Alexandria and Bagdad*)

Miskawaih>s Tartib as-sctadat 1) is a short treatise on the grades of human happiness and the means of acquiring them, composed before his *) Earlier drafts of this paper were read at the 4 74th Meeting of the Oriental

Club of New Haven, the 189th Meeting of the American Oriental Society, and the 29th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, all in the spring of 1979. Some of the research for this paper was conducted in the summer of 1978 in Cairo with the help of a Smithsonian Institution grant, administered through the ARCE. This support is gratefully acknowledged. I am indebted to the authorities of the D~r al-Kutub al-Mi1?riyafor permission to consult its MS holdings, and to Father Anawati and the Librarian of the Institut Dominicain d'Etudes Orientales in Cairo for permission to use its excellent orientalist library. I would also like to thank Professor Muhsin Mahdi for supporting my research in Cairo and for a number of references and suggestions, and Professor Franz Rosenthal for help with the Syriac. Any mistakes or oversights, as well as the interpretations, are entirely my own. 1 ) Editions and MSS. The work was apparently first published in Tehran in 1314, in the margin of a lithograph edition of the Rastt'ilMulltt $adrtt, pp. 422-462. Another edition appeared in Cairo in 1335/1917 by 'Ali at-'fubgi [at-'fobgi] asSuyuti under the title, K. as-Sa'ttda li-Ibn Miskawaih Ji Jalsafat al-a!J,lctq;it was apparently reprinted there in 1346(?)/1928. This very defective edition is based on the famous Avicenna magmu'a in Cairo, D~r al-Kutub, Ifikma 6 M[ui;;tam F~s comment:] 6) Etymology of SO· phistes. 5) Rhetorica; 6) Rules applying to all the pre• ceding: Analytica Priora; [Translator>s comment:] In the old translation, K. al-Qiyas is found in two parts: a) qiyas, b) burhan. 7) Building blocks of a syllogism: a) terms [alfa?; the Categoriae is implied but not mentioned] ; b) intelligible concepts [ma'na, ma'qul; De Inter• pretatione is implied but not mentioned]. The above division of logic into eight parts consti• tutes the analytic approach [tariq at-ta"IJ,lil]. According to the synthetic approach [tariq attarkib], Aristotle put the works on logic in the following order: 1) Categoriae 2) De Interpreta• tione 3) Analytica Priora 4) Analytica Posteriora 5) Topica 6) Sophistici Elenchi 7) Rhetorica 8) Poetica. The noblest of these books is (4), Analytica Posteriora [K. al-Burhan] . The first three books [in the order given in § IX] introduce it, the last four protect it.

the discussion to follow. See below, p. 252.

IX Paul the Persian

Cairo 191 7, page/line

Section No.: §§

68.14-69.17

XI

(69.16)

XIa

69.17-70.10

XII

(70.8-9)

XIIa

70.10-15

XIII

(70.11-15)

XIIIa

70.15-71.14

XIV

7

235

Contents Aristotle then composed books on theoretical philosophy, as divided above [§ III]: Physica, De Caelo, De Generatione et Corruptione, De Plantis, the book on animals [K. al-lfayawan]7), De Anima, De Sensu et Sensato, Metaphysica. [Tranlator>s comment:] Some of the books of the Metaphysica were translated into Arabic, others were not. Aristotle then divided practical philosophy into its parts and composed books on each part: Ethica, Oeconomica, Politica. [Translator>s comment:] Of Aristotle>s works on oeconomica and politica only a part from the Politica was translated into Arabic. This work is in two books, 8 ) as mentioned in the catalogue of his books. Other works by Aristotle: 'Yrtoµvfiµa-ra [Tadakir], 9 ) works on mathematical sciences [ Ta' alim]. [Translator's comment:] The Ta{lakir are numerous, as mentioned in the catalogue of his books; of his mathematical works, nothing was translated into Arabic. The order in which they appear in Arabic and in which he ordered them, however, provides great benefit to those who want to perfect themselves. For the student with the proper qualities, oppor-tunities, and teacher, the time period necessary to learn Aristotle>s philosophy is ten to twenty years.

In both the Syriac and Arabic traditions, the 19 books of Historia Animalium, De Partibus Animalium, and De Generatione Animalium were known under this title. See J. Brugman and H. J. Drossaart Lulofs, Aristotle: Generation of Animals, Leiden 1971, pp. 1-17, and the references cited there. 8 ) The Cairo MS reads, wa-huwa maqalattln. The conjecture by Pines, Ahmad Miskawayh, p. 122, is thus correct. 9 for imoµvfJµa:nx, not 'pragmateia,' as Arkoun, p. 233 ) Tag,dkir stands suggests. Cf. the title in Ptolemy's catalogue, ap. al-Qifti 46.21 and 47.14 (Lippert), )

Tas text and the extent of his quotation; the sources of the classification given in Miskawaih>s text, i.e., its exact relationship to the Alexandrian prolegomena to the study of Aristotle; the relationship between the texts of al-Farabi and Miskawaih; the concrete means by which the Alexandrian material reached al-Farabi and Miskawaih; and finally, the significance of this material and the classification it contains for the incipient philosophical school in Bagdad and especially for al-Farabi. These problems will be dealt with in what follows.

I. Paul the Persian and Late Alexandrian Aristotelianism The identity of Paul has already been established, independently of each other, by both Arkoun and Pines. 13) He is Paul the Persian, a Nestorian theologian and philosopher active at the court of l:Jusrau Ant1~irwan (regn. 531-578 AD), and a convert to Zoroastrianism when his ambition to become metropolitan bishop of Persis was thwarted. 14) Of his work there 12

Numerous other problems, mostly of detail, but also regarding Miskawaih's Tartw as-sa'adttt as a whole, cannot be discussed in the present paper. I hope to deal with them in a future edition of the text. 13 ) Arkoun, p. 228, note 1; Pines, Ahmad Miskawayh, p. 124. 14 ) For biographical and bibliographical references see, most conveniently, P. Kraus, Zu Ibn al-Muqaffa', Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 14, 1934, p. 16 and notes 13. Paul's conversion is also mentioned in the Nestorian Chronicle of Se'ert, ed. A. Scher, Patrologia Orientalis (Paris 1911) VII.147, from where it was apparently taken by Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccles., Vol. III [sic], p. 97 (Abbeloos-Lamy). The Chronicle of Se'ert also says that AnMirwan studied philosophy with him. Information on Paul the Persian is not the easiest thing to track down, not the least of the reasons for which are the inconsistencies and oversights in the scholarly literature. To Kraus's references add the following: Giovanni Mercati, Per la vitae gli scritti di "Paolo il Persiano." Appunti da una disputa di religione sotto Giustino e Giustiniano, in his: Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica [Studi e Testi 5], Rome 1901, pp. 180-206; R. Duval, La Litterature syriaque, Paris 3 1907, pp. 249f.; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, pp. 120f. (s.n. Paulos v. Nisibis; as Kraus, p. 16, note 1, remarks, Baumstark inadvertently omitted the entry on Paul); J. Tkatsch, Die arabische Ubersetzung der Poetik des Aristoteles I, Vienna-Leipzig 1928, p. 74b; F. Altheim, Geschichte der Hunnen, Berlin 1961, III. 89 f. Both Baumstark and Altheim refer to the article by Mercati as if it were an independent monograph and not part of a larger book, and give 1899 as the date of publication. Now it is likely that Mercati's article did appear independently as a pamphlet in 1899, but _it is listed neither in the bibliography of his writings by Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (Studi Bizantini e N eoellenici, 3, 1931, pp. 231245), nor in that given in his Opere Minori Vol. 5 [Studi e Testi 80], pp. 21-54. (Is )

IX Paul the Persian

239

have been preserved a short Introduction to Logic in Syriac, addressed to Anftsirwan, 15) and a commentary on De lnterpretatione, also in Syriac. 16) The entire second part of Miskawaih>s Tartib as-sa;adat,as outlined above, constitutes yet a third work by Paul, hitherto unknown. This contention has now to be demonstrated. Pines claims that ""the fact that the classification of sciences which follows immediately upon the quotation which has been translated [i.e., the entire second paragraph of PauPs text translated in the present paper, above], differs from the classification found in PauPs treatise on logic

Altheim copying Baumstark's oversight without himself having seen Mercati's article?) Altheim, finally, like Kraus before him, makes the same point about the similarity between Burz6e 1 s introduction to the KaUla wa-Dimna and Paul's Introduction to Logic (see what next follows) without, however, referring to Kraus's article. The exact identity and dates of Paul the Persian are questions that have yet to be resolved. The problem is that in the sources we find mentioned four Paul the Persian 1 s, who may, or may not, be all the same person: i) a '"Christian Paul the Persian"' (IIauAou -mu Ilepoou tou Xpionavou) who participated in a debate (oia).exto]. » 17 ) It is true that the classification found in Miskawaih>s text is different from that given by Paul in his Introduction to Logic, 18) but this by no means implies that the two authors have to be necessarily different. The reason for this lies in the nature of the Alexandrian prolegomena to the study of Aristotle, from which both classifications derive. 19) In the extremely scholastic curriculum of higher studies in the last period of Alexandrian scholarship (5th-6th centuries), before one could even begin to study Aristotle>s Categoriae, traditionally the first book of logic to be covered, one had to study the following prolegomena: 20 ) 1) an introduction to philosophy in general, 2) an introduction to Porphyry>s Isagoge, 3) Porphyry>s Isagoge, with a commentary, 4) a general intro• duction to the philosophy of Aristotle, 5) a special introduction to the Cate• goriae, and finally, the Categoriae itself, with a commentary. 21 ) During the course of these prolegomena, a professor had two occasions to touch upon the classification of the parts of philosophy: one was in the introduction to philosophy in general (No. 1, above), and the other in the general introduc• tion to the philosophy of Aristotle (No. 4). In the former instance, there was presented a brief division of philosophy into theoretical and practical -= with the inevitable discussion on whether logic is a part or an instrument of philosophy - and the subdivisions of these two; in the latter, there was presented a detailed division of Aristotle>s opus, with titles of his works serving as examples for each subdivision. This is exactly the case with the two classifications under discussion here: that found in PauPs Introduction to Logic is a division of philosophy in general, derived from an introduction to philosophy in general(= prolegomenon No. 1, above), and that found in 17 )

Pines, Ahmad Miskawayh, p. 125. This problem is overlooked entirely by all the other authors mentioned in note l, above. 18 ) Land, Anecdota Syriaca, pp. 4.25-5.19 (text), 5-6 (translation). 19 ) In his brief notes, Land (pp. 99-113, especially p. 107) documented Paul's dependence on Alexandrian Aristotelianism as best as he could with the published material available at the time (1875); the C[ommentaria in] A[ristotelem] G[raeca] were yet to appear. 20 ) What F. E. Peters calls "the eisagoge complex": Aristotle and the Arabs, New York 1968, pp. 79-87. 21 ) A good summary of this literature and bibliographical information are given by I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Goteborg 1957, pp. 444-456. A more detailed outline of these prolegomena is sketched by L. G. Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Amsterdam 1962, pp. xxv-xxxii.

IX Paul the Persian

241

Miskawaih>s Tartib as-sa'adat is a division of the parts of Aristotle's philosophy, derived from a general introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle (prolegomenon No. 4) [see Diagrams le and III]. The fact that the two classifications are different, therefore, in no way invalidates the assumption of a single author for both of them. An extant complete course of prolegomena in Greek by a single author, 22 ) Elias, 23 ) provides both an attestation to this and the mediate source of the classifications in PauPs Introduction to Logic and in Miskawaih>s text. In his prolegomenon No. I Elias presents a division ofphiloso• phy in general (CAG XVIII.i, 26.6-29.8) [see Diagram la], and in his prolegomenon No. 4 he offers us the most elaborate extant classification of Aris• totle>s work (CAG XVIIl.i, 113.17-116.28) [see Diagram II]. His former division has no significant distinguishing characteristics and is, details apart, the same as that given by the other Alexandrian commentators; his classification of Aristotles works, however, is extraordinary because of two features, both of them unique to Elias and both of them reproduced in Miskawaih>s text: one is the unprecedentedly detailed subdivision of Aristotle>s physical works, and the other is his treatment of logic. The subdivisions of the physical treatises and their correspondence to the classifica• tion in Miskawaih>s text, §§ III and XI, can be seen in Diagrams II and III and need not detain us here; his division of the parts of logic, however, and the corresponding sections in Miskawaih>s text, §§ VII and X, deserve to be quoted in full [see also Diagram IV]:

22

of a single person in this ) I do not wish to insist unduly on the authorship connection. With regard to the commentaries of the Alexandrian scholars, ascriptions in the Greek manuscript tradition are notoriously misleading, and ""wecannot therefore know for certain that this or that is the intellectual property of one of these professors" (Di.iring, 449). See, e.g., the informative discussion about Olympiodorus in L. G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo I: Olympiodorus, Amsterdam 1976, pp. 20-27. On the other hand, precisely because of the quasicommunal nature of the lectures and their recording (anoq>wvf\s works and the different kinds of syllogisms had been discussed many times; 26 ) but they had never been presented in as systematic a manner as the one offered by Elias here. It is therefore striking to find both of these features, unique, as mentioned above, to Elias, faithfully reproduced in the classification of Aristotle>s works found in Miskawaih>s text, a fact which places the derivation of the latter from the Alexandrian tradition represented by Elias beyond dispute. Since, then, §§ III, VII, and X-XII in Miskawaih>s text derive from this tradition, and since §§ IV-X correspond closely with al•Farabi>s chapter on logic in the IIJ,~a'al-'ulum [see Table I], it will have to be assumed that either Miskawaih is drawing upon al-Farabi, 27 ) or else both are drawing 26

For both these subjects, the fundamental study is that by P. Moraux, Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote, Louvain 1951. For the inclusion of the Rhetorica and Poetica among the books of the Organon, see especially pp. 172-183. See also now his Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen I [Peripatoi 5], Berlin 1973, pp. 58-94. 27 ) As Pines (Ahmad Miskawayh, p. 122) tends to believe; repeated in his Aristotle's Politics in Arabic Philosophy, in: Israel Oriental Studies, 5, 1975, p. 153. )

IX 244

upon a common source. The first alternative, however, would also require us to assume that a) for§§ IV-X, Miskawaih used al-Farabi, who himself must have used an Arabic translation of the division of logic presented by Elias, and b) for§§ III and XI-XII, sections not found in al-Farabi, Miskawaih used a different, unknown, source which derived, independently from the source used by al-Farabi in (a), also from Elias. But this is highly unlikely and unnecessarily complicated; besides, a number of arguments that can be adduced from internal evidence in the texts of Miskawaih and alFarabi also tends to indicate that both of them used a common source, a source which Miskawaih copied rather faithfully and which al-Farabi adapted and edited. 28 ) There can be thus little doubt that the entire second part of Miskawaih>s Tartib as-sa'adat, as outlined above, is an Arabic translation of an introductory work composed by Paul the Persian (in Pehlevi?) 29 ) on the philosophy of Aristotle, modeled on the late Alexandrian prolegomena to Aristotle, and used both by al-Farabi and Miskawaih. I mentioned above that the prolegomena of Elias serve as the mediate, not direct, source of Paul }s treatise. First of all, this is evident from a comparison of the classification of Aristotle>s works given by the two authors [see Diagrams II and Ill]. PauPs classification differs from that of Elias in the following respects: 1) the division of theoretical and practical philosophy, although ultimately into the same number of parts, is more elaborate in Paul, i.e., it goes through more subdivisions: both theoretical 28

See below. pp.251-2, nos. v and vi, and notes 61 and 65. Since this treatise was addressed to Am1sirwan, the real question is whether the Persian ruler knew any Syriac. This thorny problem has been much debated, and cont ..adictory views have been held by different scholars as well as by single individuals: A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen 2 1944, p. 427, note 4: '"Nous pourrons supposer que le traite de Paulus a ete traduit du syriaque en pehlvi, mais il n'est peut-etre pas absolument invraisemblable que Khusr6 ait su lire le syriaque;"' Altheim, Geschichte der Hunnen, Vol. III, p. 89: "Schwerlich mochte sich Chusr6 An6sarvan das Syrische angeeignet haben;"' Baumstark initially (Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae, in: Jahrbticher fur classische Philologie, Suppl. 21, 1894, p. 368) maintained that Paul's Introduction to Logic was composed in Syriac, but later (Geschichte, p. 246) changed his mind in favor of Pehlevi. He therefore does not deserve Tkatsch' s criticism (Poetik I. 74b). Most of this literature is rather dated, however, and the question needs to be examined anew. For the purposes of this paper, I will assume what the weight of the evidence indicates: that Paul's Introduction to Aristotle's works, as preserved in Miskawaih, was originally composed in Pehlevi (cf. notes 15 and 16, above), and that it passed into Arabic from a Syriac intermediary (the other two extant works by Paul are preserved in Syriac). 29

) )

IX Paul the Persian

245

and practical philosophy are each first divided into two, and then each one of these subdivisions is further subdivided into two, to arrive finally at the same traditional tripartition, physics-mathematics-metaphysics and ethics-economics-politics, respectively; 2) the classification of the psycho .. logical treatises is radically different in Paul; 3) Paul omits altogether the classification of the treatises on sublunar physical events. For our purposes here, the significant difference is the first one, 30 ) because it points to a development within the Alexandrian scholastic tradition, whose most representative characteristic was an increasing use of the method of division for the presentation of essentially the same material, as a brief com=parison between the prolegomena of Ammonius (CAG IV.3 and 4) and Elias will immediately show.31) This development reached its apogee with another late sixth century scholar, David, 32 ) who uses the method of division ad nauseam. David would thus be a good candidate for serving as the more immediate source, if not the source, of Paul, whose contemporary, after all, he was. Unfortunately, of the five kinds of prolegomena mentioned above, we possess only Nos. 1 to 3 by David (CAG XVIII.2). We know nothing of a prolegomenon No. 4 by him, which would have included the classification of Aristotle>s works and thus enabled us to compare it with PauFs classification. On the other hand, Davidts treatment of philosophy in general in his prolegomenon No. 1 corresponds so closely with the parallel passage in Paur s Introduction to Logic, 33 ) that Davidts candidacy as the source of Paul becomes much more probable. PauPs tripartition of theoretical philosophy [Diagram le] is certainly, in its broad outline, common to the entire Alexandrian tradition; specifically, however, malake) as examples of intel .. his citing soul, gods, and angels (nafsa, ses works (Table I), which, in turn, is directly derived from the prolegomena to the study of Aristotle by Elias(-David). In this fashion, al-Farabfs connection with the last stages of Alexandrian Aristotelianism, via the Nestorian Syriac tradition as represented by Paul the Persian and, most probably, Abu Bisr Matta, is concretely established. It has long been known that the branches of al-FarabFs philosophy had their roots, through the trunk of the Syriac tradition, in the soil of Alexandrian philosophy; our source for this information is none other than al-Farabi himself. 58 ) Recent scholarship has provided much discrete evidence in support of the pedigree claimed by al-Farabi; 59 ) with PauPs treatise we are now in possession of both a specific link between al-Farabi and Alexandria, and a concrete text illustrating the connection. Much benefit will accrue to research on al-Farabi from a detailed study of PauPs treatise, not the least of which will be a better text of Chapter II of the ~a} al-'ulum, 60 ) and a deeper appreciation of al-FarabFs method of

58

) In the fragment of his otherwise lost treatise on the origins and transmission of philosophy, preserved by Ibn Abi Ui;;aibi'a, II.134.30-135.24 (Muller). For the numerous studies of this text see, most recently, N. Rescher, al-F!ir!ibi on Logical Tradition, in: Journal of the History ofldeas, 24, 1963, pp. 127-132, repr. in his Studies in the History of Arabic Logic, Pittsburgh 1963, pp. 21-27. German and English translations of the passage in F. Rosenthal, Das Fortleben der Antike im Islam, Zurich-Stuttgart 1965, pp. 74-76 = The Classical Heritage in Islam, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1975, pp. 50f. 2 59 ) See R. Walzer's summary of his own research in his article al-Farabi in EI , Vol. II, coll. 779a (top), 779b (bottom), 780a (middle). In a recent article, F. W. Zimmermann has shed much light on certain details of this transmission from late Alexandrian Aristotelianism through the Syriac tradition to al-FArAbi: Some Observations on al-FArAbi and Logical Tradition, in: Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition [Festschrift R. Walzer], eds. S. M. Stern, A. Hourani, V. Brown, Oxford 1972, pp. 517-546. 60 edition was noted by P. Kraus in his review ) The sad state of G. Palencia's in Der Islam, 22, 1935, pp. 82-85. Amm's revised edition ( 1949 and 1968) is better, but it also needs improvement.

IX 256 composition through a comparison of the two texts. 61 ) Here I would like to call attention to one important aspect of PauFs treatise, which, in view of the observations made above about Paul and Abu Bi~r Matta, may have wider implications for the thought of al•Farabi. Classification by division was once for all established by Plato>s dialo• gues as one of the pillars of Greek scientific method. In the case of the late Alexandrian scholars, it dominated their every intellectual endeavor. The immensely significant characteristic of the method of classification in this period is its dual function, one descriptive and epistemological, the other normative and ontological. In other words, when the subject under discus• sion was divided into its component parts, this division did not merely describe the subject as it appeared and hence facilitate its comprehension, but it also presumed to reflect its real nature, its ontological status. Thus, for example, after David had divided philosophy into two, theoretical and practical, he went on to "'prove,,. why it is divided into two parts only and not into more. 62 ) The implication here is that philosophy is divided into two not because this or that philosopher so divided it, or because we choose so to divide it for the purposes of instruction or description, but because philo .. sophy, inherently and by its very nature, can be only thus divided. This dual function of classification by division is amply evident in Elias division of logic, in the passage translated above. Elias first gives a descriptive division of logic (see also Diagram IVa), and then justi .. fies this division by having recourse to a normative argument. He says, to quote him again, "'For there are five kinds of syllogisms ... - and rightly so, because the propositions from which the syllogisms are derived are five ... [emphasis added].,,. The two words xcd eix6-rwc;(and rightly, naturally, or properly so) help him cross imperceptibly from the descriptive to the normative: they conceal an entire host of assumptions and axiomatic 7

61

) Even a cursory glance at the second of the two parallel texts by Paul and al. Farabi quoted above demonstrates the ways in which al•Farabi adapts and elaborates the received text: he provides explanatory details (the indefinite t~diqan mll in Paul is explained by al-Fa,ra,bi as immll arJ,'afawa-immll aqw(i), he renders unclear expressions more intelligible ( iqnll'u mll in Paul becomes iqnll'u l-inslln in al-Farabi), etc. I think that such considerations of textual comparison alone are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the text in Miskawaih (i.e., Paul) is prior and that al-FArAbi drew from it, rather than the other way around. 62 ) CAG XVIII.ii, pp. 55 f. The entire prolegomena of David - or, for that matter, most of the writings of the Alexandrian commentators -are replete with such normative discussions. I am not aware of any study of the development of this kind of argumentation.

IX Paul the Persian

257

beliefs, culturally and traditionally determined, governmg his philoso .. phical modus operandi. Paul the Persian, who reproduces Eliast division of logic, is quick to identify the dual function of this classification and state it in explicit terms: the descriptive division he calls synthetic ( tarkib), and the normative analytic ( talJ,lil). Paul is therefore one of the significant connecting links through whom there pass to Islamic civilization in general, and to al-Farabi in particular, not only the mere technique of classification by division as a method of research, but also an awareness of its normative function. 63 ) al-Farabi, who repeatedly uses in his works Elias> division oflogic, 64 ) deve-lops the normative fivefold division of syllogistic statements 65 ) into an independent ontological theory, dissociated from the original purpose it was designed to serve: the justification of the descriptive division of logic. For him, the division of syllogistic statements into demonstrative, dialec-tical, rhetorical, sophistical, and poetic becomes primary and axiomatic 66 ) - as a matter of fact, he says that these five are the only ways in which the human mind can think. 67 ) The trend, therefore, of shifting from the descrip-tive function of classification to the normative one, which started with Alexandrian scholarship, reaches its logical conclusion with al--Farabi in whom normative classification becomes autonomous. Closely related to this is another trend, also incipient in Alexandrian scholarship, which al-Fara.bi carries through to its logical extreme. If 63

On the importance of classification in Islamic civilization cf. Rosenthal, Das Fortleben, pp. 77-79 - Classical Heritage, pp. 52-54. 64 ) This was first noted some time ago by R. Walzer, Zur Traditionsgeschichte der aristotelischen Poetik, in: Studi ltaliani di Filologia Classica, N.S. 11, 1934, p. 13 [repr. Greek into Arabic, p. 135]. W. Heinrichs' aporia (Arabische Dichtung und griechische Poetik, Beyrut 1969, p. 131), that al-Farabi reproduces Elias despite the fact that Elias was not known to the Arabs, is hereby solved: the trans .. mitter was Paul the Persian. 65 ) Diagram V (without claiming to be exhaustive) lists the works in which alFarabi uses this classification and the names which he gives to each kind of syllo-gistic statement. It is noteworthy that in the If-Md: al- 'ulum alone he deviates from his usual terminology and uses that in Paul's treatise: This is another, however slight, indication that al-Farabi is dependent here upon an outside source which both he and Miskawaih are following. 66 ) al-Farabi seems to know nothing of, or at least not to mention, the division of syllogisms into three (demonstrative, dialectical, sophistical) by al-Kindi, who derives his information from a different source (Guidi-Walzer, Studi su al-Kindi I, . text p. 401, trans. p. 416). 67 96 f. (Mahdi): ad-dihnu laisa lahu nqiyadun ab.aru siwa hadihi ) Alfd; 1-b.amsa. )

IX 258 normative classification reflects ontological reality, the way things are, it can also reflect historical reality, the way things actually happened. A hint of this is found in the Alexandrian discussion, initiated by the epilogue of De Sophisticis Elenchis, about Aristotle's historical precedence in establishing the theoretical rules for the different kinds of syllogistic statements which, naturally, existed before him. In a significant passage of the introduction to the commentary on the Categoriae (i.e., prolegomenon No. 5, above) by Olympiodorus, the teacher of Elias, we read the following: Both Plato and Aristotle are worthy of our admiration, Aristotle because he distinguished and discovered the rules in isolation from the subject matter itself, and Plato because he used demonstration (an6oet~tc;) without rules. For the philosophers before Aristotle (oi naAato() knew how to use demonstration, but did not know the theory behind it, in this respect resembling those who use shoes without knowing how to make them. One should not consider Plato inferior to Aristotle on account of this, but on the contrary, superior, because Plato, when using demonstration, did not need Aristotle>s demonstrative method, while Aristotle, [in discovering the demonstrative method,] needed Platoys [actual] demonstrations. Similarly, Homer and Demosthenes needed neither Aristotle's Poetica nor Hermogenes> Rhetorica, but rather Aristotle and Hermogenes needed their writings in order to establish the poetic and rhetorical methods. [CAG XII.i, pp. 17.3718.10]

The same note of historical development - first the practice, then the theory-is struck by al-Farabi in the introduction to his own commentary on the Categoriae, in a passage obviously derived from the Alexandrian prolegomena though not from Olympiodorus. The passage runs as follows:

Of the things that are included in the art of logic, the following two were established before the time of Aristotle: 1) What was practised was practised not with the aid of [the rules of] logic, but through skill and the competence that arises from long application to the performance of the art (since it so happened that people applied themselves without possessing the rules governing such practice), like the competence of Protagoras in sophistical argumentation, of Thrasymachus in rhetoric, and of Homer in poetry. Orations and poems were established by themselves, not on the basis of rules which one can use to produce similar orations and poems. 2) What was written was partial and scanty, like the various kinds of meters in the case of poetry, proverbial expressions in the case of rhetoric, and similar things in dialectic. But as for the contention that the order in which these [logical] arts ought

IX Paul the Persian

259

to be existed before Aristotle, it is not true. The credit for this belongs to Aristotle alone. 68 ) The intimations of normative classification as history implicit in these passages, however, are developed into a full-fledged system in the second part of al-Farabi's K. al-Ifuruf, a work much less dependent on Alexandrian prototypes than his formal commentaries. 69 ) In it al-Farabi classifies all the sciences in the following chronological sequence: pre•Platonic: rhetoric, poetry, record-keeping, grammar, writing, mathematical sciences, physical sciences, sophistics, dialectics; Plato: political science; Aristotle: demonstration, (metaphysics?); post-Aristotelian: religious legislation, fiqh, kalam. This is, in effect, nothing else but the classification of the sciences found in the IJJ,~a~ al-'ulum set in a historical perspective. The correspondence between the ontological classification in the ~a• al-'ulum and the historical classification in the K. al-If uruf is best illustrated in diagram VI. The system which thus emerges marks the culmination of a long process of development whose starting point was the method of classi-. fication by division as a tool for research and instruction. By late Alexand=rian times, this method had acquired a second, normative, function, which tended to overshadow the earlier, descriptive one. The implications of the normative function as reflecting both ontological and historical reality began to be recognized also by this time, but they were exhausted, after a long gestation period in the Syriac tradition whose two termini we can tentatively identify in this particular case as Paul the Persian and Abu Bisr Matta, only with al-Farabi. It is a rare accomplishment of idealist philosophy. 70) 68

) Alfa?- 110.5-111.2 (Mahdi). Cf. a similar passage in al-FArAbi's K. al-B#aba, in Langhade and Grignaschi, Deux ouvrages, p. 55. 69 ) M. Mahdi, ed., al-FArAbi's Book of Letters, Beyrut 1970, pp. 142-153. A detailed summary and analysis of this part are provided by the same author's Alfarabi on Philosophy and Religion, in: The Philosophical Forum, IV.l, 1972, pp. 5-25. 70 systematization of cultural history apparently became the ) This idealist accepted view in subsequent times. We find references to it in, e.g., Avicenna and Suhrawardi Maqtftl. Avicenna, as-Sifa', al-Rahiyat VII.ii (Cairo 1370/1960, p. 310 .11-13): "'When the Greeks first occupied themselves with philosophy, it was rhetorical (b,utbiya), and then it was mixed with sophistry (galat; perhaps mugalata?) and dialectics (gadal). The first of its parts [i.e., excluding the parts oflogic which is only an instrument of philosophy] to come to the people was physics; then they began to pay attention to mathematics and then to metaphysics. w This passage clearly derives from al-FArAbi's systematization and not, as G. Verbeke suggests, from Aristocles of Messena's (ultimately Aristotle's?) De Philosophia

IX 260 The net effect of this scheme is to explain the order of things, both ontological and historical, and thereby render irrelevant the questions of, and debates about, the superiority of logic over grammar, or philosophy over religion. Logic and grammar, philosophy and religion, are shown by alFarabi to be complementary parts of the same system, not posited as contradictory parts in two different systems, a position which was implicit in late Alexandrian Aristotelianism, explicit in Paul the Persian, and bitterly fought over in al-Farabfs contemporary intellectual circles in Bagdad. 71 ) By assigning, through classification, each part to its proper place in the way things are (ontology) and the way they developed (history), al-Fara.bi attempted to settle the debate by replacing it with a higher synthesis. The second part of his K. al-Jfu,ruf, and its complell1;ent, JIJ,~rl'al-'ulum, are therefore direct responses to this debate which, smoldering through the centuries, flared up once again in Bagdad in the first half of the tenth century, during al-Farabirs entire active adult life. Perhaps therein lies the key to his interest in political philosophy. (Avicenna Latinus: Liber de Philosophia Prima I-IV, Louvain-Leiden 1977, p. 3* note 3). Aristocles' fragment, which is preserved in Philoponus' and Asclepius of Tralles' commentaries on Nicomachus of Gerasa's Introduction to Arithmetic, deals with the five specific senses which the word ao

as-su'ara'; Ma yanbagi ...

yaqiniya

all true

more true than false

equally true and false

stlfistaiyamug§Jatiya more false than true

burhaniya

gadaliya

butbiya

stlfista'iya

si'r

burhaniya

gadaliya

bitabiya

stlfista iya

si'riya

0

-+'>

0

~

I:Iuruf

C

0

·;;;

">

i5

lnkoducWcy 'Risala': Ms. Hamid. 812

------

INDUCING ERROR

a 3,

00

Syllogistic statements are divided into five - PERSUASIVE

0

c:r-,

tS ..i.J\

Vadet

e:-b ~

:.c1ttij 61.aCtr,i Paul .Aeg.

9 Ji,JI

~



OLOVOl.a~

t.,i(\, r.lls~aq (for

black

f.

99a,

bile)

I .~3

Galen,

§)

XII 30

HYBRID VERSION

SHORT VERSION

di j

§C

~

r ..,JI di_;..,.\

&-J

.,..,,_.n J 1 .;J\JO,:-~

13

14

15

.,_,, :.

'J-

17 18

,-.&JI J\_;..,,-1:t)t)(CJ.LttaL 0£ au-roi:~ (sc. TOL~ tpoui.:a] xat TO Tri~ lµq>VtOV 1}£p1,JO\ItX TTIS: O.'ltaUOTOUxal CJ(l)OOPi:l!;ll'PO'VTCoos ti"is tpo~ TO 12

ldeler

xapofos to6~lJ£VO\I

29, 3-5

13 •l .1,-.J I JI

J L,.:_ 1 xa'L C1AJJUPW\I koe:aµchwv ow.:xn

6 La toHnv

OOLT{av

1ppovT{6a!;

Alex. Tral 1. 597 (on melan·choly)

tpooq>opav

n £U't0\IOU~

.

16~19 :•lµl

16/I om ~ •l..1,-Jl •··~~~ II om

II K

tAij

•l.1,-Jl

I I I A~

'ii~~

13 //

1 , 1 t6 '-:-''-r:J

XII 31

DRAMATIZED

LONG VERSION

•1..,,-1,J' Jt..:...1o-.,

20

~

21

..,WJ~ 1.!-l-,o1tS:n ,. bi•;,,l fa.JI

e:', 7'-1..w\ ~ ..b)b.... ':fl

u~J

•4,,.., JLJI

~ 'I,

JI

~ 'i '-

.. tfIS..,>.!

dJ j

~ W 1 ~ t..:"J~

~'

~

v\.

VERSION

t,_;t; faJI

..1WJ~..:.\..~I

22

~ ..b~ "'

23

•4-.)J

25

\!,...,, t.\...,J\ ~

26

~

\;

~ 0-

~\

t.;)J

§E «...i.;

1.5lH



J' )-;

I.ii

(y

~WI

.....0~

..:._,J1

JU

&l

u-~.J>'

A..~

• J\li ;,~

V

\.i\; i.:.,J"t

,j

Ji.,J,

"1, ;}iJI J.,1,

t;,

~\

-~"' ;:;,.,:..-

u

~~

ve U:~

., -

~

Js,

\. .,

0,

'"=".,b.i:a;;; ;~ u,..:..-J'.,-4 ~w• 31

ot

t...-31 i1.a tC tnv

tWTl,)(~V

xa~poµt\101.

ci-epows

)(CJ.·~

6uvaµ1.v XQLto lµ,utov

noo,61.a,opc1o~a1.

~'J.1

6.j

'-:'~J

xa\ QUOAAUO~aL.ldeler

c(w f£pOµtvov ~po~

//

8 om

..:,,.:..JI••• •~...,

Is.~ 28 II L1 ~_; M

Ii-'.,

J:-.

t ~ : i~

// L1 4-l..iJI

~

23-26

.........;: ~ 26

t....,;31

//

B M om

TO

T \;~I

T om.

;~

..:,I 29

//

~~ / T 1

27

-~.JJ

u-~r s _.• .-Jt; I Vadet

corr.

T 1~~ :i,,.;.,..:.- u /

corr

\!._i,I 25

Vadet ~~ 'JIJ 28

u-»-~

T

20

Vadet

T I..;',

II Vadet I I T ~l..;.. 'jl I M om ..1W B om , 4-l..ai.J123 //

'-1.J

10, § 20 T ~...,',

B I jl_, I B

u.H' ,j

o;po6pw:;, ~oti: xa\ CMAUOVtaq tit>

~cpµov aµ{tpw~

§D

~ " t.

f ',; v- ; ~

u-Wl

t

~ dJj

Js. ~~ ~ ~\ ~'

s

;_faJI~ ,.a,_;

~\

ul.o:i.;

Ji,.JI

·• U\i u·lol..11 t"!

21

,:_,I

c•.-..,w,,\J_,;1..i\;e',J'

24

~J,,_;.;

v-

,.1WI •1,.1,-JI ).~

( \')

//

•••

\.

T1 --~I

fa

T1

~lblla.}

< J>,

v

Vadet

I.ii : ~ 30//T

//

;4,; 1

om

XII 34

HYBRID VERSION

SHORT VERSION

l....JI ~ 1.J ~ ~ iii;...:. ~¼-!

t-;';,

u-\... ~.,..:.s. 1

32

l-...JI ~ ...._JJ ~

~

~.

ta:.,,

@l.. U!r'

33

J

~ ~ J ,.

•b i.}

~

J ··;.,-;

36

""'"1iJ I ~.,

~ ~ ••• ~~ 32 // ~}/~~

J

~

w.;

tOLOUtOU~

AJex.Trall.

XLXAnoxouaLV

Hb IAU ~ K(om) Q.

O~:~/om

D Hb ~ IAU K om

CJ¥ .;,,,.;y

35 // D ,-..otJ: ~_, 37 / I

D~ : ~ / ~

~

Hy

34 // ?

: •~

~ Hb K IAU

:~

• ., ,-b

37

uovov, QAA~HQLµaCvco~aL tOU~

D Hb ~ ~I

~

I.~

om

•IJ,_JI

~ 31--38 //

IA~

om

.,,;,

I

.a I

:•I JA.All

IAU

I D IAU J.,..:.:,39 II IAU K II D ~ IAU _,h.ll

Q

II Hy ~:

Q.

597

~.,,32 .w

34 .:) -'rtiI

J'·;,•;

36

XII 35

DRAMATIZED VERSION

LONG VERSION

~,J~ '½-~\

t.-..) ~

~

.. t..,

ui-'tti ~l.

32

l ....

u,t,r-S-,

33

~ ~i

~ ~

.ii .,;I

34

•I ..L.tt,.oJI__,..L ~J ~



~ ~l:

35

~ ~

j

.,;

j

~ I Li\; .. t- V'..,,,:.S.,

~J

JJ_;_e~'-

I ~

0U;

.ii .,;I

U I •I .u..cJI ~

~

lj\;

36

~'~

35

.J,

t..:'JJ

37



;.,

38

t.:~ J

~

39

I.S'J UI

~l:

~ dUJ,

t.;'J ,- ~

,i-,

._.,; ~ .;,_:-.

j

~ J,.\: j ._.,; ~· . .. )l; I~1~J"'i ~ (~

~

.,;I ,..;~

.;..:...JI,

felt , ~i

•l.u..cJI i_riZ : ,ha T( ot AU'tOUµ£VOL )(QL ot £PWV't£S:xa\ ot opy1.l;Ol,l£VOL

0Ttvar;oua1. 1,1l~a xal auvcxws:; OTL o~ µtv Au1ouµcvoL 1pos; TO Au1naav cxoua1. Tnv ~uxhv £OTpa1,1µ{vnv,ot

6cIO~OUVT£S:IPOS: TO 1o~ouµcvov,

IPOS: ,:c,'tT)Vopynv uvnaav

autots; ••.•

ot 6£ XOAWVTES:

Ide I er 10, § 21

36~8 ~La TL tVLOL ~oBn~£VT£S:&1l~avov; O'tL ,cuyouaa

A(av n fUOL>5:,

bb

cc

40 ;~

~ l.'.r l5,..,, : OltOH: 6£

&xon~ n opaOEW~

l5,J ,,

~

D ~ K ~J-W ~ .. .J

UlO!J\ll'lCHVCA~OL£\I

, xal UOALOTa &~aL~\111~ •••

'[QU

Epwµevou iitoL

6L •

Paul.Aeg. 160, 17-9

~ i..SJ, 40

D Mb K4~

~

et~

A.i.oI

IAU

D om K

41

//

: ~,ra

"-' .J

?

~ IAU i

K Mb D

43 // 44 //

Mb D ~,

I AU Mb /

IA~ cm

LI 43

XII 37

LONG VERSION

DRAMATIZED

VERSION

40



;~~ 4.Ai.J ;~

~,..;

4-i.;

(~

41

w x

~WI

.. ..,

44

~,-1 Jl....:-1 r .JJI '-:-;A

U\;

45

J~ \. u-#~

~WI

.;,_J ~I

~J

~

.

• .,1,;

J;J :

.

13,..:..-JI JI J

..., ,,

-l>-1

)~

L,

B

J6.:,..I §F

~

aa

fa

I jl

~

bb

~

~'

u,-1;')..ot ~

~WI

i:,~

0,-l ; I.,-'., u.,..:..- d'

Jt; '-1i.ll ~I 'r"'L ~1 is~ · L -;\_i;I ..

om

1.:,~

41 // B i:...a.: :~ L 1 om (homoiotel

43 // ~

42//

~-tea-

L1

L1

om ; B

L1 ~ cc //

L1

d.o .,

:

T

IS~ J~

40

44/ /

B

j

~..Jb

Vadet

.i ~

.;,_I I 8 '-:-.rtw..J

U",-1.J: ,__,..~

z

Vadet Vadet

// B

/ / f 13_,..:Jl

w //

:w

UI 42-43

B ..:,_J: .. .,

u-~

.)

B Mom

L1 '-;-'-'b~ : '-:-.Jfi! ~ I

:. ~ ►- ~ /

I.SI) T1 IS} :

/ M om ~~

;~1,

L, IS,- .r,, :i..5_,;~,,

II

~..,,1

iloo..,

IS'., JI

;~ .,_;.; tP ... . w., I //

)'I

lj\;

L1

cc

/

J-.!WI

~;~ea-

..:-• ,,., J...a.:'!J

ljl

\jl

IS;; ~IJ

~

'-:-.J-t-tu,$

#

Jt; i:t,-:..- JI

y

\jl

_,')..ol ~ ~ IS.iJI ~I

~J

II

T

XII 38 Z

z

0

0

(J".J

(J".J

DRAMATIZED VERSION

LONG VERSION

0::: 0::: tJ.J ~



0

1.SJ\t

0::: 0:::

0

:I: (J".J

~

::c

r .&J~ t 0;..J,, t_;.iJI~

u,,

j

>-

~

~WI#

4-

~1,

~J

~

.

\.

-~

Ju.

tj.J' ~-~

49

'\ ,.s'

50

,}_,-l~

51

;;W ·. •--11 . ,.J~

l..i\i ~

j

U\;

..

~ ~ tjiJI rlh..::..-1u~

..:.

_>; ~,

~

~I,

;;~

~'-:-'~ ..&.&;.

~· ~·

u,111 Jl..:....l r..:.11

U\i

~

f, ,}.,.,.J~

52 53

f, .,',-J~ ;;_,..;uJIJI u,111

54

TWVcvaCµwv £0TLV Aristote!es,

46•8 TQ ava1.ua 6t1.loTtPa

· ~t

~

#'w,

Jt..:....1 r ..a.l' ~ 1.,;1,r ..a.JI~

).A,..,~

i.i

~•

dJ..i

,j ISJl.t "j r .i.Jl, tt_,►.-11 t)i.11 r:" t _;..JI

48

r..t.ll

,hn .,~ ;;}rl~

.,~ I.it;

47

u,111 J~I

....t; ,_ L ~ ~

"'

~I

~ ~

.•,\ t "'

r ..a.JIe,

iJ.l

> >

De part.anim.

650 b 31

n nl-!Citpa

46-9

q>IXHS [q,oB"'] ...q,cuye:1.aq,o6oa xpo~ TO Sa~o~ TOUowua,o~

&a,ale:Ca~ xdp1.v. ouvilxt1.

6~ µc~' iauTflS T~ a{µa •••

ldeler

po6Ctov TO 6tp~a xal tpu~p1.alvov.

8,

§

T00To 6i ~v TO

12 I ~1.~ TL ot xa(povTe:s

n ~UOI.~auT061.6dxTWST~ nooVTI. ~POTP£t£L XQTQTO £XTO~ OUVCICTQL 6cTO alua TQVT? ■ µe:µa~nxaµcv 6eTOUTOpo6C~e:1.vTO

cp~p1.wa1.v; OTI. OVTI. •••

6lpµa

t6C~xowµaTI.. ldeler 9,

T~

perhaps

< II II

I

t ....

46.-47

t

II

14

46-47

//

Vadet om

//

Vadet

dJj

,j

46

r.i.J' , ... , > r.i.J' t9 ~ c.,;J 1 0 1 (cf. parall. app.) 0;.,•.JI, tj.Jl e, L1 ~ ; corr. ~ 50 L1

(

f ) ~ ; corr.

;corr. J,...;..:1 I l

1

~

f

• [b Is] ,-WI 5h53 I I )...!.t 54 I I L1 0 ,.u1

II

§

~

51

corr • ..au. L1 Jt..;..1

; corr.

; corr.

_;..,,,

4-i,-J • ~I

53

XII 39

DRAMA TI ZED VERSION

LONG VERSION

.,~

C\i

S6

~ J ,j

l ,y.i ~\

J.l!--.i.JIJ •~

• ~' .,,.t:

~ ~

11 J' v-'.r

t;r

c:;, i.J,r

;~to ;.,,r

a... ~;;

ill

- -,, c.J • u· ,S:. ._ I ' I.:. ~ \j., c.J ~

~

r ..t.11

, '..t.11 r

S7

.J~

~ ',

,,,

~J

•~

I

.J

~ ~4



~ u-'.,J' ik.i

~ r..ill

J'

1,} dJ j,

J>,r •,Sr

J>.r

V'

;J'=,.-- ~ ~;;,

60

r..t.1'

~,

dd

~I

>~

ee

r..a.JIJ~

< .-. ·->

\.;~I

.J

Jlu

< 4.- ~ lS~I

;l.

Jt; ~'

ff

~r--1' i}r3' ~'--

_,.b,j

;,jlJ:; ,.,J.,Jl jl

S9

~ 4.A.i>_,.

u,d ~_,..!..-1 I "':- J ,j r ..t.lI

~I

S8

~ dJj

u,.J ~'

61

62

~.LA~

~~ ~ l1')WI

c,JI U..... ~ ..i,._:..11 c:.,,-►WI ~,11 ~ ~,.JI

63

~ v-i.,JI ~ jl

~ tf-> v")l.Jl

,j U:.,.. ~ ..i_,illl u- ,►.l>.JI

64

65

' Ba~o, XOL ''' CVTOt TOo·awµaTo,. TOo·QLµaTo, TOLVUV · · ' TO OVYMPLVCµevOV XQL xcoµlvou,

59-60

TO 6lpµa Sa1tttaL

T~ ToO aLµatot

xp~µatL.

ldeler

~uµ&, COTL~ioL, TOO lCP~ tnv xap6Cav atµato~

De An. 403 a 31 • b 11] xa\ ~epµov 1vcuµatos•

9, § 15

C••Aristoteles,

tovTo oov ws Atttoµcptt

&vw,opov yCvttaL xa\ 6La TWVo,~aAµwv 6La,avcotdT~V OVTWV ~aCvttaL ldeler

35,

§ 102

,:;, 58 / perhaps T //

L1

\., ; corr. ~ •• -~WI

[ 1eg -~] ~

L1

~

62

lt---59 //

T ~

• • .< '-T ~,

T ~ Vadet

corr. ~l

59•60 / /Vadet

T fit~•.,.~

63•64 ~

[ i.J,;l I

Vadet

0,~

..:..

u.Ll•l~l>dd-.ee//

~ 65/ /Vadet

< ,j>

XII 40

HYBRID VERSION

SHORT VERSION

§G

,.a

~., ..:,a ~ .J~

u•~.1.u,~.,~, ~ ,_!t;

l.i \;

~ dJ_j J\,:i,

o- ~~ 't ~

-'fo

~w,

69

J', u~' e, ..t>', JI,_; J\ ~ ,-)

t, fe.HJl.ta;'J ~ •\.1,-JI

•t:r~ -'I,, r._,I\ ~

66

\.'.. .. uo.1WI ,,_;w168

~to.J ~ ~ -t>',

0

• IJ·I'r""

'J t-.,., ..

\JS' ., .1_,...J \;

., .1,-J\