Philosophy, Theology and Mysticism in Medieval Islam: Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalām [1] 0860789772, 9780860789772

Table of contents :
Cover
Series Page
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
I: Yā Kalām
II: Some Fragments of Isḥāq's Translation of the De Anima
III: Some Textual Notes on the Oriental Versions of Themistius’ Paraphrase of Book A of the Metaphysics
IV: The Origin of the Arabic Philosophical Term 'Annīya
V: The Use of the Enneads by John of Scythopolis
VI: Remarks on the Early Development of the Kalām
VII: Reason and Revealed Law: A Sample of Parallels and Divergences in Kalām and Falsafa
VIII: Currents and Countercurrents [In the Mu‘tazila, Ash'arites and Al-Ghazālī]
IX: The Neoplatonism of Jahm Ibn Ṣafwān
X: Al-Ghazālī on Taqlīd. Scholars, Theologians, and Philosophers
XI: Al-Ghazālī's use of Avicenna's Philosophy
XII: Meanings are Spoken of in Many Ways: The Earlier Arab Grammarians
XIII: "Lam Yazal" as a Formal Term in Muslim Theological Discourse
XIV: Two Short Dogmatic Works of Abū l-Qāsim Al-Qushayrī, Part 1: Edition and Translation of Luma 'fī l-i 'Tiqād
XV: Two Short Dogmatic Works of Abū l-Qāsim Al-Qushayrī, Part 2: Edition and Translation of al-Fuṣūl Fī l-uṣūl
Index

Citation preview

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

2 - O

-

Also in the Variorum Collected Studies Series:

RICHARD M. FRANK (Ed. Dimitri Gutas) Early Islamic Theology: The Mu‘tazilites and al-Ash‘ari Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalam, Vol. II

RICHARD M. FRANK (Ed. Dimitri Gutas) Classical Islamic Theology: The Ash‘arites Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalam, Vol. Ill

DIMITRI GUTAS Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition

PATRICIA CRONE FromKavadto al-Ghazali Religion, Law and Political Thought in the Near East, c.600-c. 1100

MICHAEL LECKER People, Tribes and Society in Arabia Around the Time of Muhammad

MOSHEGIL -

e

-

Related Worlds - Studies in Jewish and Arab Ancient and Early Medieval History

A.I. SABRA Optics, Astronomy and Logic Studies in Arabic Science and Philosophy

AMNON SHILOAH The Dimension of Music in Islamic and Jewish Culture

ANDREW RIPPIN The Qur’an and its Interpretative Tradition

G.H.A. JUYNBOLL Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith

GEORGE MAKDISI Religion, Law andLearning in Classical Islam

ETANKOHLBERG BeliefandLaw in Imami Shi‘ism

-

e

-

-e -

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES

Philosophy, Theology and

Mysticism in Medieval Islam

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

4

Richard M. Frank

Philosophy,Theology and Mysticismin Medieval Islam

Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalarn, Vol. I Edited by Dimitri Gutas

Routledge

Taylor & FrancisGroup LONDON AND NEW YORK

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

6 -

e

-

First published 2005 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 ofthe Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition © 2005 by Richard M. Frank Richard M. Frank has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. 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 0860789772 (hbk) British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Frank, Richard M. Philosophy, theology and mysticism in medieval Islam : texts and studies on the development and history of kalam Vol. 1. ­ (Variorum collected studies series) 1. Islam - Doctrines - History I.Title II.Gutas, Dimitri 297.2 '09 Library of Congress Control Number: 2005929783

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS833

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

7 - O

-

CONTENTS Foreword

vn

Acknowledgements I

e

1-10

II

Some fragments o f Ishaq’s translation of the de Anima Les Cahiers de Byrsa 8. Carthage, Tunisia, 1958-59

III

Some textual notes on the Oriental versions of Themistius’ paraphrase of Book A o f the Metaphysics Les Cahiers de Byrsa 8. Carthage, Tunisia, 1958-59

IV -

Ya kalam First publication

231-251

215-230

The origin o f the Arabic philosophical term hnnlya Les Cahiers de Byrsa 6. Carthage, Tunisia, 1956

181-201

V

The use o f the Enneads by John of Scythopolis Le Museon 100. Louvain, 1987

101-108

VI

Remarks on the early development of the kalam Atti del III Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamici. Naples, 1967

315-329

VII

Reason and revealed law: a sample of parallels and divergences in kalam and falsafa Recherches d Tslamologie: recueil d 'articles offert a Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet, Louvain, 1978

-

VIII Currents and countercurrents [in the Mu‘tazila, AslTarites and al-Ghazall] Islam: Essays on Scripture, Thought and Society. A Festschrift in Honour ofAnthony Johns, eds P.G. Riddell and T. Street. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997

-

e

-

- O

123-13 8

113-134

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

8

CONTENTS

Vl

IX

The neoplatonism of Jahm ibn ~afwan

395-424

Le Museon 78. Louvain, 1965

X

Al-Ghazali on taqlld. Scholars, theologians, and philosophers

207-252

Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 7. Frankfurt am Main, 1991-92

XI

Al-Ghazali's use of Avicenna's philosophy

271-285

Revue des Etudes Islamiques 55-57. Paris, 1987-89

XII

Meanings are spoken of in many ways: the earlier Arab grammanans

259-319

Le Museon 94. Louvain, 1981

XIII

"Lam yazaf' as a formal term in Muslim theological

243-270

discourse MIDEO 22. Louvain, 1995

XIV

Two short dogmatic works of Abii 1-Qasim al-Qushayri, Part 1: edition and translation of Luma 'fi 1-i 'tiqii.d

53-74

MIDEO 15. Beirut, 1982

XV

Two short dogmatic works of Abii 1-Qasim al-Qushayri, Part 2: edition and translation of al-Fu$iil fi l-u$iil

59-94

MIDEO 16. Beirut, 1983

1-20

Index

This volume contains x + 392 pages

-O -

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

9 - O

-

FOREWORD In a remarkable scholarly career spanning half a century, Richard M. Frank, professor emeritus at the Catholic University of America, produced pioneering work on classical Islamic intellectual history, and particularly on Islamic theology, kalam, which transformed the way in which we approach the subject. In a fascinating memoir (printed here as article I) which he penned on the occasion o f the conference held in his honor at the University of Cambridge in June o f 2002, and which he appropriately called Yd Kalam (with the mischievous double entendre), he traced the evolution of his researches and the paths that led him to penetrate into the inner workings of kalam both in its specific language and in the formal structure of its thought. The memoir clearly exhibits the interconnectedness o f his published work and the lines of thinking running through it, and gives an idea of what the contents o f a comprehensive treatise bringing together the results o f his research over the decades - would have been, had he written it. The publication of his collected articles in three Variorum volumes will handsomely stand in the stead o f such a treatise and offer readers convenient and easy access to his work.1 The second volume will include Richard Frank’s articles and one short monograph on early kalam, the Mutazilites, and al-Ascan, while the third will be devoted to articles on the Asarites and the Asarite tradition. The present first volume contains articles that provide both the lexical and intellectual context of kalam and form an illuminating backdrop for the studies that will follow. It includes his earliest studies, now classic and inaccessible in their original place of publication, on the text and terminology of some Graeco-Arabic translations: Aristotle’s de Anima (article II) and Themistius’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s book Lambda of the Metaphysics (III), and the far-ranging philological investigation into the origin o f anniya (IV), a term that played a significant role in the 1 A complete bibliography of Richard Frank’s publications, compiled by James E. Montgomery and Monica Blanchard, will be published in the proceedings o f the Cambridge conference: Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration o f Richard M. Frank, ed. by James E. Montgomery, Peeters (Leuven), forthcoming in 2006. The Variorum volumes will include all his articles on Islamic subjects with the exception of those few which either were later improved upon by or represent lesser reworkings o f the studies reprinted. The memoir, scheduled for publication in the proceedings o f the Cambridge conference, is published here for the first time.

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

10 - O

VUl

-

e

-

-

FOREWORD

conceptual development o f early Arabic philosophy. This last piece, together with the article (V) on the use of the Enneads by John of Scythopolis in Palestine (active in the first half of the sixth century), constitute the best documented case to this day for the Syriac milieu in which the Arabic Plotinus materials may well have their roots, or at least with which they would appear to be related. Equally as substantive, but this time investigated from purely within the Arabic tradition, are the articles that bring out the polysemy o f two key terms in early Islamic intellectual discourse, theological and other, ma ha (XII) and lam yazal (XIII). A second group of articles discusses in detail and with concrete analyses the intellectual context o f classical kalam, from a discussion of its earliest concentration on such formative concepts as qudra and the possible (VI) to fully articulated comparisons of kalam in its various manifestations with its contemporary philosophical thought, like that o f al-Farabl (VII). Especially noteworthy are the articles discussing al-Gazall’s particular brand of theology in its relation to other theological traditions (VIII, X) and to the philosophy of Avicenna (XI). Richard Frank’s research on this last subject later led to the monograph Creation and the Cosmic System,3 a study that seems to have put scholarship on al-Gazall on a new footing. This group also includes Frank’s classic discovery o f significant Neoplatonic elements in the theology o f Jahm ibn Safwan (IX) who was active in the first part o f the eighth century, something that implies the transmission o f these ideas before the age of translations began in the second half of the eighth century, a subject that has yet to be fully investigated.4 The final two articles (XIV, XV) provide rare insight into the formal theological thought of a mystical author, al-Qushayn, who was more than anyone else responsible for the integration of Islamic mysticism, after the excesses of some of its earlier practitioners, into what was later to become Sunni orthodoxy. Islamic studies in general has advanced significantly during the half century of Richard Frank’s contributions and it can be rightly said that the field has finally come into its own. All the various disciplines that constitute the field are receiving, if not the adequate and completely satisfactory treatment they deserve, then at least sustained scholarly attention. Kalam studies perhaps has not fared as well, possibly due to the perceived opacity o f the subject and the difficulty of a

2 See now, complementing Frank’s analyses, the material collected in G. Endress and D. Gutas, A Greek and Arabic Lexicon, Leiden (Brill) 1997,1, 427 - 437, and the article by A. Hasnaoui, “Anniya ou Inniya (essence, existence),” in Encyclopedic Philosophique Universelle, Paris (PUF) 1990, II, 101 - 102. 3 Creation and the Cosmic System: Al-GhazMT & Avicenna [Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, 1992-1], Heidelberg (Carl Winter) 1992. 4 The status quaestionis, which has not changed since Frank’s article, is summarized by Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, Berlin (W. de Gruyter) 1992, II, 499 - 500.

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

11 -

e

-

FOREWORD

IX

first approach. The collected articles by Richard Frank in this and the following volumes form an indispensable introduction and methodological orientation to the serious study o f kalam. I would like to express, also on behalf of the author, my gratitude to the publishers of the original articles for kindly consenting to their reproduction, and to Dr John Smedley and Ashgate Publishing Limited for appreciating the significance of the project and including it in the Variorum Collected Studies Series. A special word of thanks is due to our colleague Professor Carmela Baffioni for her invaluable help with some copyright matters. I would also like to thank Ms Racha el-Omari for the care with which she prepared the Index to this volume. The Viscusi Fund of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University gratefully provided moneys to defray some expenses relating to the preparation o f the volume. But my greatest debt of gratitude is to the author himself for his friendship, for his scholarly example, and most of all for the many hours of plain and not so plain, but always stimulating and especially spirited, kalam. DIMITRI GUTAS

New Haven, CT March 2005 -

e

- O

-

-

e

-

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

12 - O

-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following publishers and journals for kindly permitting the reproduction of the articles included in this volume: Koninklijke Brill N.V. (Brill Academic Publishers), P.O. Box 9000, 2300 PA Leiden, The Netherlands (article VIII); Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 12, Rue Vavin, 75006 Paris, France (articles II, III, IV, XI); Melanges de l ’lnstitut Dominicain d’Etudes Orientales du Caire and Regis Morelon, o.p., Director, and Editions Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (articles XIII, XIV, XV); Institut fur Geschichte der Arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften, its Zeitschrift, and Prof. Fuat Sezgin, Director, Westendstrasse 89, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (article X); Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli, Italy (article VI); Le Museon, Revue d’Etudes Orientales, Place B. Pascal 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (articles V, IX, XII); Editions Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (article VII). -O '

- O

-

e

-

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

13 -

e

-

I

YA KALAM1

Min ba Hi ma quwwatin 'usarm biha asbahtu shaykhan ’u ‘aliju l-kibara

I was asked to talk about how I came to devote myself to the study of kalam and how my work and my understanding of it progressed and matured over a number of years. What I shall have to say is quite informal, a short and slightly meandering account of my wandering about in a rather rich but largely uncultivated field. I should say at the outset that several of you folks have been very important to the progress of my work through your friendship and encouragement, in conversation and in your publications. When I came to prepare what little I have to say here, I looked back at what I have written and it seems to be rather scant by comparison with what a number of you have accomplished for the most part a set of rather short pieces on a variety of particular, though mostly related, topics. And as is inevitable some of them contain blunders, inexact and sometimes erroneous interpretations, a few of which I corrected in subsequent papers where appropriate, but there are doubtless others of which I am unaware. Once something is published I tend to put it out of my mind and go on to other things, so that much of what I have written I haven’t thought about for years and my memory of the content of all but the rather recent is not very good. I had, even as an undergraduate, done a bit of philosophy, Plato and Aristotle and subsequently a course in which I read various parts of Plato’s dialogues in Greek. Later, at the University of Rome, I read al-Farabl’s Compendium of Plato's Laws with Francesco Gabrieli and at the same time read The Laws in 1 A talk prepared for delivery on the occasion of the conference held in Richard Frank’s honor at the University of Cambridge in June of 2002. The references in the notes to the original articles mentioned in the talk were made by the author, while those to their reprint status were added by the editor. All other notes by the editor alone have been marked as such. The present selection is Volume I. Volume II is Early Islamic Theology: The Mu 'tazilites and al-Ash ‘a rl (2006) and Volume III is Classical Islamic Theology: The Ash ca rites (2006) (Ed.).

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

14 - O

-

I YA KALAM

-

e

-

Greek. The earliest studies that I produced on Muslim philosophy were basically philological, one of them a piece in which I collected fragments of Ishaq’s translation of Aristotle’s de Anima from Avicenna’s glosses on the work fragments that showed the characteristic precision of Ishaq’s work and that the complete translation that Badawl had attributed to him could not have been his.2 I have always had a kind of fascination with words and language, and curiosities with the lexicon of early Muslim philosophical texts brought me to do some research on their possible origin and from this arose a study, published in 1958, concerning the origin of the technical term annlyah (or Hnniyyah if you prefer).3 The data display what I consider to be sound evidence of the influence of Syriac on some early Arabic philosophical works, including the Theology o f Aristotle. Much later, in 1987, when Le Museon asked for a short article for their 100th anniversary issue, I returned to the data that I had collected for the article on anmyah and published the Syriac translations of a few passages of the Enneads found in the Syriac version of John of Scythopolis’ glosses and comments on the Pseudo-Dionysius’ Commentary on the Divine Names.4 None of these fragments, alas, corresponds to anything in the Theology o f Aristotle. Whether there was a Syriac work which underlay the Arabic of the Theology or maybe the style/syntax and technical vocabulary that were native to the original translators influenced the work I do not know - but I do think that it’s a question which deserves some serious investigation. About this time I read a few things - studies and texts - which had to do with kalam and, my curiosity aroused, began to read more seriously some of the texts concerning the formative period of Muslim theology that were immediately available to me at the time. This was not totally new to me, for as a student I had read a good bit of Shahrastanl’s K. al-Milal wan-nihal with Levi della Vida. But now my attention was seriously focused on the early kalam as such. What I read of the Maqalat of al-Ash£arI, the Farq bayn al-firaq and the Usui ad-dm of al-Baghdadl, particularly concerning the dominant schools, sc., the Ash'arites and the Mutazilites, seemed clearly to indicate that underlying and supporting the theses and arguments that were reported there must have been genuinely formal theoretical systems whose basic concepts, principles and structures were not clearly set forth in the manuals because of the elementary and disconnected way elements of the various theses and arguments were presented. So too the Lumacof al-Asharl and the Tamhid of al-Baqillanl are but elementary manuals that leave 2 “Some Fragments of Ishaq’s Translation of the de Anima,” Les Cahiers de Byrsa 8 (1958­59) 231 -251; repr. in Vol. I, no. II. 3 “The Origin of the Arabic Philosophical Term "anniya,” Les Cahiers de Byrsa 6 (1956) 181-201; repr. in Vol. I, no. IV. 4 “The Use of the Enneads by John of Scythopolis,” Le Museon 100 (1987) 101­108; repr. in Vol. I, no. V.

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

15 - O

-

I YA KALAM

-

e

-

many important theoretical matters unexplained. My sense that this stuff ought to be seriously studied and understood was given some additional momentum by the insistence of several orientalist colleagues that kalam was little more than a superficial and relatively unsophisticated way of stating and of arguing and defending one or another point of basic religious doctrine: obviously one could not expect there to be a philosophically sophisticated theological system that was not manifestly based on or derived from one or another of the ancient or hellenistic philosophical systems, and the absence of the Aristotelian logic was a clear indication that kalam was no more than a kind of religious dialectic. Such was the common, though essentially uncritical, view encouraged by some devotees of falsafa. So, I decided ’twere best to start at the beginning and the first piece I produced on early Muslim theology was an article on the Neoplatonism of Jahm ibn Safwan.5 From there I went on to work on abu 1-Hudhayl and did a monograph on his metaphysics and a couple of years later a piece on his teaching concerning the divine attributes.6 In the latter I showed the Neoplatonic influence of the Quaestiones Christianae ad Graecos, spuriously attributed to Justin Martyr, on his work. (This I had forgotten altogether until I found it cited in a recent article by Cristina D ’Ancona.) About the same time I produced - with the encouragement of Goitein, I think - a somewhat detailed study on the nature of created causality as presented in al-Ash'arl’s Luma1.1 There are some things in this piece that may well need qualification or correction. In the desire for the convenience of tidy unambivalences I had a naive tendency to look for neatly fixed precision in technical terms and expressions; but it takes more experience, more knowledge of and a more cultivated sensitivity to the style and usage of individual authors to get a proper knowledge and cultivated sense of their formal lexicon than I had at that time. This quest for exact and invariant terminology led to a rather poorly conceived article concerning the formal sense of macna whose meaning, when employed as an ontological term, manifestly does not conform to its most common and normal uses.8When I think of this article I am reminded of a two line piece by Daniel Boulanger entitled

5 “The Neoplatonism of Jahm ibn Safwan,” Le Museon 78 (1965) 395 ­424; repr. in Vol. I, no. IX. 6 The Metaphysics of Created Being according to Abu l-Hudhayl al- AUaf A Philosophical Study o f the Earliest Kalam, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1966; and “The Divine Attributes according to abu 1-Hudhail al-Allaf,” Le Museon 82 (1969) 451 ­506; repr. in Vol. II, nos I and II respectively. 7 “The Structure of Created Causality according to al-Ash'ari: an analysis of the Kitab al-luma \ §§ 82 - 164, ” Studia Islamica 25 (1969) 13­75; repr. in Vol. II, no. VII. 8 “Al-Mana: Some Reflections on the Technical Meanings of the Term in the Kalam and Its Use in the Physics of Mu'ammar,” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 87 (1967) 248 -259.

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

16

I YA KALAM

-O '

“retouche a la pensee” which reads: “sous mes longues caresses / elle s’ouvre et delivre un batard.” Still perplexed by its formal kalam usage I undertook at a much later date a study of the word in the works of the earlier lexicographers and grammarians which, albeit maybe of no major interest to students of philosophy or kalam and maybe not to many others either, is, I think, of some genuine value for anyone interested in language as such and the ways in which “meaning” was understood by Arab linguistic thinkers who were not (wal-hamdu li-lldh) directly influenced by foreign traditions.9 It was only quite recently that the actual - or at least most plausible - origin of the use of ma ena in the classical kalam dawned on me, sc. its use in a loose sense of “something” - a distinct entity that qualifies the substrate in which it resides; an abridgement for ma cnan q a ' imun f i dh-dhat/tl lmahall which is abridged to the single word. M ana is thus associated with mahall, whereas ‘a rad is associated withjawhar, the latter two being categorical terms. After this I began to deal in what I should describe as a “smallish way” with a few of the basic features of kalam and with a couple of major theoretical topics too. One thing which was of considerable importance in how I learned to read the texts - in how I approached and sought to see and to understand the theoretical order and significance of what they said - should be mentioned here. It is that I had a number of close friends who were genuinely expert in a number of fields several of them in physics and one in sociology of religion - but most importantly for my thinking about and trying to understand kalam, a group of philosophical types, two of whom were specialists in twentieth century philosophy but also thought and wrote about classical and medieval thought. (I talk in the past here because one of them died a few years ago.) Most importantly they were primarily devoted to seeing and understanding philosophical issues and questions as such and then how, as such, they were seen and understood in the cultural and intellectual contexts of various historical periods. Our conversations were hardly ever formal - mostly talk over food and beer with topics shifting and sliding from university politics to philosophy, theology, and science. During this time, and later too, I read a goodly number of major philosophical works and various other things spoken of or recommended by my friends. All of this contributed to my understanding of kalam. I became ever more aware that the Asharite and Mutazilite metaphysical systems that developed from the teaching of abu ‘All al-Jubba I were unique, each in its own way, and that in reading and seeking to understand them one had to be careful not to let himself be guided by any outside system. From an early point in my work on kalam I sought to avoid the use of language that evoked, as such, the concepts and constructs of other theoretical systems. The general problem of understanding the theoretical systems of 9 “Meanings are Spoken of in Many Ways: the Earlier Arab Grammarians,” Le Museon 94 (1981) 259 -319; repr. in Vol. I, no. XII.

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

17 -

e

-

I YA KALAM

5

classical kalam and of rendering their formal terminology I discussed at some length in my presidential address to the American Oriental Society in 1996.10 The systems of different kalam masters often differ significantly. With the Ash'arites, for example, al-AshcarI’s system is quite different from that of al-Baqillanl, who in some works developed his own version of abu Hashim’s concept of ahwal, and al-Juwaynl’s system was again different, as were those of a number of lesser masters. As I came clearly to see somewhat recently, “state” is, in most cases, not a proper translation for ha I in its technical use, and the sense of the concept differs significantly in the usage of al-Baqillanl and al-Juwaynl and in that of cAbd al-Jabbar. One has, however, to be careful concerning language and terminology; al-Juwaynl’s Shamil, for example, is written in essentially normal kalam style and language, whereas his Irshad, a short manual plainly written to impress somebody, is in a rather different style and occasionally with somewhat peculiar language, while his Risalah annizdmiyya, written to honor the vizier, Nizam al-Mulk, is written in another, conspicuously different style. So, I was learning. The first thing that came out of all this was a short paper on the early development of kalam delivered at the Third Congress of Arabists and Islamists held in Ravello in 1966.11 It was at this meeting that I made the acquaintance of a number of colleagues with whom I was to form and maintain close contacts. Among the most important for my kalam studies were Abuna Anawati and Louis Gardet and the Sheikh Yusuf2 who doubtless remembers our being rebuked for sitting atop a column during a concert. The event that most stuck in my mind as one of the high points of the meeting was when a young man read a paper in which he sought to show that Greek poetry had a significant influence on Arabic poetry and Armand Abel, who was chairman of the session, thanked him for a paper that showed more creative imagination than the authors of whom he spoke. I attended also the following conferences in Coimbra, where I read a short piece on abu Hashim’s theory of states,13 and others in Brussels, and Sweden.14 It was at the Coimbra meeting that Gerhard15 and I got to know each other. In 1971 I produced a paper on the questions of nature, creation, and 10 “Hearing and Saying what was Said,” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 116 (1996) 611 -618; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. I. 11 “Remarks on the Early Development of the Kalam,” Atti del III Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamici, Naples 1967, pp. 315 -329; repr. in Vol I, no. VI. 12 Professor Josef van Ess of the University of Tubingen (Ed.). 13 “Abu Hashim’s Theory of ‘States’, Its Structure and Function,” Actas do Congressu de Estudos Arabes e Islamicos, Leiden 1971, pp. 85-100; repr. in Vol. II, no. V. 14 “Al-Ashcari’s Conception of the Nature and Role of Speculative Reasoning in Theology,” Proceedings of the VHth Congress o f Arabic and Islamic Studies, Stockholm 1972, pp. 136-154; repr. in Vol. II, no. VIII. 15 Professor Gerhard Endress of the University of Bochum (Ed.).

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

18 - O

-

I 6

YA KALAM

causality in kalam and falsafa for a colloquium held in honor of Harry Wolfson. It is the only scholarly paper I ever produced which begins with a poem. The audience was unimpressed. The acts of the colloquium were never published so the study eventually appeared in a collection of essays assembled by Parviz Morewedge, who made several gratuitous emendations of his own without ever sending me any proofs. All of these were short pieces that dealt with a few basic matters - relatively simple presentations of some of the things of which I was beginning to get a better understanding. Several other short pieces were written for one or another occasion at which my participation was requested and so appeared at odd intervals. One of them was on the nonexistent and the possible in Mu'tazilite teaching, also prepared for a volume that was never to appear and was published eventually in MIDEO.16Another on reason and revealed law in kalam and falsafa was prepared for the Festschrift in honor of Gardet and Anawati.17 Of considerable help to my reading of the kalam texts was that for my own entertainment I read a lot of literary Arabic, poetry as well as prose, for one has to have a good knowledge and experience of the classical language as such if he is to work seriously in kalam, or in falsafa for that matter. (The so called fusha is not the classical language.) There came a point, however - I do not now remember precisely when or why - when I realised that for my understanding of kalam a knowledge of classical syntax was not sufficient and that I had to read the early Arab grammarians, that is, that in order to understand the language of the mutakallimun properly one has to hear it as they heard it, not as the significance of its syntax and sentence structure is heard and unreflectively understood on the basis of another, unrelated language. So, I began at the beginning, with STbawayh’s Book. Understanding what he was saying and why proved to be more difficult than I had anticipated, but eventually much more rewarding as I came to see the remarkable insight and precision with which he conceived and formulated his rules and analyses. After a time you come to know what the author will say next regarding a particular question, but you don’t really have it until later when you see and appreciate why, within the context of the system, that is what he must say. I might add here that one does well to use or at least to consult an Arabic lexicon, for example, the Taj al-lughah, and not to rely wholly on a dictionary that is into a European language.

16 “The Non-Existent, the Existent, and the Possible in the Teaching of abu Hashim and His Followers,” Melanges de Vlnstitut Dominicain d ’Etudes Orientales (MIDEO) (1980) 185 ­210; repr. in Vol. II, no. IV. 17 “Reason and Revealed Law, a Sample of Parallels and Divergences in Kalam and Falsafa,” Recherches d ’Islamologie: recueil d ’articles offert a Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet, Louvain 1978, pp. 123-138; repr. in Vol. I, no. VII.

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

19 - O

-

I YA KALAM

-

e

-

Historically Him al-kalam and Him an-nahw took shape together in the same intellectually creative environment as essentially native sciences. To come to know the two is to come to see the intellectual context of the one and of the other more clearly. And they thought and wrote in clear and correct Arabic. Notably, the logical reasoning of the mutakallimun is in several respects dependent on the grammarians’ analysis of predicational sentences and is, in fact, basically analytic. It is worth noting here that the question of language - of lexicon and syntax - is the main point of the famous dispute between abu S aid as-Slraff and Matta ibn Yunus. It is in no way a serious intellectual debate, albeit a number of scholars have naively taken it so, but rather a rhetorical boxing match, purposefully arranged in order to show that Matta ibn Yunus is not very bright and that he and with him other devotees of falsafa, including al-Kindl, are not capable of expressing themselves in clear and precise Arabic. Nataqa, yantiqu means to speak and speak clearly, and at the end of the dialogue the mantiql is reduced to silence. (Some have taken it that as-SlrafT does not like or appreciate Aristotle and the philosophical tradition, but they might get a somewhat different impression if they examined his Commentary on STbawayh’s Book.) The technical vocabulary of the mutakallimun of the classical period, specialised and refined though it be, is not corrupted by the usage of translators; they never, for example, employ sabab as an equivalent of Hllah. Later kalam, however, came under the influence of elements of the falsafa and its vocabulary, and this has caused problems to some scholars whose sense and understanding of kalam were primarily founded on works such as al-Ijl’s M awaqif and Jurjanl’s commentary; they failed to grasp the basic lexicon, structure, and sense of classical kalam. Eventually, having worked through a good deal of cAbd al-Jabbar’s Mughnl, I produced several rather serious pieces on the teaching of the Mutazila, the first, on the autonomy of the human agent according to 'Abd al-Jabbar, also prepared for a volume that never appeared and was ultimately published in Le Museon in 1982.18 Beings and their Attributes was a more ambitious work, some of the first section of which could do with some revision.19About the same time I prepared a couple of short pieces for two colloquia on moral theory, the one a general sort of essay on moral obligation in classical kalam and the other a rather short piece entitled “Can God do what is Wrong?”20

18 “The Autonomy of the Human Agent in the Teaching of Abd al­ Jabbar,” Le Museon 95 (1982) 323 - 355; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. XIII. 19 Beings and their Attributes. The Teaching o f the Basrian School of the M u ‘tazila in the Classical Period, Albany, N.Y., 1978. 20 “Moral Obligation in Classical Muslim Theology,” Journal o f Religious Ethics 11 (1983) 204— 223, and “Can God Do What Is Wrong?” in Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy, T. Rudavsky, ed., Boston 1985, pp. 69 -79; repr. in Vol. III. nos. Ill and IV respectively.

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

20

i

YA KALAM

-

e

-

By the time the latter two were completed, however, I had decided that the Ashcarite tradition was obviously of far greater importance to the formation and history of Sunni theology than was that of the Mu'tazila, however philosophically interesting the thought of the latter might be, and that it was to the works of the Ash'arites that I should devote my efforts. The quest, again, was to understand their theology as such, not simply to display the primary theses along with the formalities of the systems. The theology of the systems extends beyond mere technical theological reasoning. One thinks, for example, of the use of Ash'arite theological elements in al-Qushayrfs L ata3if al-lsharat and the 'aqlda pieced together out of various sufi statements and formulae that stand at the beginning of his Risalah. Save for a small portion of al-Juwaynl’s Shamil published in 1969, major texts of classical kalam were not available, so off I went to spend a year with Abuna Anawati in 'Abbasiyya21 while I worked in the Dar al-Kutub and some six weeks also with Dominicans in Istanbul where I read manuscripts mostly in the Siileymaniye and at Topkapi. As a result I acquired microfilms of a number of important Ash'arite works. Having now a goodly set of Ash'arite texts I worked my way through them as time allowed, making indices and somewhat detailed notes as I had earlier done with the Mu'tazilite material. A number of my publications during this period dealt with a somewhat motley assortment of topics as were requested for particular occasions, meetings and colloquia. And I did a few texts, including some additions to al-Juwaynl’s Shamil found in a Tehran manuscript, microfilm of which was sent me by Mehdi Muhaqqiq.22 I should maybe have edited the entire manuscript, but there was the problem of time, especially since there is the problem of identifying likely variants found in two compendia of the work. And I also published in MIDEO 18 an edition of al-Ash'arfs al-Hathth aid l-bahth, previously known as R. Istihsan al-khawdfT cilm al-kalam, based on new sources, one of which, found in the Ghunya of al-Ansarl, one of al-Juwaynl’s students, gave the original title, sc., that which is found in the medieval bibliographies.23 And I prefaced the text with a lengthy analysis of its formal structure as it seemed appropriate to call attention to the precision of al-Ash'arl’s argument as it seemed significant for our understanding of his status as the founder of the school. At some point in the mid 80s I became interested in the work of al-Ghazall, whose writings I had not looked at for years. I had bought a copy of his Maqsad al-asna on the divine names and in reading it now for the first time was struck by his direct - in some places downright plagiaristic - use of Avicenna. Plagiarism is not

21 The district in Cairo where the Institut Dominicain d ’Etudes Orientates, then headed by Father Anawati, is located (Ed.). 22 Abu 1-Ma'ali al-Juwaynl, al-Kitab al-Shamilf t Usui ad­dm, Tehran 1981. 23 “Al-Ashari’s Kitdb al-Hathth aid l - bahth, ” MIDEO 18 (1988) 83­152; repr. in Vol. II, no. IX.

-

e

-

- O

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

21

i

YA KALAM

-

e

-

9

at all uncommon in the writings of al-Ghazall, but his use of Avicenna is of major significance to his theology. The first piece I wrote was in 1988 on his understanding of taqlid - here again for a colloquium whose acta were never published.24 As I was rereading some of Ghazalfs other works, including parts of Ih ya 3 culum ad-dm, it became clear to me that he was certainly not an Ash'arite in any proper sense of the word. This resulted first in a paper for a colloquium held in Morigny in 198625 and subsequently was dealt with in some detail in my monograph, Creation and the Cosmic System, in which I set out the evidence for the dominance of Avicenna in major elements of Ghazalfs cosmology albeit he characteristically makes no serious attempt to deal with the philosophical difficulties involved.26 His claim in the Munqidh to have achieved a complete understanding of logic and all the philosophical sciences is a bit fanciful to say the very least. I attempted to set all this in context in Al-Ghazall and the Ash arite System by noting that while a number of his works are manifestly addressed to different audiences there is a consistent identification of particular kinds or modes of religious discourse each one of which is distinguished as appropriate to individuals of a particular level of intellectual capacity and achievement.27 The masters of kalam are on a rather low level, while his own brand of neo-platonising theology stands at the top. This fits with his analysis of taqlTd taqlTd to various forms and genera of religious teaching according to the ability of the individual muqallid, while those of the highest level, like himself, are altogether free to pursue and to publish the “insights” transmitted from the highest celestial sphere through the hierarchy of lower celestial spirits. This is quite different from the Ash'arite understanding of the matter, which I had dealt with in an earlier study.28 After all this I turned back, so to speak, to the most basic metaphysical teaching of Ash'arite kalam of the classical period. This is not to suggest that I

24 “Al-Ghazall on TaqlTd. Scholars, Theologians, and Philosophers,” Zeitschrift fur Geschichte der Arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 7 (1991-92) 207-252; repr. in Vol. I, no. X. 25 “Al-GhazalTs Use of Avicenna’s Philosophy,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 55 - 57 (1987 ­89) 271 -285; repr. in Vol. I, no. XI. 26 Creation and the Cosmic System (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1992, 1), Heidelberg 1992. 27 Al-GhazalT and the Ash arite System (Duke Monograph in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 15) Durham 1994. Some aspects of this are dealt with from another perspective in “Currents and Counter Currents [in the Mutazila, Ash'arites and al-Ghazall],” in Islam: Essays in Honour of Anthony Johns, P.G. Riddell and T. Street, eds, Leiden 1997, pp. 113-134; repr. in Vol. I, no. VIII. There is a shorter version of this which was presented as a lecture at the University of Tunis: “Contrastes entre trois systemes: mu'tazilisme, ash'arisme, et Ghazali,” Les cahiers de Tunisie 49, nr. 173 (1996), pp. 57 -104. 28 Cf. “Knowledge and TaqUd, the Foundation of Religious Belief in Classical Ash'arism,” Journal o f the American Oriental Society 109 (1989) 37 -62; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. VII.

-

e

-

-e -

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

22 - O

-

I 10

-

e

-

YA KALAM

had or have any serious understanding of topics and questions I have not sought to investigate thoroughly, but I had come to a good understanding of a few very basic matters. Moreover, I had over a number of years accumulated a great quantity of data and thought that one of the most useful things I could do for those who were interested in kalam, and particularly for those who wished to study the texts, was to set out a summary account of the fundamentals of their metaphysics along with a detailed examination of the technical terms and their formal use by several of the leading masters. This took some time to prepare and finally appeared under the title “The Ash'arite Ontology I: primary entities.”29The “I” was not necessarily intended to suggest that there was to be a “II” but rather to indicate that only the rudiments were treated here. There was a short piece on the expression lam yazal which had appeared a bit earlier,30 but that was simply another offshoot of my interest in the formal terminology of the texts but useful, I think, in that it illustrates the subtle differences between a number of early mutakallimun in their conception and understanding of a primary theological question located and identified by a common, though sometimes in itself lexically ambivalent, expression. The article on primary entities was supplemented then by a study on the non-existent and the possible in classical Ash'arite teaching, a topic that turned out to be a bit more complex - and certainly more interesting - than I had foreseen.31 I do feel that these two studies make clear the high intellectual acuity of the major Asharite masters. Ghazall, of course, considers them benighted, in part because they do not subscribe to the logic of the falasifa, but their reasoning is consistently more rigorous than his. There is yet to appear a short piece on the somewhat various senses of al-ahkam and al-ahwal by different masters that I think will prove somewhat useful to those who would pursue the subject of classical kalam.32 So, I spent most of my career in a field that most viewed as a theoretically rather unsophisticated kind of religious discourse that was unworthy of serious study. That attitude has changed, at least for those few interested in philosophy who know what it is.

29 In Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 9 (1999) 163-231; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. IX. 30 ““Lam yazaP as a Formal Term in Muslim Theological Discourse,” MIDEO 22 (1995) 243­270; repr. in Vol. I, no. XIII. 31 “The Non-Existent and the Possible in Classical Ash'arite Teaching,” MIDEO 24 (2000) 1—37; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. VIII. 32 This study has now appeared as, “Al­Ahkam in Classical Ash'arite Teaching,” in De Zenon d ’Elee a Poincare. Recueil d ’etudes en hommage a Roshdi Rashed, R. Morelon et A. Hasnawi, eds, Peeters: Louvain-Paris, 2004, pp. 753 -777; repr. in Vol. Ill, no. XI (Ed.).

-

e

-

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

23

II

SOME FRAGMENTS OF ISHAQ’S TRANSLATION OF THE DE ANIMA

-

e

-

It has long been held that Ishaq did two versions of the de A nim a, the first incomplete and the second complete T); until recently, however, the nature of neither of these versions was known. In 1954 CA. Badawi published the text of a complete translation of the de A nim a, which claimed to be that of Ishaq ^2). This statement : atargama Ishaq ibn H unayn», found at the beginning of the book, is accepted by the editor who, in his preface, finds it to be in accord with the information which was previously had concerning Ishaq’s work on the de Anim a, and, since this book is obviously complete and the product of a single translator (with the addition of numerous glosses by possibly a later hand), he states that this, then, is the complete version ascribed to Ishaq by the medieval bibliographers and biographers (3). There is, howewer, considerable and serious evidence against the validity of the attribution of this text to Ishaq. First, and most obviously, a good deal of the work of Ishaq is known ; he is, in all respects, an excellent translator whose work shows a considerable perfection and exactitude of terminology as well as a generally admirable clarity of style, none of which characteristics can even in the least way be claimed for the text published Abbreviations used in the notes : ArCMdA : Averrois Cordubensis Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis de Anima Libros, ed. F. S . Crawford, Cambridge, 1953 (Medieval Academy of America, publication no. 59). — Aristu : Abdarrahman B a d a w i , Aristu inda I-Arab, Cairo, 1947. — BAdA : Abdarrahman B a d a w ! , Aristotelis de Anima, Cairo, 1954. — Fihrist : Cairo edition [nd]. — IcdA : Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de Anima Libros Commentaria, ed. Hayduck, Berlin, 1897. — ScdA : Simplicii in Libros Aristotelis de Anima Commentaria, ed. Hayduck, Berlin, 1882. — ThdA : Themislii in Libros Aristotelis de Anima Paraphrasis, ed. R. Heinze, Berlin, 1899. — Gl. : Tdliqdt aid haw&B k. an-nafs.. ap. Aristu, p. 75-116. (1) Cf. S t e i n s c h n e i d e r , « Die arabische Uebersetzungen aus dem Griechischen » (Centralblatt z. Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 12), 60. BAdA. Ibid., p. (15) f. (4) Cf. W a l z e r , «The Arabic Translations of Aristotle », Oriens, 6 (1953), 98.

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

24 -

e

-

II

by Badawi, despite the editor’s remark in the preface that it is «an excel­ lent, precise translation having no defects save those due to transmis­ sion » ^1]. The version, indeed, goes back to a very poorly copied Greek exemplar Besides this, however, it is characterised by a very peculiar and inconsistant technical vocabulary, which in no wise corresponds with that of the known works of Isbaq ^ ; it furthermore abounds in the most notable impreeisions and distortions of the text so that one could hardly think that it is of this text or any of its conceivable ancestors that Ibn anNadim could say of the translator, as he does of Isbaq regarding the latter’s second version of the de A nim a, that «he produced an excellent work » -4). Now in 1947, C A. Badawi published in his book A ristu Hnda I - A rab, a number of glosses on the de A nim a, ascribed to Avicenna, under the title T a liq a t cald hawasi K ita b an-Nafs li-A rista ta lis min kalam as-sayh arra ts A bi 'A lt ibn Sind ^ which, according to a marginal note found in the ms. from which the text is published, are based on the incomplete version of Isbaq for as much of the book as that version covered (6k The remain­ ing portions of the work (p. 431a 146 ff.), according to the same note, are based on ((another translation, with numerous emendations by the comentator», and this «other translation», if we examine it through the citations found in the glosses, proves to be that published by Badawi in 1954 ^ ! It would seem clear that had there been available to the commen­ tator Isbaq’s second, complete translation — which, according to the testi­ mony of Isb&q himself, as quoted in the Fihrist W, was superior in all respects to the first, in the quality of the text as well as in its being complete — he would hardly have used the incomplete one, supplementing it, in the last pages of the third book, with another version. B a d a w I , op. cit. (16). {2) E. g., several omissions by homoeotel. which would seem to have occured in the Greek architype, such as at 412a 21 f., 23. There are also a number of variant readings which must go back to a Greek text. This is clear even upon a cursory examination of the text. I hope shortly to publish a full study of this translation in which I shall deal at length with its vocabulary and style. Fihrist, 351. {5) Aristu, p. 75-116. Ibid., 109, n. 1. Cf. infra; Badawfs failure to note the correspondence between the text which he published in 1954 and that underlying the final portion of the glosses is probably due to the fact that he did not correctly identify the passage under discussion in the glosses at the point where the note regarding the change of text occurs, viz., he thought it to be 433a 7 instead of 431a 14 [cf. BAdA (15)]. In this final part of the glosses, there are a number of direct citations of the text of B A dA , e. g., 431a 29 — Gl. 110, 9; 433a 13-16 — Gl. 112, 13-22, etc.; it is also cited once earlier as «another translation» : 429a 13 — Gl. 98, 21. Fihrist, 352. (1)

232

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

25 -

e

-

II ISHAQ ’S TR A NSLA TIO N OF TH E D E A N I M A

That the version employed by the author of the glosses up to 431a is that of Isfiaq is amply apparent from a perusal of the fragments of the ori­ ginal translation retained in the glosses, if we compare the vocabulary and style of these fragments with the other known translations of Isfiaq. We must therefore conclude that the attribution to Isfiaq of the version published by Badawi in 1954, albeit stated explicitly in the heading of the text in the ms. is erroneous. What then of the complete version of Isfiaq? Why would any commen­ tator use a defective translation, although by an excellent translator, when or if there were available a textually better and complete version by the same hand, in brief, why did not the incomplete version go out of circula­ tion and fall into that oblivion which would appear to enshroud the second one ? Fortunately, this question also has recently found a solu­ in tion. In the Fihrist, at the end of the article on the de A nim a discussing the second version of Ishaq, the translator himself is made to say that «after 30 years I found another recension which was truly excel­ lent in all respects; I compared this with the first translation and found it to be the ‘commentary’ of Themistius». Since earlier, the Fihrist simply states that Isfiaq had done «a second, complete translation », the statement at the end of the article — which, indeed, at first glance, is not altogether lucid ^ — has been taken as meaning that the second was based on a text extracted from the commentary of Themistius. Such, however, clearly cannot be the case, for Themistius did only a paraphrase, which, although considerably longer than the de A nim a itself, does in no wise contain the integral text of the original. Recently, to confirm this, there was found at Fez a manuscript containing a translation by Isliaq of the Paraphrase of Themistius (8b The statement, contained at the heading of this text, that it is «the second translation by Ishaq ibn Hunayn of the ‘commentary of Themistius’ on the de Anim a of Aristotle» W, in all probability errs in calling it the « second» translation of that work, an error no doubt intro­ duced by some copyist who followed the indications of al-Qifti ^ and Haggi Halifa ^ who state that Isfiaq did two versions of Themistius’ Para­ phrase, the first «poor» and the second «very good». It would seem likely that this belief that Ishaq had done two versions of the Paraphrase of Themistius in addition to the two translations of the de A nim a itself, is Ibid. (2) The sentence is actually quite ambiguous; cf. infra. (3) Cf. M. C. L y o n s , «An Arabic Translation of the Commentary of Them istius», BSOAS, 17 (1955), p. 426-435. (*> Ibid , 426. (5) Ta 'rih al ­ hukam a, ed. J. Lippert (Leipzig, 1903), 41. (6) K a t f az - zunun, ed. Yaltkaya and Bilge (Istanbul, 1362/1943), II, col. 1467.

233

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

26 -

e

-

II

-

e

-

probably due to al-Qiftfs trying to account for the fact that the Fihrist gives two notices concerning the work of Isbaq, only in the second of which is the Paraphrase mentioned, and there ambiguously, since the concluding phrase a wahuwa sarh T&mistiyusy*, in reality, could, as it occurs in the sentence, refer either to the first translation, the second (as it does), or to the two together, as qualifying a single work which is under discussion in the whole sentence. The present evidence, however, would make it imperative that the final statement of Ibn an-Nadim be translated as I have done; the two versions of Ishaq are twice mentioned, the first in reference to his incomplete (and only) version of the Aristotelian text the second in reference to his translation of the Paraphrase, speaking of which the translator, according to the quotation, mentions how he came to note that it was the work of Themistius rather than that of Aristotle, almost as if the manuscript which he had gave no indication of the author. Furthermore, it would hardly seem likely that he would have suffered the coincidence of doing two versions of each work and that the circumstances regarding each pair of translations would be so completely parallel. Finally, this situation would explain why it is that we find no trace of a complete translation of the de A nim a by Ishaq — i. e., we do not find any of the final portion of the book attributed to him — and why the incomplete version continued in use, being supplemented by a far inferior text for those final pages {1) It is conceivable that there is some error in the first mention of the translations, viz., that either the notation that the second was of the Paraphrase and not of the Aristotelian text was omitted, or that the very mention of the second works represents an addition, brought up from the quoted statement of Isbaq which is cited at the end of the article. (2) In this we have failed to mention the complete Arabic translation of the de A nim a which underlies the Latin in the « version» found in Averroes’ Major Commentary on the de Anim a. This text deserves a separate study; we may here, however, make a few brief remarks. No translator, insofar as I can determine, is mentioned for this text; it is certainly not that of B A dA , for this is several times cited as « another translation » (e. g., 4083 11-17 = ArCM dA, I, 64, 40-50 [p. 86]; 422a 8-10 = ArC M dA, II, 101, 32-37 [p. 284 f.] ; 4326 30 -433a 1 = ArC M dA , III, 46, 32 ff. [p. 514 f.]; 433a 25 f. = ArCM dA, III, 50, 42 f. [p. 519]; et a l ) nor does it concur with the incomplete version of Isbaq insofar as this is witnessed by the fragments in GL, for there are some departures which one would not expert if Isbaq were responsible for both (e. g. : 4076 1 = ArCM dA, I, 49, 2 f. [p. 71]; 4086 17 f. which was certainly in IsM q ’s incomplete translation [cf. infra ad loc ] is lacking after ArCM dA, I, 64, 9 [p. 86] and supplied on the following page [1. 47-50] from the text of B A dA ; cf. also 4086 18 f. = A rCM dA, I, 65, 1 f. [p. 87; cb infra, note 42]; 415a 29 ff. = ArCM dA, II, 34, 5-9 [p. 181]; 430a 30 f. = A rCM dA, III, 21, 7 ff. [p. 454]; and 4306 29 = ArCM dA, III, 26, 5 [p. 463] where ArCM dA evidently represents a Greek architype l a ing Bpdv for bpdv, jUa^ in version underlying Gl. [cf. infra ad lee ] and in version of BA dA ). These considerations as well as the negative evidence of Avicenna’s apparent ignorance of Ishaq’s supposed second, complete version and of the text used as the basis for ArCM dA lead me to think that the version of ArCM dA is not that of Ishiq and so that Ishaq did not do another version of the Aristotelian text.

234

-

e

-

-Q -

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

27 -

e

-

II ISHAQ’S TRANSLATION OF THE DE ANIMA

* * * It is through the above mentioned glosses of Avicenna that I propose to study Isfiaq’s incomplete translation of the de Anim a. In origin, these glosses would seem to be just what the title claims, viz., marginalia, origi­ nally attached to a complete text of the de A nim a which were later copied alone and transmitted separately for their own sake. They cover the entire text of the Aristotelian work, with one notable transposition of a section ^ and some rather lengthy lacunae It would be difficult to say, however, whether these lacunae represent glosses lost in transmission, or whether they simply cover passages considered less interesting, either to the author or to the one who extracted them. That they were originally mar­ ginal glosses and not part of a complete commentary — at least insofar as concerns their origin in their present form — would seem evident from their general order and composition as related ta the de A nim a; while some few of them refer to rather lengthy passages, many refer to single words or phrases which are not, however, cited or localized in the text, the gloss being introduced only with an «id est» or «this means . . . » It is also interest­ ing to note that in most instances rather than simple exegetical notes by way of explanation of the Aristotelian text, these glosses contain the remarks and opinions of the best known Hellenistic commentators John (1) This composite text is possibly, as is noted by B adaw ! (BadA [15], cf. also S t e in s c h n e i loc. cit and Die hebrdische Uebersetzungen des M ittelalters, 146) the same as that which was preserved in the National Library at Turin (G. P e y r o n , Codices h ebraici.. no. LXX VIa, III, 27, p. 72 ff.), the first part of which (fol. 92-115) was attributed to Ishaq and the second to Ibn Zura (fol. 115 -119). This ms. was unfortunately burned in the famous fire of 1904 and so cannot be checked. Whether the second text used to fill out the glosses of Avicenna was the work of Ibn Zura is a question into which I cannot enter here and to the answer of which I have not yet arrived. (2) Cf. infra, p. 238, n. 4. 13} E. g., 4046 9 to 4066 26; 4086 29 to 412a 5; 418a 25 to 4226 17, etc. Cf. infra, list of passages glossed. (4) L. G a r d e t {La pensee religieuse d 3Avicenne [Paris, 1951], 22) takes Gl. as a part of A v ic e n n a ’s K itab al - in§af wal ­ inii§af. In their present form, however, I can see no other origin for them than that they were originally marginal glosses, not a treatise or commentary meant to stand done, whence we must conclude that the K. al - in§df contained the full text of the de Anim a as well as those of the texts commented in the Barh kitab harf al - ldm (p. 22 ff.) and the Tafsir kitab Utulugtya (p. 37 ff.) both bear a notice at the beginning that they belong to the K . al-in§af. (5) Since my primary concern is here with the text underlying them rather than with the glosses themselves I shall mention only a few of the citations of the Hellenistic commentators in the following notes as a matter of interest, for they deserve a separate study which ought to shed much light on the material of such authors which was available to the Arabs and on their use of this material. John Philoponus is never mentioned by name in Gl. (nor is his commentary on the de Anim a mentioned in the Fihrist) but would certainly seem to have been known to Avicenna; the K itab Yafaya an - nabwi is mentioned in A vic en n a ’s K itab der,

235

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

28 -

e

-

II

Philoponus, Themistius, and Alexander of Aphrodisias, as weH as of the much discussed «masriqtyun » First then, before proceeding to the text of Isbaq, it would be well to list al - m ubahitat (ap. Aristu, p. 121) which probably refers to the Commentary on the de Anim a (cf. also A rista, 122 top). As for the use of this commentary in Gl. cp. Gl. 75, 9 if. with ledA , 24, 32 ff. and 25, 22 ff., where, as in Gl. special mention is made of «theology» (Gl. 75, 9) and «truth» (Gl. 75, 12); note parallel interest in the occurrence of ovata (402a 13) between Gl. 75, 15-19 and ledA , 28, 29- 32; Gl. 85, 2-8 (ad 408b 13-18) is clearly related to ledA , 157, 25 ff.; cf. especially Gl. 85, 4- 6 with ledA , 158, 10 ff. and Gl. 85, 7 f. with ledA , 158, 26 ff.; Gl. 94, 24- 95, 2 would, again, seem dependant upon ledA , 271, 30 ff., for Gl. 95, 1 is virtually a translation of ledA , 271, 33. Also note parallelism between Gl. 79, 1 ff. and ledA , 46, 10 ff. Themistius is cited by name at Gl. 98, 18 where ThdA, 93 ult. is quoted and again at Gl. 116, 10 (cf. T ld A , 123, 20 ff. [read for c li-i]). Gl. 106, 15-18 (where «his commentators» are mentioned) is clearly a paraphrase of ThdA, 111, 26-35 (cf. also ledA , 553, 1 ff.). Cf. also Gl. 105, 16 ff. and ThdA, 97, 35 ff. There is an interesting citation of Galen at Gl. 78, 19 (paralleled in ThdA, 7, 15 which is here treating of the same passage of the de A nim a as is Gl. [viz. 403a 11 ff.] and in ledA , 155, 13 [ad 408a 34 ff.] — in neither of which, however, is Galen mentioned by name, as he is in Gl.) : jS Now this is clearly a reference to Galen’s 6rt rats tov adoparos xpaaeatv ai t yjs ^vyps Bvvapets iirovrat for which a variant on the title is 6n ra rrjs "^vyfjs ijdrj rats rov adoparos xpaaeatv iirerat (used by K O hn in Corp M edic Graec., IV, 767 and on which cf. G a le n , Scrip 'a M inora, II [ed. Mueller], p. x x x iii. The Arabs knew this treatise under the first title, cf. Fihrist, 405, a l - Q i f t ! , op. c i t , 132, 1, Ib n a b i U sa ib i ' a , I, 101, 2, S t e in s c h n e id e r , ZDMG, 50 [1896], p. 386, no. 69, B e r g s t r a s s e r , «Hunain Ibn Ishaq fiber die Syrischen u. arabischen Galentibersetzungen», Abhl. f d. Kunde des Morgenlandes, XVII, 2, p. 50, no. 123, and K r a u s , Jabir b. H ayyan, 11 [Cairo, 1942], 330 notes 3, 4 and 7). Gl. cannot here be following the citation as it occurs in ThdA (unless the Arabic version of Ishtaq, known to Avicenna, had read at this point ffdyj in place of TrdOrf) nor again IcdA (which gives the usual form of the book ’s title) so that we should probably conclude that the author is giving his own form of the eitation? following the lead of ThdA only insofar as he introduces Galen’s statement as this point in the commentary. (For the same [?] citation, cf. al - K ind!, Ibana 'an a l - illa t a l - fa ila t al - qariba lil - kawn wal­ fa sa d , ap. A b u R!da, op. c i t , 224 and 236). Simplicius : there is not to be found any single reflection of ScdA which has not some parallel in IcdA or ThdA; nevertheless, it is possible that this work also lay in the background of Gl. despite this uncertainty because of a number of parallels and especially because of one instance in which Gl. (105, 24 ff.) discusses 430a 22 ff. in a section which deals with 431a 1 ff. paralleling thus ScdA, 263, 7 ff. (cf. infra). As several passages which would seem dependant upon one of the commentators we may cite : Gl. 75, 5 ff. — ThdA, 1, 11 ff., IcdA, 22, 18 ff. (on which cf. infra ad h e ); Gl. 79, 15-19 — ThdA, 19, 23 ff, IcdA, 73 f.; Gl. 103, 14 ff. — ThdA, 95, 35 f f, IcdA, 256, 1 f f ; GL 108, 14 ff — IcdA, 557, 8-15, ScdA, 261, 35-262, 10; Gl. 115, 6 ff. is probably following ThdA (cf. however, also ScdA, 311 ff.). Alexander is mentioned twice, viz., Gl. 78, 22 («Alexander and his followers» [read 4;*^] with which cf. A l e x ., de A nim a, ed. I. Bruns [Berlin, 1887], 21 ff.) and at Gl. 101, 17 (cf. A le x a n d e r , op. c i t , 106, 19 f. and 112, 11 ff.). On the M asriqtyun, cf. G a r d e t , op. cit., p. 23 ff. and the references there cit.d and Pines «La ‘philosophie orientale’ d ’Avicenne et sa polemique contre les Bagdadiens», Archives d ’hist. doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age, 1953. It is not my place here to enter into the thorny question of just who these people were, if indeed they ever represented one single and well defined school. In Gl. reference is made to them on almost every page in various contexts. In some cases their opinions are simply stated (e. g., Gl. 79, 11; 95, 14; 115, 10 ff. [cf. ThdA, 122 f.]; 116, 4 f.) and in others the reader is referred to «betake himself to their hooks» as at 94, 11; 95, 14; 100, 12; 110, 18; etc. In some cases, at any rate, they are clearly to be distinguished from the Hellenistic commentators, as at Gl. 76, 19-22 where

236

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

29 -

e

-

II ISHAQ’S TRANSLATION OF THE DE ANIMA

the passages of the de Anim a which are treated in the glosses. The num­ bers opposide the indica ions of the sections of the Greek text refer to the page and line of Badawi’s edition of the glosses. Avicenna, in disagreement with them seems to follow the opinions of the Greek commentators (cf. ledA , 46, 22 ff. and ThdA, 6 f.); the same situation obtains at Gl. 77, 11 f. (with which cp. IcdA, 63 f., ScdA, 23, 29 f. and ThdA, 6 f.), and at GL 84, 11-13 (cp. IcdA, 154, 25 ff. and ThdA, 27 f.). Again, in di cussing the problem of the sensibles and their presence to the faculties of sense and that of the intelligibles and their presence to the intellect (Gl. 95, 11-19) the opinion ascribed to the «Orientals» (ib id , 11, 14 ff.) would seem in clear contradistinction to those set forth, concerning the same passage in ThdA, 56, 12-18 and IcdA, 307, 22 ff. (cf. also ScdA, 124, 2 ff.). Finally at Gl. 99, 10 ff. we find the «Orientals» contra­ sted to «the author and the commentators» and at Gl. 106, 15 a passage beginning «the ‘ Orientals ’ hold that the author’s intention — according to his commentators — i s . . . » (On this last cf. the preeeeding note under Themistius.)

237

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

30 - O

-

ii

PASSAGES TREATED IN THE GLOSES d> 412a 413a 413a 413a 415a 415a 415a 4156 4156 4176 4176 418a 418a 4226 4246 4246 4246 425a 4286 4286 429a 429a 429a 429a 429a 429a 4296 4296 4296 4296 4296 430a 430a 4306

- 75, - 75, - 75, - 75, - 75, - 76, - 76, - 76, - 76, viz. :

402a 402a 402a 402a 402a 4026 4026 4026 403a

1-4 4-6 1 1 -2 2 2 4 f. 25 f. I f f. 5 ff. 7 ff. 11-6 19

4046 4066 4086 4086 4086 4086 4086 412a 412a 412a 412a 412a

7 f. 2 6 -4 0 7 6 11 1-4 5 -1 4 16-18 18-20 2 1 -2 9 5£ 15 ff. 17 ff. 19 ff. 20 f. -

4-7. 8-13. 1 4 f. 1 6 -21. 2 2 -7 6 , 3. 4-7. 8 f. 1 0 -12 . 15-79, 14. 7 6 , 15 -1 8 ad. 4 0 3 a 1 0 -13. 76 , 19-77, 2 403a I l f . 77 , 3 ,5 - 4 0 3 a 12 f. 7 7 , 6-9 - 4 0 3 a 1 6 (?) . 7 7 , 10-15 4 0 3 6 1 2 -19. 7 7 , 1 6 -79, 14 - 4 0 3 a 11619. 7 9 , 15-19. 79, 2 0 -8 3 , 15. 8 3 , 16-19 . 8 3 , 2 0 -8 5 , 1. 8 5 , 2-8. 8 5 , 9-20. 8 5 , 2 1 -9 0 , 4. 9 0 , 5 f. 9 0 , 7-9. 9 0 , 10-22. 9 1 , 4-1 6 . 9 0 u k .-91 , 2.

21 f. 3 3 f. 4 -1 0 11 2 6 -2 9 29-6 6 8 -1 5 21 f. 16 ff. 1 9 -24 5 f. 9-2 5 17-33 2 4 -2 8 2 9 f. 3 4 ff. 2-11 1 0 -1 8 1 8 -3 0 (?) 3-9 10 ff. 1 3 -17 18 f. 2 1 -2 9 29-6 3 4 f. 5-9 1 0 -1 4 16 2 2 -4 3 0 a 9 26 £ 27-6 2 0 2 0 -2 4

- 9 1 , 3. - 9 1 , 1 7 -9 2 , 5. - 9 2 , 6 -1 6 . - 9 2 , 1 7 -9 4 , 11. - 9 4 , 12. - 9 4 , 1 3 -1 7 . - 9 4 , 1 8 -2 3 . 9 4 , 2 4 -9 5 , 2. - 9 5 , 3-5. - 9 5 , 6 -1 0 . - 9 5 , 1 1 -1 9 . - 9 5 , 2 0 -9 6 , 4. - 9 6 , 5-8. - 9 6 , 9 -1 6 . - 9 6 , 17 -2 0 . - 9 6 , 2 1 -2 4 . - 9 6 , 2 5 -9 7 , 8. - 9 7 , 9 -1 7 . - 9 7 , 1 8 -9 8 , 6. - 9 8 , 7 -10. - 9 8 , 1 1 -1 6 . - 9 8 , 1 7 -2 2 . - 9 8 , 2 3 -9 9 , 4. - 9 9 , 5 -1 0 0 , 2. - 1 0 0 , 3 -1 0 1 , 19 . - 1 0 1 , 2 0 -1 0 2 , 12. - 1 0 2 , 1 3 -1 0 3 , 8. - 1 0 3 , 9-1 3 . - 1 0 3 , 1 4 -19. - 103, 20 £ - 1 0 3 , 2 2 -1 0 4 , 16. - 1 0 4 , 17-20. - 1 0 4 , 2 1 -1 0 5 , 15. - 1 0 6 , 5 -1 2 .

(1) The exact delimitation of the passages of the Greek text which are treated in GL is sometimes impossible to determine precisely, so that some few of the following notations represent only close approximations; where there has been considerable doubt I have so noted it. In all cases I have not adhered to the paragraphing of the printed edition nor have I attempted to make sense of the various numbers and signs which appear before many of the paragraphs, which served, probably, to key the notes into the text. (2) This gloss, if 1 have identitied the passage aright, seems to be based on a corrupt copy of the Arabic text of the de A nim a; i. e., the j J d \ of GL 77, 6 should have read J f' following 403a 16 ra r^s irddrj 7ravxa. (3) There are two glosses here, the first (GL 100, 3) referring simply to 429a 21 f. and the second (GL 100, 4 to 101, 19) referring to the entire passage 429a 21-29. (4) Gl. 106, 5-108, 24 (ad 430b 20-30) is out of place and should be between GL 105, 15 and 16.

238

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

31 - e

-

II ISHAQ ’S TRANSLATION OF THE DE A N IM A 4 3 0 6 2 4 ff. 4 3 0 6 2 6 -3 0 431a If. 4 3 1 a 2 f. [4 3 0 a 22 [4 3 0 a 2 2 f. 4 3 1 a 8-11 4 3 1 a 12 4 3 1 a 13 f. 4 3 1 a 15 f. 4 3 1 a 1-17 4 3 1 a 2 0 f. 4 3 1 a 21 f. 4 3 1 a 22 - 2 5 4 3 1 a 2 5 -2 9 4 3 1 a 29 - 6 1 4 3 1 6 2 f. 4 3 1 6 5 f. 4 3 1 6 8 -1 2 4 3 1 6 12 4316 1 2 ff 4 3 1 6 17 4 3 1 6 17 - 1 9 4 3 1 6 2 0 f. 432a I f f 4 3 2 a 27-31 4 3 2 6 2 2 ff

106, 108, 105, 105, 105, 106, 108, 109, 109, 109, 109, 110,

1 3 -1 0 8 , 3. 4-24. 16 - 19. 20 -2 3 . 24 f. W. 1-4. 2 5 -1 0 9 . 7. 8 f. 10-13. 14-17. 1 8 -ult. 1 -3.

4326 433a 433a 433a 433a 433a 433a 433a 433a 433a 4336 4336 4336 4336 4336 4336 4336 434a 434a 434a 434a 434a 434a 434a 434a 4356 4356

110, 4f. 1 1 0 , 6 f. 1 1 0 , 8-18. 1 10, 19 f.

110, 21 f. 110, 1 11, I ll, I ll, I ll, I ll, I ll, I ll, I ll, I ll,

u / i t . - l l l, 2. 4-6. 7. 8 f. 10. 1114. 15 f. 17 f. 1 9 -2 4 (?) u lt.-1 1 2 , 4.

2 9 -4 3 3 a 1 1

1 1 2 , 5-9.

2

112, 11 (*>.

13 f. 14 f. 15 f f

112, 112, 112, 112, 113, 113, 113, 114, 114, 114, 114, 114, 114, 114, 114, 114, 115, 115, 115, 115, 115, 115, 115, 116,

21 ff 2 5 f. 26 27-6 6 7 f. 9 21 f f 24 2 6 f. 29 2 9 f.

8 f. 9 f.

10 f. 13 1 4 f. 15 2 1 -2 6 2 7 (?)

If. 4 f.

112, 10. 1 2 -1 6 1 7 - 20. 2 1 -2 3 W u ^ . - 1 1 3 , 5. 6 - 9. 10 -1 2 . 1 3 -1 1 4 , 8. 9 f. 11. 12 - 1 4 . 15 f. 17. 18. 19 f. 21 f. ult. W . 1. 2. 3 f. 5. 6-19. 20. 2 1 -1 1 6 , 2. 3-15

(1) This and the following gloss would seem to be out of place. However, it may be that 430a 22 f. were introduced by some copyist, either of the translation or of the Greek architype, into this place, viz., following x?^vcP (431a 3) on account of the identity of 430a 21 and 431a 2 f., or again, the gloss may depend indirectly upon ScdA, 263, 7 f. where 430a 22 is brought into the discussion of 431a 1-4. (2) Gl. 109, 14-17 contains four separate glosses, probably as follows : 109, 14 ad 431a 14 f. t y he htavojrixy 4 . . . aicrtfrffx rra vTtapxei; 109, 15 ad 431a 15 f. 6rav Be dyaL&bv i} Kanov; 109, 16 ad 431a 16 (prjan) f) dwo(p7j^

3. 4035 14 f. = Gl. 77, 10 :

.^ 1

^ ^

p ri. . .

x o t)

it; d^atpeaecjs.

4. 407a 13-15 = Gl. 80, 2f. :

yjJ*" \^)y$ ^9 #AaJ&LJwAjaP' $■

et p lv oiv x m l artyprfv, avrat S’ airetpot. . . 7roXXdxts Oj diretpxxts vorfaei t o

tiJjwt> rLftj\

ocCtq.

5. 407a 15 - 19 = -

e

-

j l , j\ ■,V i< pj\

Gl. 80, 13 £ :

^

-u j \ r j \ i

J\ ii- U -U U i

Cfi O' J ' ^A^JAj *.1\ A. £• • •J ^^ sLp *y £

el S’ Ixavbv Btyeiv ItojoZv t& v popt'cov, t i Set xvxXoj xtveTaBat, rj xat 6Xo>s peyeBos

• At''»

tyeiv; el S’ dvayxatov vorjaatToj tX y xvxXm 8ty6vra, rls ia rtv r\ t ols popiots Bt^ts; h t Se 7rdjs votfcret to peptarbv dpepet ij to dpepes peptaTOj;

^ Jbu *#

(1} The text represented by Gl. here is that of ThdA, 1, 13 f. (cf. also IcdA, 22, 18); however, it appears that the Arabic version of the Aristotelian text was here expanded to include, as a gloss, this phrase of ThdA, for not only would such seem the case from Gl. but the same expansion is found in B A dA : y * U l isUJj A^scJ)l U from which the caU) ^ ^ i j l of Gx. 75, 6, seems to have been taken. (2) I have here attempted to reconstruct the text from several scattered «paraphrases», viz. (Gl. 16, 19) : 4ijljL*ll l|5S j ~ ls ^ 4)^5; (Gl. 77, 4 f.) : .. \^} ^ ^ ^.VlS^-Li vVi lijliu (the text here has land for which I have read laha); and Gl. 79, 5 ff. : . . V . . .l^^cs>c> ^ j\ {3) This is certainly, at best, a paraphrase, but it points to a text more literal than B A dA . (4) The Arabic text seems to end with t d ip sp es (407a 19); was pepiatw missing from the translation ?

240

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

33

II ISHAQ’S t r a n s l a t i o n

o f th e

de a n im a

6. 4076 I f . = GL 83, 13ff. : el S’icrilv 17xi'vijcris acvrijsp.rj oicrfo., irapa &» xwofro.

lAl) O JlS

J s.

'7.

[ ...U b ] A7o..W

2-4 = Gl. 83, 16 f. 19 :

[...

r.U jlpW

.] )3rJ )

j*

A'aP

. . . X1/7xsldBai yaipsiv . . . *ai alarBdve&Qai xai SiavoslaBau * ravra £e wdvra nivrlaus shat Soxovcriv. 6Bsv oitjBstij t is av alrrjv xivsicrBat *

u' 0 ^ f c

8. 4086 13 = Gl. 84, 13 : W'

vtyaivsiv

17

oixoSofjislv.

aXX’

fziv

9. 4086 16-18 = Gl. 85, 3-5 :

,1 . L . 'A ^

jy C i

\i0 ijUi U -~ A

0

u s \o i,\ •,.-a CXjS ,Ol>« I . JS& ‘% A ^ rO)i ,; j = f> us"\jup-

••

w

V>—Hi

_

,

axnrsp £7Ti Tcut> ala-Bfjrrfpiojv ovpGatvst • si y a p \d £ o i 6 TrpscrcvTtjs oppa toiovSI, f3\s7roi &v toerrrsp xdl b vios.

12. 4086 23-25 = Gl. 87, 1­5 :

J 9)

J'-*’ i / j

J filllj

J

) r ^AA

VS*i jVvi U j [ . . . ] .. j XaJ XlUAS»tJ\

J > fi us

xaBdwsp iv

' j = r i- \b \ O J i f j 1

v 0£7v

A*, y a j \ [. . .]

™ bs

u U .- ^ \ o -

M

psBats x a s vbaois. xai

to

x a ] ™ 6 e a ip srv p a p M v s r c u x a Xou

P S‘P°^V0V’ a**° Si *™es's

Seb\

\ju&

j J r O — b [ • • • ] L?1^ W5^ La » b&L* N jUuV\ JoiT' r. . . ] ( • • • ) ^ gf® L-)jSo J p l)\ ^ ; ^ \ J U 53.

431a 2 f. = Gl. 105, 20-22 :

>7 Si

t•

•f-w' cf - / [ • • • ] ^

xaTx

Suvapiv (eTttaTrfpv) X P ^ P bXoos Si ovSi y p o v o j .

T tp O T S p a i v T i v i ,

jbJL AJ by>-j fJ3\ ytf [. . .] (J i)

54. 431a 8 11 = Gl. 108, «Zt.-109, 5 :

^ \ i \i 3 Ar.

original, being a corrupt translation for a x n e siv a t. 13.

329, 16.

14.

329, 18.

1*1 ^ : ^ J l

H (x, 16 : m>P2D3 [op 7r,).

H

(X, 18); probably to be read with

H (x, 18).

15.

329, 19.

16.

329, 20. life J u 3I

-J-

17.

329, 21. ^ [si*] ,U I, lacking H (x, 20 : m7Dn

H.

.

: H (x, 20) correctly reads lib Js*j. 17X1?

nDli), probably to be read with A.

18. 329, 21. 4*aJLj • A»a1>H (x, 20); read with H. 19. 329, 22. hom oeotel. 20.

330, 1.

II* (x, 22 :

*,

;»ji U l -fU jjH (x,

IPX nf 1DXP) om itted from A by

23).

21.

330, 4. f f ^\ jV :

^ 1 j V H (a, 1 : ossnc? x7).

22.

330, 5. UU : t l H

(a,

23.

330,

24.

330, 7.JUlVI3JUiVI

25.

6.

330, 9. j J l . : ^

26.

330, 9.

27.

330, 14.

2 : 0 " p ); read with H.

: U>. ±\fI H (:, 2 : D'inx cripD). : cM - lV l3 JUVI H (3, 4

H (3 , 7) W.

1^1 l3, order inverted in H. jjjIu -f- Iolos (3 , 12 1 1137).

(l) Cf. Metaphysics, 1069 a, 25 f.

218

-

e

-

: m te s n m m ^ w sm ); read with H.

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

49 -

e

-

III ORIENTAL VERSIONS OF THEMISTIUS5 PARAPHRASE 28.

330, 16. 4.A*.M y=>(2, 14 f.) omitted from A by homoeotel. (?) {1'.

29.

331, 1. j l : (?)

SO.

331, 5.

31.

331, 6.

32.

331, 6. ^Vl3 : i n Km (possibly merely a stylistic variation).

33.

331, 7. 4>3L*~JI * 4>3L*.—)1 ^IaJI Ul3 (2 , 29) 5 A has evidently drawn J>UM up from the following phrase, losing the first two words ^3).

*kwY} y

>.

^J314**l*Jl

H (2, 23 : D -mip irm ) .

lacking H (□, 27). : dU J* H (2 , 28 : W 2'J 7^).

34.

331, 7. y ^ \ J,, L : ^ ;Y\

35.

331, 10. k ^ i : k~4 H ( 2, 32), read with H U>,

36.

331, 13. \ljj :

37.

331, 20. i;, of line. 7

38.

331, 21. y ^

(H, 2 , 30 : p K 2 m r w nD).

H (3, 3 : 772), probably to be read with H. : m\*3 k7i H (3, 9), probably repeating verb from

of beginning

jl H (3, 10), to be read with H.

: y

39.

331, 22.

40.

332, 4. JW® 4 -

jL , :

j T H (3, 11).

41.

332, 5. d /J.U, lacking in H (3, 15); possibly a gloss in A giving the more « u sual» expression for y ok*.

42.

332, 9.

H (3, 15) where the adjective is probably a stylistic addition in

the Arabic archetype of H.

-

e

-

+ J3V\ H (3, 19), probably a gloss.

43.

332, 9. 4ix^*k l3Lo- :

44.

332, 11.

»3k>. H ( 3, 19 f. : 2*212 im x QV).

45.

332, 16. ):jd\ £y\ y pjs V5, lacking in H (3, 26) by homoeotel.

lacking in H (3, 21); gloss in A.

H (3, 29).

46.

332, 19. JM :

47.

332, 23 f. o\jL*iY^

lacking in text of H but present in two mss. (3, u lt.9 7K

o^DDnn). 48.

333, 5. y.\

: inK k w

(1, 4).

(1) Badawi inserts a part of this lacuna into his text, following the Latin version. refrained from supplying it entirely I do not know.

Why he

H may have read ^i3k but this would be irregular both from the standpoint of vocabulary and from that of the syntax. J^\ at 330, 19 has been translated iiKI UV'* (2 , 18); cf. also supra ad 329, 5 = Kt 4 f. (3) Badawfs reading J»UJ\ < ^ J,VI > U is simply a conjectural attempt to make sense of . " * A without reference to H. The lam of Igwhr could be from an original 4iU but was more probably introduced witk the jAail. {4) The reading of A, if original, would seem to be a literal rendering of **> I£*£2*3 It should be noted, however, that Syriac more commonly renders such comparatives (at least in the philosophical literature) by w&-5 etc.

219

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

50 - e

-

III

49.

333, 7.

L of text is correct according to H (~, 6), cf. Badawy’s note 1.

50.

333, 12.

-b p i\ H (-!, 11 : ' • r .ir r p i nan ^

51.

333, 12.

52.

333, 13. -l n : (?) 4;U (i, 13 : run ^o). This text terminates at i, 13 of H.

53.

12. A commences at H p. N\ 19 (13, 11 of the Latin version) omitting the beginning of the paragraph, viz., . . .ho '0 ijiDK nzr non.

54.

12, 3.

55.

12, 4.II* [cJlL J , lacking

56.

12, 4.^JL.la

57.

12, 5.

58.

12, 7. jbN.yV : jt»y J V H (k \ 25 :

59.

12, 7. ^

60.

12, 8 f. jyy\ \juJJ jbi*#

61.

12, 9. : g ^ A ^ b H (.\*% 34) possibly to be read A having reduced the form to the singular and the archetype of H having brought down from the preceeding clause; cf Metaphysics, 1071 b 5f. : at ts yap olaiai TipSsnai tvv

H (k% 19). in H (K% 21). H (K% 22 : srpaa'i). : i i l H (k \ 23 : ^usm). NXOTO nffDK \x).

+ Uju- (n\ 29 : r&nn). lacking H; probably a gloss in A.

62.

(pOapzai irdvra (pQapra. » » 12, 13. U /"ig ^ j! 0C.: j~J : oUij 6/ " W H (o \ 13); this is pro ­ bably paraphrased by the editor of A; cf. infra, § B, 8.

63.

12, 16, turn

64.

12, 17. 4^IU + dLt % (o\ 21).

65.

12, 18. (320, 10) (i).

66.

12, 18 f. c - ’O — 12, 18 f. g i ^ i l*U

gvtgov

-e-

^ H (i, 11 : D'E?: 2*6 ).

67.

xa} siTtdcrai

j\** jV : rrten \hvh none? no ^

^ H (z\ 15 f.).

«v H (3% 23 : nzmnD mnnz? IK), '

^

AH : \p\i

(or

69.

12, 15. g

70.

13, 1. 4*u, 4 - j-Jj :

71.

13, 1. L JU. ^ ~b 3 g i t

ji j / f y §

Jb H (»*«*•)• g

Cairo edition lacks g .

68. 12, 15.

-Q -

H ( r , 24 : r?Dmen. lackingH (ibid.). jJ b 5 (320, 11). H (zi'', 25); § = A.

72.

13, 3. J g :"jg 5 (320, 14), -cyC H (o\ 26 : arncr).

73.

13, 3. jjuai -b

j\ g U

^

§ (320, 14).

74.

13, 3. dlb JV :.yl + S l o ) .

220

-

e

-

6 ^ 3 § (320, 11); the

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

51 -

e

-

III ORIENTAL VERSIONS OF THEMISTIUS’ PARAPHRASE

76. 13, 4. Us j\3: iD.sx* 'Cl H (3% 28). 77.

13, 4.: i1? a"nrn ( =

^

78.

13, 5.

+ 4] (or *U) H (3 % 29 : t o ) .

79.

13, 5.

+ c. H

80.

13, 6. ^

tu + .

81.

13, 8.

82.

13, 8.

83.

13, 8. ;1- 4] :

84.

13, 9. 4sf}\

(3%

?) H (3% 29).

30).

H (3 , 30).

+ Uip H (3% 4).

^

: ^ J \ J*^

§ (321, 5).

§ (321, 6) : o5Jl>-

H (:% 4 £ ) .

85.

1 3 , 9 . jlY)

05- ^

i 45^»J\ o 3ii> _ .

n3H3nn D"nn Ow3n S’lin1?); read

with H;§ (231, 7)

j jU jlS iU : ;jj\

H (3% 12 : dk n sunn n:m

rpns: nrrn), possibly to be read Ujl c A f j\ 86.

13, 10. ^»JU ”f"

87.

13, 11. L*i : SjUL- JJ S (321, 9). 13, 11. ^LaJo' 2uJLi~ J1 :

89.

13, 12.

90.

13, 13. o f * 3*©na H (3% 15).

§ (321, 9);for H,

cf. infra, § B,no. 19.

' J^iui, lacking § (321,10).

13, 13. 4;- ^ks : 13DD n r n n H ( , \ 19); ^ks dl)j> y

92.

13, 13. o f :

93.

13, 14.

c ^ b

:

94.

13, 14. Ujl>3 - + k k H (3% 20). 13, 15.

o A f S (321> 2D.

H (3% 21).

-f- Ha

96.

13, 15.

97.

13, 15. iD J ...DjyULMjV lacking S.

+ U1

98.

13, 18. rUU :

99.

13, 18. j r JlT +

S (321, 13). H (3% 28); read with H.

S (321, 14).

100.

13 18. woU : * § (ittdL).

101.

13, 18. Uk*x.y3 : t o

H (3% 31).

to

102. 13, 19. S^lS4JdajtX>y3jJ-ii

4lkjJ.» o f &A*3 ^.s S.

I sjjli

103. 13, 22. *U : 4LS.A3>.y H (i% 6 :r r t o cf. Metaph., 1071 b 20.' 14, 3. iuib -f-

S (321, 10).

H (3% 20 : - DXSff).

95.

104.

j l os UU ?

H (ibid.).

88.

91.

jiJiois H (3'’, 5 £ i Dip n3n

is unvoealized.

hjl>.I3 JUw

Df '

D2r \\*); probably to be read with H;

H ( id , 15).

j read H (ifi, 17 f.) with mss. C F against Landauer’s ;Ci rnD^nnm.

105.

14, 5.

106.

14, 5.

107.

14. 7. *Ua!i + d H (ib , 21).

V jjlJ J I *AJ\ (.U ^h : paraphrase of H (lB, 18 f.)

221

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

52 -

e

-

III

108.

14, 7.

H ( id , 21 :m Dro).

109.

14, 8 . Uj, lacking H ('D, 22).

110.

14, 10. ;U i +

111.

14, 12.

H ( id , 27). H

30).

(id ,

112.

14, 13. : T^DIS H (?D, 3), probably an error for 'UDnx.

113.

14, 15.

114.

14, 16.

115.

14, 19.

iiUjjJl ybj -j- J»Vi H (?D, 8 ). jpJ

^

, lacking H (TD, 9).

+ ^yrr H (?d , 14 : areo: m r w nn).

116.

14, 19.

117.

14, 20. Uybj>.: JitAk,UvAy>. H (TD, 15), probably to 1072 a 25. • •

^

+ o- * c r H

15)*

118.

14, 20.

119.

15, 3.

120.

15, 3. kJ, lacking H (ib id ).

121.

15, 3.

be read with A ; cf.

Metaph.,

H (td, 15). =

13W H (td, 19); probably to be read

: ‘Ca.Ja* or

121 bis.

15, 4. ^ U ) l j

122.

15,

6 . U ; V ^ 3\ : U ; l ^

123.

15, 8. 4 * - f

124.

15, 8 . dl. yb :

125.

15, 9. Jaio U :

with H

^ H (ibid.) in all save one ms. H H

( td,

20).

(td,

23).

H (td, 29). (which usually in this text translates dl».).

•5

yb

.

•

U H (td, 31 : ^DEOT) : read with A ( = t o vostv?

[?]).

126.

15, 12.

127.

15, 12. J*dl> U* ^ :s p 4y y» L H (r , 3) where H seem s to be duplicating the phraseology o f 14, 15 (TD, 15); possibly 13 31 is corrupt for 331 n% the text being then em ended on the basis o f the above m entioned parallel in order to accom odate the new reading.

128.

15, 13. o»y>-^)\ jU pUtVt yL-5 : read with H (P, 11 f.) p ^ ly i oy>-^J\ pL3V\ dik jV, A having "changed v-ili jV to yi ~ because o f the loss o f the preceeding phrase (H, r , 11 : m s dtdt ms* d is * m s s idd n ^t).

"

lacking in H

»

»

pt H

(p ,

(p,

3).

129.

15, 14. *~*» + DH2?Dn

130.

15, 14 f. jin H (p, 13) :

131.

15, 15. W- j-d* : ms* 331 D*pn3 (P, 14); read with H (p^p, . : j-j-Ut \1a dropped the section in which Lycurgus is m entioned also om it ^M\y here. H (X3, in 3 m ss. =

179.

18, 9. ;L>.

180.

18, 9. JUVi

181.

18, 9.

Arabic paraphrase, having (cf. in fra, § B, 77) m ust so

[?] *!U5^or y u / ' ) .

U s f : n ' h vjzn 73D 1 2 3 : in ^ n 11?

11321 H (. Kins? nn H (nD, 2 f.), aA ld J^V\ for ; Landauer follow s one ms. in reading

evidently reading id i for nDi.

205.

20, 14. J cow + jli« v H (nD, 3 : TD7D'

206.

20, 14 £ j^ T V . . . : . . . - nrP s?’’ K5? . . . nTD D^S?’1H (nD, 3 £ ), the pronoun probably being drawn back from the follow ing aU sT.

207.

20, 15. a,

208.

20, 19.

209.

20, 20. j j iJ\ ^

210.

20, 21.

211.

20, 21. aJ, lacking H (nD, 16).

212.

21, 2.

213.

21, 3. A~~jii

-e -

k5?).

jlT ': nTD iniK o ^ D mn H ( hd, 4).

sLS)l\ *1* : gUsiM *i* H (nD, 10 : rilDin i^k).

+ TDD H ( id, 11).

dJ33 +

?^

H (nD, 12).

: D'E?:Kn p inK *?d7 K*Dn H (nD, 17).

214.

21, 3.

215.

21, 4. A^i

m i

y* H (nD, 18).

U5, lacks U in H (r»D, 19). + U H ( id , 19 : P d tts? nD is?dd Kin nan); probably to be read

with A. Axso3 \*a a^jU i aksj

' joU H (nD, 20). ASS

216.

21, 6.

217.

21, 6.

JUsft : order inverted in H (nD, 26).

218.

21, 6.

— j­ JjuIL H ( id , 27).

219.

21, 8.

(TDD, 6).

220.

21, 8 f. Uu>j\ c* JJUU uwU to be read b,

: S?i^nn jl (?).

u t e 7dS?d ins?pDS? H (tdd, 6 £ ), probably

225

- O

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

56 -

e

-

III

221.

21, 12. jc43 s>^ H (% 10).

223.

21, 12. ^Ui + JJuS\ H (% 11).

224.

21, 13. *1 [4iU j»9 lacking H (% 12).

B.

PASSAGES OMITTED AND PARAPHRASED IN THE SHORTER ARABIC RECENSION

1.

+ x \ 20 ( ' iv nam) — 21 (w ­ d id).

12, 3.

2. 12, 4. 3.

^

12, 6.

4.

12, 7. l^Ls

5.

12, 8.

22 (mpna nam).

+ x \ 23 ( . . . v mm d,to d m o x 2221). 26 (mas^) — 29 (110*0 ). ;^ + x \ 30 (p *nnxi) — 33 (mtn ­ pin).

6. 12,10. A~4l j.ju + x \ 35 (mn 0x1) — 2\ 4 (mxsoan jd). 7.

12, 12.

V + 2*>, 6 (nonann nam) — 9 (muam).

8. 12,13 f.

jl*,. . .

jl4 \ U*^3 UUin H (2%9-11) preceeds

(12,12 f .) ; the Arabic

paraphrase om its H, 2%11 (laiDX 222i) — 13 (naittfXm). - O

12, 13. bUi 4~ 3% ing note.

-

(ma*> X1?!) — 14 (iXD 2X12D); N. B. supra, § A, 54 and preceed - O

10. 12, 16. turn + a \ 16 (Y 'i) — 17 (oniTOD). 11.

12, 17. oaoi).

13, 11.

jV paraphrased from ? j/L iU

[cf. supra, § A,

20.

13, 12. J\\> § (321,-10).' "

21. 13, 12.

^4^ 4 ^

88] 4 a \ 16 (mm ox) — 17 (**nmDn). ^jj| jU : paraphrase a% 17 f. (read, in “

4 m x p ix o p oa (a\ 17).

(,) The following sentence of A ( = j ­1, 14 f.) is partially paraphrased. 226

^

16)

" A, -

for \Sb, with -

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

57 - e

-

III ORIENTAL VERSIONS OF THEMISTIUS ’ PARAPHRASE

22.

13, 14.

23.

13, 14.

24.

13, 15. LM ...

25.

13, 16.

(first word)

+ nanann p snmv* p in .vn o (a\ 20).

wlb

B.AA

J

21 f.

jV A, § (321, 13) : paraphrase o f 3% 22 f.

+ '’ns:. . . . uiX3 133 nan (a\ 25).

26.

13, 17. U b + mn hvzn ntsm (a\ 26).

27.

13, 17.

28.

13, 17. Uyt3 : ? paraphrase for J U*, uS3 (a \ 27 f).

29.

13, 18.

: w a n *o ixasnn p nan (a\ 27). U;\

: paraphrase o f

a% 28-30 (cf. M eta p h . 1071 b, 14).

30.

13, 18. )rJ \ < + rw m o n . . .ox h x (a\ 30).

31.

13, 19. j ^ 3 + a\ 31 ('m ux io \o i) — 33 (tonss). J \ + i \ 2 (io*dx \o ) — 6 (d,v* nnxn).

32.

13, 21.

33.

13, 22. iydl U iJ\ J \ U ^ J*A)\ jV), the first phrase being an addition inserted by way o f transition.

35.

13, 23 f. Ar \\ ^

36.

14, 2.

37.

j', paraphrase o f 1% 7 f. (1).

^

4i\j : paraphrase o f i \ 24.

+ naan rox*?oc tax (i% 26).

38.

14, 2. V + 6' (~% 26). 14, 3. ^ b j . + 27 (o'antn 73D lnx x^i) — 12 , 15 (pnpim).

39.

14, 6.

40.

14, 10.

41.

14, 11.

42.

14, 11. + p ' bic paraphrase.

43.

14, 11. J3V\ dibit + di}LVt J a u i y., + nxiaon. .. nw dxt (to, 8).

47.

14, 16. 14, 16.

+ 1 X12D . . . p;sn o bax (to, 9f.).

48.

: paraphrase (?) of H, TO, 10 f. (uiN3 -33 . . .N ino nViN’); A is probably corrupt here.

49.

15, 4. J,V\ +

50.

15, 6.

j.

P yZi

V

(to, 20).

+ TO, 23 (□‘jtn) — 24 (m na;), possibly lost by homoeotel.

(1) H reads n33 XiH HD T2303 n : n ^ ? n n p “131 T3 313*m 131 73 ^3 ; it is possible that here the section kt k o l. . . hahhayuld was lost by homoeotel. in the archetype from which the shorter Arabic recension was made, whereafter the reading was altered so as to make sense.

227

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

58 -

e

-

III

51.

15, 7.

+ td, 24 £>2 mi) — 28 (a rra s :).

52.

15, 11.

+ D"3i bsnD n i2 in '^D i ( t\ 2).

53.

15, 12.

U->4- »% 3 (121 pxi) — 9 (ptrxnn).

54.

15, 12 f. \1& yM paraphrase of P, 9 f. (or r», 3-11) following which T\ 10 (D'D’s) — 11 (inK ^22X1) is omited in A.

4- t\ 14 (b x ) — 15 (b an ).

55.

15, 15.

56.

15, 18. -cU + »\ 18 (iD2*i) — 25 (niD l); the following the author of the paraphrase.

57. ' 14, 22. 4^ 4-

of A is added by

30 £nxn n;m) — n \ 9 (rOTuDD 'rib ).

58.

16, 1. 44^3 4- n \ 12 ( - p i 2) — 13 (ro ­ nnn).

59.

16, 7,

60.

16, 7.

+ n \ 19 ($2m i) — 21 (orp*2B). paraphrase of n \ 21 f. : (nXD 22. . . «T n^ p ox 2 "n m ).

61.

16, 7. 4i i ^ . 4- n \ 22 (n 'n i) — 24 (m sbn D ).

62.

16, 7. fo>.\3 4- n \ 25 (ic\\*2) — D \ 2 ( c r ^ D ) [y . supra, § A, 146].

63.

16, 9. Us 4- mzn D'Dira n 2 (a% 3).

64.

16, 10. plpv\ 4- b \ 5 £>2 nn) — 8 ( i w r w ) .

65.

66.

16, 12. JUH 4- D \ 10 ( n b n n n X'n), — 14 (nD ^ P D ’.m), the word 4 ^ 3 being introduced into A in order to carry the meaning over the lacuna. 17, 6. 4ii> + D% 30 (nixnn n:m ) — 2, 2 (2*12).

67.

17, 8. **kib + 2, 4 (snnn p ) — 6 (btfvn).

68.

17, 9. V4 *- 4- ’in^DW'1 ne?x W2D3 b x (2, 8).

69.

17, 9. o jb Ji 4- 2, 8 f. (m m u >nbD) — 12 ( b t r w nD b o ).

70.

17, 10.

+ 3, 12 (xm p D3 p ) — 17 ( b n i:dd). + 2, 20 (px ' 2) — 23 (man □'Tod).

71.

17, 13.

72.

17, 14. iytil + p i r x p cx n n ’>nbn b c m 0 ^ x 1 (2, 25).

73.

18, 15. 4

4 rm b s n D . . . -vnxD (2, 26). -

(2, 27).

74.

17, 15. JU^Vi + Khz' b t m

75.

17, 17. L 4*~*>- 4- 3, 30 (mn oxi) — 32 ( 'n b r ) .

76.

17, 20. aj yb 4- X2, 3 (12*1m) — X2, 7 (n b o n ).

77.

18, 5. 44^3 4-

. . . nab n m

m - 'soa . . . r n 2 ip x i (X2, 12 f).

78.

18, 6. baa (nD, 27).

131.

21, 8. 4,u jap

132.

21, 8. AkS, paraphrase o f 2D, 6, b n HDD . . . '•‘an .

4 nD, 29 (d^diu ib .) — e d , 6.

133.

21, 9.

4- roDmn b . . . acme? .it * (ed , 7 f.)

21, 10. *£» 4 2D, 9 (mnxiDD) — 23 (icsrr). 4 ; 4 2D, 25 (iD.s'Dm) — 7, 9 (nsn^'C). 136. 21, 12. .4 4 nDD.nn piD'C '27 ncxcn n,c (7, 10).

134.

135.

(1)

21, 12.

From this point on the paraphrasing of the shorter version becomes somewhat freer.

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

61 -

O

-

IV

THE O RIGIN OF THE

ARABIC PHILOSOPHICAL TERM 4oi

-

e

-

The term 'U\ in Arabic, like so many other philosophical and religious tech­ nical terms has undergone numerous variations in its significance over centuries of use and while its meaning and derivation have been discussed by many writers, both Western and Oriental, none would seem to have hit upon the source of its introduction into Arabic scientific vocabulary. Probably the first Western scholar to discuss the term was Friedrich Dieterici. In a note to his translation of the so-called Theology of Aristotle W we read the following : ccDer schwierige terminus ’annijja (richtig innijja) ist die Antwort auf die Frage, ob etwas sei, namlich die, dass etwas sei o n ecrnv, er ist von uns mit ccWesenheit * iibersetzt, und mochte dem griechischen ra ovtgos o vt a, wirklich seiend, entsprechen*. The rendering rcWesenheit* is certainly adequate for the uses of the term in the Theology (cf. infra) albeit Dieterici did not know at the time of his writing that the Arabic text was based ultimately on the Enneades of Plotinus (2L At a later date, Max Horten, in the ccVerzeichnis philosophischer Termini im Arabischen*, appended to his Spekulative und positive Theologie des Islam (Bonn, 1912), cites a number of examples of the use of the term 'Lj\, all of them drawn from relatively late writers (glosses of Al-Farani [+ 886/14 8 1, cf. Brockelmann, GAL, G I I 2, 297] on the Kitab al-mawaqif of cAbdarrahm&n alIgi [f 7 56/1 35 5 , cf. ibid., 267, and S I I 287 ff.], the Kitab aLasfar aWarbaa of Al-Sirazi [f 1o 5 o /i6 4 o , cf. ibid., 588] and the Kitab aLtaWifdt ofal-Gurgsbii {n Die sogenannte Theologie dm Aristoteles aus dem Arabischen iibersetzt, Leipzig, 1 883 , p. 199, note [ i 3 , 9]. (25 This was first noted by V. R o s e , DLZ ( i 883), 8 4 3 - 5 ; cf. infra. The equivalent ra dvreos dvrct, for X»\ was possibly suggested by the equivalence between the uses of in the Arabic Liber de Causis and the vocabulary of the Greek text of the S ro^siW ts 0 eoXoyix7j of Proclus; cf. note of Bardenhewer in his edition of the Liber de Causis (Freiburg, 1882), p. 17.

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

62 4

>

IV

-

e

-

[+ 8 1 6 / 1/1 1 3, cf. GAL, G II2, 2 8 0 , S II, 3o5] and the Kitdb kassdf istildhdt al-fanun of Al-Tahanawi [t 1 1 5 8 /i 7 A5, cf. GAL, G II2, 555]). The meaning he variously gives as Existenz, Realitat (Ding), and Dassheit. This last meaning he supports with a number of citations (Al-Farant, cited 1296 and Al-Tahanawi, cited i 3 o i ) in which the term is opposed to 'L*2\ whence he follows Dieterici in the vocalisation with fatha on the alif and tasdid on the wtlnD). Horten, however, raises no question concerning the dual use of the term as Dassheit or Existenz and as Realitat or Ding. Further, although he notes that the opposition of LJVt and is the equivalent of the opposition of t o on io n and Sid t / io n in Greek (ibid., 1296), Horten is concerned only with the use of the term in the authors whom he cites and hence is not concerned with any possible derivation or origin of the term outside Arabic. For him — in this work — it is, apparently, only an abstract noun derived from the particle 3anna. Tj. de Boer in his article Anniya in the Supplement to EI(%5 bf), supporting himself primarily upon the Theology of Aristotle and the Liber de Causis (since they show the earliest known occurrences of the term ^ follows much the same reasoning as Dieterici and Horten before him : ccLa formation du mot anniya, forme sous laquelle on le lit ordinairement, s’explique le plus aisement par un amalgame du mode de pensee platonicien avec la terminologie aristotelicienne. II signifie Yetre ou Vexistence platonicienne (ovoia, ov) en tant que categorie supreme, mais denommee d’apres le 8n aristotelicien (an[n] — ce qui est...). Get emploi du mot s’est repandu de la Theologie d ’Aristote arabe et du Liber de Causis^K Finally de Boer notes (op. cit., 26 a) : «■Anniya est egalement 1’appellation, au point de vue des creatures, de 1’existence quand on veut la distinguer de 1’essence. Tous les etres et toutes les choses sont appeles anniydt parce qu’ils ont une certaine existence individuelle (t6Ss n) eonformement a leur place hierarchique dans 1’ordre spirituel ou dans 1’ordre physiques Again, cAbdarrahman Badawi, in his book, Al-Zaman al-wugudi (Cairo, 1 g4-5, A, n. 1) states — without giving any evidence whatsoever — Jhat the term is (1) However, cf. infra, p. 18A, n. 2. (2) Cf. infra, p. i 85 . (3) Cf. infra, ibid., n. 1. I have found two occurrences of the word used as the equivalent of the Greek rohs n, viz., in the translation by Ishaq b. Hunain of Aristotle’s De Anima (li 10 a, 1 4, cited infra, p. 191) and in the translation (by IsMq?) of book A of the Metaphysics (1070 a, 11, cited infra, ibid.). On the reasons given by de Boer, however, for this use of i.e. 6rra, cf. infra, = p. i 98.

18'2

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

63 - O

-

IV T H E O R IG IN OF T H E A R A B IC P H I L O S O P H I C A L T E R M Aol

simply a transliteration of the Greek infinitive t o e h a t W . This same thesis he reiterates in a number of the footnotes to his edition of IsM q ’ s translation of the D e A n i m a of Aristotle (2), insisting not only on the vocalisation " a n iy a (with m a d d a and the relight n u m ) ^ but saying further that it ccalways* translates the Greek infinitive As we shall point out below, this last affirmation is not only not true, even of Ishaq ’ s translation of the d e A n i m a but also neglects a considerable amount of the evidence of the earlier trans­ lation literature ( v i z . , the T h e o lo g y o f A r is t o t le , the L i b e r d e C a u s i s , the R i s a l a f i H - i l m a L i l d h i , et a l . , cf. i n f r a , p. 18 5 ff.). Furthermore, it should be noted, the vocalisation i. e. a l - a n i y a , far from being cccloser to the Greek origins as Badawi states, is impossible phonologically as a transliteration of the Greek s h a t , for this infinitive was pronounced m e (the two diphthongs having passed into simple vowels) long before the time in which the Arabs began to translate Greek scientific works into their own tongue^. Paul Kraus in his very fine study entitled ccPlotin chez les Arabes* ( B u l l , d e I ’ I n s t i t u t d ’ f i g y p t e , 23 [19A0 ­ 19A1], 271) simply notes that the term 2J \ in the R i s a l a f i H - H lm a l - i l a h i which he is there discussing, as also in the T h e o lo g y o f A r is t o t le , is the equivalent of both the Greek participle t o o v , and of the Greek infinitive t o shat. The origin and cause of this double use, however, he does not discuss. Finally, in a four page footnote, Muhammad Abu Rida treats of this same term, Ls\, in his R a s a i l a l - K i n d i citing the T a r i f a t of Al-Gurgani (which is also cited by Horten, o p . c it . , p. 281, cf. s u p r a ) for the definition . . . ^ (1) In this note Badawi cites the Mutabarf i ’ l-Hikma of All b. MaUd abA ’1-Barakat al­ BagdMi (- j- post 5604165, cf. GAL, G I 2, 602, SI, 8 3 1) for the sense. After stating that the word is an exact transliteration or arabicisation (tdrib daqiq) of the Greek infinitive, he goes on to cite the derivation of the term from the Arabic particle 4 , given by AbA l-BaqA ’ al­Kaffawi (cf. infra, p. 18 4, n. 2) but says, thereafter, that in the manuscripts the word is generally vocalised 3uiT (i.e. 3dutya) — which is certainly not always the case (cf. infra) — and adds that eethis is closer to the Greek origin *, — which is also not true (cf. infra), even if, with him, we accept the assumption of its derivation from to sheet. Note also that in his edition of the Liber de Causis (Cairo, 1955) Badawi writes generally and several times vocalises the word as 4J1 (e.g., p. 4 , ult.), probably following the manuscript. Against both the vocalisation aniya and dniya, cf. Massignon, Passion (Paris, 1922), 565 , n. 3 ; cf. also infra, Appendix. (2) Cf. B adaw I, Aristotelis de Anima (Cairo, 19 54), p. 3 i, n. 9 ; 60, n. 6 ; 65 , n. 1 ; 77, n. 1. (3) Cf. ibid., p. 3 o, n. 9. {4) Ibid., p. 77, n. 1. (5) Cf. E. H. Sturtevant, The pronouneiation of Greek and Latin (Philadelphia, 1940), p. 4 o f. and 47 ff. {6) Muhammad A bA R ! d a , Rasd'il al-Kindi, I (Cairo, 13694960), p. 97, n. 1.

183

-

e

-

Frank.qxd

3/11/05

6:41 pm

Page

64 4

IV

.U Js - [Abu Rida, op. d t., 9 7 , n. i ] ) ( x) and follows Abu 5l-BaqaJ al-Kaffawi ( f 1 0 94/ 1 6 8 3 , cf. GAL, G II2, 6o3), Kulliydt al~ulum for the vocalisation hj\ (Hmiyd) W. The lengthy discussion by Abu Rida of the theses of Dieterici, de Boer, and G oichon^, as well as his attempted refutation of the position of C A. Badawi (mentioned above) need not be related h e r e ^ . Although AbA Rida notes in his treatment of the difficulties of the thesis of Badawi that one would have to seek the origin of the term in Syriac (op. cit., 9 8), he does not himself offer any suggestions concerning any supposed Syriac term or terms which might underlie the Arabic; he appears to be satisfied that the term loV\ is to be understood strictly within Arabic as an abstract noun derived from the particle j ] , fol­ lowing, thus, the thesis of Abu ’1-Baq4\ Now if we will seek for the original meaning of this term and the source of its introduction into the technical vocabulary of Arabic philosophy, we must clearly look in the early philosophical literature and chiefly in the trans­ lations, whether from Greek or Syriac, for only in the translations can we control with certainty the sense and use of the word, since here alone we have a paraphrase, not into Arabic (for this language is the one into which we are inquiring) but into another tongue and another mode of expression. Having then determined the use and meaning of the term in the translation (1) H orten, loc. cit. : «Die Konstatierung der individuellen Existenz in der ih r per se zukommenden Seinsstufe (ais individueller Substanz)». ^ M J\. Nevertheless, the clear opposition [made by other writers (Al-Farani, Al-TaMnawi, cf. supra, p. 181) between and 4 would certainly indicate a vocalisation am\ ( 3anniya) as is read by Dieterici, Horten, et al. Max H o rten , in the Verzeichnis cited above, in every case gives the vocalisation however, in his edition of AI-FArIbi’s F usus al-Hikam (ZA, 18 [19oA-5]), 289, 8, he vocalises it 3ui\„ but translates it, as in the Verzeichnis (loc. cit., supra, p. 182) sindividuelle Daseinw (H orten , «Die Ringstein Farabis mit dem Kommentar des Farani, libersetzta in Baumker, Beitrage, V, 8 [Munster, 1906], 32). This vocalisation, 3inniya, also occurs a number of times in the manuscript on which is based Bouyges ^edition of A v e rr o e s ’ Commentary on the Metaphysics, in the text of Astdt’s version of the Aristotelian text, cf. remarks of Bouyges, op. cit., index E 54 (p. 228). Am61ie G o ich on , Lexique de la langue philosophique d3Ibn Sind (Paris, 1988), I 27, anniya (p. 9 ff.); generally in Avicenna, as can be seen from the examples of Goichon, 4 is used as kexistence