Ibn Rushd's Metaphysics: Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd's Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Lam

113 Pages·1986·27.27 MB·English

by  Ch. Genequand

IBN RUSHD'S METAPHYSICS
ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY
AND THEOLOGY A Translation
with Introduction ofIbn Rushd's Commentary
Texts and Studies on Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Lam
BY
EDITEDBY
HANS DAIBER
CHARLES GENEQUAND
. VOLUME I
PHOTOMECHANICAL REPRINT
LEIDEN - E. J. BRILL - 1986
LEIDEN - E. J. BRILL - 1986
First published 1984
CONTENTS
Preface. VII
Introduction: Ibn Rushd as a commentator 1
I. TheMetaphysics in Arabic; Translations and Commentaries 5
11. The aims ofmetaphysics. 12
Ill. Spontaneous generation and form. 24
IV. The prime mover 33
V. Human and divine intellect 49
VI. Ibn Rushd's astronomy 54
VII. Concluding remarks 56
Translation . 59
Bibliography. 211
General Index · 215
Index ofArabic Words. · 217
Index ofGreek Words . · 218
IndexofofEmendations suggested · 219
ISBN900408093 7
Copyright1984byEJ. Brill, Leiden, TheNetherlands
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortranslated
in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other
means without writtenpermissionfrom thepublisher.
INTRODUCTION
IBN RUSHD AS A COMMENTATOR
MoststudiesofIbn Rushd have hithertoconcentratedontwoaspectsofhis
philosophy: his psychology (and in particular that part ofit whose import
ance was paramount in the eyes ofmediaeval thinkers - the theory ofthe
intellect or noetics) and his religious philosophy. This second aspect was
privileged for various reasons, among which onecan mention the availability
and readability of his short treatises such as the Fa~l al-Maqiil and the
Maniihij al-Adilla, and the celebrated debate between al-Ghazziili and Ibn
Rushd in the Tahiifut; this debate, in turn, fits into the wider frame ofthe
faith versus reason controversy in Islam and in the Christian West. When
students ofIbn Rushd's thought want to find out rapidly about his position
on any philosophical problem, they tend to refer to the Tahiifut which
certainly makes better reading than the long-winded and repetitive com
mentaries, and has the additional (and considerable) advantage of being
extant in Arabic, whereas the "great" commentaries, with the notable excep
tion of the Metaphysics and of some fragments, are only available in their
Latin and Hebrew versions. Some of the main problems dealt with in the
Tahiifut - creation and emanation versus the eternity of the world, the
providence of God and so on - have also retained some interest and
relevance until today, which is hardly the case for the more abstruse aspects
ofAristotelian physics and cosmology.
The main factor in the comparative neglect ofthe commentaries, however,
is precisely the fact that they are commentaries. Besides the unavoidable
monotony and repetitiousness ofthat type ofwork, it is easily inferred that
they are mere developments and explanations ofAristotle's own treatises, as
theypurporttobe, and assuchdo notcontainwhatcouldberegarded as Ibn
Rushd's philosophy as distinct from Aristotle's. This line of argument calls
for some observations.
First of all, since Ibn Rushd's explicit aim was to follow Aristotle's
philosophy, which to him wasunsurpassable, merelyexplainingitsobscurities
and removing the accretions of later centuries, particularly of Arab
Neoplatonistslike al-Fiiriibiand Ibn Sinii, onecould argue that itis precisely
insofarasIbn Rushd followed Aristotlethatheexpounded hisownideas, and
that the apparent independence and originality which he displayed in the
Tahiifut and the other short treatises were deviations imposed upon him by
the need to answer accusations and objections which were, strictly speaking,
PREFACE
This is a translation of Ibn Rushd's commentary on book Lam of
Aristotle's Metaphysics. The text is that edited by M.Bouyges, Averroes
Ta/sfr mii bacd al-Tabra, vol.Ill, Beirut 1948, pp.1392-1736, which I have
followed even where it has been restored on the basis of the Hebrew and
Latin translations; these are so literal as to permit such a reconstruction. My
departures from Bouyges' text are indicated in the "notes to the translation"
which are mostly concerned with textual matters. The main philosophical
questions arising from the text are taken up in the introduction.
The textus, i.e. those portions of the commentary which are quotations
from Aristotle's text in its various Arabic guises have been translated into
English quite literally: their very clumsiness and obscurity is an important
element in Ibn Rushd's understanding ofhis masterand model. Forthe rest,
it will beeasy to seewhat I oweto W.D. Ross' excellent English rendering of
the Greek text (Oxford, 1909). For all matters pertaining to purely
Aristotelian exegesis, with which I am not concerned here, I refer the reader
to this translation and tothesameauthor'scommentary(2 vol. Oxford 1924).
The present book is an extended and revised version ofan Oxford D.Phil.
thesis submitted in 1977. My first duty is to express my gratitude to the
memory of Richard Walzer, formerly lecturer in Arabic philosophy at
Oxford, who introducedme, some years ago, to this complex and fascinating
field of study. My supervisor was then Father R.J.McCarthy who un
fortunately was compelled by illness to tender an early resignation. It was a
matter for great regret that I was not able to profit longer from his lucid
counsels. I am grateful to DrF.W.Zimmermann for accepting a thesis which
had been largely elaborated under the supervision ofothers and was nearly
completed by the time he took over. My friends DrT.-A.Druart and
DrJ.McHugo read drafts ofthis work and theircomments spared me many
mistakes.
I would also like to express my profound gratitude to Professor
O.Reverdin, who taught me Greek at Geneva University and then constantly
encouraged me during my years of study abroad, and to the Societe
Academique in Geneva and the Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche
Scientifiquewithout whose financial support Icould not have undertaken the
present work.
Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Hans Daiber for the
carewhich hedevoted to reading my typescript and for a numberofvaluable
observations.
2 IBN RUSHD AS A COMMENTATOR IBN RUSHD AS A COMMENTATOR 3
outside the scope of Aristotelianism, and consequently of philosophy. As was to unfold the truth contained in the writings of Plato, and to that of
such, it may be sunnised that Ibn Rushd himselfwould have regarded these Islamicmysticsandjuristswho were able to find support for all their beliefs
works as in no way comparable in importance with his more scholarly and judgements in Quranic verses. If Ibn Rushd wanted to produce a
commentaries. complete interpretation of Aristotle's treatises, it was not because of any
Secondly, the long commentaries contain many digressions, some ofthem antiquarian interest ofhis, but becausethese treatises were assumed to be t~e
fairly extensive, in which Ibn Rushd is no longer content with explaining receptacle ofall truth. His task consisted largelyin free~ng philos.ophy, t~a~ IS
Aristotle's meaningliterally, sentenceby sentence, butelaborates on the main tosay Aristotelianism, ofall the later unjustifi,:daccretIOns, and In explaining
argument ormentions variousinterpretationsand objections ofotherauthors it to hiscompatriots in their language. It is above all this change oflanguage
and refutes them. On one ortwo occasions, he even consciously goes beyond in the Mediterranean world, and the unnecessary and false additions made to
Aristotle's words and expounds what he thinks is implicit in his doctrine, or Aristotle's system by the Arab philosophers, which made Ibn Rushd's work
acknowledges that scientific discoveries made in the period oftime between necessary. Itis onlytoo understandable,insuchcircumstances, that h~should
the philosopher and himself induce one to modify one's views on certain sometimeshavebeen led unwillinglyto read what he regarded as true Intothe
topics. These digressions have already been exploited, particularly those words ofhis master rather than to infer Aristotle's meaning from them.
concerning the theory ofthe intellect in the third book ofthe de Anima, the Inadditionto thedifficulties resultingfrom readingAristotleintranslation,
theory of matter in the Physics, and the greater part of book Lam of the and often translations at two removes, the text ofthe philosopher contains
Metaphysics where they are particularly rich and illuminating. But even when many puzzles about which scholars and philosophers are stil~ at v~riance.
Ibn Rushd merely paraphrases Aristotle in his customary way, introducing This is particularly true of the metaphysical and cosmologlcal views of
his explanations following a short lemma by yurfdu oryaCnf, he often evinces Aristotle. Whereas the modem tendency has been, by and large, to regard the
tendencies which are at variance with the fundamental tenets of inconsistencies in Aristotle's text as being due to the evolution ofhis thought
Aristotelianism. Instances of this are again particularly numerous in the or to the different viewpoints adopted in different treatises, Ibn Rushd, like
Metaphysics, where the poor quality ofmost translations often compels him most ancient commentators, has tried to interpret them away or to reconcile
to be more imaginative and causes him to wander sometimes very far from them. The idea that there could have been variations in Aristotle's thought
the original meaning ofthe text. In such cases, the subconsciousconvictions would have appeared preposterous to Ibn Rushd: there cannot be variations
ofthe authorsurface again.
in Truth itself.
The third main objection to be made against a simplistic view of the
commentaries' alleged lack of originality is more complex. It rests on the
ambiguity of such expressions as ..Aristotelianism in its purity" which, it is
supposed, it was Ibn Rushd's purpose to restore. In a sense, the modem
philologist writing about Aristotle also tries to bring out the ideas of the
philosopher as they were conceived by him, so to speak. But the operation
does not only require philological skills(primarilY a knowledge ofGreek and
Greek literature) which were well beyond the powers of Ibn Rushd; it also
depends ona historicistviewofphilosophywhichwassimplyinconceivableat
that time. The modem student ofAristotle endeavours, as far as possible, to
forget his own convictions and knowledge in order not to bring into his
subject alien thoughts and interpretations, because he is conscious of the
historical gulf separating him from his subject. As a corollary of this
awareness, he believes that considerable progress has been made since
Aristotle's day in all fields in knowledge. Ibn Rushd, on the otherhand, was
persuaded that Truth had been almost entirely discovered by Aristotle in the
past and that only minor adjustments and improvementscould bemade. His
attitude is quite comparable to that ofthe Greek Neoplatonists, whose aim
CHAPTERONE
THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC:
TRANSLATIONS AND COMMENTARIES
Some important articles have been devoted to the Arabic translations of
Aristotle's Metaphysics, which will enable me to be fairly briefon that topic.
For the identification of the translators, it is sufficient to refer to Bouyges'
Notice pp.CXVIlI-CXXIV and CXXX-CXXXII; the characteristics of the different
translations and their relations to the various strands ofthe Greek tradition
have been studied by Walzer, Greek into Arabic, pp.114-128 and Thillet.
What follows is meant as a merecomplement to theirfindings.
The translation used for the main part of Lam (pp.1406-1613) is that of
Abii BishrMattaand was accompanied by Alexander'scommentary(possibly
a shortened version of it).1 According to Bouyges (Notice, pp.CLXXVIl
CLXXVIII), it was made through a Syriac intermediary, but the arguments he
adduces in support of his thesis are far from decisive. The other main
translation for Lam is that of Ustath (which Bouyges designates by the
symbol V), added in the margins ofthe Leiden manuscript and used by Ibn
Rushd for the partsofthe text missingin Matta's translation. Although these
two versions are very different in many respects, they have in common a
number ofhighly characteristic blunders which I have indicated in my notes
to the translation (n.35, 40, 100, 101). On the other hand, Matta follows the
Greek word order much more closely than his predecessor, often at the cost
of clarity. Even if one does not take his rival al-Slrafi's remarks2 too
seriously, I think there is evidence that his knowledge of Greek was not
perfect. A way of accounting for all these facts would be to assume that
Matta had at his disposal Ustath's translation and reworked it with the help
ofthe Greek text, modernizing sometechnical terms and trying to stick more
closely to the original. The result, as can be seen, was not altogether happy.
This, however, is to a greatextent speculative; no certaintycan be reached in
the present state ofour documentation.
Another point about which it will be prudentto keep an open mind is that
ofthe authorship ofthe translation ofAlexander'scommentary. It is, on the
1 In the Greek text ofAlexander's commentary,rw.hich is preserved for books A-A ofthe
Metaphysics, 136pp.aredevotedtoA,66toH, 106to Sofarasonecanjudgefromthemostly
shortquotationsmadebyIbn Rushd,hisversionofthecommentaryonLiimseemstohavebeen
moreconcise.
2 fmtif", I, p. Ill,ed. A. Aminand A.Azzin,Cairo 1953.
6 THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC 7
whole, very clear and readable, and I therefore hesitate to ascribe it to Abii genuinecommentary ofAlexander, has never been seriously challenged.7 But
Bishr Mattii. Even if one considers that the allusive, sometimes telegraphic
hiscollection ofthe fragments is not quitecompleteS anditcan beshownthat
style ofAristotle in lambda offered a more difficult challenge to a translator
even where Alexander's name is not mentioned, his commentary was some
than thescholarlyproseofAlexander,itishardtoseehowbothworkscanbe
times used by Ibn Rushd.9
by the same author. Here again, one may wonder whether Mattii did not
The text ofAlexander'scommentary used by Ibn Rushdwas incomplete; it
make use ofa previous translation.
coveredonlyabout twothirds ofLam(1393,6).Themost likely suppositionis
The othertranslation ortranslations used in Lamcannot beidentifiedwith ! that it stopped at the same point as Mattii's translation, since the two belong
certainty, except in one case. Again I refer to Bouyges' Notice, pp.CXXXI ! together.lO The note on p. 1683,2 indicating the end of Alexander's com
CXXXII. 1 mentary is ofBouyges' own making; it is only found in one Latin translation
I
Nicolaos ofDamascus is the oldest Greek commentatorwhose works were
and hasnoauthority whatsoever. Whatpromptedthetranslatorora scribeto
known to Ibn Rushd and quoted by him. His Epitome ofAristotle's philo
put it there was the fact that Alexander's name still appears on pp.1663 and
sophy was translated into Syriac and Arabic. The first part of the Syriac
1673. Buttheselast two passagesare not quotationsand theinformationthey
version (containing inter alia the Metaphysics) has been edited,3 but the
contain may bederived from another source. The last fragment ofAlexander
manuscriptissohopelesslycorruptthat it has notbeen possibleto identify in
is on p.1623, while Mattii's translation stops after textus 38 (cf. note at
it the passages referred to by Ibn Rushd,4 which all pertain to the arrange
I bottom ofp.1613); this very small difference may be due to the fact thatthe
ment of matters in the Metaphysics. Nicolaos objected to the procedure
last pages ofthe manuscript were incomplete or barely legible. Ifwe assume
Aristotle adopted, which consisted ofgrouping all the questions (U1tOptUl) in
that the translation ofAlexander's commentary ceases at about p.1625, this
one book (B) and answering them in the following books; he wanted the
corresponds roughly to Ibn Rushd's indication that onlytwo thirdsofit were
questions to be dealt with and answered one after the other, as they present
preserved (220pp. out of 340 in Bouyges' edition). Al-Fiiriibi also had an .
,
themselves. Another passage is said to be taken from the Epitome of the
incomplete copy of Alexander's commentary, which was certainly derived
Metaphysics, which probably means the chapter on the Metaphysics of the
from the same exemplar as Ibn Rushd's, but he notes that "the later
Epitome ofAristotle'sphilosophy. Itis unlikely that there was an independent
peripatetics" (al-muta'akhkhiriin minal-mashshii'iyyfn) seem to have known a
treatise on the Metaphysics.5 This last fragment contains the idea that the
I commentary ofAlexander on the whole Metaphysics.11 Although we cannot
particular sciences are subordinate to a first science, metaphysics, and derive
determinepreciselywhoal-Fiiriibihadin mindhere, this allusionisenough to
their principles from it (1652,11-1653,1), an idea which does not reflect
I show that there is no difficulty in assuming that Ibn Rushd could have
faithfully the doctrine ofAristotle himself, but was to be very influential in
derived information about Alexander's ideas from other sources than the
future times (cf. below p. 20and n. 21).6
Metaphysics-commentary, possibly from an astronomical textbook as the
AlexanderofAphrodisiasistheauthormostextensivelyusedby Ibn Rushd
questions treated on pp.1663 and 1673 are chiefly astronomical.
and presents the greatest interest to us as the Greek text ofhis commentary
I The authenticity of the so-called proem of Lam (1392-1405) has been
on Lambda is lost. A German translation of the fragments quoted by Ibn
Rushdwasmadeby Freudenthal,whoalsostudiedtheirrelation tothe Greek j
text preservedunder the name ofAlexander and recognized for more than a I 7 On some points, however, his work needs correcting or supplementing. His dating of
pseudo-Alexanderandhiscontentionthathewasdeliberatelyattemptingtodeceivehisreadersas
century as spurious. His main conclusion, namely that the Arabic fragments
to the authorship ofthe commentary are based on flimsy grounds. K.Praechter(Gotlingische
evince striking similarities in method and doctrine with the genuine works of I GelehrteAnzeiger, 1906,pp.861-907)hasmadeagoodcaseforacceptingtheindicationofoneof
Alexander preserved in Greek, and that therefore they must come from the the manuscripts ascribing the work to Michael of Ephesus. On the forgery problem, cf.
t
P.Merlan, EinSirnplikios-Zitat.
• Cf. mynotestothetranslation, n.119and 120andbelow.
9 Aparticularlyclearinstanceofthisisthepassage(1445,3-4)whereAnaximander's1i1t&lPOV
t
isdefinedasintermediarybetween air"andfire orbetweenwaterand air.Theonlyauthorityfor
3 H.J. DrossaartLulofs, NicolausDarnascenusonthephilosophyofAristotle, Leiden 1965.
• InLiirn: 1405,7ff.; 1853,I ff. .j thiscertainlymistakenviewisAlexander,inMet., 60,8.
wit6ShTNthhoeisshupiceahrsastrarcgeheaytwisoaefsistmhmeiseucnnetldieoesrntiseatdloomidnobtvhyeerDsFriioshrsIissbatna(r2tR5L4uusFhloldifi'sgs,;eOl)Np.ticcoitl.a,upsp.onISlyO-sItSre!.ssTehdetchoemspuabroirsdoin .:i•jt des1i1g10nCAatfIe.-sFFatihhraerbisAit,,rA2ag5bh1rp,2ihi8ti!,loacslo-oIrpJrhaokebfrorsnr.a,Btpeu.dt3b4iny; "IttbhhneeRplrauetsesherdnp'tsecroiapwsaent,entIiocdtseo"uaibstta1ni5f3et7hx,1ips2re-c1sas4ni.onbewshoic.hTuhseuraelliys
preciouslittleevidenceofAlexander'sbeingreadintheArabworldbeforeal-Farabihimself.The
nation oftheparticularsciencestometaphysics. l
! referencewouldthenprobablybetosomelateGreekcommentator.
i
8 THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC 9
doubted on various grounds, in particularbecause it is absent from the early To return to book K. As Freudenthal pointed out, its contents are
manuscripts and editions of the Latin translation (Bouyges, Notice, pp.CXI summarized under the name ofbook Yii' on page 1404,1-8. It would indeed
CXIl). This, of course, is no reason at all. What is more important is to be odd ifIbn Rushd had merely copied out Alexander without realising that
determine to what extent itscontents go back to Alexander. Freudenthal did this paragraph did not correspond to anything in his text ofthe Metaphysics.
not include it among the fragments, but his decision seems to be based on a On the other hand, had he decided to leave K on one side on the very good
misunderstanding.12 Ibn Rushd says explicity that it is a talkhfs, i.e. a grounds that it is a mere doublet ofsome earlierchapters ofthe Metaphysics
summary or resume. Ibn Rushd did not cling to the letter of Alexander's and ofthe Physics, hewould probablyhavesaidsoexpressly. In thisconfused
words. As we shall seelater(p.21-22), thereisat least onepoint on which the state ofaffairs, I think there is no sufficient evidence to decide whether book
doctrines ofthe proemcan beshown to bein accord with Alexander's theses. K had been translated into Arabic or not.16 But in view of the fact that
But Ibn Rushd interspersedAlexander's text with remarks ofhis own. Sucha neither Kii/ nor its contents are mentioned in the summary placed at the
one is the reference to the absence ofbook Kiif This clearly was not written beginning of book Ziiy (pp. 744-745), I think it is more likely that K was
by Alexander whose text ofthe Metaphysics cannot have been very different I never translated, or at any rate did not figure in any ofthe versions used by
from ours. As Freudenthal saw, (op. cit., pp. 128-130), this absence ofKii/is Ibn Rushd. The absence ofM and N in the commentary, on the otherhand,
due to the fact that in the Syriac order ofthe letters which was preserved by may be due to the fact that their subject-matter was the same as that ofthe
the Arabs for numeration (the so-called abjadorder, cf. EF s.v. abdjad) and latter part ofA, or to Ibn Rushd's death. That the Ta/sfr ofthe Metaphysics
I
according to which the books ofthe Metaphysics were generally designated, is a late work is guaranteed by the author's own declaration (1664,2-3);
(if we judge from Ibn Rushd's commentary),13 there is one more letter ! moreover, the end ofLam showsclearsigns ofhasteand incompleteness; the
between A and L than in Greek: Wiiw. The reason why the first translator comments devoted to the last two chapters, particularly the very .important
1
(probably the Syriac translator) ascribed the letter Lam to A is not far to chapter 9, appear extremely sketchy compared with the large scale of the
seek; first ofall, as we have seen, Aconstitutes a more or less self-contained work's earlier part; finally, the last pages are not even preserved in Arabic.
I
whole and was sometimes translated independently ofthe other books ofthe While this last fact could easily be explained by reference to the poor
Metaphysics, in which case the necessity ofa continuous numeration ofthe condition of the unique Arabic manuscript, the hypothesis that Ibn Rushd
books did not impose itself. Furthermore, the correspondence A = liim is left the work unfinished would account for all these peculiarities together.
I
straightforward whereas there are no obvious equivalents to H, El or even I. Here again, no certainty can be reached, but it is a possibility worth keeping
Thecase ofZ is similarto that ofA; Ibn Rushd refers to it as Ziiy (1463,II; in mind.
1464,6; etc. Cf. Bouyges' index B s.v. maqiila). For the titles ofthe books, Themistius was held in very high esteem by most Arab philosophers
Bouyges in his edition uses the names given to them in the marginal i becausehiscommentaries(or ratherparaphrases)were relatively short(unlike
annotationsofV, in which/fii' Tii'and Yii'havebeenchosenas approximate ! Simplicius' commentaries for instance), clearand faithful to Aristotle. Ofthe
equivalents or "translations" of the Greek H, E> and I. But it is well to ~ Metaphysics he does not appear to have commented on more than book A.
i
remember that Ibn Rushd very seldom designates the books by their names, His paraphrase has been known for a long time through the Hebrew and
presumably because he was aware ofthe difficulties they entailed,14 and that ! Latin translations wmch derive directly from the Arabic version used by Ibn
when he does so, his usage is very erratic. At 1431, 6, Tii = I, but at 1439,9 Rushd. Ibn an-Nadimascribesit to Mattii, buthisnoticeonthis pointis very
Tii = ElY confused; he seems to have mixed it up with Alexander's commentary. He
says: "Mattiitranslated book Lam withThemistius'commentary". This does
12 Ibn Rushd announces (1395,9-11)hisintention tosummarizewhat"he"saysinorderto
expl~n(ta-0fm) the contents ofthe otherbooks ofthe Metaphysics. Although tajhfm is not a
certamreadm~(cf.ap'p. crit.),itisquiteclearthatthesubjectofqalamustbeAlexander, whose
nameappearsImmediatelybeforehand(1395,8). Freudenthal'semendationtalkhfsfforlalkhfsihi doingthiscaused the reference to beerroneousin thesystem he hadhimselfadopted, in which
makesthesentenceungrammatica~butappearstogivethesensehewishestoobtain. Again:at /fii' = H.
!heendoftheproem,hiidha'l-rajul(1405,10)mustbeAlexander,sinceAristotle'snameappears 16 Book Kissummarizedbyal-Fiiriibi, Aghriit!ai-flak/m, underthetitle"thetenthmaqiila",
Justbelow(1405,11 and 12). butthesingleshortsentencewhichpurportstodothis("distinctionbetweentheprinciplesofthis
13 Inparticularintheproem, butcf. below. scienceanditsaccidents")haspracticallynorelationwiththeactualcontentsofK. Inanycase,
14 Thefact~h~tat.1402-1403,hedealswith WiiwandZiiy(= Zand H)underoneheading the occurence ofa resume of K in al-Fiiriibi's tract need not prove anything more than its
anddoesnotdistlngwshbetweenthecontentsofeachbookperhapsreflectshisembarrassment. occurenceinIbnRushd'sproem,sincebothauthorsseemtobeepitomizingepitomesratherthan
IS Cf. 1439n.3.Bouygesemendedthetextofthems.toharmonizeitwiththeproem,butby Aristotle'stextitself.
ID
THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC THE METAPHYSICS IN ARABIC 11
oAThAcfdgpwspAbnaifoheelohlsheIrhoeneesrnAiotermxiicnptxmteaacrsnrlrataiatrtshestmasisienoarhneptsrnatawtdtcapodyttailrepipiaekoeeue,earuhodhhnrn'eerrngasasn'hyr;cs,s'ihvlabanssmwalbtoecfseeaeipnpuocoaoefnosxtassseryto,nmsrtbstra.dehseemtsaewifhmewenutepeFtaehieirnsrlh"seitsuamiypletthpwenraanrhdrasoloTnbttapiidwoaohassutdscouhtcuehreiechoteerbenewyst"rr,oamsalg.mibsaointl,bleotesesewTifo(htoeeihsndloothdtetimarahTeitreeyciuidtwpashustg,lmtslsrnoesiehhowceo,fdtimbailnlpvTrsIonchyecbyaSgteaihhaakbi~gusnroup1ehtrntematetlAmtsimrfato1tpeuvarIvoehq.tpwcohiseaibhnensaBbshrrryrnltetoete.nafeiaseordvusdiidRSdltenclwtis:ehgoaliftIdauj,bovioleuiiwofelseliysnweiinlsysnchcivgatasedmtebIa1densaiydbi7itkoenesnenmAhfnslnecAaf.rfesuaaaJnurlio-nacSurnr8iqsnsmfisviacuefdmisnuaddtbnerunifocgiooy;fiuamstctltcisem.ni.alacecn2eoa1slo,htia0guv9tekeflthfneanfrishotgIhaonsrtohdeb(isbrifugerembeinaiilqsgorneayAenamsunhltxRomdmtoleiatactetfwuhreoeaneilxicnpoesntyfdafahotsslpaanranqetidtrhm.avhbdhglibnu4,aygneileieeeeo7sesa,isorosntu),r.lntr.sipastahizbyhthoeotlahAeHieitamannrorhaosevonaniesgoentnesfef ) cbRbtirpirFhBSteotammheeaoeeiomwurueslsfifnfeskcspespsseeoabfsulihhrhamorsidrrniaedotldrdb,ereshrnaaacibete.lesnteecbhenna,ilgcIdeoda;ouycbtborw,rhntnteelnfmyhtetiadi,rahonhlte.oltlptoett'eihmRsAoeslp"dhraaeltweoeuielauthttewsiterasutogtmehahtlhhhahruineersabridpetoetlymecpeoasdllhvrchehahswaeprcrtatimapeothremattwiairstfterenmfcshueaateairaaol,nttsstnealhbawhaoyuiloiyaolyrfmemmfoesneucuIprsvlesntbatrukwettcahe;ehbdnsavtugetrejhileleheebeentlyfkRelrrcoesaohM.stottoliuurhehmaetArh~esbhdayermtesthajhetevasliehgndiapmtebeeptcdesaoeofhtflitehmuwoosflotykavoyaatlohdflhsrlhisoripfkiumidiotshct~oeitahneitionisextnoneed~dsb"hmtaf,sroyetlimii,bitfehum(mnesnaoeepeesedpmfrliaxpuans.ttllen5nhiopelptocaatgr-ar3yweloepnrs;eF,iohtcooygtpaaiftAipnosiwaahttnrafialhtlramfuseinytehhdksmesbtrgihstaiiaAesiennlaacadgt~nta)gnhgraaniieh,issenesidnafssdmtastsdUntwhieitosnderidsveicosIhtndaxieelobtitaeewianlpanchnnnf.usnltdlwhhelch2alUtoaSi.Il3amhec~tucnpfStiesslohnfhdcorIee~Ftvreeaehwsealdaacefcu.xoeafosmlrslplrrqnNewaiufyWplylttsaurIgIhdltt.hoC.br.eIieheetaeoyl2ttwnnIhdyee~ss2sr.tf
attentive readingofIbnSinawouldprobablyshowthathis use ofThemistius
was moreextensive than thevery few explicit references would let us assume.
TrehleevpaanrtacphharpatseersoifnLtahme Kw.aasl-aMlsiolaolnweao-'fl-aNli-lS}ahla(h1r1a,s1ta2n0i'asnmda1in54s)o.urcesfor the Ale22x23anFTdraeehrui'isdfuectno,tmh1a8ml4,efnTot.pa.Bryocuiitsy.,ginepds.i;f1fT1ea2r,fesninrtl,.y71.c6a5Ilb2len,5dfsRTh.uasrh~d(1r5e4fe5r,s12t)oanhdistatfasfisrir(1a4s13s,h1a6r~etca.)t.T16h3e8t,1w0~.
mpheiTtlaohpeshoypEshpiycitso,hmoaenvetohfetetsnhode-ecdaMlleetotdapErhpeyliystoi,cmsf.eor(Utnatlhtikelhiir~n)opwore,fstehmneotaMsttieotsantpuhdoyefsnictIssb,2no1fRbAeucsraahubdsi'ecs ("ttcheMLremiBvdseodrulyetyhgeeCean~srl,mymNsdeeoeantmittceaew,rtoyep"pwb,.eoLnXuiolXndtXteIhhr-iaLcsvhXeaXtanXtfgosIIeirapa,bonlwsdet.ouXulTaCldtoVeInIfa-ooXrrgtCuVihteIeIiIlf)tp,hitaamntwadestrthweearhrtsoa~.tVlheiseenrrdkyensolduiwetptSlpneIogdrnistoaettkeossnnoFIowrbetnnutdaaRleblnyuotsuhWhta1d.lt.I~sst
it provides a conveniently short and systematic presentation of the subject, hypothesis.
thussparingthemorepainfultask ofextractingitfromthelong-windedpages
ofthe Taftir. This is despite the fact that doubts concerning its authenticity
had already been raised by Nardi, and then by Bouyges himself. Its authen
ticity, on the other hand, was defended, not unnaturally, by Horten, but he
did not adduce any evidence in support ofhis opinion; van den Bergh does
not even appearto beaware oftheproblem.
I have not attempted a detailed comparison ofthe doctrinal tendencies of
the talkhi~ with those of the taftir, but it is evident at first sight that the
talkh4, onsomecapital points,standsincompleteopposition not only to the
17 A.Badawl,Aris!ii<hula '{-'Arab,Cairo 1947,pp.12-21 and329-333.
18 cr.Badawf,op.cit.,introd.,pp.(15)-(17)andLandauer's00.ofThemistius,praefatio,p.v;
Bouyges,Notice,pp.cxxxn-exxxlII.
I. InhiscommentaryonLam,ed.Badawl,op.cit.,pp.26-27.
20 Cf. 1436,9-10;1413,16.Comparealsop.1593withp.18Landauer.
21 Ed. O. Amln, Cairo 1958; Germantrans!. by M.Horten, Halle 1912; S. van den Bergh,
Leiden 1924.
13
THE AIMS OF METAPHYSICS
but not m the case of the first cause whose essence it is to be uncaused.
However in the summary of the contents of the Metaphysics, the word
CHAPTERTWO "cause" (sabab) replaces "principles"; this science is an "inquiry into the
causes" (1397,9; 14). Alexander remains faithful in this to Aristotle's pro
THE AIMS OF METAPHYSICS cedure: toknow somethingis toknowits causes(cf. e.g. thefirst sentence of
the Physics).
Substanceis the principle ofthebeingwhichis outside the soul(1402,6-7);
parpeApvatiroeutnhstebaobpoepkgrsionvonaifnlt,gheqouMfotehetasispAhiynlsetirxcoasdndudeceatril'ostnwsaittyohintbghoeotchkhaatL,raacwmteh,reirsIebtaincsssRooufmsbheedin,ogfwqtiuhthae awonfhcwaethiisicshthpeirtocbisoanbodluyirtioaminmeaontfotexbdiyestteethrnmicsein,sletih.g3ehtslyupmpoyrstteorifobuesinegxppreerssseio,nthiesttrhuaetnsautbusrte
fAitsbniiureolsbeicntnxsogtaomba,nfenpdiacblneeeordgt.o(o;eikTu.aeabh.gnlLerdetehakeaemiimifnmfedifdrnisoirottssfcftwitumhbspiteesmhheinimsologovetsiahtwtoabsepphlrehhipcdyyrhmesincidohcclevaaaiapersllarlis,eptnisrqoowiunnraiicstGrnhiyppdo,lrdedepists)fahefra(eret1nvir3ceedp9undr4cltiani,an9r"ucl-cisy1tpleh0ailseen)s.sscGebaTsonorheonfioeskokfttchLbotebeaenexmicfnttei,ghropsi"es tf emfqhiluirsogsaAethvwfbeetshesreetier(nnrcogetsrbhi,.b(jee1biltec4estlt0cous3iawdnu,n1y,bt3shpoo)te.na,7fnlas2yscen)uen.ddbsesif(btsi1anil4gnea0nclwl4aey,to1ebcr3elo)tdgm.hienaeAnsssdltptthhhhieasoeturseegeoxthpfoiltnfahtnhetmhiasgetoieoteinfnoxiexpnroeradfedlsitrphsseitreoacorntpplsrye,iirnsbwtciyeihnpsitolcheothesffopibsonfeu.mittnnhhdgeee
(o1f39o6n,e1s5in),gilencrleuadlimngo"fmbeenitnagl,bneainmgesl"y(iambsmtraatcetricaolnbceeipntgs),,oitristhneootlotghye,scwiehnicche paWssaegemaisyaotbvsearrviaenctheawt itthhethhieeruasrcuhayl colafsbsiefiincgatiuosnedofbyArIibsntotRleu.sThdhem.I~tthtIe.sr
tqttapiotmhhhnuhcofeeecaoastittsshlodkhbitaiebbeniettsGjnltioteeenitewsrcsrgn.ecttolloeiieasorcekdFnanfdbmgudtcciteeereshooigfttnemhiriot(rneghe1rssmgiartc4ieiumtimn0essei,un0sosnpth,ubtcrhn1oaebseeo6trrt,sotate-otsa1tranaoohfns4lncunebt0ecablle1,eay"fei,,(tannAie1Iinngdne)r4lga..ex0AlttxiA1ohhOfsarl,tegel8oeinntnix-hmdlcrcg1yeaoaea0antrulio)ebl"dng.nugyecfhestoTerrsevrkorhihneayidnweusorneoetsorndhm,wfiteoknhabsilsfiengeoiynunsbgmdbstoseesasoeilfaitiniunalnommglmlsns,f,iicesokntibietth.idsaase,eneetp.idmitirnhsohdisngtyonausasr,toaallieusiulcftwkoinhsttseebhiyepvt(eoheabaesoirecnlrerts-firusiggfionadbicvhcblgeylieiaasjiiuelyniboalsmcagiyyetftt csmstndowwttoiuouuaafnTotndfdtrssee-hriiiidseraerddeeiesidneaevnptlrtuiietahsstn;ndhrbiratoceeupthbthnehteheyfasse,yodonrdsoaleougiaidnrcflexefe.sinaresdocbo,pTraipeoltrvahlenhe(msiJehsetsa"npiaatocnUmevlgslnedcea,aeeteysenssiasosilnsenteyn,fiapsoyAradabniAoclriroeyfaficribfsoitnibemtsejdfgoereteeocateianlnntttnieciltengttvae'c.Irst.el'tiirsi,ITdanoMeaeblhds;tnntee.eeuhtit5tdrnacahemtlegpiheard,hiiubnoryrtdebobeshoieljilenne(acoiragnocstgeintgmoy(sadEn;bso4oi,ynhu2tfooi)smgf,nItibhhmenebaenxeatuaslihkltsttsyei)Rttnofeem,oukdunrras;ilcmnhteottidhadeh;cfnetesatobdI.hpraSofeeehrbisbbyenyqjteeeUgsniaiticnn.hIcort.tIgegesseSt
ctf""ahiipp/rpesr-rSlitiemnonesacmsc.xquiip~Wpepburllsedecehtsasao"as;nnito(ocfm1fhnue3e,sab9i"beobm4nidne,nea1acgcy2)oie.s)mq.shFusceaaarosvereryabmtiehefpeiadnairdt,gon"piihisnneegmrhrltmeaeeiesariassdnn:"ndse,dtn(ihstaohee/uls-esuhgfeimsohrwaswumtht,rnoeerbaesbtye/,ye-elrbidtmiwhlye]e,fihqitanwhastii)ehtmiaeoanununtsl,eteaax1phnpo3paer9flsoei5esut,nhsd1sieo3out.noswpeTrlotiihhknoredee f dcmcbmbeoeereairisrdntntiraegggetirines.niopaalnTybtoleehensdatiedwtnesbrtldeseoyemeaniwtlemhIahbdepmnenihfsriayfnetitrsRgceatiuhcruiigslhesatehhyloartdefbnib,.osjdeerbiAocwnmetfsgsafinee.ro6atgrdaefpddTrmoheihussbyaettuystishlniitcfdect,ishmter,imesotaitnassthitaeechbdcnseeoedsmtangwondruateahdtledi,kecnteihsnedte,evdhsi.iitsudnroeme"dsnn~tavteteikleaaiyidrldnnseaagdifonnliscicfdw,nileuafaontodncuhtredclemsdi(dntms?ieb~tIinguhSoqlituta.~IhasS)"l
"principles"in this caseare probably to betaken as meaning something like
"essential properties".2 Elsewhere the sense of"cause" is more appropriate,
3 Ifthis passage. as is probable. is based on Alexander, it is another goo~ refutation of
Merlan's contention (Metaphysik, Name und Gegenstand) that by bemg qua beIng, Alexander
I~Dppte21br.enlCsabfln..bionRthupsathrodtitchdueolaeprsnPn~.oC~Mlpaelelrwl(aamny,asbFsdrtoaicm)kwPthloaicttohhneiissmdeexfaitnnedirtnioaMlneatganipdvhenytosiaktth,eN15ae2lme4me.8ea-1nn0td(GtUheSag!tueqncuasstusa)snedw.(hsiacbhabis) mpaer6a4,tincCcCsurfrl.t..ahAtrRehcoref.asi,srssse,uMtmoAepftrmr.i,tisahntEroecy,itplsIeool.'ef-scboaMolnleoleytkda;pZmihteyatsstaihcpo1shw,4y0sIs,2ict,p5ha-.a38gt5.e5tnhe.eraslicsi.ence ofpure forms, i.e. theology, is only a