Arabic philosophy

in Porphyre, La vie de Plotin, vol. II, ed. L. Brisson et al. (Paris:

1992), 31–57.

3 Porphyry commented upon the Categories (Commentaria in Aristotelem

Graeca [hereafter CAG] IV 1), On Interpretation, the

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Greek into Arabic 27

Sophistical Refutations, the Physics, and theNicomachean Ethics. The

fragments are edited in Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, ed. A. Smith

(Stuttgart: 1993).

4 Porphyre, Isagoge, ed. A. de Libera and A.-Ph. Segonds (Paris: 1998).

5 C. Evangeliou, Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry (Leiden: 1988);

H. D. Saffrey, “Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il ’edit ’e Plotin?”

6 In his autobiography, Avicenna says that his teacher al-N¯atil¯ı taught

him logic, starting with the Isagoge (see D. Gutas, Avicenna and the

AristotelianTradition: Introduction to Reading Avicenna’s Philosophical

Works [Leiden: 1988], 25).

7 L. G. Westerink, J. Trouillard, and A.-Ph. Segonds (eds.), Prol´egom`enes

a` la philosophie de Platon (Paris: 1990), 39.16–26.

8 Marinus, Proclus ou sur le bonheur, ed. H. D. Saffrey, A.-Ph. Segonds,

and C. Luna (Paris: 2001), sect. 13. Syrianus was also the first Platonist

to comment at length upon Aristotle’s Metaphysics (CAG VI 1).

In his commentary, he systematically had recourse to Alexander of

Aphrodisias’ exegesis: see C. Luna, Trois ´etudes sur la tradition des

commentaires anciens a` la “Me´ taphysique” d’Aristote (Leiden: 2001).

See also my “Commenting on Aristotle: From Late Antiquity to Arab

Aristotelianism,” inW. Geerlings and C. Schulze (eds.), Der Kommentar

in Antike und Mittelalter: Beitra¨ ge zu seiner Erforschung (Leiden:

2002), 201–51.

9 Proclus’ commentaries on the First Alcibiades (ed. Segonds, 1985),

Cratylus (ed. Pasquali, 1908), Republic (ed. Kroll, 1899), Timaeus (ed.

Diehl, 1903–6), and Parmenides (ed. Cousin, 1864) have come down

to us.

10 H. D. Saffrey, “Accorder entre elles les traditions th’eologiques: une

caract’eristique du n’eoplatonisme ath’enien,” in E. P. Bos and P. A.

Meijer (eds.), On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy

(Leiden: 1992), 35–50.

11 H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink, Proclus: Th´eologie platonicienne,

vols. I–VI (Paris: 1968–97).

12 Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. E. R. Dodds (Oxford: 1963).

13 Proclus, Elements of Theology, proposition 132, 118.2–4.

14 This is the case with Ammonius, the teacher of the school of Alexandria,

whose father Hermias was a fellow disciple of Proclus at Syrianus’

classes, and who studied in Athens before getting the chair in Alexandria.

In turn, Damascius was educated in Alexandria by Ammonius,

but succeeded Proclus as the head of the Platonic school in Athens.

15 Against K. Praechter, who in 1910 argued for a doctrinal difference

between the Neoplatonic circles of Athens and Alexandria, I. Hadot,

Le probl`eme du n´eoplatonisme alexandrin: Hi ´ erocl `es et Simplicius

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

28 cristina d’ancona

(Paris: 1978), called attention to the fact that the two circles focused

on different steps of the curriculum. The lack of theological speculation

in the works of the Alexandrian Neoplatonists does not imply

that they held different metaphysical doctrines; they simply addressed

preliminary topics without direct theological import.

16 See the entry “Ammonius” by H. D. Saffrey and J.-P. Mah’e in Goulet

[20], vol. I, 168–70.

17 See P. Hoffmann, “Damascius,” in Goulet [20], vol. II, 541–93.

18 Simplicius, Commentaire sur le “Manuel” d’Epict `ete, ed. I. Hadot, vol.

I (Paris: 2001). Now translated in Simplicius, On Epictetus’Handbook,

trans. T. Brennan and C. Brittain, 2 vols. (London: 2003).

19 Categories: CAG VIII 1; Physics: CAG IX and X; De Caelo: CAG VII.

20 See Hoffmann, “Damascius.”

21 H. D. Saffrey, “Le chr’etien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l’ ’ecole

d’Alexandrie au VIe si ` ecle,” Revue des ´etudes grecques 67 (1954),

396–410.

22 Against eternalism John Philoponus wrote De Aeternitate Mundi contra

Proclum (ed. Rabe, 1899) and a treatise against Aristotle, lost but

quoted by both Simplicius and al-F ¯ar¯ab¯ı. See Philoponus, Against Aristotle

on the Eternity of the World, trans. C. Wildberg (London: 1987).

23 R. Sorabji (ed.), Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science

(London: 1987); K. Verrycken, “The Development of Philoponus’

Thought and its Chronology,” inR. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed:

The Ancient Commentators and their Influence (London: 1990), 233–

74, and “Philoponus’ Interpretation of Plato’s Cosmogony,” Documenti

e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8 (1997), 269–318;

U. M. Lang, John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon

in the Sixth Century (Leuven: 2001).

24 Agathias, Hist. II.31.2–4 (81.8–21 ed. Keydell); see also Hoffmann,

“Damascius,” 556–9; M. Tardieu, “Chosro` es,” in Goulet [20], vol. II,

309–18.

25 J. Teixidor, “Les textes syriaques de la logique de Paul le Perse,” Semitica

47 (1997), 117–38; “La d’edicace de Paul le Perse `a Chosro` es,” in J. D.

Dubois and B. Roussel (eds.), Entrer en mati `ere: les Prologues (Paris:

1997), 199–208.

26 Gutas [58].

27 For instance, Bardaisan (154–222) wrote in Syriac. Cf. J. Teixidor,

“Bardesane de Syrie,” in Goulet [20], vol. II, 54–63.

28 J. Teixidor, “Introduzione,” in Storia della scienza, IV, I, La scienza

siriaca (Rome: 2001), 7.

29 K. Georr, Les Cat ´egories d’Aristote dans leurs versions syro-arabes

(Beirut: 1948); Endress [54], 407–12; H. Hugonnard-Roche, “L’interm

’ediaire syriaque dans la transmission de la philosophie grecque `a

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Greek into Arabic 29

l’arabe: le cas de l’Organon d’Aristote,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy

1 (1991), 187–209.

30 S. Brock, “From Antagonismto Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek

Learning,” in N. G. Garso‥ıan, T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson

(eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period

(Washington, D.C.: 1982), 17–39; “The Syriac Commentary Tradition,”

in Burnett [50], 3–18.

31 H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Les Cat ´egories d’Aristote comme introduction

`a la philosophie dans un commentaire syriaque de Sergius de Resh‘ayn¯a

(†536),” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8

(1997), 339–63; “Note sur Sergius de Resh‘ayn¯ a, traducteur du grec en

syriaque et commentateur d’Aristote,” in Endress and Kruk [55], 121–

43.

32 H.Hugonnard-Roche, “La tradizione della logica aristotelica,” in Storia

della scienza, IV, I, 18.

33 See Gutas [76].

34 A. Elamrani-Jamal and H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Aristote: l’Organon.

Tradition syriaque et arabe,” in Goulet [20], vol. I, 502–28; H.

Hugonnard-Roche, “Les traductions syriaques de l’Isagoge de Porphyre

et la constitution du corpus syriaque de logique,” Revue d’histoire des

textes 24 (1994), 293–312.

35 D. Miller, “George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, On True Philosophy,”

Aram 5 (1993), 303–20.

36 See Gutas [58], 61–9.

37 H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Remarques sur la tradition arabe de l’Organon

d’apr`es le manuscrit Paris, Biblioth`eque Nationale, ar. 2346,” in Burnett

[50], 19–28.

38 Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s testimony comes from the lost work The Blossoms of Philosophy.

See Endress [54], 411 and Gutas [58].

39 M. Meyerhof, “Von Alexandrien nach Bagdad: Ein Beitrag zur

Geschichte des philosophischen und medizinischen Unterrichts bei

den Arabern,” Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Philologisch-historische Klasse (1930), 389–429.

40 See Gutas [58].

41 C. Hein, Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie: von der

spa¨ tantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopa¨die (Frankfurt

a. M.: 1987).

42 In the account mentioned above, n. 38, al-F ¯ar¯ab¯ı reports that the two

pupils of the last teacher of philosophy in Antioch were from Marw

and from H.

arr ¯an, and that when they left Antioch, they took the

books with them. It has been claimed thatH.

arr ¯an was the place where

Simplicius settled after having left Ctesiphon and where he wrote his

commentaries on Aristotle (M. Tardieu, “Les calendriers en usage `a

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

30 cristina d’ancona

H.

arr ¯an, d’apr`es les sources arabes, et le commentaire de Simplicius

`a la Physique d’Aristote,” in I. Hadot [ed.] Simplicius: sa vie, son

oeuvre, sa survie [Berlin: 1987], 40–57), but this claim has been convincingly

criticized by J. Lameer, “From Alexandria toBaghdad: Reflections

on the Genesis of a Problematical Tradition,” in Endress and Kruk

[55], 181–91, and by C. Luna, review of R. Thiel, Simplikios und das

Ende der neuplatonischen Schule in Athen, in Mnemosyne 54 (2001),

482–504.

43 See Gutas [58].

44 See Endress [54], continuation in W. Fischer (ed.), Grundriss der arabischen

Philologie, vol. III (Wiesbaden: 1992), 3–152.

45 See Endress [53]; Endress [67].

46 Due to space limitations, I cannot give the exact reference for

each item in Kita¯b al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadı¯m, which is the main

source of this table. Some items are not recorded in it: Plotinus’

Enneads IV–VI (ed. Dieterici, 1882, and Badaw¯ı, 1966); Iamblichus’

commentary on the Carmen Aureum (ed. H. Daiber, Neuplatonische

Pythagorica in arabischem Gewande: der Kommentar des

Iamblichus zu den “Carmina Aurea” [Amsterdam: 1995]); pseudo-

Dionysius the Areopagite (see S. Lilla in Goulet [20], vol. II, 727–

42, at 729); the Prolegomena by David-Elias (see Hein, Definition

und Einteilung der Philosophie); the anonymous In De Anima

(see R. Arnzen, Aristoteles’ De Anima: eine verlorene spa¨ tantike

Paraphrase in arabischer und persischer U¨ berlieferung [Leiden:

1998]).

47 English translation by G. Lewis, in Plotini Opera, ed. P. Henry and

H.-R. Schwyzer, vol. II (Paris: 1959), 486–7.

48 See my “Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle, Chapter I: Structure and

Composition,” Oriens 36 (2001), 78–112.

49 F. W. Zimmermann, “The Origins of the So-called Theology of Aristotle,”

in Kraye, Ryan, and Schmitt [60], 110–240.

50 H.-R. Schwyzer, “Die pseudoaristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-

Ausgabe des Porphyrios,” Museum Helveticum 90 (1941), 216–36.

51 I have argued in favor of the influence of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

on this formula in “L’influence du vocabulaire arabe: causa

prima est esse tantum,” in J. Hamesse and C. Steel (eds.), L’ ´ elaboration

du vocabulaire philosophique au Moyen Age (Turnhout: 2001),

51–97.

52 Ed. Bardenhewer, 1882 and Badaw¯ı, 1955. English translation in

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Causes, trans. V. A.

Guagliardo, C. R. Hess, and R. C. Taylor (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Greek into Arabic 31

53 See my “Al-Kind¯ı et l’auteur du Liber de Causis,” in D’Ancona [51],

155–94, and my “Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle, Chapter I.”

54 My warmest thanks are due to Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor

for correcting the English of this paper. Steven Harvey read a first draft

of it and made many useful remarks; my warmest thanks are due to

him too. I am solely responsible for any weaknesses.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

peter adamson

3 Al-Kind¯ı and the reception

of Greek philosophy

The previous chapter has given some sense of the enormous impact of

the translation movement during the ‘Abb¯asid caliphate, which rendered

Greek works of science and literature into Arabic.1 The translation

of what we would now consider to be properly philosophical

works was only a small part of this movement. Translation of philosophy

went hand in hand with the translation of more “scientific”

texts, such as the medical writings of Galen and the astronomical

and mathematical works of Euclid, Ptolemy, and others. Under the

‘Abb¯asids the most important group of translators, in terms of sheer

output and the quality of their translations, was that of the ChristianH.

unayn ibn Ish. ¯aq (808–873 C.E.), and his son Ish. ¯aq ibnH.

unayn

(died 910 C.E.).H.

unayn and his school produced many translations,

including of works by Plato and Aristotle (especially the logical corpus);

particularly important to H.

unayn himself were translations

of Galen, which formed the basis for H.unayn’s own treatises on

medicine.2

A second, slightly earlier group was that gathered around the person

of Abu¯ Yu¯ suf Ya‘qu¯ b ibn Ish. a¯q al-Kindı¯ (died about 870 C.E.). Al-

Kind¯ı’s circle did not produce as many translations as the H.

unayn

circle, yet some of the works they did translate were of immense

importance in determining the Arabic reception of Greek philosophical

thought. It is quite likely that the choice of which texts to translate

was guided in part by the philosophical concerns of al-Kind¯ı

and his collaborators. The translations took various forms. Some

stay close to the text yet are awkward compared to H.

unayn’s productions,

which were marked by superior method (e.g., the collation

of numerous manuscripts) and a more advanced and consistent

technical terminology.3 An example is the translation of Aristotle’s

32

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Al-Kind¯ı 33

Metaphysics written in al-Kind¯ı’s circle.4 Other translations were

relatively loose paraphrases of their source texts. Here considerable

liberties were taken with the Greek sources, whose Arabic versions

might be differently arranged and even include original elaborations

written by members of the translation circle. Examples include a

paraphrase of Aristotle’s De Anima,5 the famous Theology of Aristotle,

and the Book on the Pure Good (known in Latin as the Liber

de Causis).

The approach used in these interpretive paraphrases gives us an

initial indication of the aims of the translation movement as far as

al-Kind¯ı was concerned. Al-Kind¯ı himself did not make translations,

and it is quite possible that he could not even read Greek. Rather, he

oversaw the work of the translators, and drew on the results in his

own writings.6 Al-Kind¯ı described his own project as the attempt to

“supply completely what the ancients said . . . and to complete what

they did not say comprehensively, in accordance with the custom of

language and the practices of the time” (103.9–11). This required the

production of a new philosophical vocabulary in Arabic, a process

that began in al-Kind¯ı circle translations and that al-Kind¯ı furthered

in his original compositions. For example, a treatise On the Definitions

and Descriptions of Things, which is most likely by al-Kind¯ı,

provides an overview of the new Arabic philosophical terminology,

with definitions based on Greek sources. As we will see, al-Kind¯ı’s

advertisement of Greek thought also meant showing the relevance

of philosophical ideas for solving contemporary problems, including

problems emerging from Islamic theology (kala¯m).

The works inwhich al-Kind¯ı pursued these goals were treatises of

varying length, in the formof epistles addressed to his sponsors (most

frequently the son of the caliph al-Mu‘tas.im). Al-Kind¯ı’s output was

vast. A list of his works shows that he wrote hundreds of treatises

in a startling array of fields, ranging from metaphysics, ethics, and

psychology (i.e., the study of the soul), to medicine, mathematics,

astronomy, and optics, and further afield to more practical topics

like perfumes and swords.7 Most of these treatises are lost, and those

that remain are a reminder of the fragility of the historical record of

this early period of Arabic thought: many of his philosophical works

survive only in a single manuscript.

Because of al-Kind¯ı’s avowed dependence on Greek philosophy,

the specificity of the topics he deals with in his treatises, and the

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

34 peter adamson

occasional inconsistency between his extant writings, it can be difficult

to see a novel and coherent system emerging from the Kindian

corpus. This is hardly surprising, given that al-Kind¯ı was attempting

to integrate numerous disparate strands of Greek philosophy, especially

Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism. The fact that he was even

able to undertake such a task with his relatively limited resources

can only be explained by the fact that, as we will see, the way had

been prepared for him by the late ancients. It was above all their

example that al-Kind¯ı followed in writing his own philosophical

works.

metaphysics as theology

Among these works the most complex and important is On First

Philosophy, which is a treatise in four parts (it seems originally to

have contained more material, which is now lost), dedicated to the

subject of metaphysics.8 The first part, which includes the statement

of purpose quoted above, is nothing less than a defense of Hellenism.

Al-Kind¯ı argues that Greek thought is to be welcomed, despite its foreign

provenance, because our own inquiry into the truth is greatly

assisted by those who have achieved truth in the past. Al-Kind¯ı also

does not omit to point out the relevance of Greek metaphysics for

his Muslimaudience. The study of metaphysics includes, and is even

primarily, the study of God: “the noblest part of philosophy and the

highest in degree is first philosophy, by which I mean the science

of the First Truth, Who is the cause of all truth” (98.1–2). This distillation

of metaphysics into theology affected the way that generations

of philosophers read Aristotle: later Avicenna said that reading

al-F ¯ar¯ab¯ı freed him from his misunderstanding of Aristotle’s Metaphysics,

and it has been plausibly suggested that themisunderstanding

in question was the Kindian interpretation that the work deals

primarily with God.9 Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, followed by Avicenna, held that first

philosophy is the study of being qua being, and only incidentally of

God. Al-Kind¯ı, by contrast, does not leave room for a sharp distinction

between theology and metaphysics.

Indeed, the surviving part of On First Philosophy ends climactically

with a statement of God’s nature. The path al-Kind¯ı takes to

that statement is somewhat surprising, however. Although allusions

to Aristotle proliferate in On First Philosophy, the work as a whole

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Al-Kind¯ı 35

contains two major elements, neither of which looks especially Aristotelian.

The first of these is in fact a rejection of Aristotle’s thesis

that the world is eternal. Al-Kind¯ı’s arguments here are drawn from

the avowedly anti-Aristotelian polemics of the late Greek Christian

Neoplatonist commentator John Philoponus.10 These arguments

attempt to show that the created world cannot be infinite.Time– and

therefore motion, since time is the measure of motion – must have a

beginning. In this al-Kind¯ı differs from the subsequent Aristotelian

tradition in Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes in particular are well

known for having defended Aristotle’s thesis of the eternal world.

The other major element of On First Philosophy is a discussion of

oneness (wah.

da). Al-Kind¯ı first shows that in the created world, all

things are characterized by both multiplicity and unity. For example,

things that have parts are both many (because the parts are numerous)

and one (because the parts form a whole). None of these things are a

“true unity,” by which al-Kind¯ı means something that is one in every

respect, and not multiple in any way. Rather, the created things have

a source of unity, something that is “essentially one,” which again

means utterly one, and not at all multiple.11 Al-Kind¯ı elaborates by

drawing on Aristotle’s Categories (and also on an introduction to

that work, the Isagoge, written by the Neoplatonist Porphyry) to

provide us with a comprehensive list of the sorts of thing that can be

said (maqu¯ la¯ t). These include accidents, species, genera, and various

others. Now, whatever is said of something, argues al-Kind¯ı, must

involve multiplicity. Sometimes this is obvious, as in the examples

“this elephant weighs two tons” and “this elephant is twenty years

old,” where we have as predicates weight and time, both of which are

divisible by measurement (in this case into two and twenty, respectively).