Bibliographie
Manuscripts
Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (no number).
Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Jarulllah 1721.
Paris, BnF, arabe 5321.
Primary Literature
Alexander of Aphrodisias (1891), Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Topicorum libros octo commentaria, ed. Maximilianus Wallies, Berlin, Reimer.
Aristoteles (1958), Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, ed. William D. Ross, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970.
Aristoteles (1961), De anima, ed. William D. Ross, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967.
Badawī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (1947-1952), Manṭiq Arisṭū, 3 vols., Cairo, Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya.
Euclid (1969-73), Elements, ed. Evangelos S. Stamatis (post J. L. Heiberg), 4 vols., Leipzig, Teubner.
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr (1988-90), Commentary on the Prior Analytics (Sharḥ al-Qiyās), edited by al-Manṭiqiyyāt li-l-Fārābī, 3 vols., Qom, Maktabat-i Āyatullāh al-ʿUẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī.
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr (1990), Book of Letters (Kitāb al-Ḥurūf), ed. with Introduction and Notes by Muḥsin Mahdī, Beirut, Dār al-Mashriq.
Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad (1871), Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. Gustav Flügel and Johannes Roediger, Leipzig, Verlag von F. C. W. Vogel.
Ibn Rushd, Abū l-Walīd (1979), Middle Commentary on the Topics (Talkhīṣ Kitāb al-Jadal), ed. Charles Butterworth and Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Majīd Harīdī, Cairo, The American Research Center in Egypt.
Jabr, Farīd (1999), al-Naṣṣ al-kāmil li-manṭiq Arisṭū, 2 vols., Beirut, Dār al-Fikr al-Lubnānī.
al-Ṭūsī, (Ps.-)Naṣīr al-Dīn (1594), Kitāb taḥrīr uṣūl li-Uqlīdis (Commentary on Euclid’s Elements). Roma, In Typographia Medicea.
Secondary Literature
Adamson, Peter (2018), “Dialectical Method in Alexander of Aphrodisias’ Treatises on Fate and Providence”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 54, p. 279-308.
Biesterfeldt, Hans Hinrich (1980), „Zum Kitāb al-Baḥṯ des Ğābir ibn Ḥaiyān“, Vorträge des XX. Deutschen Orientalistentages vom 3. bis 8. Oktober 1977 in Erlangen, hrsg. v. Wolfgang Voigt, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 4, Wiesbaden, Steiner, p. 206-7.
Brague, Rémi (1999), Thémistius, Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d’Aristote (livre lambda). Traduit de l’hébreu et de l’arabe, introduction, notes et indices, Paris, Vrin.
Brandis, Christian August (1833), „Über die Reihenfolge der Bücher des Aristotelischen Organons und ihre griechischen Ausleger, nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte des Textes jener Bücher des Aristoteles und ihrer Ausgaben“, Hist.-Phil. Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vorgelegt am 19. Dezember 1833, p. 249-99.
Castelli, Laura M. (2020) (trans.), Alexander of Aphrodisias: On Aristotle Topics 2, London, Bloomsbury.
Cüneyt Kaya, Mehmet (2020), “Abū Sahl al-Masīḥī and his Kitāb fī aṣnāf al-ʽulūm al-ḥikmiyya”, İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi - Journal of Islamic Review 10 (2), p. 467-99 (in Turkish).
D’Ancona, Cristina (2019), “Philoponus, or ‘Yaḥyā al-naḥwī’. An Overview”, Studia graeco-arabica 9, p. 203-43.
Dodge, Bayard (ed. and tr.) (1970), The Fihrist. A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, New York, Columbia University Press (1998 reprinted for the Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc. series).
Gannagé, Emma (trans.) (2005), Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle On Coming-to-Be and Perishing 2.2-5, London, Duckworth.
González Calderón, Juan Felipe (2014), Historia de la tradición textual del comentario de Alejandro de Afrodisias a los Tópicos de Aristóteles. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Departamento de Humanidades: Historia, Geografía y Arte.
Gutas, Dimitri (1998), Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ʿAbbāsid Society (2nd-4th / 8th-10th centuries), London, Routledge.
Hallum, Bink (2021), “New Light on Early Arabic Awfāq Literature”, in Liana Saif, Francesca Leoni, Matthew Melvin-Koushki, and Farouk Yahya (eds.), Islamicate Occult Sciences in Theory and Practice, Leiden, Brill, p. 57-162.
Hasnawi, Ahmed (2001), “Topic and Analysis: The Arabic Tradition”, in Robert W. Sharples (ed.), Whose Aristotle? Whose Aristotelianism?, Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 28-62.
Hasnawi, Αhmad (2007), « Boèce, Averroès et Abū al-Barakāt al-Baġdādī, témoins des écrits de Thémistius sur les Topiques d’Aristote », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 17 (2), p. 203-65.
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri (1993), « Remarques sur la tradition arabe de l’Organon d’après le manuscrit Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ar. 2346 », in Charles Burnett (ed.), Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts. The Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, London, The Warburg Institute, p. 19-28.
Koetschet, Pauline (2017), « Abū Bakr al-Rāzī et le signe : fragment retrouvé d’un traité logique perdu », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 27 (1), p. 75-114.
Kotzabassi, Sofia (1999), Byzantinische Kommentatoren der aristotelischen Topik. Johannes Italos & Leon Magentinos, ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ BYZANTINΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ 17, Thessaloniki, ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΒΑΝΙΑΣ.
Kraus, Paul (1935), Mukhtār rasāʾil Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān, Cairo, Maktabat al-Khānjī.
Kraus, Paul (1942), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān. Contribution à l’histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam (2 vols.), Jābir et la science grecque (vol. II), Cairo, Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Kraus, Paul (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān, Contribution à l’histoire des idées scientifiques dans l’Islam, 2 vols., Le corpus des écrits jābiriens (vol. I), Cairo, Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Lameer, Joep (1994), al-Fārābī & Aristotelian Syllogistics. Greek Theory & Islamic Practice, Leiden, Brill.
Peters, Francis Edward (1968), Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian Corpus, Leiden, Brill.
Rashed, Marwan (2015), al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā al-Nawbakhtī, Commentary on Aristotle De generatione et corruptione, Edition, Translation and Commentary, Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter.
Saif, Liana, “The Jābirian Kitāb al-Nukhab and Teaching the Science of Talismans in Medieval Islam”, forthcoming.
Spranzi, Marta (2011), The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric. The Aristotelian Tradition, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stump, Eleonore (1978), Boethius’s De topicis differentiis. Translated, with notes and essays on the text, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.
Usener, Hermann (1914), Kleine Schriften. Arbeiten zur griechischen Literaturgeschichte, Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Epigraphik, Chronologie, Dritter Band, Leipzig und Berlin, Teubner.
Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (trans.) (2001), Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle’s Topics 1, Ithaca and New York, Cornell University Press.
Wakelnig, Elvira (2020), „Ǧābir ibn Ḥayyān über die Autorenschaft der Präambel zu Euklids Elementen. Zur Definition und Finalität im Buch der Untersuchung (Kitāb al-Baḥṯ)“, Studia graeco-arabica 10, p. 217-26.
Wallies, Max (1891), „Die griechischen Ausleger der Aristotelischen Topik.“ Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des Sophien-Gymnasiums zu Berlin, Ostern 1891, p. 4-27.
Watt, John W. (2004), “Syriac Translators and Greek Philosophy in Early Abbasid Iraq”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4, p. 15-26.
Haut de page
Notes
Cf. Juan Felipe González Calderón (2014), Historia de la tradición textual del comentario de Alejandro de Afrodisias a los Tópicos de Aristóteles. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Getafe, Departamento de Humanidades: Historia, Geografía y Arte, Getafe, p. 455-6.
For a list of the surviving Greek manuscripts of Alexander’s commentary, see Juan Felipe González Calderón (2014), Historia de la tradición, p. 55-65, of which the earliest dates to the 12th century.
To my knowledge, the Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth is extant in three manuscripts: The Istanbul, Süleymaniye Jarullah 1721 (henceforth A), the incomplete and unordered Paris, BnF, arabe 5321 (henceforth Β) and an undated manuscript preserved in the private collection of Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī in Ankara (henceforth Γ). See also Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt (1980), “Zum Kitāb al-Baḥṯ des Ğābir ibn Ḥaiyān”, Vorträge des XX. Deutschen Orientalistentages vom 3. bis 8. Oktober 1977 in Erlangen , hrsg. v. Wolfgang Voigt, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 4, Wiesbaden, Steiner, p. 206-7. Parts of the Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth are edited in Paul Kraus (1935), Mukhtār rasāʾil Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān, Cairo, Maktabat al-Khānjī, p. 501-27. Paul Kraus (1942), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān. Contribution à l’histoire des idées scientifiques dans l’Islam (2 vols.), Jābir et la science grecque (vol. I), Cairo, Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale, points to the fact that Ps-Jābir quite regularly refers to the Greek commentary tradition. As for the Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth, Kraus explicitly mentions Alexander’s commentary on the Topics: “Notons à ce sujet que Jābir se réfère à plusieurs reprises au commentaire des Topiques par Alexandre d’Aphrodisias.” (320). Reproducing Kraus’s note, Francis Edward Peters (1968), Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian Corpus, Leiden, Brill, p. 22 also refers to Ps-Jābir’s Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth, writing: “Commentary of Alexander: His commentary is used in the “Book of Investigation” which forms part of the Jābir-corpus.” Paul Kraus (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān, Contribution à l’histoire des idées scientifiques dans l’Islam (2 vols.), Le corpus des écrits Jābiriens (vol. I), Cairo, Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale, p. 142-6, summarizes the content of Jābir’s Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth (= no1800). An edition, translation and commentary of the Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth is currently being prepared by Liana Saif. See also Saif’s forthcoming article, “The Jābirian Kitāb al-Nukhab and Teaching the Science of Talismans in Medieval Islam”.
For this view, see, for instance, Dimitri Gutas (1998), Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ʿAbbāsid Society (2nd-4th / 8th-10th centuries), London, Routledge, p. 67: “In this context, a handbook in Arabic that would teach the art of argumentation and disputation was clearly needed. Al-Mahdī must have had good advisors; they suggested nothing less than the work that started it all, Aristotle’s Topics.” See also the discussion of Gutas’s view in John W. Watt (2004), “Syriac Translators and Greek Philosophy in Early Abbasid Iraq”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4, p. 17-19.
Cf. Abū l-Faraj Muḥammad Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Kitāb al-Fihrist. Ed. Gustav Flügel and Johannes Roediger, Leipzig, Verlag von F. C. W. Vogel, p. 249. For an English translation (quoted above, modified), see Bayard Dodge (ed. and tr.) (1970), The Fihrist. A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, New York, Columbia University Press (1998 reprinted for the Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc. series), p. 601.
Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 249: wa-l-kitāb bi-tafsīr Yaḥyā naḥwa alf waraqa. Yaḥyā’s commentary on the Topics is also mentioned in Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, 264 as Kitāb tafsīr Kitāb Ṭūbīqā li-Arisṭūṭālīs maqālatuhu fī l-buḥūth al-arbaʿa. Bayard Dodge (1970), The Fihrist, p. 631, nt. 279 argues that one should separate maqālatuhu fī l-buḥūth al-arbaʿa from what precedes it and thus translated “A commentary on Aristotle’s book “Topica”; his treatise about the four investigations.” In contrast, based on Flügel’s edition, Francis Edward Peters (1968), Aristoteles Arabus, p. 22 translates “Commentary on the Book of Topics of Aristotle: a single tractate embracing four investigations.” Peters’s translation appears to be problematic, given that Yaḥyā’s commentary is not qualified as being organized in four investigations. Dodge’s decision to interpret the Arabic as a description of two different treatises seems therefore more appealing. Yaḥyā’s commentary is also mentioned (alongside Themistius’s) in Abū Sahl al-Masīḥī’s (d. after 1025) Kitāb fī aṣnāf al-ʿulūm al-ḥikmiyya. Cf. Mehmet Cüneyt Kaya (2020), “Abū Sahl al-Masīḥī and his Kitāb Fī aṣnāf al-ʽulūm al-ḥikmiyya”, İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi - Journal of Islamic Review 10/2, p. 496. See also Ahmad Hasnawi (2007), “Boèce, Averroès et Abū al-Barakāt al-Baġdādī, Témoins des écrits de Thémistius sur les Topiques d’Aristote”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 17, p. 207.
Both anecdotes are found in Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, 252-3. For an English translation, see Bayard Dodge (1970), The Fihrist, 608-9. The aforementioned Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh is also known as the translator of Top. VIII.
Ibn al-Nadīm, who refers to Yaḥyā b. ʿAdī on several occasions as his source, mentions, for instance, that Alexander’s commentary on the Posterior Analytics “is not extant.” Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 249.
Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 249. English translation by Bayard Dodge (1970), The Fihrist, p. 601 (slightly modified). Since the eighth book of the Topics is not concerned with topoi but rather with the question of how to organize one’s argumentation in a debate, the term mawḍiʿ here probably refers to chapter 12 of book VIII rather than the 12th ‘topos’. This would mean that, according to this account, Alexander’s commentary on the final two chapters of Top. VIII was not extant. On this, see also Ahmad Hasnawi, “Boèce, Averroès et Abū al-Barakāt al-Baġdādī”, p. 205-6, nt. 11.
The text tells us that “Isḥāq translated what Ammonius and Alexander commented upon from the book, and Abū ʿUthmān al-Dimashqī translated this book” (wa-qad tarjama hādhā l-kitāb Abū ʿUthmān al-Dimashqī). Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 249. Ibn al-Nadīm also mentions a commentary on the same portion of the Topics among Alexander’s writings. He seems to have taken the information from Yaḥyā’s account.
Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 249: wa-aṣlaḥtu ʿibārāt al-naqla li-hādhayni l-tafsīrayni. English translation by Bayard Dodge (1970), The Fihrist, p. 601 (slightly modified).
See also the account in Francis Edward Peters (1968), Aristoteles Arabus, p. 20. Eleonore Stump (1978), Boethius’s De topicis differentiis. Translated, with notes and essays on the text, Ithaca, London, Cornell University Press, p. 212 indicates that Boethius might have been familiar with Ammonius’s works, including the alleged commentary on the Topics: “If such a commentary by Ammonius did exist, and if the Ammonius in question is (as seems not implausible) Ammonius Hermiae, then it is possible that Boethius knew and used that commentary.” Marta Spranzi (2011), The Art of Dialectic between Dialogue and Rhetoric. The Aristotelian Tradition, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 39 already takes Ammonius’s commentary for granted and claims that Ammonius, together with Themistius, had a “stronger emphasis on judgement rather than invention” (p. 51). Also in the Greek tradition one finds reports of two (rather than one) commentaries on the Topics. These sources, however, do not mention Ammonius, but Philoponus alongside Alexander: A Byzantine catalogue of Aristotle’s treatises assigns the second of two commentaries to Philoponus. On this, see the analysis (and further literature) in Juan Felipe González Calderón (2014), Historia de la tradición, p. 39-40, who also mentions a single gloss on the definition of topos found in three Greek manuscripts that is attributed to Philoponus. The list is edited in Hermann Usener (1914), Kleine Schriften. Arbeiten zur griechischen Literaturgeschichte, Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Epigraphik, Chronologie. Dritter Band, Leipzig and Berlin, Teubner, p. 5-6. Sofia Kotzabassi (1999), Byzantinische Kommentatoren der aristotelischen Topik. Johannes Italos & Leon Magentinos. ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ BYZANTINΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ 17, Thessaloniki, ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΒΑΝΙΑΣ, p. 6, however, suggests that this might be a mistake. Possibly based on earlier Byzantine catalogues, Philoponus is also mentioned in Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa’s catalogue as having written a commentary on Aristotle’s Topics. Again, Cristina d’Ancona (2019), “Philoponus, or ‘Yaḥyā al-naḥwī’. An Overview”, Studia graeco-arabica 9, p. 221 lists this as a dubious or false attribution. Philoponus himself, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (Cf. Phlp. In An. Post. 3, 3-4), appears to refer to his commentary on the Topics. On this, see esp. Ilsetraut Hadot (1990), Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Catégories / 1 : Introduction, première partie, Leiden, Brill, p. 83f.
The Paris, BnF, arabe 2346 is the only extant manuscript covering all of Aristotle’s Organon (including the Rhetoric and the Poetics). Parts of it were first edited in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī (1948-1952), Manṭiq Arisṭū (3 vols.), Cairo, Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, and, subsequently by Farīd Jabr (1999), al-Naṣṣ al-kāmil li-manṭiq Arisṭū (2 vols.), Beirut, Dār al-Fikr al-Lubnānī.
Cf. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī (1949), Manṭiq Arisṭū 2, 533, note 7 and Farīd Jabr (1999), al-Naṣṣ al-kāmil 2, p. 703, note 7. The passage our text refers to is Alexander of Aphrodisias, Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis topicorum libros octo commentaria (henceforth Alex. In Top.), edited by Maximilianus Wallies, Berlin, Reimer, 1891, p. 224, 19-20: δύναται καὶ τὸν μὲν φρόνιμον κατὰ τὴν λογικὴν ἀρετὴν εἰρηκέναι, τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν κατὰ τὴν ἠθικήν, and comments on Aristoteles (1958), Topica et Sophistici Elenchi (henceforth Aristot. Top.), ed. William D. Ross, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970, III 1, 116a14-15: καὶ ὃ μᾶλλον ἂν ἕλοιτο ὁ φρόνιμος ἢ ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ (...). This note is not merely philological, but meant to increase the understanding of the particular topos at stake. For Ibn Suwār’s (= Ibn al-Khammār’s) general method of editing and glossing the text, see Henri Hugonnard-Roche (1993), “Remarques sur la tradition arabe de l’Organon d’après le manuscrit Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ar. 2346”, in Charles Burnett (ed.), Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts. The Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, London, The Warburg Institute, p. 23. The word adīb is overwritten in the manuscript with ʿāqil, which seems to have been more common, especially given that the Greek phronēsis is usually rendered into Arabic as taʿaqqul.
Cf. Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī (1990), Book of Letters (Kitāb al-Ḥurūf), ed. with Introduction and Notes by Muḥsin Mahdī, Beirut, Dār al-Mashriq, p. 223.
Cf. Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī (1988-90), Commentary on the Prior Analytics (Sharḥ al-Qiyās), edited in Moḥammad Taqī Dāneshpazūh, al-Manṭiqiyyāt li-l-Fārābī, vol. II, Qom, Maktabat-i Āyatullāh al-ʿUẓmā al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, p. 529. See also the summary in Joep Lameer (1994), al-Fārābī & Aristotelian Syllogistics. Greek Theory & Islamic Practice, Leiden, Brill, p. 198-201.
Cf. Joep Lameer (1994), al-Fārābī & Aristotelian Syllogistics, p. 200.
Cf. Ibn Rushd (1979), Middle Commentary on the Topics (Talkhīṣ Kitāb al-Jadal), ed. Charles Butterworth and Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Majīd Harīdī, Cairo, The American Research Center in Egypt, 1979, p. 63. Alexander’s definition of topos is found in Alex. In Top. 5 and In Top. 126. Averroes also discusses the views of Theophrastus, which are otherwise only found in Alexander’s commentary.
Since Averroes does not elsewhere refer to Alexander apart from the above-mentioned reference (with one exception, see later in this note), it might be the case that the two references to Alexander’s commentary on the Topics originate in one of al-Fārābī’s (lost) treatises rather than on direct acquaintance with Alexander’s text. It might have been al-Fārābī’s lost commentary on Topics II, which is mentioned in the bio-bibliographical literature and could have been also known to Averroes. The only exception to this is Ibn Rushd (1979), Middle Commentary on the Topics, p. 39, where he mentions Alexander in the context of a discussion of whether ‘existence’ (al-wujūd) is a genus or an accident. However, also this may have been taken either from al-Fārābī’s lost commentary on Topics II or from his Kitāb al-Ḥurūf. On this passage, see also Ahmed Hasnawi (2001), “Topic and Analysis: The Arabic Tradition”, in Robert W. Sharples (ed.), Whose Aristotle? Whose Aristotelianism?, Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 45, note 57.
Cf. Paul Kraus (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān (vol. I), introduction (esp. p.xvii-lviii).
Cf. Bink Hallum (2021), “New Light on Early Arabic Awfāq Literature”, in Liana Saif, Francesca Leoni, Matthew Melvin-Koushki, and Farouk Yahya (eds.), Islamicate Occult Sciences in Theory and Practice, Leiden, Brill, p. 84 (with references to the literature in note 69). Neither the author of this work, nor its dating is, however, unambiguous, as Hellmut Ritter, ‘Picatrix’, Das Ziel des Weisen von Pseudo-Maǧrīṭī, Brill, Leiden (originally The Warburg Institute) (1962), xxi suggested previously the 11th Cent. AD as the likely date of its composition.
Passages from Themistius’s paraphrase of the Posterior Analytics are preserved in Ps-Jābir’s Kitāb al-Nukhab, as pointed out by Rémi Brague (1999), Thémistius, Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d’Aristote (livre lambda), traduit de l’hébreu et de l’arabe, introduction, notes et indices, Paris, Vrin, p. 24-25. Further examples are Alexander’s otherwise lost On Coming to Be and Perishing, which is extant in Ps-Jābir’s Kitāb al-Taṣrīf, as pointed out in the introduction to Emma Gannagé (2005), Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle On Coming-to-Be and Perishing 2.2-5, London, Duckworth, and a lost treatise by Abū Bakr al-Rāzī identified in Ps-Jābir’s Kitāb al-Taṣrīf by Pauline Koetschet (2017), “Abū Bakr al-Rāzī et le signe : Fragment retrouvé d’un traité logique perdu”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 27, p. 75-114.
Cf. Paul Kraus (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān (vol. I), p. 143: “Le k. al-baḥṯ, ouvrage très étendu, est consacré à la justification philosophique de la théurgie.” On the reception of Euclid’s Elements in the Kitāb al-Nukhab / Kitāb al-Baḥth, see now also Elvira Wakelnig (2020), “Ǧābir ibn Ḥayyān über die Autorenschaft der Präambel zu Euklids Elementen. Zur Definition und Finalität im Buch der Untersuchung (Kitāb al-Baḥṯ)”, Studia graeco-arabica 10, p. 217-26.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v12-13: al-ḥadd in lam yadullaʿalā māhiyyat al-shayʾ fa-laysa dhālika ḥaddan. The examples probably go back to Aristot. Top. I 5-6.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 39r21: al-ḥadd huwa khāṣṣa wa-laysa kull khāṣṣa lā maḥālata ḥaddan.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 37r21ff. This probably goes back to Top. VI 4, 141b5-9.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 37v1. This probably goes back to Top. VI 3, 140b2-5.
Cf. Top. V 6, 135b7-16.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 7v9-11.
On Alexander's comparison of the Posterior Analytics and Topics, see Alex. In Top. 45, 8-11.
Elvira Wakelnig (2020), “Ǧābir ibn Ḥayyān über die Autorenschaft”, p. 223-4 makes important observations regarding the context in which the topic of ‘definition’ is discussed in his Kitāb al-Nukhab.
The Greek of the two homonymous definitions mentioned by Aristotle at Top. VI 2, 139b20-21 is ἡ γένεσις ἀγωγὴ εἰς οὐσίαν and ἡ ὑγίεια συμμετρία θερμῶν καὶ ψυχρῶν. The Arabic jawhar translates the Greek οὐσία, which seems not quite accurate, for the Greek means ‘existence’, while the Arabic is best rendered as ‘substance’ or ‘essence’. For the purpose of this paper, I will usually leave the terms maṣīr and iʿtidāl untranslated (just as their Greek counterparts agōgē and symmetria/symmetra). When translating these terms may be useful, I chose to translate maṣīr (which is the maṣdar of the verb ṣāra, whose basic meaning is ‘to become’) with ‘development’ and iʿtidāl as ‘balance’. To the best of my knowledge the second passage is not preserved in (Β).
For the more general context in which the quoted passage appears, see the summary of the Kitāb al-Nukhab in Paul Kraus (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān (vol. I), p. 145.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v8-9; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v5: fa-inna dhālika nāfiʿ fī ʿilm al-ṭilasm wa-ʿamalihi jiddan.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v9-10; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v6-7: wa-qad ḍaraba li-dhālika Arisṭūṭālīs wa-l-Iskandar al-Afrūdīsī wa-Thāmisṭīūs al-amthāl fī kutubihim fī sharḥ hādhihi l-mawāḍiʿ.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v10-11; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v7: wa-lasnā nataʿaddā mā dhakarahu l-qawm minhu wa-nataʿammadu sharḥ mā staghlaqa minhu (...).
Cf. Ps-Jābir, Kitāb al-Nukhab, MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (A), 38v11-18 and MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v8-13 (here and elsewhere the Arabic has been adjusted to standard orthography. Variant readings among the manuscripts are usually not indicated):
[ Γ8] قال الإسكندر الأفروديسي [Α 12] في المقالة السادسة من كتاب طوبيقا الذي شرحه: لا ينبغي أن يستعمل في الحدّ الأمثلة [ Α13] التي تليق بالاسم [9 Γ] المشترك وتشابهه ولا ما هو اسم مشترك. ومثال ذلك أن يقول قائل وهو [14 Α] يريد حدّ الكون إنّ الكون هو المصير إلى الجوهر. ومثل [10 Γ] أن يحدّ الصحّة فيقول إنّها اعتدال [15 Α] الحرارة والبرودة. وهذه هي أسماء مشتركة [11 Γ] فإنّه قد يقال في التنقّل في الأخلاق ونقل الأشياء [16 A] والانقلاب والتغيّر وأمثال ذلك. والاعتدال قد يقال في الأعداد التي يعدّها [12 Γ] عدد واحد [17 A] وفي الأشياء المتكافئة في الواحدة وفي الكثرة وفي العظم وفي الكيفيّة وأمثال ذلك، فإنّ قد يقال في العين "معتدلة" و[13 Γ] هي أن [18 A] تصير إلى هذا المقدار من البعد وإنّ الصراع والرياضة "معتدلة" في هذه الهيئة (؟).
For al-Dimashqī’s translation of Top. VI 2, 139b19-22, see ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī (1949), Manṭiq Arisṭū 2, p. 625, and Farīd Jabr (1999), al-Naṣṣ al-kāmil 2, p. 791, which runs as follows:
فأحد مواضع ما يوصف وصفًا غامضًا أن يكون الشيء الموصوف من المتّفقة أسماؤها. مثال ذلك أنّ الكون هو المصير إلى الجوهر، وأنّ الصحّة اعتدال الأشياء الحارّة والباردة. وذلك أنّ المصير والاعتدال من المتّفقة أسماؤها.
This could have already occurred in the Greek of Alexander’s paraphrase that often differs from the exact wording of Aristotle’s text. A similar definition is also found in Aristot. Phy. VII 3, 246b3-6.
Cf. Ibn al-Nadīm (1871), Fihrist, p. 310 (quoted above).
Cf. Alex. In Top. 423,19-424,5.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v16 and MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v11, see above, note 37.
A further possibility is that the expression wa-l-inqilāb is supposed to render ὃ καὶ παρακομίζειν λέγεται. However, given the diverging meanings, I think it is more likely that both inqilāb and taghayyur render μεταβολή.
I.e. “The one who defines ‘generation’ in such a way made use of the word agōgē according to this signification.”
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v17; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v12, see above, nt. 37.
Cf. Euc. El. X, Def. 1 Heiberg: σύμμετρα μεγέθη λέγεται τὰ τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ μετρούμενα. The parallel to Euclid was not indicated by Wallies, but, as pointed out by one of the anonymous reviewers, Euclid’s definitions were most likely common knowledge in Alexander’s time and context.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 39r7-9; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v23-25.
Cf. (Ps-)Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1594), Kitāb Taḥrīr uṣūl li-Uqlīdis (Commentary on Euclid’s Elements), Roma, In Typographia Medicea, p. 225: al-ishtirāk fī l-maqādīr yukhālifu l-ishtirāk fī l-aʿdād fa-inna l-aʿdād al-mushtaraka hiya llatī yaʿudduhā ʿadad wāḥid.
In addition, also other passages in which Alexander refers to the topic of ‘commensurability’ rather deal with numbers than magnitudes. Cf. Alex. In Met. 19,1-4, and Alex. In Met. 404,1-11.
As for ‘quality’, the Arabic seems to be closer to the reading ἢ κατὰ ποιότητα as listed in Wallies’s apparatus instead of ἢ κατὰ τὰς ποιότητας as the text has it; cf. Alex. In Top. 424,4-5 (and Wallies’s apparatus).
Cf. Alex. In Met. IV 5, 313, 33-35 Hayduck: περὶ γὰρ χρῶμα ἡ ὄψις οὖσα ἀληθεύει περὶ αὐτό, ἂν ᾖ ἀπὸ συμμέτρου διαστήματος καὶ μὴ πόρρω· (trans. Madigan, modified).
Cf. Alex. In De Sens. 50, 22-24 Wendland: ἐν δὲ τοῖς σώμασι (πάλιν δὲ σώματα τὰ στερεὰ λέγει) τὸ αὐτὸ μένει τὸ ὁρώμενον, ἐγγύς τε καὶ πορρωτέρω ἀποχωρούντων, ἄν γε ᾖ τὸ διάστημα σύμμετρον (trans. Towey, Greek added).
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 39r10-11; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ), 88v26-27, where Ps-Jābir uses more precise terminology and, instead of ʿayn, rather speaks of imtidād baṣar al-ʿayn.
Cf. Alex. In Top. 206,4-5 Wallies: οἷον τὸ γυμνάζεσθαι συμμέτρως ἀγαθὸν ὄν (ποιητικὸν γὰρ ὑγείας) τὴν ὑπερβολὴν κακὸν ἔχει. (trans. Laura M. Castelli, Greek added).
Cf. Ps-Jābir, Kitāb al-Nukhab, MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 38v18-39r3; MS Ankara, Muḥammad b. Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Γ) 88v13-21:
فأقول: [19 Α] أمّا قوله إنّ "المصير قد يقال [14 Γ] في الأخلاق وانقلابها" هو أنّه أبان بذلك أنّه إن كان [20 Α] الفصل دالًّا على صورة الشيء وجوهره الذي هو بالحقيقة، فينبغي أن يكون [15 Γ] الاسم المعبّر به عنه [21 Α] قد يحتمل أن يكون كذلك لذلك الشيء الذي في اكتساب معناه ولغيره، فإنّ اسم المصير لما [22 Α] كان قد يقال على انتهاء الكون إلى الجوهر [16 Γ] ولانقلاب أخلاق الصبيّ القبيحة. فإنّه قد قال إنّ [23 Α] الصبيّ قد يكون في ابتداء نشوئه على الأكثر قبيح الأفعال حدًّا إمّا كلّها أو أكثرها. [17 Γ] فإنّه بالطبع [24 Α] يكون أكذب خلق الله لأنّه يحكي ويخبر بما لم يره ولم يسمعه. ويكون أحيل خلق الله وألصّه [25 Α] وأفسده لكلّ أمر وآثمه وأكثره [18 Γ] فضولًا وأشدّ الحيوان لجاجًا وكيادًا وأضرّه في [26 Α] نفسه بنفسه وبغيره. ثمّ لا يزال الأدب والسنّ ينقلانه ويصيران به إلى أحوال أخر. [27 Α] [19 Γ] وإن فقد الأدب قوّمته بعض التقويم الفوائد بالسنّ وهذا بالحقيقة هو انتقال ومصير [9r A3] من حال إلى أخرى. وكذلك مصيره وانتقاله [20 Γ] من سنّ الشباب إلى التكهّل. وكذلك إلى الشيخوخة [2 Α] وهذا هو تغيير. وكذلك حال الفساد في النقصان وهو مصير ما في الجوهر [21 Γ] إلى العدم [3 Α] وانتقال التركيب. فليس اسم المصير واقعًا موقعه في حدّ الكون لأنّه اسم مشترك.
Cf. Alex. Eth. Prob., p. 121-122, Bruns, See also the translation and commentary in Alexander of Aphrodisias (1990), Ethical Problems, translated by R. W. Sharples, London, Bloomsbury, p. 20-23.
The passage on the explanation of iʿtidāl spans 39r4-14 in the MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α). Also in this case it is yet unclear whether or not the author of the Kitāb al-Nukhab draws to some extent on Alexander’s commentary.
See, for instance, Marwan Rashed (2015), al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā al-Nawbakhtī, Commentary on Aristotle De generatione et corruptione. Edition, Translation and Commentary, Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter, p. 257: “As often in Alexander, we do not have a word for word quotation here, but a slight paraphrasis of Aristotle’s words [...]”.
For the context in which the quoted passage appears, see Paul Kraus (1943), Jābir Ibn Ḥayyān (vol. I), p. 145f.
Cf. Aristot. Top. VI 4, 141b15-19. For al-Dimashqī’s Arabic translation, see ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī (1949), Manṭiq Arisṭū 2, p. 633, and Farīd Jabr (1999), al-Naṣṣ al-kāmil 2, p. 798.
Cf. Ps-Jābir, Kitāb al-Nukhab, MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 103v2-7; Paris, BnF, arabe 5321 (Β), 39r20-v5.
[2 Α] فأقول: إنّ القوم أجمعوا [B 21] في هذه المحسوسات الخمس التي هي حواسّها في كلّ إنسان سلمت [3 Α] خلقته. فقالوا في كلّ [39v Β] واحدة منها إنّها كيفيّة تخصّ تلك الحاسّة. مثال ذلك أنّهم قالوا في [4 Α] اللون [2 Β] إنّه كيفيّة تخصّ حاسّة البصر وفي الشمّ إنّه كيفيّة تخصّ حاسّة الأنف وفي الذوق [5 Α] [3 Β] إنّه كيفيّة تخصّ حاسّة اللسان وفي الحارّ والبارد والخشن والليّن واللمس [4 Β] كلّه فإنّه كيفيّة [6 Α] تخصّ حاسّة البدن والأعضاء ذوات الحسّ القويّ وفي الصوت [5 Β] إنّه كيفيّة تخصّ حاسّة السمع.
Cf. MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 103v7; Paris, BnF, arabe 5321 (Β), 39v5: fa-ʿtadhara Arisṭāṭālis lahum wa-li-nafsihi.
Cf. Ps-Jābir, Kitāb al-Nukhab, MS Istanbul, Jarullah 1721 (Α), 103v7-14; Paris, BnF, Arabe 5321 (Β), 39v5-13:
وكذلك فعل الإسكندر الأفروديسي في العذر في كتاب طوبيقا. وقال إنّ هذا الحدّ ليس [7 Β] يدلّنا على ماهيّة شيء من هذه المحسوسات، لا اللون ولا [9 Α] الشمّ ولا الذوق لا سائر [8 Β] الباقية. وأجروا ذلك مجرى العجب. ومع ذلك فلم يذكروا العلّة [10 Α] فيه ولا ما هو [9 Β] البتّة. و"ما هو" أرى شيئًا هو أعون على فهم هذا الأمر من الكلام في هذه [11 Α] المحسوسات [10 Β] وأعطأ أسبابها. فأمّا الصوت فإنّهم قد قالوا وأتوا بحدّه وكذلك [12 Α] الحال [B 11] في الباقية. ولكنّهم أجروا ذكر ذلك في درج الكلام فخفي جداً على الطالب له. والذي [12 Β] حدّوا [13 Α] به الصوت هو أنّه "قرع جسمَين في هواء" و"انضغاط هواء بين جسمَين" و [13 Β] أمثال [14 Α] ذلك ممّا مجرى مجراه.
The above-quoted passage continues with a short exposition of Plato’s theory of colour (A: 103v14-17; B: 39v13-17) and of a theory ascribed to “someone other than Plato” (ghayr Aflāṭun) (A: 103v18-23; B: 39v17-21). Also this section may originate in (or relate to) Alexander’s commentary. Because it begins a new thought and then appears to deviate from the primary intention of the above-quoted passage, it is not included in the translation.
On Alexander’s different uses of dialectic, see also Peter Adamson (2018), “Dialectical Method in Alexander of Aphrodisias’ Treatises on Fate and Providence”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 54, p. 279-308.
Cf. Alex. In Top. 30,12-31,1 (trans. Johannes M. Van Ophuijsen (2001), Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle’s Topics 1, Ithaca and New York, Cornell University Press, p. 33-34, modified).
Cf. Aristot. Top. VI 4, 141b3-5.
In fact, as the above-quoted passages show, the Alexander of the Kitāb al-Nukhab claims that these philosophers mentioned essential (whether emissionist or intromissionist) definitions in later sections of their treatises.
This part is not included in the main text by Wallies but is mentioned in the apparatus; cf. Alex. In Top. 45 (apparatus).
Cf. Alex. In Top. 44,32-45,7 (trans. Van Ophuijsen, slightly modified).
Cf. Alex. In Top. 166, 30-32 (trans. Laura M. Castelli). One might wonder who these philosophers actually were. As for De An. II 6-12, Aristoteles introduces the topic of ‘senses’ with a reference to their proper perceptibles, writing “concerning each sense one has to speak first about the perceptible object”; cf. De An. 418a7-8: λεκτέον δὲ καθ' ἑκάστην αἴσθησιν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πρῶτον. Such a passage may have given rise to the assumption that Aristotle defines proper sense perceptibles in relation to the senses which they correspond to.
Cf. Christian August Brandis (1833), “Über die Reihenfolge der Bücher des Aristotelischen Organons und ihre Griechischen Ausleger, nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte des Textes jener Bücher des Aristoteles und ihrer Ausgaben”, Hist.-Phil. Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vorgelegt am 19. Dezember 1833, p. 297f.
The double scholia of books V and VI are already listed in Max Wallies (1891), „Die griechischen Ausleger der Aristotelischen Topik.“ Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des Sophien-Gymnasiums zu Berlin, Ostern 1891, p. 7. They are often introduced by expressions like εἰς τὸ αὐτό, ἑτέρου, and ἄλλως. See also the edition of Leo Magentinos’s commentary in Sofia Kotzabassi (1999), Byzantinische Kommentatoren, and her introduction on p. 3-16.
Cf. Juan Felipe González Calderón (2014), Historia de la tradición, 455-6 (quoted above, note 1).
Haut de page