Bibliographie
Ben-Sasson Haim Hillel, Jospe Raphael & Schwartz Dov, 2008, “Maimonidean Controversy” in Skolnik Fred (ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 13, 2nd edition, Macmillan Reference USA in association with the Keter Publishing House, Detroit, pp. 371‑381.
Nicolaus Damascenus, 1989, De Plantis: Five Translations, ed. Drossaart Lulofs Hendrik Joan & Poortman Emilie L. J., Brill, Leiden, 732 p.
Fontaine Resianne, 1995, “Why is the Sea Salty? The Discussion of Salinity in Hebrew texts of the Thirteenth Century” in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, no 2, vol. 5, pp. 195‑218, DOI : 10.1017/S0957423900002022.
Freudenthal Gad, 2000, “Providence, Astrology, and Celestial Influences on the Sublunar World in Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera’s De‘ot ha Filosofim” in Harvey Steven (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 335‑370.
Gatti Roberto, 2003, Ermeneutica e filosofia. Introduzione al pensiero ebraico medioevale (secoli XII-XIV), Il melangolo, Genova, 227 p.
Harvey Steven, 1987, Falaquera’s Epistle of the Debate. An Introduction to Jewish Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 155 p.
Harvey Steven, 1992, “Falaquera’s Epistle of the Debate and the Maimonidean Controversy of the 1230s” in Link-Salinger Ruth (ed.), Torah and Wisdom. Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, Shengold, New York, pp. 75‑86.
Harvey Steven, 1998, “The Quiddity of Philosophy According to Averroes and Falaquera, a Muslim Philosopher and his Jewish Interpreter” in Aertsen Jan A. & Speer Andreas (hrsg. v.), Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter, de Gruyter (coll. Miscellanea Medievalia, no 26), Berlin, pp. 904‑913.
Harvey Steven, 2000, “Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera’s De‘ot ha filosofim: Its Sources and Use of Sources” in Harvey Steven (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 211‑247.
Harvey Steven, 2014, “Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera” in Zalta Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/falaquera/.
Herschel Levine Mordecai (ed.), 1976, Falaquera’s Book of the Seeker, Yeshiva University Press, New York, 118 p.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1778, Sefer ha-mevaqqesh [Hebrew], Den Haag, 104 p.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1838, “Mikhtav ‘al devar ha Moreh” in Abba Mari ben Moses ha Yarḥi, Minḥat qena’ot [Hebrew], ed. Bisliches Mordecai, Anton Schmid, Pressburg, pp. 182‑185.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1894, Sefer ha-ma‘alot [Hebrew], ed. Venetianer Ludwik Calvary, Berlin, 103 p.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1902, Reshit ḥokhmah [Hebrew], ed. David Moritz, Poppelauer, Berlin, 92 p.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1988a, “Sefer ha-nefesh” in Jospe Raphael (ed.), Torah and Sophia, The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera, Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, pp. 275‑409.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 1988b, “Shlemut ha-ma‘asim” in Jospe Raphael (ed.), Torah and Sophia, The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera, Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, pp. 411‑454.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, 2001, Moreh ha-Moreh [Hebrew], ed. Shiffman Yair, World Union for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 389 p.
Ivry Alfred, 2000, “The Soul of the Hebrew Encyclopedists” in Harvey Steven (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 390‑413.
Jospe Raphael (ed.), 1988, Torah and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera, Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 520 p.
Jospe Raphael, 1993, “Faith and Reason: The Controversy over Philosophy in Jewish History” in Kajon Irene (a cura di), La Storia della Filosofia Ebraica, CEDAM, Padova, pp. 99‑135.
Klatzkin Jacob, 1928‑1933, Thesaurus philosophicus linguae hebraicae, Eschkol, Berlin, 338 + 329 p.
Lemler David, 2012, “Shem Tov Falaquera’s Letter regarding the Guide – Critical Edition” in Zutot, no 1, vol. 9, pp. 27‑50, DOI : 10.1163/18750214-12341246.
Moses Maimonides, 1969, The Guide of the Perplexed, transl. Pines Shlomo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 658 p.
Moïse Maïmonide, 2004, Le Guide des égarés, trad. Munk Salomon, [1ère ed. 1861], Vrin, Paris.
Malter Henry, 1911, “Shem Tob Ben Joseph Palquera: His Treatise of the Dream” in The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 1, pp. 451‑501, DOI : 10.2307/1450946.
Munk Salomon, 1857, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe, A. Franck, Paris, 536 p.
Ribera-Florit Josep, 2009, « La controverse maïmonidienne en Provence et Catalogne » in Iancu-Agou Danièle & Nicolas Élie (dir.), Des Tibbonides à Maïmonide, Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris, p. 193‑211.
Shiffman Yair, 1999, “The Differences between the Translations of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed by Falaquera, Ibn Tibbon and Al Harizi, and Their Textual and Philosophical Implications” in Journal of Semitic Studies, no 1, vol. XLIV, pp. 47‑61, DOI : 10.1093/jss/XLIV.1.47.
Sirat Colette & Di Donato Silvia (dir.), 2011, Maïmonide et les autographes du Dalālat al Ḥā’irīn, Vrin, Paris, 297 p.
Zonta Mauro, 2000, “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics in the Thirteenth Century Encyclopaedias” in Harvey Steven (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 414‑426.
Zonta Mauro, 2004a, “Hebrew Transmission of Arabic Philosophy and Science: A Reconstruction of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera’s ‘Arabic Library’” in Perani Mauro (a cura di), L’interculturalità dell’ebraismo, Longo Editore, Ravenna, pp. 121‑137.
Zonta Mauro, 2004b, “Un dizionario filosofico ebraico” in Perani Mauro (a cura di), L’interculturalità dell’ebraismo, Longo Editore, Ravenna, pp. 24‑49.
Haut de page
Notes
I refer to the synopsis of the chapters of the Guide commented in Moreh ha‑Moreh, and of the cross‑references within the Moreh ha‑Moreh, to specific points and arguments discussed in different chapters of the Guide in Jospe, 1988, pp. 64‑66. The precise correspondence of chapters and lines can be followed in the second apparatus of the critical edition in Ibn Falaquera, 2001.
An attempt to estimate the chronology of Ibn Falaquera’s writings on the basis of cross‑references, and the descriptions of each work, has been done by Jospe, 1988, pp. 31‑76; see as well the list focusing on Ibn Falaquera’s sources and quotations established by Zonta, 2004, pp. 121‑137.
For a general presentation of Ibn Falaquera’s works, see Harvey, 2014, and Jospe, 1988.
Within this list, I could not carry out a systematic investigation on Ibn Falaquera’s encyclopedic treatise De‘ot ha‑filosofim. The analysis of this large source could enrich the interpretation that I propose. Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1902; id., 1894. De‘ot ha‑filosofim is extant in two manuscripts: Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, ms. Or. 4758/3 (Warn. 20) (IMHM 17368), ff. 104r‑343v and Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, ms. 3156 (De Rossi 164) (IMHM 13897), ff. 1r‑291r (parts of the introduction are edited and translated in Zonta, 2004, pp. 24‑49. Other parts of the introduction are translated by Gatti, 2003, pp. 161-172. The edition and the translation of the part on plants [De‘ot I, 4] have been published in Nicolaus Damascenus, 1989, pp. 388-405); Ibn Falaquera, 1988; id., 1778 (part I has been translated in Herschel Levine, 1976); Ibn Falaquera, 1998.
Malter, 1910–1911.
Scholars have drawn the multifaceted contours of Ibn Falaquera’s philosophical figure and of his discussing method, particularly his use of the sources. The analysis of specific texts or arguments shows how he draws upon sources, either quoted literally (sometimes by mentioning the philosophers by name), or through paraphrases, or putting them together to convey a proper and coherent interpretation of a doctrine or a philosophical tradition. See in particular Harvey, 2000; Freudenthal, 2000; Zonta, 2000, pp. 422‑425; Fontaine, 1995.
It is useful to recall that Guide II are devoted to prophecy.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 13, l. 21/p. 14, l. 7:
“אמר רבינו משה זצ''ל והשפע השכלי כשיפוץ על הכח המדבר בלבד ולא יפוץ ממנו דבר על הכח המדמה או למעוט השפע או לחסרון היה בכח המדמה מעקר היצירה ולא יוכל לקבל שפע השכל זו היא כת החכמים בעלי העיון וכשיפוץ זה השפע על שתי הכחות והם המדבר והמדמה על תכלית שלמותם היצירי זו היא כת הנביאים ואם היה השפע על המדמה בלבד ויהיה חסרון במדבר או מפני היצירה או למעוט רגילות בחכמות אלה הם כת מנהיגי המדינות ובעלי הנימוסים והקוסמים ובעלי החלומות האמתיים והיודעים לעשות נפלאות בתחבולות עמוקות ומלאכות נעלמות ואע"פ שאינם חכמים.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 374 (as in the following quotations, the sections omitted by Ibn Falaquera are put into brackets): “The case in which the intellectual overflow overflows only toward the rational faculty and does not overflow at all toward the imaginative faculty—either because of the scantiness of what overflows or because of some deficiency existing in the imaginative faculty in its natural disposition, a deficiency that makes impossible for it to receive the overflow of the intellect—is characteristic of the class of men of science engaged in speculation. If, on the other hand, this overflow reaches both faculties—I mean both the rational and the imaginative [—as we and others among the philosophers have explained, and if the imaginative faculty is] in a state of ultimate perfection owing to its natural disposition, this is characteristic of the class of prophets. If again the overflow only reaches the imaginative faculty, the defect of the rational faculty deriving either from its original natural disposition or from insufficiency of training, this is characteristic of the class of those who govern cities, [while being] the legislators, the soothsayers, [the augurs], and the dreamers of veridical dreams. All those who do extraordinary things by means of strange devices and secret arts and withal are not men of science.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, II, 36, p. 369.
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, II, 36, p. 371.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 20, l. 22/p. 21, l. 10:
“ואמר רבינו משה זצ''ל וזה האיש ר"ל הנביא יתחייב בהכרח שתתבטל מחשבתו ותשוקתו אל הגדולות שאינם אמתיות כמו בקשת הנצוח או שיכבדוהו בני אדם אלא יבינו בני אדם כפי עניניהם אשר הם בלא ספק בפיהם או כבהמות או כחיות המזיקות אשר לא יחשב המתיחד השלם כשיחשוב בהם אלא היאך ינצל מנזק המזיק מהם אם יזדמן לו עמהם שותפות או להשיג מהם תועלת אם יצטרך להם בצורך מצרכיו והאדם אשר זו מנהגו אין ספק בו כשיפעל כחו המדמה אשר הוא בתכלית השלמות ויפוץ עליו מהשכל כפי שלמותו העיוני לא ישיג אלא דברים אלהיים חיים נפלאים מאד ולא יראה אלא האל ומלאכיו ולא תגיע לו [a. corr. לא] דעה אלא בדברים הם עצות נכונות [a. corr. נכנות] ומנהגים כוללים לתקון בני אדם קצתם עם קצתם ואליו שלשה ענינים אשר זכרנו והם שלמות הכח המדבר בלמוד ושלמות הכח המדמה ביצירה ושלמות המדות בבטול המחשבה בכל התענוגות הגופניות וחסרת התשוקה בכל מיני הכבודים הסכלים הרעים. יש יתרון לשלמים זה על זה יתרון גדול וכפי היתרון בכל ענין מאילו הענינים יהיה יתרון מעלת הנביאים כולם.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, pp. 371‑372: “It is likewise necessary that the thought of that individual should be detached from the spurious kinds of rulership and that his desire for them should be abolished—I mean the wish [to dominate or] to be held great by the common people and to obtain from them honour [and obedience for its own sake]. He should rather regard all people according to their various states with respect to which they are indubitably either domestic animals or like beasts of prey. If the perfect man who lives in solitude thinks to them at all, he does so only with a view to saving himself from the harm that may be caused by those among them who are harmful if he happens to associate with them, or to obtaining an advantage […] from them if he is forced to it by some of his needs.
Now there is no doubt that whenever—in an individual of this description—his imaginative faculty, which is as perfect as possible, acts and receives from the intellect an overflow corresponding to his speculative perfection, this individual will only apprehend divine and most extraordinary matters, will see only God and His angel, and will only be aware and achieve knowledge (דעת) of matters that constitute true opinions and general directives for well‑being of men in their relations with one another. It is known that with regard to these three aims set forth by us—namely, the perfection of the rational faculty through study, the perfection of the imaginative faculty through natural disposition, and the perfection of moral habit through the turning‑away of thoughts from all bodily pleasures and the putting an end to the desire for the various kinds of ignorant and evil glorification—there are among those who are perfect very many differences in rank; and on the differences in rank with regard to these aims there depend the differences in rank that subsist between the degrees of all the prophets.”
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 67, l. 5‑6.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 68, l. 18‑19 (cf. infra).
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 68, l. 18/p.69, l.6:
“ורבינו משה ז’’ל אמר בספרו המורה [a. corr. במרה] וכבר התבאר כי כל הפסד או חסרון או כל מקרה שיקרה לאדם הוא מצד החומר לא מצד הצורה וכל עבירות האדם ועונותיו וכל מדה רעה הם נמשכות אחר חומרו לא אחר צורתו ומדותיו הטובות כולם הם נמשכות אחר צורתו ואחר אשר התבאר כי הדבר כן ולא היה אפשר שתמצא צורה בלי חומר ויתחייב להיות קשורה זו הצורה האנושית הנכבדת מאד אשר כבר בארנו כי היה צלם אלהים ודמותו בזה החומר העפרי העכור והאפל המביא אותו לכל חסרון ולכל הפסד נתן האל ית’ לזו הצורה האנושית יכולת על החומר עד אשר יכניעהו וישיבהו אל הדבר האמצעי. ועל כן נחלקו מעלות בני אדם כי יש אנשים שהשתדלותם תמיד לבקש הדבר הנכבד והחיים התמידים כפי חיוב צורתם הנכבדת ולא יחשוב אלא בציור מושכל והשגת אמונה אמתית בכל דבר ולהדבק בשכל האלהי הנאצל עליו אשר ממנו נמצאה זו הצורה וכל מה שיצריכוהו צרכי החומר לטנופם ולחרפתם הגלויה הוא כואב ודואג מפני שנכשל בו ומתבייש מפני שנוגע בו והוא משתדל להמעיט זו החרפה בכל מאדו ולהשמר ממנו מכל צד. כאדם שקצף עליו המלך וצוהו להוליך הזבל ממקום למקום כדי להבזותו כי זה האדם ישתדל שיתעלם בזה הקלון ואפשר שיוליך ממנו מעט למקום קרוב מפני שלא ילכלך ידיו ורגליו ולא יראנו אדם כן יעשו בני חורין אבל העבד הוא שמח בזה ומראה שלא הטריחוהו בזה טורח גדול וילכלך כל גופו בזה הזבל ויוליכהו בפרסום והוא שוחק וסופק בפיו. וכן עניני בני אדם כי יש מבני אדם אנשים כל כחות החומר אצלם חרפה ובושת ובלבד הרגש המשוש אשר הם חרפה עלינו כאשר אומר אריסטו אשר בו נתאוה אל האכילה והשתיה והמשגל ועל כן ראוי לכל משכיל להמעיט מזה כפי מה שאפשר ולהתעלם ממנו וישים תכליתו תכלית האדם מצד שהוא אדם והוא ציור המושכלות בלבד והנבחר בהם והנכבד השגת האל ית’ והמלאכים ושאר פעולותיו כפי היכולת ואלו האנשים הם עם האל תמיד והם אשר נאמר בעדם אני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כולכם וזהו המבוקש מהאדם. אבל האחרים הנסתרים מהאל ית’ והם עדת הסכלים הם הפך מאילו בטלו כל מחשבה ועיון במושכל ושמו תכליתם הרגש המשוש אשר הוא חרפתינו הגדולה ואין להם מחשבה ולא עיון אלא באכילה ומשגל בלבד כמו שאמר וגם אליו ביין שגו ובשכר תעו כהן ונביא שגו בשכר נבלעו מן היין וכו‘.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, pp. 431‑433 (The passage is not entirely reported for reasons of length, but the crucial parts of the argument are preserved): “It has become clear that all passing away and corruption or deficiency are due solely to matter. [Thus in the case of a man, for instance, it is clear that the deformity of his form, the fact that his limbs do not conform to their nature, […] that all this is consequent upon his corrupt matter and not upon his form. Similarly, every living being dies and becomes ill solely because of its matter] and not because of its form. All man’s acts of disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not upon his form, whereas all his virtues are consequent upon his form. [For example, man’s apprehension of his Creator, his mental representation of every intelligible, his control of his desire and his anger […] are all of them consequent upon his form. On the other hand, his eating and drinking and copulation and his passionate desire for these things, […] are all of them consequent upon his matter]. Inasmuch as it is clear that this is so, and [as according to what has been laid down by divine wisdom] it is impossible for matter to exist without form [and for any of the forms in question to exist without matter,] and as consequently it was necessary that man’s very noble form, which, as we have explained, is the image of God and His likeness, should be bound to [earthy], turbid and dark matter which calls down upon man every imperfection and corruption, He granted this human form power, [dominion, rule and control] over matter, in order that it subjugate it, [quell its impulses,] and bring it back to the best and most harmonious state that is possible.In this respect the ranks of the Adamites differ. Among them, there are individuals who aspire always to prefer that which is most noble and to seek a state of perpetual permanence according to what is required by their noble form. They only reflect on the mental representation of an intelligible, on the grasp of a true opinion regarding everything, and on union with the divine intellect, which lets overflow toward them that through which that form exists. […] A man […] should take as his end that which is the end of man qua man: namely, solely the mental representation of the intelligibles, the most certain and the noblest of which being the apprehension, in as far as this is possible, of the deity, of the angels and of His other works. Those individuals are those who are permanently with God. […] This is what is required of man; [I mean to say that this is his end]. As far as the others are concerned—those who are separated from God by a veil, being the multitude of the ignorant—the opposite is true: They refrain from all thought and speculation (עיון ; cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969: perception) about any intelligible thing and take as their end the sense that is our greatest shame, [I mean the sense of touch]. Accordingly, they have no thought and no reflection except only in relation to eating and copulation, as has been stated [clearly with regard to these wretched people wholly given over the eating, drinking, and copulating. It says]: “But these also have erred through wine, [and through strong drink are out of the way]” (Is. 28, 7).
Cf. Shiffman, 1999. Several aspects of Ibn Falaquera’s language, his translation style and his terminology have been analysed by Jospe, 1988, pp. 18‑29.
The translation of the Arabic term ğibla (“nature, natural constitution of the body”), in the first two citations, can be an example. Ibn Falaquera always renders it as yetsirah (“creation”); this term renders also the Arabic fiṭra, designating all human inborn dispositions from the nature of a man’s creation. Ibn Tibbon is less consistent and translates it as bri’ah (“creation”), more general, or yetsirah. See Ibn Falaquera’s critique of Ibn Tibbon’s translation of fiṭra in Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 56. Cf. Klatzkin, I, p. 56.
Cf. supra.
Cf. the French translation in Moïse Maïmonide, 2004, II, 37, p. 291: « peu d’exercice ».
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 13, l. 6‑9.
Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 369: “Know that the true reality and quiddity of prophecy consist in its being an overflow overflowing from God, may He be cherished and honored, through the intermediation of the Active Intellect, toward the rational faculty in the first place and thereafter toward the imaginative faculty. This is the highest degree of man and the ultimate term of perfection that can exist for his species […]. And it is not something that may be attained solely through perfection in the speculative sciences and through improvement of moral habits, even if all of them have become as fine and good as can be. There still is needed in addition the highest possible degree of perfection of the imaginative faculty in respect of its original natural disposition.”
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 21, l. 6‑8.
Cf. supra.
On the term עצה for Falaquera, see Jospe, 1988, p. 24, n. 147. The author translates it as “contemplation,” on the basis of Moreh ha‑Moreh III, 51 (cf. Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 323), where Ibn Falaquera describes the term עצה as the “employment of thought for intellectual things, which is ra’y in Arabic, which is intellectual conception (ציור).”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, I, 2, pp. 23‑26. On the distinction between necessary and intelligible things and possible ones, both on textual and doctrinal bases, see Sirat & Di Donato (dir.), 2011, pp. 91‑97; 204‑210. See also Ibn Falaquera, 2001, I, 2, pp. 124‑125, where in his own commentary to Guide I, 2 Ibn Falaquera distinguishes between speculative intellect, through which man knows necessary things that do not change, and practical intellect, dealing with general accepted things, good and bad, correct and wrong.
Cf. supra.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1894, p. 68.
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, II, p. 239, Introduction, twenty‑forth premise: “Whatsoever is something in potential is necessarily endowed with matter, for possibility is always in matter.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, III, 9, pp. 436‑437: “Matter is a strong veil preventing the apprehension of that which is separate from matter […]. Hence whenever our intellect aspires to apprehend the deity or one of the intellects, there subsists this great veil interposed between the two.”
Cf. the presentation and the reference to sources by Malter, 1910-1911, p. 491, l. 13‑16:
“וכתב הרמב"ם והצורה להשיג תכלית השלמות האנושי יצטרך בהכרח להתעסק תחלה במלאכת ההגיון ואחר כן בלמודיות על הסדר ואחר כן בטבעיות ואחר כן באלהיות עד כאן.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 75.
Cf. respectively the editions of Ibn Falaquera, 2001 and Lemler, 2012. Cf. the first publication of the Letter in the editio princeps of Abba Mari ben Moses ha‑Yarḥi, in Ibn Falaquera, 1838. See also the presentation by Jospe, 1988, pp. 62‑67, 75‑76.
Cf. Lemler, 2012, pp. 48‑50.
Cf. Lemler, 2012, pp. 48‑49. A passage where Maimonides refers to the addressees of his treatise is found in Moses Maimonides, 1969, I, 68, p. 166: “As this treatise has been composed only for the benefit of those who have philosophized and have acquired knowledge of what has become clear with reference to the soul and all its faculties (cf. infra, p. 18). Accordingly, in the following paragraph, Ibn Falaquera affirms that if the wise man expects to know the very intention of Our master in this book (i. e. the Guide) through a repetitive reading, without a great speculation, he would be disappointed in his expectation [...] because his (i.e. Maimonides’) intention can be understood only through the reading of other books which are the principles (‘iqqarim) of books of science.”
Cf. Lemler, 2012, p. 50.
Ibid.
Ibn Falaquera, 2001, pp. 341‑365. Some of the discussions that Ibn Falaquera devotes to terminology and to the translation of terms in this chapter have been taken as basis by Y. Shiffman in his analysis of the relation between Ibn Falaquera’s translation and the ones of Ibn Tibbon and Al‑Ḥarizi, cf. Shiffman, 1999, pp. 47‑61.
Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 341.
The “question of language,” that is to say the leitmotiv of the language of science and philosophy, of the reading of Arabic texts and of the utility of their Hebrew translations, occurs in many of Ibn Falaquera’s writings, where he expresses the purpose for his compositions. In the introduction to the Opinions of philosophers (De‘ot ha‑filosofim), he writes: “I have translated these opinions from the Arabic language into the Hebrew language, and composed them from books that are widely distributed, so that one who wants to know them can find them all collected in one book, and will not need to weary himself by reading all [those] books […]. The second reason is that most of what has been translated of these books into our language has been corrupted, and they are not clear as they should be, so that one who studies these translated books cannot [understand] them in their true meaning” (cf. Jospe, 1988, p. 50). The second part of The beginning of wisdom (Reshit ḥokhma) contains a description of sciences, focusing on the specific object matter and intention of each one of them and on the sections that they are composed of. In the first chapter, dealing with the utility of this part, Ibn Falaquera justifies his choice of writing it in Hebrew: he describes his book as “an introduction to sciences for those who have the leisure to occupy themselves with these sciences by [reading] books which have been translated into Hebrew (leshon ha‑qodesh) […]. His intention has been to compose [books] on these sciences in Hebrew because it is good that one studies them in our language instead of studying them in another language” (cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1902, p. 21). A similar argument, according to which writing the treatise in Hebrew responded to the need to make its benefit greater and more universal, is also affirmed in the Book of degrees (Sefer ha‑ma‘alot) and in the introduction to the Guide to the Guide (Moreh ha‑Moreh): “The intention has been to compose (I intended to compose, in the Moreh ha‑Moreh) it in the Holy language so that its benefit would be more general” (cf. Ibn Falaquera, 1984, p. 11; id., 2001, p. 117). The philosophical dictionary introducing the De‘ot ha‑filosofim can be added as a further example of Ibn Falaquera’s carefulness in regard to terminology and of the methodological importance he accorded to explaining his lexical choices; cf. Zonta, 2004, pp. 24‑49.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 112.
Harvey, 1987, pp. 14‑15. The book belongs to the first part of Ibn Falaquera’s production and has been inspired by the 1230s Maimonidean controversy. It has been composed after the second stage of the controversy facing anti‑rationalists against philosophy in general and against Maimonides’ books in particular, which took place in the first half of the 13th century. See Harvey, 1992.
Cf. Ivry, 2000, p. 393 (in addition to The Epistle of the Debate, the Beginning of Wisdom, the Book of Degrees and the Book of the Seeker are qualified as writings showing an apologetic character). Cf. Jospe, 1988, pp. 80‑92; Harvey, 1998.
Cf. Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 365.
Cf. Ben‑Sasson, Jospe, & Schwartz, 2008. See also Ribera‑Florit, 2009; Jospe, 1993.
Cf. Lemler, 2012, p. 28.
Cf. Lemler, 2012, p. 42:
“צריך שתשמור בזה הענין כי הוא חומה עצומה בניתיה סביב התורה מקיף בה ימנע אבן כל משכיל אליה ע"כ.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 298: “You ought to memorize this notion. For it is a great wall that I have built around the Law, a wall that surrounds it warding off the stones of all those who project these missiles against it” (Cf. Moïse Maïmonide, 2004, II, p. 137: « pour la protéger contre les pierres qu’on lui lance »).
Cf. Lemler, 2012, p. 41:
“אמר: ואמנם העירותיך על זה מפני שלא תתפתה, כי איפשר שיטען אחד מבני אדם בספק יספיקהו בחדוש העולם, ותמהר להתפתות. כי באמונת הקדמות בכללה, סתירת התורה ודבור כזב בחק האלוה ית'. והיה תמיד חושד שכלך ומקבל מהנביאים שהם יסוד תיקון המין האנושי ע''כ.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 321: “I have drawn your attention to this in order that you should not be deceived. For someone may someday lead you into vain imaginings (cf. Maïmonide, 2004, II, p. 182: « t’induise en erreur », יטעך) through setting forth a doubt concerning the creation of the world in time, and you may be very quick to let yourself be deceived. For this opinion contains the destruction of the foundation of the Law and a presumptuous assertion (cf. Moïse Maïmonide, 2004, II, p. 182: « et proclame une hérésie », סרה) with regard to deity. Be therefore always suspicious in your mind as to this point and accept the authority of the two prophets who are the pillars of the well‑being of the human species.”
Ibn Falaquera, 2001, p. 283, l. 12‑15.
For example: יטען, in the edition of the Letter, should be probably be read יטעך* (“lead you to error, deceive you”) which correspond to the Moreh ha‑Moreh יתעך < יטעך* and to the Arabic yuwahhimuka (“make you wrongly think, lead you to error”). A similar case certainly concerns כזב (“falsehood”) in the edition of the Letter, whose orthography is closed to סרה (“odious, bad thing”) which occurs in the Moreh ha‑Moreh and in the translations of Ibn Tibbon and Al‑Ḥarizi. About this latter term, see the commentary on the Arabic term ’iftiyāt (“transgression, offense,” from the 8th form of the verb meaning “to transgress, to act contrary to a law”), and on the expression דבר סרה in Munk, 1857, p. 269, n. 3. In the next line, the Arabic term ‘umda (“base, support, pillar”) has been translated in the Moreh ha‑More—and by Ibn Tibbon—as עמוד (“pillar”), keeping the same root of the Arabic. Nonetheless, in the Letter Ibn Falaquera has chosen the more interpretative term יסוד (“foundation”). However, the two terms are orthographically similar and this second reading could be a graphic corruption.
The term is translated as דעת in the Moreh ha‑Moreh—and in Ibn Tibbon’s translation—and also in other chapters, like Moses Maimonides, 1969, III, 17, and in one of the quotations from Ibn Falaquera, 1894, (cf. supra, n. 11).
Cf. supra, n. 20, on the translation of the Arabic ra’y.
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, II, 23, p. 322.
Cf. Lemler, 2012, p. 48:
“זה המאמר לא חברתיו אלא למי שהתפלסף וידע מה שהתבאר מדבר הנפש וכוחותיה.”
Cf. Moses Maimonides, 1969, I, 68, p. 166: “As this treatise has been composed only for (the benefit of) those who have philosophized and have acquired knowledge of what has become clear with reference to the soul and all its faculties.”
Moses Maimonides, 1969, p. 166.
Haut de page