hughes, the three worlds of ibn ezra

The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 2002, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–24

The Three Worlds of ibn Ezra’sH_ay ben Meqitz1

Aaron Hughes

Department of Religious Studies, University of Calgary,2500 University Drive N.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164) has long occupied an ambiguous place in the his-tory of Jewish philosophy owing to the nature of his exposition.2 Prone to sugges-tive fragments (e.g., ha-maskil yavin) and other such secrets (sodot), ibn Ezra isoften unwilling, some would argue unable,3 to flesh out his philosophical ideasin a systematic manner. Such would also appear to be the case with his treatiseentitled H

_ay ben Meqitz,4 written in rhyming prose and, on the surface, nothing

more than a standard regurgitation of the Neoplatonic career of the soul.Making this work seem even less original is the fact that ibn Ezra’s treatise follows

1Research for this article was supported by the generosity of the Social Sciences and ResearchCouncil of Canada (SSHRC), the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the Maurice AmadoFoundation for Sephardic Studies. I would like to thank Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, James G. Hart, JohnWalbridge, Lisa A. Hughes and the anonymous reviewers for reading and commenting on earlier ver-sions of this article. All remaining mistakes are, of course, my own.

2To date the best biography of ibn Ezra is found in Israel Levin, Abraham ibn Ezra: His Life andPoetry (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Ha-kibbutz ha-meuchad, 1969). For a discussion of the date of ibn Ezra’sdeath, see J.L. Fleischer, ‘‘When did R. Abraham Ibn Ezra Die?’’ (in Hebrew) East and West 2 (1929),pp. 245–256.

3Perhaps, the most extreme expression of this is found in Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews. Vol. 3(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1894), p. 366: ‘‘...he was energetic, ingenious, full of wit, but lackingin warmth of feeling...His, however, was not a symmetrically developed, strong personality, but was full of con-tradictions, and given to frivolity.’’ For a somewhat less radical pronouncement, see Julius Guttmann,Philosophies of Judaism: A History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical Times to Franz Rosenzweig, trans.David W. Silverman (New York: Schocken, 1964), pp. 134f.

4In what follows, I have used the critical edition found in Iggeret H_ay ben Meqitz, ed. I. Levin (Tel Aviv: Tel

Aviv University Press, 1983). This edition also includes an excellent expository essay by Levin, in addition to aHebrew translation of Avicenna’s H

_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an. Citations from ibn Ezra’s Torah commentaries are from his

Commentary to the Torah, 3 vols., ed. Asher Weiser (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1976). For his other com-mentaries I have used the Miqraot Gedolot. As for Avicenna’s H

_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an, I have consulted H

_ayy ibn

Yaqz_an li ibn sına wa ibn t

_ufayl wa al-suhrawardı, ed. Ah

_mad Amın (Cairo: Dar al-ma’arıf, 1959). All transla-

tions, unless noted, are my own.

ISSN 1053-699X print: ISSN 1477-285X online/02/010001-24 � 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1053699022000038101

very closely a work of the same name, H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an,5 written by Avicenna

(980–1037).6

Whereas treatments of ibn Ezra often note H_ay ben Meqitz only in passing, if they

even mention it at all,7 the goal of what follows is to establish a place for it as one ofthe fullest expressions of his philosophical worldview. For in this treatise we witnessmany of the major concepts and motifs that run throughout his philosophically sugges-tive Biblical commentaries, his wide-ranging poetic dıwan, and his more scientificworks.8 Unlike the majority of these other works, however, ibn Ezra nowhere alludesto ‘‘secrets’’ in H

_ay ; rather, it is one of the few places where he presents a full-scale

narrative documenting in allegorical fashion the career and adventures of the humansoul and its relationship to the structure of the universe. Of the two studies thattake H

_ay ben Meqitz seriously, one chooses to regard it primarily as a form of

‘‘gnostic-mystical’’ ascent,9 and the other is primarily concerned with its literary styleand motifs.10 Juxtaposed against these two approaches, I shall attempt to connectH_ay to a broader philosophical context, showing how it relates specifically to the

Neoplatonic tradition.11

H_ay ben Meqitz tells of the journey undertaken by an unnamed protagonist and the

enigmatic H_ay through the lower world, ha-olam ha-shafal (Sections 1–15), the

intermediate world, ha-olam ha-ems_a‘i (Sections 16–25), and the upper world,

ha-olam ha-elyon (Sections 26–29).12 To each one of these worlds, or cosmologicallevels, corresponds a group of sciences that allows access to its structures and secrets.

5Both of which could be translated into English as ‘‘Living, Son of Awake.’’ Corbin translates the Arabic morecryptically (as was his wont) as ‘‘Vivens, filius Vigilantis.’’ See Henry Corbin, Avicenna and the VisionaryRecital, trans. Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 137.

6Ibn Ezra’s reliance on Avicenna has been intimated at by many scholars; although, again owing to the natureof ibn Ezra’s exposition, this relationship is notoriously difficult to map with any certainty. In addition to theliterature cited in the following note, see Warren Zev Harvey, ‘‘The First Commandment and the God ofHistory: ibn Ezra and Maimonides versus Halevi and Crescas,’’ (in Hebrew) Tarbiz

_57 (1988), p. 208;

Aviezer Ravitzky, ‘‘The Anthropological Doctrine of Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,’’ (in Hebrew)Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (1982), pp. 32ff.; Moshe Idel, ‘‘Hitbodedut as Concentration in JewishPhilosophy,’’ (in Hebrew) Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 7 (1988), esp. p. 44.

7Most recently, see Elliot Wolfson, ‘‘God, the Demiurge, and the Intellect,’’ Revue des Etudes Juives 149(1990), p. 91 n. 57; Howard Kreisel, ‘‘On the Term kol in Abraham Ibn Ezra: A Reappraisal,’’ Revue desEtudes Juives 152 (1994), pp. 36–38. Essentially citing the same sources, these two individuals reach radicallydifferent conclusions. Wolfson argues that by the term kol (all) ibn Ezra refers to (1) the hypostasis of the divineor universal intellect and (2) the whole of the parts of the cosmos. Kreisel, however, contends that ibn Ezra usesthis term as an epithet for God. Since ibn Ezra does not employ the term kol in H

_ay, I, for the most part, stay out

of this debate.8Within this context, see the excellent analysis of the relationship between ibn Ezra’s poetry and his

philosophy in Israel Levin, ‘‘Hold to the Ladder of Wisdom,’’ (in Hebrew) Te’uda 8 (1992), pp. 41–86.9Hermann Greive, Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus: Die Religionsphilosophie des Abraham Ibn

Ezra (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), esp. pp. 104ff.10Levin, Abraham ibn Ezra, pp. 11–45.11The term ‘‘Neoplatonism’’ is a nineteenth century construct and, as a result, ambiguous and potentially

misleading. Historically, by the close of the fifth century the study of Aristotle had become inseparablefrom the exposition of Plato’s thought. Indeed, by the time we get to Philoponus, Aristotle’s philosophy hadbeen used as the standard introduction to Plato for at least two centuries. Moreover, the term also impliesthat there exists such a phenomenon as a ‘‘Neoplatonic system’’ resulting in the tendency to subsume diverseindividuals under the common rubric ‘‘Neoplatonist.’’

12It is worth mentioning, however, that in his Commentary to Psalm 148, ibn Ezra only mentions two worlds:ha-olam ha-shafal and ha-olam ha-elyon. Within this context, see, Rosin, ‘‘Die Religionsphilosophie AbrahamIbn Esra’s,’’ Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 42 (1898), pp. 202–204.

2 The Three Worlds of ibn Ezra

What follows presents the three main components of ibn Ezra’s philosophy – man,nature, and God (i.e., psychology, physics, and metaphysics) – as they emergefrom a reading of H

_ay, and where they are given a distinctly religious framework

with great attention to aesthetic presentation.13

An important feature of Neoplatonism is allegory. In order to appreciate fullyibn Ezra’s H

_ay ben Meqitz it is, therefore, necessary to situate it within the

Arabo-Islamic philosophical tradition of allegoresis. Allegory, broadly defined, is agenre that turns on a perceived relationship between a fictional narrative and a‘‘simultaneous structure of events or ideas, whether historical events, moral orphilosophical ideas, or natural phenomena.’’14 According to Heath, despite thefact that Islamic allegory15 comes in a variety of forms and contents, itnonetheless represents a cohesive literary tradition.16 Although not all Islamic philoso-phers composed allegories, famous authors include: Avicenna, ibn T

_ufayl, and

Suhrawardı.17

Following the Alexandrian commentators, many Islamic and Jewish philosophersincluded the science of poetics (’ilm al-shi‘r) as a branch of logic.18 ForAvicenna, both demonstrative and poetic utterances share a similar logical structure.Although the poetic utterance, unlike its demonstrative counterpart, is ultimatelyunconcerned with the truth or falsity of a statement, it nevertheless requires anassent (tas

_dıq) that is based on the pleasure (ladhdha) and awe (ta‘ajjub) that the

reader experiences in it.19 The crucial difference between the poetic andthe demonstrative utterance, however, is that the former relies for its validity on thepleasure and wonder that it evokes in the soul. In short, the goal of the poetic orallegorical utterance is not to produce the intellect’s assent to specific conclusions,but to stimulate the faculty of the imagination to apprehend truths that reside

13It is customary at this juncture to issue a caveat to the effect that one could without much difficulty find,somewhere in ibn Ezra’s large oeuvre, counterexamples to virtually any generalization one makes about himand his work. Such counterexamples could be the result of several factors: he was not bothered by inconsis-tency, he changed his mind throughout his relatively long life or, the one I prefer, the Neoplatonic ‘‘system’’ towhich he subscribed permitted one to have many divided, and often competing, loyalties.

14Northrop Frye, ‘‘Allegory,’’ in Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. Alex Preminger (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 12.

15Although Arabic lacks a word for the term ‘‘allegory,’’ it does have several other relevant terms such asisti‘ara (metaphor) and mithal (analogue). On the utility of using the term ‘‘allegory’’ with the context ofIslamic thought, see Peter Heath, Allegory and Philosophy in Avicenna: With a Translation of the Book ofthe Prophet Muhammad’s Ascent to Heaven (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), pp. 6–7.

16Heath, Allegory and Philosophy in Avicenna, p. 3.17See the comments in Alfred Ivry, ‘‘The Utilization of Allegory in Islamic Philosophy,’’ in Interpretation and

Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period, ed. Jon Whitman (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), p. 158f. I would like tothank Prof. Ivry for generously sending me a copy of this article.

18Richard Walzer, ‘‘Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Aristotelische Poetik,’’ in his Greek into Arabic: Essays onIslamic Philosophy (Oxford: Cassirer, 1962), pp. 132–134. Also see Ibrahim Madkour, L’Oganon d’Aristotedans le Monde Arabe, 2nd edn. (Paris: Librairie Philosophique, J. Vrin, 1969), pp. 13ff; and Paul Moraux, Leslistes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote (Louvain: Editions Universitaires de Louvain, 1951), p. 179ff. Thiswas also adopted by the medieval Jewish Neoplaonists. See, for example, Judah Halevi, Kitab al-radd waal-dalıl fı al-dın al-dhalıl (al-Kitab al-Khuzarı), ed. D.H. Baneth and H. ben-Shammai (Jerusalem: MagnesPress, 1977), V.12; Moses ibn Ezra, Kitab al-muh

_ad

_ara wa al-mudhakara (Sefer ha-’iyyunim ve ha-diyyunim),

ed. and trans. A.S. Halkin (Jerusalem: Mekize Niramim, 1975), pp. 134–136.19Avicenna, al-Shifa’: Kitab al-sh’ir, in Arist

_ut_alıs fann al-sh’ir, 2nd edn. ed. A. Badawı (Cairo: Dar al-tha-

qafa, 1973), I.4. An English translation of this text may be found in Avicenna’s Commentary on the Poeticsof Aristotle: A Critical Study with an Annotated Translation of the Text, ed. Ismail M. Dahiyat (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1974), p. 63.

A. Hughes 3

beyond the surface.20 In Kitab al-majmu‘, Avicenna clarifies this notion further:

Poetical syllogisms are syllogisms that occur to the soul imaginatively and not by assent. The imagination(al-takhyıl ) is aroused by amazement (ta‘ajjub), glorification (ta‘zım), disparagement (tahwın), diminu-tion (tasghır), affliction (ghamm), ardor (nashat

_) without conviction (i‘itiqad) being the object of the utter-

ance. It is not one of the conditions of these syllogisms that they be true or false, commonly-held ordeceptive, but that they evoke the imagination.21

It is within this context that we need to situate not only H_ay ben Meqitz, but also

Avicenna’s H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an.22 In this latter narrative, Avicenna allegorically recounts

the ascent of an unnamed protagonist’s soul through an imagined cosmos. Guided bythe enigmatic H

_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an, the protagonist learns of the true composition of his

soul, its relationship to the body, and the impending journey. H_ayy informs him that

although he can begin the journey now, it begins in earnest with the death of the body.

What did allegory offer medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers? For one thing, itprovided them, following the lead of Plato (Aflat

_un), with a way of transmitting truths

in an esoteric manner.23 Within this context, the reader gets out of an allegorical textprecisely what he or she is able to. A non-philosopher will read these tales and regardthem as precisely that; a philosopher or a potential philosopher, on the contrary, willbe able to penetrate the mystery (bat

_in) beyond the text’s surface (z

_ahir). In addition,

allegory also provided these philosophers with a way of presenting discursive orrational concepts in a nondiscursive or mythical way.24 Furthermore, the mythicand literary dimensions of Neoplatonism – including the soul’s alienation in thisworld and its subsequent search for its true home – was well suited to allegoricaltreatment. Within this context, Ivry, I think correctly, argues that ‘‘allegories speak tothe need we have for transcendence and redemption.’’25

In classifying works such as H_ay ben Meqitz or H

_ayy Yaqz

_an as allegories however,

we must avoid the nineteenth-century assumption that this genre uses a static and arti-ficial mode of language. According to this view, allegories employ flimsy narratives inwhich the significance of people, places, and/or events reside in their symbolic ormoral meanings.26 Within this context, the actual literary form and use of languageis regarded as dispensable: the first-level order of meaning (i.e., the textual) can bedisposed with once the reader arrives at the second-level order of meaning (i.e., thesupratextual). I contend, however, that both the form and the vocabulary of theseworks is as important as their content and that we need to regard such allegoriesas the practical expression of a distinct medieval philosophical aesthetics.

20See the excellent discussion in Deborah L. Black, Logic and Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics in MedievalArabic Philosophy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), p. 181. In this regard, also see Salim Kemal, The Poetics ofAlfarabi and Avicenna (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), p. 149.

21Avicenna, Kitab al-majmu‘: ’al-h_ikma al-’arudiyya f ı ma‘anı kitab al-sh‘ir, ed. M. Salım Salim (Cairo: dar

al-kutub, 1969), pp. 15–16.22See, in particular, Sarah Stroumsa, ‘‘Avicenna’s Philosophical Stories: Aristotle’s Poetics Reinterpreted,’’

Arabica 39 (1992), pp. 183–206.23E.g., al-Mubashshir ibn Fatiq, Mukh

_tar al-h

_ikam, ed. ‘Abd al-Rah

_man Badawı (Madrid, 1958), p. 126.

24Heath, Allegory and Philosophical Interpretation, pp. 159–165.25Ivry, ‘‘The Utilization of Allegory in Islamic Philosophy,’’ p. 180.26E.g., Dimitri Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: An Introduction to Reading Avicenna’s

Philosophical Works (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 299–307; John Walbridge, The Leaven of the Ancients:Suhrawardı and the Heritage of the Greeks (Albany; State University of New York Press, 2000), pp. 101–105.The other extreme, however, is to regard these treatises as the pinnacle of medieval philosophy or as some sortof ancient Eastern wisdom (al-h

_ikma al-ishraqiyya). For this approach, see, inter alia, Corbin, Avicenna and

the Visionary Recital, pp. 3–16.


I. The Beginning of the Journey: The World ofGeneration and Corruption

In the first part of H_ay, ibn Ezra examines the first of the three worlds: the lowest

world (ha-olam ha-shafal ), the world of generation and corruption.27 The main ques-tions that he deals with are: What is the nature of the soul? What is its ultimate source?How is it related both to the body and the lower two souls (the ruah

_and the nefesh)?

A secondary concern is the structure of this world: What is it composed of ?28

How does the individual perceive this world and interact with it?Using rich Biblical images, ibn Ezra suggests that the soul, having left its home in the

upper world, awakes to find itself in the world of form and matter. Although ibn Ezranowhere mentions what causes him to awaken,29 the protagonist becomes aware thathe is unable to attend to his proper functioning so long as he is a slave to his body.30

Implicit here is the standard Neoplatonic conception that one becomes truly humanonce one has understood that the soul’s origin is from above and is not essentiallyrelated to the body.

In his long Commentary to Exodus 3:15,31 ibn Ezra better clarifies the nature of therelationship between the human soul and the world from which it comes:

The upper world is the world of the holy angels. They are neither bodies nor are they in bodies likethe soul (neshamah) of man. Their level is beyond human understanding. In this world is the Glory(kavod ) and all of it is eternal. It neither moves nor changes its value; its rank does not comefrom itself, but from the glorious Name (ha-shem ha-nikbad ). The soul (neshamah) of man is fromthis upper world and it receives its strength from this world.32

The neshamah is the essence of the individual. It is juxtaposed against the body, inwhich it temporarily finds itself. Whereas Avicenna had denied the preexistence of the

27On the paradox that Neoplatonic ontology poses between this world of multiplicity and its relationship tothe divine world which exists outside of such multiplicity, see Arthur Hyman, ‘‘From What is One and SimpleOnly What is One and Simple Can Come to Be,’’ in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, ed. Lenn E. Goodman(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 117–135.

28It is difficult to ascertain whether or not ibn Ezra subscribed to the traditional theory of creatio ex nihilo.See, for example, his comments in Commentary to Genesis 1:1. For relevant secondary literature, see MichaelFriedlaender, Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra (London: Trubner and Co., 1877; republishedJerusalem: Mitshaf, 1964), pp. 3–24; Rosin, ‘‘Die Religionsphilosophie,’’ 42 (1898), pp. 66–71; A. Lipchitz,‘‘The Theory of Creation of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra,’’ (in Hebrew) Sinai 84 (1979), pp. 105–125.

29H_ay Section 1.

30Although ibn Ezra’s imagery, here taken from the Song of Songs, is original the theme of the soul’s lone-liness and the relationship between the body and the material world is quite common in JewishNeoplatonism. C.f., for example, Kitab ma‘anı al-nafs, ed. I. Goldziher, Abhandlungen der Akademie derWissenschafen in Gottingen, Philologische-Historische Klasse, 9.1 (1907), p. 7; Ibn Gabirol, Keter Malkhut, inSelected Religious Poems of ibn Gabirol, ed. and trans. Israel Davidson (Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1952), Section 33; Ibn Z

_addik, Ha-Olam ha-qatan (Der Mikrokosmos des Josef Ibn Saddik), ed.

and trans. S. Horovitz (Breslau, 1903), p. 4.31I note here the ambiguity of this passage in its entirety, since both Wolfson (pp. 102–103) and Kreisel

(pp. 39ff) cite it as support for their very different conclusions. I cite this passage for obviously different reasonsthan they do.

32Ibn Ezra’s discussion of this world is considerably different in his Commentary to Daniel 10:21, wherehe claims that the angels occupy a position in the intermediate world. According to Greive, angels in theintermediate world refer to the celestial spheres. See his Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, p. 90.Wolfson also makes this claim, arguing that it possibly comes from Avicenna. See, ‘‘God, the Demiurge,and the Intellect,’’ p. 86, n.37.

A. Hughes 5

human soul and claimed that it came into existence with the body,33 ibn Ezra impliesthat the soul preexists the body, dwelling in the realm of the angels34 before comingdown to exist in a body.35 For ibn Ezra, the neshamah is distinct from, and superior to,the animal (ruah

_) and vegetative (nefesh) souls – both of which perish with the death

of the body.36

When the neshamah enters the human body it does so as a tabula rasa (luah_

h_alaq) and, subsequently, needs to become individualized.37 The individual, then, is

responsible for making the most of one’s neshamah, to develop and sustain it accord-ing to its lofty origin. This, for ibn Ezra, primarily involves studying and understandingthe various sciences, which occur on a hierarchy beginning with logic and culminatingin metaphysics.38 And it is precisely through this hierarchy that H

_ay ben Meqitz

allegorically takes the reader.In H

_ay ben Meqitz, the protagonist undertakes a journey to return home in the

presence of his friends. These companions, as H_ay subsequently informs him, are

anything but friendly and, in fact, impede the journey:

These friends/ who rule over you/They are not companions/ they are rebellious.

They are not friends/They are evil doers.

33Avicenna, Kitab ah_wal al-nafs, ed. Ah

_mad Fu‘ad al-Ah

_wanı (Cairo: Dar ih

_ya’ al-kutub al-’arabiyya, 1952),

pp. 99–105; idem., al-Shifa’: al-t_abı‘iyyat, vol. 6: Al-nafs, eds. G.C. Anawati and S. Zayed, rev. Ibrahim Madkour

(Cairo: Wizarat al-ma’arif, 1975), p. 204f.; idem., Avicenna’s de Anima: Being the Psychological Part ofthe Kitab al-Shifa’, ed. Fazlur Rahman (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 230f.; idem., Kitab al-najat, ed. Majid Fakhry (Beirut: n.p., 1986), pp. 222–223; For an English translation of this last text, seeFazlur Rahman, Avicenna’s Psychology: An English Translation of K. al-najat, Book II, Ch. VI withHistorico-Philosophical Notes and textual Improvements on the Cairo Edition (London; Oxford UniversityPress, 1952), pp. 56–57.

34In his Comm. to Psalm 22:22, ibn Ezra mentions the existence of a universal Soul (nishmat ha-kol).On the equivalence of this, see Mihael Friedlaender, Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra,pp. 28–29. Kreisel notes this use of nishmat ha-kol is rare. C.f., Kreisel, ‘‘On the Term kol in Abrahamibn Ezra,’’ p. 50. Moreover, ibn Ezra nowhere explains the mechanism responsible for the descent of particularsouls from it.

35Here ibn Ezra had a precedent in other Jewish sources. C.f., Kitab ma‘anı al-nafs, p. 58; Ibn Gabirol,Keter Malkhut, Section 29; Ibn Z

_addik, Ha-Olam ha-qatan, pp. 39–40; Bar Hiyya, H

_egyon ha-nefesh ha-

az_uvah, ed. G. Wigoder ( Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1971), pp. 65–66.36Long Commentary to Exodus 23:25; in this context, also see Comm. to Qohelet 3:7.37Yesod Mora X.2. This theme is, again, relatively common in medieval Jewish Neoplatonism. See, for

example, Bahya Ibn Pakuda, Sefer torat hovot ha-levavot (Kitab al-hidaya ila fara’id_al-qulub), trans.

Shmuel Yerushalmi ( Jerusalem: Me’orei Yisrael, 1972), pp. 47–48; Kitab ma‘anı al-nafs, p. 30; Ibn Gabirol,Keter Malkhut, Section 34; Bar H

_iyya, Hegyon ha-nefesh ha-azuvah, pp. 66ff.

38Yesod Mora I.1; Comm. to Hosea 6:3. C.f., also Comm. to Exodus 33:13; Comm. to Deuteronomy 6:7.For further discussion, see my ‘‘Two Approaches to the Love of God in Medieval Jewish Thought: TheConcept of devequt in the works of ibn Ezra and Halevi,’’ Studies in Religion 28.2 (1999), pp. 142–143.


They are not lovers/But rather enemies.

They hunt and destroySpreading their snares and traps/

They arrest and tortureThe heroic and the mighty.

Blessed is the man who is rescued from them/Happy the sinner who is trapped by them.

He who is snared in their nets does not escape/He who is seized by their snares is not let go.

My son, turn away from their abodes!/Do not face them/ Ignore their words/Their feet run after evil!39

These ‘‘friends,’’ unbeknownst to the protagonist, are ultimately responsible forgrounding him in the lower world by furtively focusing his attention on its concernsand desires. H

_ay subsequently hints at their identities:

The one who walks before you/He always lies, avoiding the truth.

The companion on your right/He subdues you, captures you.

In every season he is angry/He is always furious.

Every day he roars/He is forever angry.

His sword strikes his relatives/Its sparks consume everything that is around him.

His anger is like a fire that burns/His fury is like a blade that rampages.

In everything he sins and makes a mockery/He turns from every truth and ridicules it.

He is likened to a lion that likes to devour/Like a cub sitting secretly, waiting to pounce.

39H_ay, Section 4.

A. Hughes 7

As for the companion on your left/He makes you fail and ultimately destroys you.

He is forever hoping and expecting/Always coveting and desiring.

Even if you pound the fool in mortar. . .his folly will not leave him/Even if you hit him with a hammer you will not stop his foolishness.

He loves all foods/He is not sated from wanting more.

He who is with them/He neither understands nor can he become wise.

He will say nothing and he will utter nonsense/ He will make fun of justiceand righteousness and confuse the truth.

There are distortions in his heart/In bed he plots mischief.

His eyes do not have the strength to see/His ears are unable to hear.40

These companions represent, according to their descriptions, the imaginative faculty,the irascible faculty, and the concupiscible faculty.41 Of primary importance for whatfollows is the imagination, which walks in front of the protagonist and, if uncheckedby the rational faculty, presents lies and half-truths as if they really existed. For theimagination to be used for philosophical purposes, then, it must work in cooperationwith the rational faculty.42

As the protagonist gradually separates himself from his three companions, hisattachment to his body diminishes. In section seven of the narrative, this occurswhen the protagonist immerses himself in a spring. This spiritual baptism enableshim to perceive the structure of the lowest world, which now appears ‘‘dark andunclear.’’43 He looks back at this world from above, thereby perceiving it objectively,as it really is. From this perspective, he apprehends the descending hierarchy ofthe lower world: he sees a reflection of himself (Section 9), the animal world(Section 10), and the plant world (Section 11). Following this, he apprehends thefour elements out of which everything in the material world is composed: earth

40H_ay, Section 4.

41On Avicenna’s description of these faculties, see H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an, p. 41 (Corbin, p. 139). For more

substantive comments see Avicenna, Risala ah_wal al-nafs, p. 58; Kitab al-najat, p. 197; Rahman,

Avicenna’s Psychology, pp. 25–26.42This is a significant theme in the philosophical literature preceding the medieval philosophers. E.g.,

Plato, Meno 99e–100a; Philebus 40a–d; Theaetetus 195d; Aristotle, De Memoria 1 (450a1-14); De Anima III.3(428a1-2); III.7 (431a15–16); III.8 (432a6–14); Plotinus, Enneads, I.4.10.17–19; IV.3.25; IV.3.27; IV.3.31;IV.4.3.1–12; IV.4.4.2–6, 10–11. Significantly the last three passages were available to the Islamic philosophersby dint of the Theology of Aristotle. For the Greek text of the Theology, along with English translation, seePlotini Opera, vol. 2, ed. Paul Henry and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (Paris and Brussels: Desclee de Brouwerand L’Edition Universelle, 1959), pp. 69–77. For the Arabic text of the Theology, see ’Abd al-Rah

_man

Badawı, Al-aflat_uniyya al-muh

_datha ’ind al-’arab (Cairo, 1955). We know for certain that Avicenna

read the Theology since we possess fragments of his commentary to it. In this regard, see Georges Vajda,‘‘Les notes d’Avicenne sur la Theologie d’Aristote,’’ Revue Thomiste 51.2 (1951), pp. 346–406.

43The motifs of ascent, vision, and spiritual transformation are relatively common in the literature associatedwith early Jewish mysticism. E.g., 1Enoch 17:1–8; 2Enoch 22:8, 56:2; 3Enoch 12:1–5,42:1. For requisitesecondary literature, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1941),pp. 49–79; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993), pp. 29ff.; Wolfson, Through A Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination inMedieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 82–104.


(Section 12), water (Section 13), air (Section 14), and fire (Section 15). It is at this pointthat his glance shifts upward, into the world of the cosmic spheres (Section 16).

II. The Journey Through the Heavenly Spheres:The Intermediate World

Leaving the lower world, H_ay and th

_e unnamed protagonist enter the intermediate

world, that of the heavenly spheres. It is at this juncture that interesting disparitiesbegin to occur between the accounts of ibn Ezra and Avicenna. The latter is primarilyinterested in the horizontal East–West structure of the world, whereas the formerfocuses his attention on its vertical structure. Although Avicenna devotes well overhalf of his text (7 pages out of a total of 10) to an East–West topography,44 ibnEzra spends only one section (Section 6) on this.

Why is ibn Ezra so interested in the vertical as opposed to the horizontal structure ofthe universe ? In part, this stems from ibn Ezra’s overwhelming interest in astrology andhis claim that it plays an important role in the noetic development of the individual.Indeed, he spends about half of the narrative allegorically describing the attributesof the various planets and their corresponding effects on humans. Avicenna, onthe contrary, was critical of astrology. Moreover, whereas Avicenna’s protagonistonly listens to what the structure of the universe is like,45 ibn Ezra’s actually appearsto undergo a journey through this structure.

The protagonist is only able to proceed to the intermediate world after he hasundergone an initiation in which he walks through fire.46 This is related to theimmersion in the spring that enabled him to apprehend the structure of the lowerworld. Now, as a result of the contact with fire, the protagonist is able to apprehendthe structure of the intermediate world:

And when we came out from those areas/We survived their heat.

I saw next to the city/Eight kingdoms.

They had spheres/Enormous and large.

44Greive, Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, p. 118. In this regard, also see Anne-Marie Goichon,Le Recite de Hayy ibn Yaqzan commente pars des textes d’Avicenne (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1959), p. 143.

45Avicenna, H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an, p. 42 (Corbin, p. 141).

46H_ay, Section 15. Here again ibn Ezra uses the language of early Jewish mysticism to make a philosophical

point. The novelty of Ibn Ezra’s narrative resides in the fact that, unlike the mystical texts, the themesthat emerge from H

_ay (e.g., a divine guide, a form of revelation) are all presented in a thoroughly

natural manner. For example, although H_ay is described in terms that compare him to an angel, and is

thus reminiscent of the divine guides of the early Jewish mystical texts, he is actually a philosopher, whosewisdom derives from an understanding of the various sciences.

A. Hughes 9

Forceful and strong/Like a mirror of cast metal.

One by one their gardens drew near/Not even a breath could enter them.

One is linked to the other/They are united and do not come apart.

Their customs neither vanish nor change/Their hosts are neither numbered nor countable.

All of them sing praise/In unison they lavish acclaim.47

The intermediate world, according to ibn Ezra, includes the spheres, the stars, theplanets and their motions. Geographically, it stretches from the moon to the uppermostdiurnal sphere that contains no stars. In his Yesod Mora, ibn Ezra claims that thesciences associated with this world include mathematics, geometry and astrology.48

Mathematics and geometry49 are important here because they allow one to constructspatial cosmological models.50 They are, in turn, related to the imaginative facultybecause both provide visible schemata by which to understand the superlunar world.51

Mathematics provides an understanding of numbers which function as metaphorsthat reflect both the structure of and the harmony within the universe.52 Followingthe Pythagoreans,53 ibn Ezra perceived the organic nature of the universe,thereby connecting disparate entities by means of their numerical relationships. InSefer ha-eh

_ad, for example, he claims that the number three is common to disparate

phenomena: a body (because it has three dimensions), time (which is divided intothree – past, present, and future) and the three souls (vegetative, animal, andhuman).54 Similarly, the number eight is reflected not only in the eight celestialspheres, but also in the eight properties that correspond to the four elements.55

47H_ay, Section 16.

48Yesod Mora I.9; cf. also see Harry A. Wolfson, ‘‘The Classification of the Sciences in MedievalJewish Philosophy,’’ Hebrew Union College Jubilee Volume (1925), pp. 275–278, who claims that ibn Ezra’s clas-sification is primarily Aristotelian (logic, psychology, the mathematical quadrivium, and physics). Rosin, onthe other hand, argues that ibn Ezra classifies the sciences into mathematics, grammar, logic, and physics.See his ‘‘Die Religionsphilosophie,’’ 42 (1898), p. 448.

49Once again, there is a precedent for this in the philosophical literature of Late Antiquity. ManyNeoplatonists, notably Iamblichus and Simplicius, reduced physics and astronomy to geometry and math-ematics. See, in this regard, A.C. Lloyd, The Anantomy of Neoplatonism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990),pp. 146ff. I do, however, disagree with Lloyd’s more general claim that there is no religious componentin this knowledge.

50Norbert M. Samuelson, Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994) p. 70.

51Michael S. Mahoney, ‘‘Mathematics,’’ in Science in the Middle Ages, ed. David C. Lindberg (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 145–146.

52See the general discussion in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines,rev. ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), pp. 47–51.

53Pythagorean theories of number made their way into medieval Islam and Jewish thought throughthe Arabic translation of Nichomachus’ Introduction to Arithmetic, which was translated by Thabit ibnQurrah. The Ikhwan al-S

_afa’ were among the most famous of the Muslim adherents of Pythagoreanism and

were most likely responsible for its popularity. In this regard, see Nasr, pp. 48–49. On the reception ofthe Ikhwan al-S

_afa’ in Spain and among the Jewish intelligentsia, see Jacques Schlanger, La Philosophie de

Salomon Ibn Gabirol: Etude d’un neoplatonisme (Leiden: Brill, 1968), pp. 94–97.54Ibn Ezra, Sefer ha-eh

_ad, in Yalkuth ibn Ezra, ed. Israel Levin (New York/Tel Aviv: Israel Matrz Hebrew

Classics/Edward Kiev Library Foundation, 1986), Section 3 (p. 400).55Fire is hot and dry; air is hot and moist; water is cold and moist; and earth is cold and dry. See Sefer

ha-ehad, Section 8 (p. 402).


Numbers provide a gateway to the superlunar world and are crucial to ontology.56

Through an appropriate understanding of mathematics, an individual not onlyunderstands the structure and inter-connections of the intermediate world, but alsohow this world relates to the corresponding structures of the lower and upperworlds. In this respect, numbers also reflect the contingency of the universe on afirst principle (e.g., God) since they reveal, again by means of metaphor, the relation-ship of multiplicity to unity.57 For just as everything draws its existence from God, allnumbers derive their existence from the number one which, in Pythagorean fashion,ibn Ezra claims is not a number, but the source of all numbers.58

In addition to mathematics, geometry is another theoretical science that permits theindividual to imagine the spatial relationships between entities that are beyondhuman experience. Geometry is the science that is responsible for putting the imma-terial into the three-dimensional. By investigating properties and relations of magni-tudes in space as lines, surfaces and solids, geometry enables the individual toprogress from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Geometry, thus, provides a spatial mapof the non-spatial in much the same manner that the imagination makes corporealthat which exists without bodily extension.59

Ibn Ezra also devotes considerable space to astrological descriptions of the variousplanets.60 This science was an important source for an empirical and experimentalapproach to nature.61 Whereas Aristotelianism offered an explanatory framework forunderstanding the physical world, astrology and astral magic supplemented this byproviding explanations (and prognostications) for the phenomena of this world inthe heavens.62 Astral magic was regarded by many as a science and, indeed, presup-posed a thorough knowledge of mathematics and astronomy.63 Moreover, the world-view supplied by astral magic provided an attractive alternative to Aristotelianism andexplains why certain Neoplatonists found astrology and astral magic so useful.

How exactly does ibn Ezra portray astrology in H_ay ben Meqitz ? Having

undergone the ordeal by fire, the protagonist is subsequently able to get anoverview of the celestial world – here described as eight kingdoms (not including

56See the comments in Kreisel, ‘‘On the Term kol in Abraham Ibn Ezra,’’ pp. 40–41.57Nasr, p. 45.58Long Commentary to Exodus 3:15; Sefer ha-eh

_ad, Section 1 (p. 399); Sefer ha-shem, in Yalkuth ibn Ezra,

3:1 (p. 422).59I plan to show in another study how there exists an intimate connection between the science of geometry

on the one hand, and reason, the imagination, and aesthetics on the other.60On the role, function, and problematics associated with ibn Ezra’s use of astrology, see the important essay

of Y. Tzvi Langermann, ‘‘Some Astrological Themes in the Thought of Abraham ibn Ezra,’’ in Rabbi Abrahamibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath, eds. Jay Harris and Isadore Twersky(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 28–85. Also, see Dov Shwartz, Astrology and Magic inMedieval Jewish Thought (in Hebrew) (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1999), pp. 62–91; Shlomo Sela,Astrology and Biblical Exegesis in Abraham ibn Ezra’s Thought (in Hebrew) (Ramat Gan: Bar IlanUniversity Press, 1999).

61Lynn Thorndike, ‘‘The True Place of Astrology in the History of Science,’’ Isis 46 (1955), pp. 273–278. For afuller treatment of this topic, see idem., A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York, 1923–1958); Bert Hansen, ‘‘Science and Magic,’’ in Science in the Middle Ages, ed. David C. Lindberg (Chicago:Chicago University Press, 1978), p. 483.

62See, for example, R. Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),pp. 130–135.

63For example, Al-Kindı’s De Radiis. See, in this regard, M.T. D’alvery and F. Hudry, ‘‘Al-Kindi-De Radiis,’’Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age 42 (1974), pp. 139–260; C.S.V. Burnett, ‘‘Arabic,Greek and Latin Works on Astrological Magic Attributed to Aristotle,’’ in Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages,eds. Jill Kraye, W.F. Ryan, and C.B. Schmitt (London: The Warburg Institute, 1986), pp. 85–96.

A. Hughes 11

the all-encompassing diurnal sphere that contains no stars,64 and the sphere of theunembodied angels).65 Each sphere has a distinct dwelling or abode (zebul).Each planet, along with its sphere, moves by means of its desire to be near theOne or God. The motion of each sphere is perpetual and constant, driven by thelove and piety it has for its source. In addition, each sphere possesses a soul(nefesh) that also strives to return to its source, in much the same manner that thehuman soul does.66

Ibn Ezra’s description of the various planets is based on the Tetrabiblos 67 of Ptolemy(ca. 100–178 CE).68 This work exerted a considerable influence on medieval scienceand was translated into Arabic by Ish

_aq ibn H

_unayn in the ninth century.69

Furthermore, ibn Ezra’s rich and poetic description of each sphere in H_ay represents

only a partial sketch of what he treats more systematically in his works devoted solelyto astrology, in particular the Reshit H

_okhmah (The Beginning of Wisdom). Each

sphere functions as a delegate to whom God has given the authority to influencethe sublunar world in a specific way that is based on its essential properties.Significantly ibn Ezra nowhere names the planets in H

_ay ; nevertheless, the

descriptions match those that he gives in The Beginning of Wisdom. For example,in his description of the planet Mars, ibn Ezra writes that:

In the fifth kingdom, there are red men/Spillers of blood.

Destroyers/Hypocrites.

64In his Commentary to Psalm 8:4, ibn Ezra equates the tenth sphere with the incorporeal world above thespheres and sometimes calls it the ‘‘Throne of Glory.’’ In H

_ay, however, he makes this the ninth sphere, putting

the realm of the angelic hosts above it. Yet, in Sefer ha-shem, he implies that the tenth sphere is similar to, if notidentical, to the One, In this regard, see the discussion in Kreisel, ‘‘On the Term kol in Abraham Ibn Ezra,’’pp. 64–65.

65H_ay, Section 16.

66The classic study of this still remains Harry A. Wolfson, ‘‘The Problem of the Souls of Spheres Fromthe Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle to St. Thomas and Kepler,’’ in Studies in the History of Philosophyin Religion, ed. I. Twersky and G.H. Williams (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 22–59.

67Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, ed. and trans. F.E. Robbins (London and Cambridge, MA: Heinemann andHarvard University Press, 1940). In The Beginning of Wisdom, he informs the reader that he is providing asynthesis of the science of astrology that is based on ‘‘the opinion of the ancient Babylonians and the wisemen of Persia, India, and Greece, whose chief is Ptolemy.’’ See The Beginning of Wisdom, eds. RaphaelLevy and Francisco Cantera (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1939), p. 155.

68Ibn Ezra seems to have known quite well the work of Ptolemy in general, and the Tetrabiblos in particular.For a detailed examination of ibn Ezra’s use of this work, see Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, pp. 35ff.

69Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, p. x.


Robbers/Plotters.

Battle is their craft/War is their art.

They take bribesAnd murder souls.

They throw down the dead/Consuming the plunder.

They are lovers of wickedness and deceit/Haters of knowledge and counsel.

Their ruler is a man of war/His temper hot.

Polishing his swords/Gnawing his teeth.

His spears are ready, his lances are prepared/His arrows are sharpened, his bows drawn.

His horses’ hooves are like flint/His chariot wheels swift like the whirlwind.

He kills the innocent/And robs the poor.

Wickedness is his activity/And misery his toil.

He does not shy away from deception/Nor does he refrain from trickery.70

In addition to providing a poetic description of Mars’ inhabitants, ibn Ezra here alludesto the attributes that are associated with this planet.71 All those born under the influence ofthis planet will possess similar character traits to the ones listed above. This descriptionprovides a detailed inventory of every thing, attribute, and emotion that is associatedwith this planet. In so doing, it provides a form of prognostication: since each planetexudes a certain influence over mundane events, the philosopher has the ability to predictaccurately the exact nature of this influence. Knowledge of these characteristics and attri-butes can also allow the philosopher to use talismans to draw down the attractions fromthe planets.72 It is also important to recognize that although the ultimate source of the attri-butes is Ptolemaic, the actual descriptions are full of Biblical vocabulary and imagery.

Ibn Ezra also mentions in H_ay the notion – not found in any of his other writings, so

far as I am aware – that through the study of philosophy, one is able to move beyondastrology.73 That is, the unnamed protagonist’s journey takes him through all of the

70H_ay, Section 21. C.f., Beginning of Wisdom, pp. 197–198.

71On Ptolemy’s treatment of this planet, see Tetrabiblos III. 13 (p. 353). A similar description to this and one thatibn Ezra probably would have known can be found in Ibn Gabirol’s Keter Malkuth, lines 216–226. On the rela-tionship between ibn Ezra and ibn Gabirol, see Greive, Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, pp. 123–128;Rosin, pp. 29–33; Asher Weiser, ‘‘Introduction’’ to Ibn Ezra’s Commentary to the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 68–69.

72According to Shwartz, the reception of the influence does necessarily bring about magic or a magicalinterpretation; rather, the magical character occurs when one successfully draws down the influence with aspecific implement or talisman. See Shwartz, Astrology and Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought, pp. 68–69.

73In his Biblical commentaries, for example, he alludes to the notion that Israel, as long as it is observant ofTorah is superior to the influences of the stars. E.g., his excursus to Ex. 23:25; Comm. to Ex. 33:23; Comm. to Dt.4:19. See the comments in Langermann, ‘‘Some Astrological Themes,’’ pp. 49–61; Sela, Astrology and BiblicalExegesis, pp. 103–106.

A. Hughes 13

spheres and the signs of the horoscope with the terminus being the vision of God,who is beyond all such parameters. The philosopher, once he has a properunderstanding of the various planets and their properties, is able to move beyondthem – something the protagonist in H

_ay literally does. This is what allows ibn

Ezra, at least within the context of H_ay, to combine effectively the potentially conflict-

ing worldviews of philosophy and astrology. If an individual does not learn the varioussciences of which philosophy is composed, he will remain in the lower world at themercy of the body and its desires. Such an individual, in turn, will also be at the mercyof the various planetary motions and cycles. Philosophy is, thus, the key that unlocksthe secrets of the universe.

III. The Journey Completed: Knowledge of the Upper World

Crucial for understanding the third part of both ibn Ezra’s narrative and his cosmologyin general is the faculty of the imagination. As the faculty that permits the apprehen-sion of immaterial truth through images, it provides an important access to truth.74

For when the imagination is purified and directed to noble concerns it resemblesthe pure intellect.75 Unlike the intellect, however, the imagination is able to knowparticulars and it does so in such a way that it relates them back to the divineworld from which they emanate and to which they are ontically related.76 Here it isnecessary to remember that Neoplatonic ontology is concerned not so much withthe appearance of a given phenomenon, but with its traces or images. These images,although replicas, none the less preserve the original: The lower is not antagonistic to

74For one of the most important discussions of the imagination in medieval Jewish Thought, see Elliot R.Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines, esp. pp. 160–181. Also, see my comments in ‘‘Imagining theDivine: Ghazali’s Defense of Dreams and Dreaming,’’ Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70.1(2002). pp. 33–53.

75This is a recurring motif in ancient and medieval philosophy. See, for example, Plato, Philebus39b; Sophist 263d–624b; Proclus, Platonic Theology, IV.9.193.15–16; V.5.22.3–10. For relevant secondaryliterature, see Sara Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism: Non-Discursive Thinking in the Texts ofPlotinus, Proclus, and Damascius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 167–196; RichardLamberton, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonic Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the EpicTradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 183–197. E. Moutsopoulos, Les Structure del’imaginaire dans le philosophie de Proclus (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1985). For one of the clearestexpressions on the nature of the relationship between the intellect and the imagination, see Avicenna,Risalah f ı al-‘ishq, in Traites mystiques d’Abou Ali al-Hosain b. Abdallah ibn Sina ou d’Avicenne, IIIiemefasc., ed. M.A.F. Mehren (Leiden: Brill, 1894), p. 13. It is uncertain if ibn Ezra would have had access tothis work.

76In a famous passage from the Enneads (I.4.10.6), Plotinus compares the imagination to a mirror: when thismirror is smooth, polished, and bright, it projects images ‘‘back beyond themselves.’’ On the identification ofthe mirror with the imagination, see H.J. Blumenthal, Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrine of the EmbodiedSoul (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971), p. 92. We are, thus, able to know intelligibles as if we had perceivedthem through the senses. This activity occurs, according to Plotinus, when the mind operates non-discursively(c.f., I.4.10.16–17). On the metaphor of the mirror in medieval Islam and its repercussions on philosophy,see Manfred Ullmann, Das Motiv des Spiegels in der arabischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 62–120.

Juxtaposed against my argument, Greive claims that there exists a fundamental tension in ibn Ezra’s thoughtbetween rational knowledge and the vision of God. See his Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, p. 82. Thistension, however, is more apparent than real because it ignores the faculty of the imagination and the role ofaesthetics in medieval philosophy.


the higher, but rather contains it.77 Within this context, the imagination is important forat least two reasons. First, it is involved in the abstraction of sensation, therebybecoming an important link in the ascending scale of knowledge. Second,the imagination is important at or near the top of this scale because the ultimatemoment of Neoplatonic epistemology is described in terms of a majestic vision –and it is the function of the imagination to translate the incorporeal nature of this‘‘seeing’’ into familiar, corporeal images.

It is against this backdrop that we need to situate the third and final section ofH_ay ben Meqitz. Within this context, the narrative progresses to its climax: the

individual’s experiential encounter with the structure of the highest world (ha-olamha-elyon), wherein both the disembodied angels and, above them, God are located.The most significant theoretical issue that emerges here is: What exactly does theprotagonist encounter and/or experience? Is he able to apprehend God in His essence?

The dynamic of the journey is such that, until he reaches the sphere of the angels,the protagonist provides a descriptive account based on what the senses perceive.Beyond this, however, he can go no further since he simply lacks the epistemologicalapparatus.78 It is at this juncture that ibn Ezra shifts the description from the external tothe internal as the protagonist must now, paradoxically, ‘‘see’’ through ‘‘closed eyes.’’Significantly at the threshold of the boundary between the intermediate andupper worlds, there is no initiation corresponding to the previous ones by water(Section 7) and fire (Section 15). What the individual must do, however, is switchthe focus of his vision from the external to the internal, and let his intellectgive way to his imagination. Upon crossing the border (zebul ) to the tenth sphere,the protagonist claims:

I was afraid and said/‘‘How awesome is this place that I see.’’

He replied: ‘‘From your feet/Remove the sandals.

From the matter of your corpse/Lift your soul.

Foresake your thoughts/Relax your eyelids!

See by the eyes of your interior/The pupils of your heart.’’79

77A.C. Lloyd, The Anatomy of Neoplatonism, pp. 137–138; J.M. Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 84–102; John Deck, Nature, Contemplation and theOne (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), pp. 56–63.

78As the faculty of internal representation, the imagination represents the absent as present and the immater-ial in material terms. In so doing, it is the faculty that works on the interface of world and mind, therebyenabling the individual to experience corporeally the incorporeal. See, in this regard, Eva T.H. Brann,The World of the Imagination: Sum and Substance (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991), pp. 5ff; JohnSallis, The Force of the Imagination: The Sense of the Elemental (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,2000), pp. 215–223.

79H_ay, Section 26.

A. Hughes 15

By switching the narrative to an internal framework, ibn Ezra claims that knowledge ofthis part of the cosmos is intuitive and comes about primarily through embodied images.This stage – the encounter with the disembodied angels – brings the individual to theheights of knowledge. There is, according to the cosmological-ontological map thatH_ay presents, essentially only one stage higher than this, the encounter with God. The lan-

guage that is here used to describe this experience is specifically based on the experienceof Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:5). Does ibn Ezra imply that the one who attains phi-losophical knowledge reaches a level that is equal to that of Moses? This question, in turn,broaches one concerning the nature of the relationship between the ecstatic experiencefound in H

_ay and the experience of prophecy.80

In his commentary to Psalm 139:18, ibn Ezra claims that prophetic vision occurswhen the human soul cleaves to the Universal Soul (ha-neshamah ha-elyonah)which results in the vision of wonderful images (temunot nifla’ot). These images,significantly, do not appear to be qualitatively different from those experienced bythe protagonist’s imaginative gaze.81 Much like the prophet, the unnamed protagonistexperiences the Divine, grasps it ‘‘visually,’’ not simply intellectually, but also imagina-tively, sensually, and emotionally. For ibn Ezra, the visionary component of prophecy,much like the telos of the philosopher’s experience, is explained by means ofthe forms that present themselves to the imaginative faculty. The philosopher’s knowl-edge, then, seems to be qualitatively similar to Moses’s.82 However, whereas Moses wasprevented from seeing God’s face (Ex 33:20),83 Hay implies to the protagonist that hehas the ability ‘‘to know [God]/ To apprehend (lah

_azot) Him.’’84

Following the aforementioned section, H_ay offers a description of God and His

attributes in a manner that is fairly typical of the medieval Jewish philosophers.85

H_ay emphasizes God’s unity, immateriality, omnipotence, and omniscience; he

also stresses God’s attributes of action, in particular righteousness (z_edek), justice

(mishpat), and loving-kindness (h_esed ).86 What is significant in ibn Ezra’s description,

however, is his assumption that the individual can actually apprehend God by meansof the ‘‘pupils of the heart.’’ This term derives from Sufi sources87 and seems to refer to

80On the structural relationship between the poet and the prophet in medieval poetry, see Dan Pagis, ‘‘ThePoet as Prophet in Medieval Hebrew Literature,’’ in Poetry and Prophecy: The Beginnings of a LiteraryTradition, ed. J. Kugel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 140–150.

81SeeH_ay, Section 26. Also, see the comments in Wolfson, ‘‘God, the Demiurge, and the Intellect,’’ p. 98 n. 79.

82Unfortunately, ibn Ezra’s ‘‘theory’’ of prophecy, unlike Maimonides’ discussion in Guide II.32ff, nowheresupplies us with a systematic account of either the quiddity of prophecy or its relationship to the imaginativefaculty.

83For a discussion of the paradoxical nature of this verse and its role in the history of Jewish visionaryexperience, see Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, pp. 13–51.

84H_ay, Section 28.

85E.g., Saadia Gaon, Sefer ha-emunot we-ha-de’ot (Kitab al-amanat wa al-i‘tiqadat, ed. trans. Joseph Kafih_(Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 76–115; Ibn Gabirol, Keter Malkut, Sections 1–10; Bah

_ya Ibn Pakuda, Sefer torat hovot

ha-levatot, pp. 18–45; Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, III.16, 20.86C.f., Guide III.53 for Maimonides discussion of these three attributes. On the problematics of the last chap-

ter of the Guide, see Shlomo Pines, ‘‘The Limits of Human Knowledge According to al-Farabi, ibn Bajja, andMaimonides,’’ in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1979), pp. 82–109.

87This is especially evident in the work of Ghazali. See, in particular, his Ih_ya‘ulum al-dın (Cairo: n.p.,1967),

vol. 3, pp. 25ff.; vol. 4, pp. 627ff; idem., Al-Mad_nun bihı ‘ala ghair ahlihı, in Majmu‘a rasa’il (Beirut: Dar

al-kutub al-’alimiyya, 1986), pp. 125f. Within this context, see my ‘‘Imagining the Divine: Ghazali’s Defenseof Dreams and Dreaming,’’ esp. pp. 41–45. Several of Ghazali’s disciplines made their way to al-Andalus,taking his teachings with them. One figure, in particular, Ibn al-‘Arif (d. 1141), frequently used this metaphor.See his Mah

_asin al-majalis, ed. Miguel Asın Palacios (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1933), esp. pp. 33ff.


the imaginative faculty.88 The narrative continues:

I said, ‘‘Please, my Lord, listen to my plea for mercy/To you I turn my eyes.

Upon you I cast my troubles/To your hand I entrust my spirit.

Tell me with what shall I approach Him?/How shall I know Him?

I have truly longed to know Him/I yearn to see Him.’’

He replied, ‘‘Uphold my words/Keep my teaching/Walk in my path, and do not depart from me.

You will know your spirit/As is fitting your ability and your strength.

Then you will be able to know Him/To apprehend Him.’’89

In this passage, ibn Ezra repeats the customary formula of medieval Neoplatonism;namely, that to know oneself (i.e., one’s soul), the individual, as a microcosm, is ableto have knowledge of the universe, or the macrocosm.90 The way in which one doesthis, as H

_ay observes, is by means of following the path that he has marked out.

Now what does this path consist of? Is it open solely to those who study thesciences? Significantly, ibn Ezra nowhere mentions in his narrative the concept ofTorah-study or even the knowledge of the Divine Name.91 The journey progressesnaturally: one seems to pass out of each sphere, sub- or supra-lunar, as soon asone masters the science (or sciences) that is associated with it. So, although, onone level, H

_ay ben Meqitz is a Jewish narrative, resplendent with Biblical and

post-Biblical images, it nevertheless becomes necessary to ask: to just what extentdoes this imagery effect the content of the narrative?

88Wolfson, however, claims that the ‘‘inner eye’’ in ibn Ezra, contrary to Halevi, refers to the intellect which,in turn, is unrelated to the imagination. See Elliot Wolfson, ‘‘Merkavah Traditions in Philosophic Garb:Judah Halevi Reconsidered,’’ Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 57 (1990/1991),p. 208, n. 90. Although this is certainly true in many cases, here, I would argue, it would seem to refer tothe imaginative faculty.

89H_ay, Section 28.

90For other examples of this formulation in his corpus, see Commentary to Exodus 31:18; Yesod Mora, II.9;XII.3. On the motif of self-knowledge as a means of knowledge of God in medieval Jewish thought,see Alexander Altmann, ‘‘The Delphic Maxim in Medieval Islam and Judaism,’’ Biblical and Other Studies,ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 196–232.

91On the use of the Divine Name in prophecy in general and Mosaic prophecy in particular, see hisCommentary to Exodus 6:3. On the implications of this, see Wolfson, ‘‘God, the Demiurge, and theIntellect,’’ pp. 106ff. However, this motif is distinctly lacking in H

_ay.

A. Hughes 17

Fortunately, in other works ibn Ezra better grounds the place of the sciences in theframework of the Jewish tradition. In one of his more ‘‘systematic’’ treatments, YesodMora, ibn Ezra claims that the Torah teaches more than any teacher or philosophercan.92 Before one can inquire into the nature of the commandments, one mustfirst accept them on a religious level. In this treatise ibn Ezra not only connects thetripartite nature of the human soul (neshamah, nefesh, and ruah

_) with the tripartite

nature of the universe (the upper world, the intermediate world, and the lowerworld), he also connects both of these to the tripartite nature of the commandments.93

In this regard, he divides the commandments into three categories: those of the heart(e.g., that there is no God but God, and that one must love Him), those of the mouth(e.g., prayer), and action (e.g., fasting).94 Those of the heart are the essence (iqqar)of all the commandments. Consequently, there exists an intimate connection betweenthe neshamah, the uppermost world, and the commandments of the heart.

The result is that ibn Ezra’s concept of philosophy, although certainly possessing anaturalist tendency, cannot be separated from a deeper religious sentiment. It seems tome that one of the main reasons why ibn Ezra leaves out explicit references to Torah-study in Hay is that he meant this work as a summa ; it, thus, lacks the details of eachspecific part that comprises his worldview. In order to understand the treatise properly,then, one must be first be familiar with the rest of his literary, philosophical, andastrological corpus – not to mention his Biblical commentaries. Moreover, ibn Ezraseems to present H

_ay ben Meqitz in such a manner that it is not other than the

Bible: essentially it is a pastiche of Biblical phrases, verses, and words placed withina Neoplatonic framework.

The treatise continues with H_ay suggesting that, if one proceeds a little further up

the scala naturae, it is possible to reach a point where one can ‘‘know’’ God and‘‘see’’ Him. This occurs despite the fact that in the previous section H

_ay had informed

the protagonist that God possesses neither shape nor image.Here, once again, the argument turns on the role of the imagination. The assump-

tion is often made that because God is ultimately beyond all human intellectualconstructs, it is impossible to have knowledge of anything but His actions.95 Buthow does such a view make room for the imaginative faculty? Just because theintellect is unable to apprehend God, must we posit the same conditions as regardsthe imagination? Indeed, in H

_ay, ibn Ezra does allude to the notion that where the

intellect is closed to a deeper knowledge of God, the imagination is open. In hislong Commentary to Exodus 23:20, ibn Ezra claims that when the soul is directedupwards ‘‘images, forms, and visions’’ are created for it. It is these phenomena thatthe imagination apprehends, thereby providing access to God and the upper world –a world that is otherwise all but closed to the intellect.96

The telos of the narrative, then, seems to be the experiential pleasure that derives –after one has already mastered the requisite sciences – from apprehending that whichis immaterial which, in turn, leads the individual to bask in the presence of God.Moreover, ibn Ezra intimates that the individual can achieve this in this world.

92Yesod Mora VII.12.93See my comments in ‘‘Two Approaches,’’ p. 144.94Yesod Mora VII.10–12.95E.g., Kreisel, ‘‘On the Term kol in Abraham Ibn Ezra,’’ p. 52.96Significantly, though, in Yesod Mora X.2 he claims that our knowledge of God is restricted to the world of

nature and confined, primarily, to the study of the various sciences.


This notion of experiential pleasure is not a supernatural event, something thathappens only to those whom God chooses. On the contrary, it is a natural eventand, theoretically, it is something that is open to all.97 So, although ibn Ezra pro-nounces this in a manner that is akin to the divine invitations of the Wisdom litera-ture,98 he denies that mystical gnosis is imparted supernaturally and independentof noetic capability. In H

_ay ben Meqitz this knowledge of God is presented as the

telos of every human life (although very few will actualize it). What ibn Ezraessentially does in this narrative, to reiterate, is to provide an imaginative map ofthe structure of the universe, thereby inviting the reader to make the journey himself.

Although H_ay ben Meqitz is firmly rooted within the Neoplatonic tradition in general

and the Jewish Neoplatonic tradition in particular, it nevertheless shares a number ofsimilarities with various trajectories of early Jewish mysticism, especially regardingimages and vocabulary. Like the literature associated with this tradition, one ofthe central themes of H

_ay is that of several heavens through which the individual

soul ascends. The corollary of this is that H_ay, like the early mystical tradition,

places a strong emphasis on the visual and visionary dimension.99 Indeed, the goalof the unnamed protagonist parallels that of the yored merkabah in that both yearnto apprehend the beauty of the Divine. The Hekhalot material usually describes thisapprehension in terms of the luminous quality of light, which as Wolfson argues isthe essence of the glory, the throne, and the angels.100 Chapter 24 from HekhalotRabbati, for example, states

His throne radiates before Him and His palace is full of splendor.His Majesty is becoming and His Glory is an adornment for Him.His servants sing before Him and proclaim the might of His wonders,As King of all kings and Master of all masters,encircled by rows of crowns,surrounded by the ranks of the princes of splendor.With a gleam of His ray he encompasses the skyAnd His splendor radiates from the heights.Abysses flame from His mouth and firmaments sparkle from His body.101

We encounter similar images, albeit it with a somewhat different intentionality, inibn Ezra’s H

_ay ben Meqitz:

97E.g., Commentary to Deuteronomy 6:7.98For example, compare the opening verses of H

_ay with Job 34:2, Proverbs 8:7.

99C.f., Hekhalot Rabbati, in Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, eds. Peter Schafer et al. (Tubingen: Mohr, 1981),Sections 159, 248, 251, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411; Merkabah Rabbah, in Synopse, sections 41, 699; Ma‘asehMerkabah, in Synopse, Section 570. On the relationship between this literature and the Shi’ur Qoma, seeMartin S. Cohen, The Shi‘ur Qoma: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Landham:University Press of America, 1983), pp. 168ff. For an example of ibn Ezra’s use of the Shi‘ur Qoma, see theconcluding chapter to his Yesod Mora. For other requisite secondary literature, see Peter Schafer, TheHidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, trans. Aubrey Pomerance(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 15f.; Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines,pp. 74–124.

100Wolfson, Through A Speculum that Shines, p. 86. C.f., Synopse, Sections 41, 481, 699, 949 (cited byWolfson, p. 86, ns. 52 and 53). Compare with H

_ay, Section 17, 20, 27.

101Qtd. in Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1946), p. 59.

A. Hughes 19

All of them sing praise/In unison they lavish acclaim.

They always stand still/Constantly worshipping their Maker.

. . .

Their motion is that of those who strive/Their worship that of those who yearn.

Upon them a light shines forth/From the pure abode.

A garden spring/A well of fresh water.102

Within this context, H_ay ben Meqitz, like much of the early Jewish mystical litera-

ture, focuses on the intimate relationship between rhythm and vision.103 The emphasison the sounds of words as much as the words themselves is a way of transferring tothe reader the same experiences that the author has already experienced. These weretexts, therefore, that were certainly meant to be read aloud, in which the variousintricate harmonics and sonorous rhythms of the spoken word were meant to havea transformative effect on the individual’s soul.

We also see this intersection between Neoplatonism and early Jewish mysticism atplay in other of ibn Ezra’s works. In Yesod Mora, for example, he provides a philoso-phical interpretation of the Shi‘ur Qomah, using the speculation associated with thistradition to make a philosophical point:

The philosophers call man a microcosm. This is the secret of Metatron, the sar ha-panim. This is the secretof the five things of which the Rabbis spoke. The Shi‘ur Qomah thus states ‘‘Rabbi Ishmael said, ‘Whoeverknows the dimensions of the creator ( yos

_er) of the world is assured a place in the world to come.

Akiba and I guarantee this.104

Here ibn Ezra, inter alia, argues that the Shi‘ur Qomah literature must not be readliterally, but interpreted allegorically. Situating it within the Neoplatonic tradition, heclaims that the literature is primarily interested in showing the relationship betweentranscendence and immanence, the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Furthermore, the various ordeals that the protagonist undergoes in H_ay have coun-

terparts in the early mystical literature. The trope of purification by immersion in wateralthough a universal symbol, is one that recurs frequently throughout the Apocalypticliterature, where the celestial sojourner often undergoes some form of contactwith water (or, alternatively, fire) as a means of continuing his journey upwards.105

By employing these types of images here, ibn Ezra creates a certain expectation inhis reader, signifying that, just as the initiate underwent purification before ascendingto the throne, so, too, must the philosopher’s soul undergo a form of purification if it isto contemplate the Divine. In like manner when the unnamed protagonist apprehendsthe eternal flame, he describes his situation thus: ‘‘My hands were weak/My knees

102H_ay, Section 16. Although the imagery is similar, ibn Ezra’s narrative as I shall show presently has a much

greater emphasis on the philosophical component of this gnosis. This can be seen, for instance, in the last versewhere he mixes two popular Neoplatonic metaphors for describing the One: that of a spring and that of a purelight.

103E.g., Synopse, 198, 409, 412, 699, 700.104Yesod Mora, 12:4.105C.f., 1Enoch 17:1–8; 2Enoch 56:2; 3Enoch 42:1. For these texts, I have consulted The Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York:Doubleday, 1983).


trembled. My eyes smoked over from fear/I fell frightened onto my face. I was unableto stand/ My whole being was stricken with terror.’’106

Although H_ay, the divine guide, is described in terms that compare him to an

angel, he is actually a philosopher whose intellect has become fully actualized.Moreover, the protagonist is not a special individual (e.g., Abraham, Enoch, RabbiIshmael), but potentially anyone who engages in philosophical contemplation. IbnEzra, then, has essentially absorbed many of the images associated with the earlyJewish mystical tradition and reframed them in such a manner that they becomeacceptable in the light of the cultural, intellectual, and literary categories that definedthe Jewish experience in al-Andalus.107 So even though H

_ay ben Meqitz is undoubt-

edly a Neoplatonic work, ibn Ezra none the less utilizes a specific vocabulary and aset of categories that are at his disposal in order to contextualize his philosophy.In addition to this, many of the early Jewish philosophers were interested in cosmol-ogy and, as Jospe has shown, writing philosophical commentaries on earlyJewish mystical texts, such as the Sefer Yes

_irah, provided them with an authentic

Jewish response with which they could more clearly define their own theories.108

Indeed, ibn Ezra is said to have written a commentary on this work. Ibn Ezra’s interestin the structure of the universe, therefore, is not something that is based solely onhis commitment to Neoplatonism or Avicenna’s Arabic narrative. On the contrary,the cosmology that ibn Ezra presents in H

_ay is one that has precedents in other

Jewish sources and is one that reflects an on-going concern about the structure ofthe universe and the manner in which the individual can ascend through it.109

Significantly, the narrative is written post factum, in which the protagonist, havingexperienced the journey, has returned to his starting point. The text ends with theprotagonist thanking H

_ay directly for his guidance and God indirectly for sending

H_ay into this world:110

I said to him/‘‘May you be forever blessed.

You have brought me thus far/To enter and come out again in peace.

106H_ay, Section 15. C.f., The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:1–6; 3Enoch 1:7; 1Enoch 14:24–25.

107This is in keeping with the fact that many of the early Jewish philosophers – including ibn Ezra – wrotephilosophical commentaries to the Sefer Yes

_irah. See Raphael Jospe, ‘‘Early Philosophical Commentaries on

the Sefer Yezirah,’’ Revue des Etudes Juives 149 (1990), pp. 369–415.108Jospe, ‘‘Early Philosophical Commentaries on the Sefer Yezirah,’’ pp. 376–377.109E.g., Saadia Gaon, Comm.to Sefer Yes

_irah, found in Sefer Yes

_irah (Kitab al-mabadı) ‘im Perush R. Saadia

bar Joseph Fayyumi, ed. Joseph Kafih_

(Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 30–32; Ibn Gabirol, Kether Malkhut. See Jospe,Early Philosophical Commentaries,’’ pp. 377ff. Another important figure who speculated on the natureand structure of the universe that would prove highly influential among later kabbalists was ShabbetaiDonnolo. In this regard, see Elliot Wolfson, ‘‘The Theosophy of Shabbetai Donnolo, With Special Emphasison the doctrine of Sefirot in his Sefer Hakhmoni’’ Jewish History 6 (1992), pp. 281–316.

110Levin, Introduction to H_ay, p. 44.

A. Hughes 21

Happy are you/And happy are your friends.

Those who uphold your religion/And pay heed to your wise words.

Praised be the Lord your GodWho made you governor of His World/Who put you in charge of His people.

He who brought me to you/Who made me listen to your words.

He is above all majesty and greatness/Exalted above every blessing and praise.

He alone does great things/His steadfast love is eternal.’’111

However, the central image of this passage, and one that would be readily evidentto the reader, is the evocation of the journey to Pardes.112 Within that context, fourindividuals entered paradise and only one, Rabbi Akiva, returned alive and peacefully.The others either died or went insane.113 The unnamed protagonist in H

_ay undergoes

the same steps and achieved a similar gnosis to that of Rabbi Akiva. There are,however, crucial differences to which I alluded above: ibn Ezra emphasizes that thisgnosis is open to all, that it is a natural process, and that much of it is contingentupon scientific knowledge.

The conclusion of ibn Ezra’s H_ay presents an interesting departure from the termi-

nus of Avicenna’s treatise. Although both of these texts deal with the acquisitionof intellectual-mystical gnosis (Ar. ma‘rifa), they deal with this in different ways.Avicenna’s protagonist only learns of what will occur if he follows H

_ayy: he does

not physically undergo the journey in the same manner that ibn Ezra’s protagonistdoes. Indeed, Avicenna intimates that the most one can hope for in this life is fleetingglimpses of the journey, but which can only begin for real after the death of the body.However, ibn Ezra’s protagonist, speaking post factum, appears to have enteredinto the presence of the Divine, experienced what this involves, and then reemergedfrom the experience a new person. This is why ibn Ezra’s allegory ends with theprotagonist thanking both H

_ay and God, whereas Avicenna’s ends with H

_ayy issuing

an invitation to the protagonist: ‘‘if you desire, you may follow me to Him, peace.’’The question, then, emerges: Why does ibn Ezra’s allegory conclude in a manner

that is distinct from Avicenna’s ? Does it reveal a deep-rooted departure fromAvicenna’s philosophical worldview? According to Greive, the difference in the end-ings can be explained by the fact that Avicenna’s work is primarily philosophical,whereas ibn Ezra’s is more mystical in scope.114 For him, ibn Ezra’s main concern iswith the soul’s deliverance, the culmination of the ascending journey. Juxtaposedagainst this, Greive argues that Avicenna is more interested in the structure of theuniverse.115 Such a position, however, fails to take into consideration ibn Ezra’sown interest in the structure of the universe, which includes his own elaborate

111H_ay, Section 29.

112See H_agigah 14b.

113See, for example, Gershom G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken,1965), pp.57–58; idem., Kabbalah (New York: Meridian, 1974), pp. 13–14.

114Greive, Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, p. 122.115Greive, Studien zum judischen Neuplatonismus, p. 122.


description of the three worlds. These descriptions are often just as elaborate asAvicenna’s. In like manner, Greive’s formulation ignores Avicenna’s own overwhelm-ing interest in the fate of the soul.116

Ibn Ezra’s H_ay ben Meqitz follows closely the model provided by Avicenna’s

H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an, and we should, as I have argued, locate it within the tradition of

Islamicate allegory. However, the conclusion of the work indicates that ibn Ezra wasnot simply content to mimic Avicenna’s H

_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an. So not only does ibn

Ezra compose an important Neoplatonic treatise, he also appears to have used boththe title and the genre as a creative way to think about, illumine, and nuance hisown tradition. For instance, the literary trope of the soul’s awakening and ascent isone that, although central to Neoplatonism, recurs frequently in the Biblical andpost-Biblical traditions. In all three traditions, then, we encounter both the possibilityand viability of an experiential apprehension of the Divine. However, and not surpris-ingly, ibn Ezra chooses to employ the imagery and the vocabulary of his own traditionto describe the otherwise universal career and adventures of the human soul.

IV. Conclusions

It should now be apparent that Ibn Ezra’s H_ay ben Meqitz is neither philosophically

immature nor a simple copy of Avicenna’s Arabic composition. On the contrary, thiswork differs from Avicenna’s in both its form and its content. Formally, ibn Ezra’sH_ay is characterized by its rich use of language, especially his employment of a

harmonic and rhyming prose – something that Avicenna’s H_ayy ibn Yaqz

_an is not

concerned with. Ibn Ezra may well have been influenced by medieval Islamicateliterary criticism concerning plagiarism (Ar. sariqa), in which originality is not definedby who says what first, but by the embellishment of traditional, well-known motifs(Ar. ma‘anı ).117 As far as content is concerned, there exist differences in the structureof the universe in which the journey takes place. Whereas ibn Ezra’s universe isonly vertical, Avicenna’s also bifurcates on an East–West horizontal axis. There alsoexist different emphases and presuppositions in the two narratives. Primary in thisregard is ibn Ezra’s overwhelming interest in the astrological implications of the prota-gonist’s journey, and the different denouements of the two narratives.

Even though H_ay ben Meqitz is not simply a work of literature, the poetic and

aesthetic features of allegory are crucial to its generation of meaning. Here I wouldargue that ibn Ezra and Avicenna share a similar assumption: these various literaryfeatures invite the reader into the narrative and allow him or her to experience thejourney through the protagonist’s eyes. This experiential dimension is an importantaspect of allegory and one that is in keeping with the authors’ commitment to

116According to Gutas, one of the overarching concerns of Avicenna, and one that runs throughout all hisdisparate writings, is the nature and fate of the human soul. See Gutas, Avicenna and the AristotelianTradition, p. 85.

117E.g., H_asan Ibn Rashıq al-Qayrawanı, Al-’Umda fı mah

_asin al-shi‘r, ed. Muh

_yı al-Dın ‘Abd al-H

_amıd, 5th

edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Jıl, 1981), vol. 2, p. 280; Moses ibn Ezra, Kitab al-muh_ad

_ara wa al-mudhakara, p. 174.

See, in this regard, the discussion in Joseph Dana, Poetics of Medieval Hebrew Literature According to Mosesibn Ezra (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1982), pp. 18–37.

A. Hughes 23

Neoplatonism which envisaged philosophy as a spiritual progression, not simply asan analytical system based on propositional logic.H_ay ben Meqitz then is an important text in medieval Jewish thought, whose

mode of presentation provided ibn Ezra with a forum to introduce many of thepositions that he only hints at in his commentaries. If we ignore the allegoricalcomponent of this narrative we risk reducing it to either the domains of literature orphilosophical primers. In effect, H

_ay ben Meqitz is a philosophical work that

draws its vocabulary and images from the Bible and the various trajectories ofearly Jewish mysticism, all of which are subsequently contextualized by the aestheticsensibilities of the medieval Jewish Neoplatonists.


hughes, the three worlds of ibn ezra

Documents