pseudo theology of aristotle structure and composition

8/20/2019 Pseudo Theology of Aristotle Structure and Composition

1/36


2/36

PSEUDO-THEOLOGY F ARISTOTLE, HAPTER I:STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION

byCristina 'Ancona*

Padua

For Franz Rosenthal n his eighty-ffth irthday

In a famous study published in the biennium 1952-54, Franz Rosenthalargued n favour of the existence of a common source for all the fragmentsof Plotinus' writings translated nto Arabicl. His main argument consistedin showing that the so-called "Sayings of the Greek Sage" - preserved bothin doxographies and independently , admittedly Neoplatonic in content2,came from an Arabic adaptation of Plotinus which shared the stylistic and

doctrinal eatures of both the pseudo-Theology of Aristotle and the pseudo-Farabian Epistle n the DivineScience, hose dependence upon Plotinushad already been established by Paul Kraus in 19403.

The "Sayings of the Greek Sage" are preserved in the Siwan al-hikma which camedown to us only in two abridgments) and in the Kitab al-milal wa-l-nihal y al-Sahrastanl,whose source was the Siwan al-hikma. When Rosenthal wrote As-Sayhal-Yunanl ndthe Arabic Plotinus Source, the Siwan al-hikma was attributed to Abu Sulayman al-Sigistanl; later on, also thanks to Rosenthal himself, the history and authorship of thisdoxographical work were substantially econsidered. According to W. al-Qadl, KitabSiwanal-,Hikma: tructure, omposition, uthorship nd sources. In: Der Islam 58. 1981. P.87-124, the Siwanal-hikma s the work of an author who


3/36

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition 79

al-Qadi proposes the authorship of Abu l-Qasim al-Katib, a disciple of Abu al-Hasan al-'Amirl who


4/36

80 Cristina'Ancona

Some years later, the ms Oxford, Bodleian Library, Or. Marsh 539was

extensivelyonsulted by another cholar, Geoffrey Lewis, to whomwe owe

the nglish translation of the Arabic Plotinuswhich faces the Greek text in

the ditio maior of the Enneads8. ot only Lewis Ellled some lacunas, in-

cludingn his translation dditional passages from the Arabic Plotinuswhich

areound in the ms mentioned above9 and recognizing other placeswhere

the assages preserved n the pseudo-Theology and in the "Sayingsof the

Greek age" overlap, but also provided he scholars working n the fieldwith

an xtremely useful table of correspondences n both senses, from theGreek

treatises o their Arabic paraphrase nd vice versa.

The passages n questionwere found by Lewis in the ms at ff. 22v-28v, correspond-

ingo IV 8[6], 3-5; ff. 32r-33v, corresponding o V 1[10],2-3; ff. 33v-38v, correspond-ingo IV 3[27], 18and 20-23; ff. 38v-39v, corresponding o IV 9[8], 4,

1 and 2; ff. 39v-

43r, orresponding o IV 4[28], 11, 13, 14and 18; ff. 43r-44r, orrespondingo V 1[10],

8; . 103r-v, corresponding o IV 4[28], 28. The passages discoveredby Lewis do not

begin, s the others already known do, by the formula "the Greek Sagesaid", but by

other ormulae: i) f. 22vlO: qala Aflatunu nna kulla 'aqlin (= OV%O;TOlVVV ZavTo;

vov..., V 8[6], 3.6-7); (ii) f. 32r7-8: qala: wa-nahnu wasifuna -nafsawa-kayfa a butu

l-hayatu i-l-kulli (= tiS bn TQoZos Tn5 XOQ7la; TOV 4nV EVTE TO dVZaVXl..., V

1[10], .10); (iii) f. 33v4: wa-l-nafsu _a saratfi l-abdani am tara -asya'aka-ma kanat

tarahaablu = noeQa be pO7ld@ tVXn XQTal ZQiV E0ElV..., IV 3[27], 18.1); (iv)

f.38vl: wa-qala: al-nafsu wahidatun wa-ka ratun = akka yaQ ?TEl O kO7Og, ZO5Fla;aQa SyaQ ano Fla; P Fla ai naval..., IV 9[8], 4.2-3); (v) f. 39v9:

qala: wa-l-

nafsu -mudbiratu i-ha_a l-kulli -ardiyyi = xai bel tov navtoS qvblOlXUlV..., IV

4[28],11.5); vi) f. 43r6-7: qala Aflatun: l-asya'u lati nbagasat wa-ibtida'atminmaliki

l-asya'ikulliha = xai bla tovto xai ta flkavo; tQa Ta navTaJISQi TOV navv

aolkea. . , V 1 10], 8.1 2); (vii) f. 103r7-8: wa-qad qulnafi quwa -nafsiannaha illun

laha = OTl TO QVXlXOV EXEl EVEQ7El Faklota, o to iXvo5 o Wvxlxov...,V4[28],28.16).

Thanks o Lewis's work, it clearly appeared hat the three texts inwhich

the Arabic tradition of Plotinus' writings came down to us, albeitdistinct

from one another, did originally belong in one COlpUS nd can be used toreconstruct t. As a matter f fact, in going through he Arabic Plotinus

accord-

ing to the actual order of the Greek treatises as they were arrangedn the

Enneads y Polphyry, one realizes hat he Arabic remainders ollow - rough-

ly speaking a sort of chess-board disposition. Although t happensat times

8 Plotini Opera . I-III, ed. P. Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer, . II, PlotinianaArabica ad codicum

fidem anglice vertit G. Lewis. Paris Bruxelles 1959 (Museum Lessianum.Series Philosophica.

34).9 I wish to thank very much Dr. Doris Nicholson, Bodleian Library, Department f Ori-ental Books, for her kind help in providing me with the microfim of

the ms Marsh 539. The

ms has been examined by F. W. Zimmermann, heOrigins of the so-calledTheology fAristotle.

In: Pseudo-Aristotle n the Middle Ages. The Theology and other texts,ed. by J. Kraye, W.F.

Ryan and C.B. Schmitt. London 1986. P. 110-240, in part. p. 209-217.

This content downloaded from 109.145.121.147 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:01:20 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5/36

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition81

that passages preserved n the pseudo-Theology are present n the "Sayingsof the Greek Sage" too, the large majority of Plotinian treatises and chap-

ters which are reflected in the pseudo-Theology are not reflected either inthe "sayings" or in the pseudo-Farabian pistle, and vice versa.

As is known, only the treatises gathered by Porphyry n Enneads V, V and VI - dealingrespectively with soul, intellect and the One - are reflected in the Arabic paraphrase.Traces of IV 3[27] appear both in the pseudo-Theology and in the "Sayings of the GreekSage"; but chapter 18 is preserved in the "sayings"; chapters 19 and 20, in the pseudo-Theology there is a passage in common), and chapter 21 is preserved in the "sayings".As for IV 4[28], chapters 1-8 are preserved in the pseudo-Theology; chapters 11-28 (notcontinuously) are reflected in the "Sayings of the Greek sage", and chapters 32-39 are

reflected in the pseudo-Theology. Treatise IV 5[29] is reflected only in the "Sayings ofthe Greek Sage". Treatise IV 7[2] is preserved in the pseudo-Theology as for chapters 1,8 and 13-15; there is a passage in common between the pseudo-Theology and the "Say-ings of the Greek Sage" in chapter 8. Treatise IV 8[6] is reflected in the pseudo-Theol-ogy as for its beginnings (chapters 1-2) and end (chapters 5-8), whereas the central part(chapters 3-5) is preserved in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise IV 9[8] is re-flected only in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". As for Ennead V, treatise V 1[10] isreflected only in the "sayings" as for chapter 2; there are passages in common in thepseudo-Theology and in the "sayings" as for chapters 3, 6 and 10; chapters 7, 8 and 11are reflected only in the "sayings". The short treatise V 2[1 1], with its two chapters, ispreserved only in the pseudo-Theology, which reflects both. Treatise V 3[49] is reflectedalmost in its entirety in the pseudo-Farabian Epistle on the divine cience, and only there.As for the short treatise V 4[7], its two chapters are reflected in the Epistle, but there isa slight trace of chapter 1 in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise V 5[32] is re-flected only in the Epistle. There is a slight trace of chapter V 6[24], concerning onlysome ten lines of chapter 4, in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise V 8[31], on thecontrary, is preserved only in the pseudo-Theology. Treatise V 9[5] is reflected only inthe Epistle. As for Ennead VI, there is a minimal trace of VI 4[22] in the "Sayings ofthe Greek Sage". Treatise VI 7[38], on the contrary, is widely preserved; but the firstpart is reflected in the pseudo-Theology (chapters 1-14), whereas chapters 17-18, 23, 32and 42 are reflected in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Finally, there are slight tracesof treatise VI 9[9], chapter 6, in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage".

This textual situation is best explained within the hypothesis of a com-mon text based on Enneads IV-VI. According to this hypothesis, Plotinus'writings were translated nto Arabic and at one and the same time paraphrased,since, as Rosenthal remarked, n the "Sayings of the Greek Sage" are presentsome of the intelpolations which appear also in the pseudo-Theology. Thisparaphrastic ranslation ounts as the common origin of the three texts whichcame down to us: the pseudo-Theology tselfl°, the Epistle on the Divine

10 At a moment about which scholars disagree, the pseudo-Theology eceived substantialadditions; he so-called "longer version" which resulted rom these additions s found in someJewish-Arabic ragments and is reflected in the Latin translation. An extremely useful statusquaestionis has been made by M. Aouad, La Theologie d'Aristote et autres textes du 'Plotinus




6/36

82Cristina D'Ancona

Science,and the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". In so far as the "sayings" atimes overlap with the pseudo-Theology,heycan either derive rom the latter,

or from a source common to both, namely, theparaphrastic translation t-

elf. On thecontrary, he Epistle, which has no common passages with theseudo-Theology,annot derive from the latter and, in so far as it shares n

the linguistic and doctrinal features of the other two texts of the Arabiclotinus, oes in all likelihood derive from the same common source, albeitndependently rom the pseudo-Theology. hen in 1973 the Proclus Ara-us y Gerhard Endress systematically exploited the peculiarities of theranslationtyle as well as the lexical and doctrinal adaptations which char-cterizehe Arabic version of Proclus' Elements f Theology, n order to

ocatet within the current of theGraeco-Arabic translations, his Plotinianommonource was clearly identiEledll. As a matter of fact, Endress was

bleo identify the style of the anonymous translation of Proclus' Elementsfheology y comparing t carefully with the Arabic Plotinus and otherranslationsoming from what is nowadays called the "circle of al-Kindl''l2.hetranslation of Plotinus' writings was made by Ibn Na'ima al-Himsl, as

were informed by the incipit n the Prologue of the pseudo-Theology13,acthich allows us to locate it in the Elrsthalf of the ninth Centuryl4. Andditionalinformation n the incipit f the Prologue provides us with aneven

orerecise chronology,since we are told that the work translated by Ibna'imal-Himsl was edited for Ahmad bn al-Mu'tasim i-Llah by al-Kindl15,hereforearlier than 860/870 - approximately he date of Kindl's death -

Arabus'.n: Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques publie sous la direction de R. Goulet. I.Paris989. P. 541-590, in part. p. 564-570 on the "longer version".l . Endress, Proclus Arabus. Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica inarabischerUberzetzung. Wiesbaden-Beirut 973 (Beiruter Texte und Studien, 10).12Theup-to-date account of facts and problems concerning he ''Kindl's circle"

has been

providedy G. Endress, The Circle ofal-Kindl. Early Arabic Translations rom the Greekand heise of Islamic Philosophy. In: The Ancient Tradition n Christian and Islamic Hel-

lenism.tudieson the Transmission f Greek Philosophy ndSciencesdedicated o H.J. DrossaartLulofsn his ninetieth birthday, ed. by G. Endress and R. Kruk. Leiden 1997. P. 43-76.13Diesogenannte Theologie des Aristoteles aus arabischen Handschriften um ersten Malherausgegebenon F. Dieterici. Leipzig 1882 (repr. Rodopi, Amsterdam 1965). P. 1.4-5; 'A.Badawi,flutln 'inda l-'arab. Plotinus apud Arabes. Theologia Aristotelis etfragmenta quaesupersunt.airo 1955, 1966, Kuwait 1977 (Dirasat Islamiyya, 20). P. 3.7.14Thistranslator s mentioned in the Fihrist, p. 244.5 Flugel; p. 304.26 Tagaddud.Zimmermann,he Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle, p. 135 convincingly arguesthat,inceindl's First Philosophy seems to postdate he pseudo-Theology, his fact, due tothededicationf Kindl's work to caliph al-Mu'ta$im

(833-42) gives .15 Ed.Dieterici, p. 1.5-6; ed. Badawl, p. 3.8-9. Zimmermann, The Origins of the so-calledTheologyf Aristotle, p. 118-119, interprets he verb aslaha which appear n the incipit in thesense hat


7/36

Pseudo-Theology f Aristotle: Structure nd Composition 83

and in all likelihood around he forties of the century, during he period whenal-Kindl was the preceptor of the prince Ahmadl6. One is led by this incipit

to think that Enneads IV-VI were translated by Ibn Na'ima al-Him$l or al-Kindl, who made the work circulating n the cultivated milieux of Bagdad,and chiefly in the Caliphal court. In fact, we learn from the Fihrist by Ibnal-Nadlm hat at least another philosophical work was translatedfor al-Kindl,namely, Aristotle's Metaphysicsl7. In his study on the Arabic translationsof Aristotle's De caelo, Endress made clear that the three versions of thiswork present grammatical and lexical peculiarities which point to differentperiods of translationl8. Among the three versions of the De caelo, one wasmade by Ibn al-Bitrlql9 and its features were identiEled y Endress as thesame which appear n the translation of the Metaphysics made for al-Kindand in the Plotinian Arabic texts, as well as in the Arabic versions of sometexts of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Proclus20. On this ground, the samescholar was able, some years later, to include in the COlpUS f the transla-tions made within the ''Kindl's circle" also the Arabic version of Proclus'Elements of Theology and the Liber de causis2l.

In 1986, F.W. Zimmermann published a book-length article on the ori-gins of the main remainder of the Arabic translation of Plotinus, namely,

the pseudo-Theology22. mong the many points he made in this comprehen-out by Kindl>> p. 118). He raises the question whether or not this verb can indicate a substan-tial revision made by al-Kindl, and answers n the negative. In so far as he is convinced that namely, the pseudo-Theology p. 112) , he thinks that the question p. 119).

16 On Kindl's position at the Caliphal court and its significance for the translation move-ment see F. Rosenthal, Al-Kindi als Literat. In: Orientalia 2. 1942. P. 262-288, in part. p.265, n. 1; A. L. Ivry, Al-Kindi and the Mu'tazila: Philosophical and Political Reevaluation.In: Oriens 25-26. 1976. P. 69-85; Endress, The Circle of al-Kindi, n part. p. 46-47; D. Gutas,Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement n Baghdad andEarly 'Abbasid Society (2nd-4th 8th-l Oth centuries). London 1998, in part. p. 121 126.

17 Fihrist, p. 251.28 Flugel; p. 312.14 Tagaddud. Endress, The Circle of al-Kindi, p. 44,mentions Aristotle's Meteorologica too as a work whose translation was made upon a de-mand by al-Kindl. On the works translated within the circle of al-Kindl and possibly commis-sioned by him, see ibidem, p. 52-58.

18 G. Endress, Die arabische Ubersetzungen on Aristoteles' Schrift De caelo. Frankfurtam Main 1966. For a comprehensive account of the distinctive features of the translationsmade within this circle see Endress, The Circle of al-Kindi, n part. p. 58-62; Endress' resultsplay an important ole in Gutas' account of what he calls "translation omplexes": ee GreekThought, Arabic Culture, p. 141 150.

19 This translator s mentioned n the Fihrist, p. 244.3 Flugel; p. 304.25 Tagaddud. Seeon him Endress, Die arabische Ubersetzungen on Aristoteles' Schrift De caelo, p. 89-95.20 Endress, Die arabische Ubersetzungen on Aristoteles' Schrift De caelo, p. 118-134.21 Endress, Proclus Arabus, p. 185-193.22 F. Zimmermann, The Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle (quoted supra, n.

9)




8/36

84 Cristina D'Ancona

sive study on the Graeco-Arabic ransmission of the Neoplatonic writings,three appear as the most innovative: irst, Zimmermann ejected as unproven

the hypothesis of the dependence of the Arabic Plotinus from a Syriac re-working of Plotinus' writings; second, he rejected as hardly Elttingwith theinternal data of the Arabic Plotinian texts the hypothesis of Porphyry'sdoctrinal nfluence lying in the background, an hypothesis whose aim wasto explain the fact that the Arabic Plotinus at times parts company with theGreek one; third, he rejected as unnecessary he traditional nterpretation fAristotle's alleged authorship f some Neoplatonic Arabic texts as a 23. s a result of his interpretation f the scope and ways ofthe creation of a corpus of Arabic Neoplatonica n the formative period ofthe Islamic philosophy, Zimmermann maintained hat


9/36


"Porphyrian ypothesis">>, amely, the one mantaining hat some important eatures whichdistinguish the Arabic Plotinus from the original Greek text are due to a suppositious

rearrangementmade by Porphyry. Also, Rowson maintains that >27.

I have argued elsewhere in favour of some order in the new arrangmentof Proclus' materials which is given in the Liber de causis, and would liketo devote this paper to discuss the lack of order in the pseudo-Theology,tentatively arguing n favour of a process of rational editing. I shall take its

f1rst chapter as a case in point. Whether or not this allows more general25 Zimmermann, The Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle, p. 128.26 "Kt' iS, in Zimmermann's system of sigla, p. 112).27 Ibid, p. 130.




10/36


conclusions, is a further question which makes sense only if such an edit-ing proves to be at work.

In Phaedo 66 B 1 - 67 D 3, Plato provides the answer to the question heset down at 65 A, namely "if we bring the body as the soul's partner n oursearch for intelligence, is it a hindrance or not?" a barely negative answerindeed. Body gives us many troubles, makes countless demands upon us andfills us with longings and fears of all sorts, so that if we are to have knowl-edge in the proper sense of the term, we must get rid of it. The attainmentof knowledge will be possible only after the death, when soul will be XoeiStov oatoS; and even in this life, the condition for knowing is but toXoei4elV otl FaBlota azo tov oatoS: a clear-cut and somehow one-sided position indeed. However, if we turn to the TimaeusS he body-soulrelationship s dealt with in quite a different way. At 29 D 6 - 30 C 1, inanswering he question "for what reason did the orvlotag frame this wholeuniverse?", lato works out the famous beginning of every rational heolo-gysaying that he was good and who is good can never become jealous ofanything. o he wanted

everything o be as much like himself as was pos-sible,and to this end he took over all that was visible and brought t from&aMiao taelg. Not only, but, foyloallevog, he discovered hat n the realmofnature no unintelligent thing could be better than anything which doespossessvovs. Guided by this reasoning, the Demiurge put intelligence insoul nd soul in body, in order to produce the best possible piece of work.According o the likely account, then, the presence of soul into body is butthe ffect of the divine zeovota, this is to say the BoyloFos of the Godwho oes the best possible deeds.This mere comparison of passages raises the question of their mutual

consistency. he current solution, namely, that they display Plato's devel-opmentrom a dualistic position blaming he soul-body conjunction o a morepositive ppreciation f body, was not available o ancient readers; r at leastso e are told. Ancient readers were admittedly not ready o accept that Platoor ristotle changed their mind. We are also told that they were prone toalmostvery kind of forcing, in order o keep together the whole of Plato'sor ristotle's philosophy as a totally consistent system. To our surprise,Plotinus the leader of the so-called systematicreading of Plato's thought,thehilosopher who was and still is conceived of as the main responsibleofransforming he aporetic movement of Plato's thinking into a fixed,hierarchicalystem - shows a different attitude. He sharply perceived theinconsistencyf Plato's statements about soul and body and, far from con-




11/36

Pseudo-Theolo,gy of Aristotle: Structure and Composition 87

cealing the difficulty, directly faced it, devoting a treatise - IV 8[6] - toPlato's apparent bla(povia. Of course, he raises the question because he

thinks he possesses the solution; but the very fact that he points to this prob-lem, as well as the strategies he works out to solve it, turn the treatise IV8[6] into an interesting example of what Neo-Platonism means, and by thesame token help in understanding ts role in the formative period of Islamicphilosophy.

IV 8[6] belongs in the group of the so-called first treatises, those whichPlotinus wrote after having spent ten years in teaching without writing downanything of his thought. This group of treatises provides us with a sort ofbasic draft of Plotinus' philosophy, and at least four of them deal with souland its problems: he second in the chronological order, Ileel aOavaviaSrpvxng (IV 7 in Porphyry's arrangement); he fourth, Ileel ovoiaS RPVXNSzetov (IV 2), the sixth, Ileei tn5 eiS ta oisRata xaOobov tn5 apvxng(IV 8) and the eigth, neei tov ei zaval ai rpvXai a (IV 9). Two of them,IV 7[2] and IV 8[6], plus the famous treatise V 1[10], Ileel tov telovaexlxov vzootaveov - still belonging in the same group of the first trea-tises - contain mportant evelopments about he soul-body relationship. Thequestion is sketched as early as in the second treatise in the chronological

order, IV 7, On the immortality f the soul, and takes the form of the fol-lowing aporia: granted hat soul belongs in the intelligible world, and thatthe intelligible world is separate from the sensible one, how is it possiblethat soul is immanent n body? The same aporia- soul is by nature both aninhabitant f the intelligible realm and the immanent rinciple of life in livingthings - provides the very beginning of the crucial treatise V 1 10], On thethreeprincipal hypostases. he treatise IV 8[6], On the descentof the soulinto bodies, s devoted to the full-fledged solution of the aporia.

The opening section, with its famous beginning 28 s but the premiss to the crucial question, raised at line 8:&zoeo zoS zote xal vvv xata,Saivo, . lotinus addresses he question o the tradition of Greek philosophy,partly in a clearly anti-Gnostic vein, partly following the traditional ripar-tite set of authorities on this point, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Plato29.Here

28 IV 8[6], 1.1-2 (transl. Armstrong).29 See on this point W. Burkert, Plotin, Plutarch und die platonisierende Interpretation

von Heraklit und Empedocles. In: Kephalaion. Studies in Greek Philosophy and its continu-ation offered to prof. C.J. de Vogel, ed. by J. Mansfeld and L.M. de Rijk. Assen 1975.P. 137-146. More details on Plotinus' exegesis of Plato will be found in the running ommen-tary which accompanies he Italian ranslation oth of IV 8[6] and ts Arabic paraphrase: A.VV.Plotino, La discesa dell 'anima nei corpi (Enn. IV 8[6]). Plotiniana Arabica (pseudo-Teologiadi Aristotele, capitoli 1 e 7; "Detti del Sapiente Greco"), forthcoming.




12/36


13/36

the paraphrased ranslation of the last three chapters of IV 7[2] and of thefirst one32 of IV 8[6] is followed by a long passage which has no parallel

in Plotinus and is devoted to a survey on the achievements of Greek philos-ophy. This independent passage, with which the f1rst chapter of the pseudo-Theology nds, tums out to be an extended claim for the harmony betweenphilosophy and the basic tenets of monotheism, namely, creation and provi-dence.

A table will help in grasping this structure.

ps. Theology of Aristotle, Chapter One: contents

B. = 'A. Badawi, AJlutln inda -'arab. Plotinus apud Arabes. TheologiaAristotelis etfragmentaquae supersunt. Cairo 1966.D. = F. Dieterici, Die sogenannte Theologie des Aristoteles aus arabischen Handschriftenzum ersten Mal herausgegeben. Leipzig 1882.

ps.-Theology, Chapter One, On Soul Enneads

B. 18.11-21.7 - D. 4.12-8.3 IV 7[2], 13.1-15.12

B. 22.1-25.14- D. 8.4-11.18 IV 8[6], 1.1-2.7

B. 25.15-28.3 - D. 11.18-14.9

This structure s best explained within the hypothesis of a translationfollowing the Enneadic disposition established by Porphyry, where the twotreatises are adjacent o each other. In fact, it is fair to admit that the actualdisposition of the Arabic, where the end of IV 7[2] is followed by the be-ginning of IV 8[6], reflects the disposition of the Greek. At all events, thefact that the Arabic translation ollows the Enneadic order has been estab-lished already n 1941 by Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer33.The existence of a run-

ning Arabic translation of the Greek of Plotinus, where IV 7[2], translatedfrom its beginning to the end, was followed by IV 8[6], translated rom itsbeginning to the end, is proved also by the fact that the parts both of IV7[2] and IV 8[6] which did not come to compose the f1rst chapter of theTheology re present in the Arabic Plotinian corpus, as is shown by thefollowing tables.

32 Plus the first seven lines of chapter 2.33 H.-R. Schwyzer, Die pseudoaristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe des

Porphyrios. n: Museum Helveticum 90. 1941. P. 216-236, provided a list of seven cases againstthe hypothesis that the Arabic paraphrase was grounded on a draft of Plotinus' treatises an-tedating Porphyry's dition. The most famous case against his hypothesis s the beginning ofthe second chapter of the pseudo-Theology, which reproduces he innatural division made byPorphyry when he broke a Plotinian sentence in the middle, due to the editorial cutting of thelong treatise On dificulties about the soul.





14/36

IV 7[2l: Arabic tradition

L. = Plotiniana Arabica ad codicum idem anglice vertit G. Lewis, n Plotini Opera I, EnneadesIV-V ediderunt . Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer. Pans-Louvain 1959 (L.* = passages of the Sayingscovering the same textual portion preserved n the ps.-Theology).R. = F. Rosenthal. As-Sayvh l-Yunanl and the Arabic Plotinus Source.

Enneads ps.-Theology Sayings of the Greek Sage

IV 7[2], 1.1-4.34 IX, B. 121.1-129.7-D. 125.4-130.118.36-44 III, B. 48.8-49.9 - D. 35.19-37.28l.1-82.11 III, B. 45.1-48.8 - D. 32.8-35.19 L.* 201-203; R. 49282.15-85.18 III, B. 49.9-55.19 - D. 37.2-43.19

13.1-15.12 I, B. 18.11-21.7 - D. 4.12-8.3

9oCristina D'Ancona

As the table indicates, only the opening part of the treatise IV 7[2] ispreserved n the ninth chapter of the pseudo-Theolo,gy from line 1 of chap-ter one to the end of chapter our). Chapters 5 to 7 are not preserved. Chap-

- er eight is preserved n the third chapter of the pseudo-Theolo


15/36

namely, the part corresponding to 85.1-85.18, is reflected in the Arabic paraphrase. Thisfact proves that the Greek manuscript on which basis the Arabic translation was made

antedated the medieval archetypus of the entire direct tradition. In fact, the possibilitythat the Arabic translation traces back to the pre-Porphyrian edition Eusebius made useof for his Praeparatio is ruled out (see supra, n. 33); the possibility that the Arabic trans-lation was made on the basis of the sole indirect tradition is obviously ruled out by thefact that it reflects countless pages preserved only in the direct tradition; the remainingpossibility, namely, that the translator fllled the lacuna in the direct tradition havingrecourse to Eusebius, is only speculative. This third section contains the Plotinian dis-cussion on Aristotle's deflnition of soul as evEXeXeta, and gave rise to important adap-tations in the Arabic paraphrase, brought to light by Zimmermann, The Origins of theso-called Theology of Aristotle, p. 124-125. See also R. Arnzen, Aristoteles' De Anima.Eine verlorene spatantike Paraphrase in arabischer & persischer Uberlieferung.Arabischer Text nebst Kommentar, quellengeschichtlichen Studien & Glossaren. Leiden1998 (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus. 9). P. 352-353.

We have just seen that the evidence of the Arabic Theology clearly indi-cates that the Greek manuscript n the basis of which the Arabic translationwas made antedates he entire direct radition f the Enneads as it came downto us, because a substantial art of the text preserved by Eusebius and omittedby the extant manuscripts of the Enneads is reflected in the Arabic para-phrase. Chapters 9 to 12 are not preserved n the Arabic tradition availableto us. Chapters 13-15, namely, the end of the treatise, are preserved and arefound at the beginning of the first chapter of the pseudo-Theolo


16/36


ence also of the chapters of IV 7[2] loosing in the actual remainder of theArabic translation of Plotinus' treatises is given by the very beginning of

the f1rst chapter of the pseudo-Theology.To proceed: Now that it has been demonstrated and conElrmed hat the soul is not a

body and does not die or decay or perish, but is abiding and everlasting, we wish to studyconcerning her also howshe departs rom the world of mind and descends to this corpo-real world of sense and enters this gross transient body which falls under genesis andcorruption transl. Lewis; emphasis added on the words literally coming from the Greek)34.

The opening sentence, which has no parallel n the Greek and begins withthe formulaic expression id qad bana wa-sahha..., s eloquent n its brevity.It maintains hat it has already been demonstrated hat soul is incorporealand everlasting, and this amounts to a summary, extremely abridged butprecise, of the previous chapters 1-12) of IV 7[2]. In fact, the treatise rais-es the question whether or not soul is immortal and claims - in a purelyPlatonic vein - that no answer can be given about the properties of soulwithout providing the deElnition f its nature. The central part of the trea-tise, from chapter wo to eight, is devoted to the refutation of Stoic, "Pytha-gorean" and Aristotelian deE1nitions f soul. Chapters nine to eleven arguethat soul, which cannot be either a body or a function of body, belongs in

the intelligible realm and for this reason s immortal. Once the goal achieved,namely, once demonstrated he immortality of soul against all the psycho-logical theories which make it depend on body in a way or another, Ploti-nus succintly raises and solves the objection hat, on the ground of the claimedseparateness of soul, one cannot account for its presence into the body - apresence which, in turn, cannot be denied. What we read at the beginningof the Arabic translation of IV 7[2], chapters 13-15, is but a summary ofthe scope and the main argument developed in the treatise. After this, weH1ndn the H1rst hapter of the pseudo-Theology he paraphrased ranslationof the mentioned hree chapters, until to the end. The last Plotinian sentence,15.10-12, ... xai 6ElXVVOVUl (namely, the disembodied human souls givinghelp by their prophecies) bl' avv zai zeQi v akkwv trxwv, otl£iAlV aZO@VlAl, iS reflected as follows: 35. tthis point, we H1nd n the f1rst chapter of the pseudo-Theology he beginning

34 Ed. Dieterici, p. 4.13-5.1; ed. Badawl, p. 18.13-16; Lewis's translation, . 219 in PlotiniOpera. The Arabic passage contains a blatant ranslation mistake the present question doesnot compel us to discuss (see my Porphyry, Universal Soul and the Arabic Plotinus. In: ArabicSciences and Philosophy 9, 1. 1999. P. 47-88).

35 Ed. Dieterici, p. 8.2-3; ed. Badawl, p. 21.16-17; Lewis' translation, p. 223 in PlotiniOpera (emphasis added by Lewis).




17/36

Pseudo-Theolo


18/36

94 Cristina 'Ancona

Demiurge cted with justice when he sent soul into the body40.This pas-

sages translated as follows:

Wemay derive sublime matters rom thisphilosopher n the study of the soul that sinsand of the universal oul, so that we mayknowwhat he is and through

what cause

sheescended o this body, and becameassociated with t, and so thatwe may know he

naturef this world and what manner of thing t is and in what placein the world she

dwells,nd whether he soul descended o it and became associatedwith it willinglyor

perforcer in any other way. We derive rom him some further nowledgemore sub-

limehan he knowledge f the soul; that s, we learn whether he Creatorashioned he

thingsightlyor whether hat work of his was not rightly done, andwhether his linking

theoul to this world and o our bodies was right or not, for the ancientsdisagreed ver

this nd discussed t at length4I.

The translation, xcept for an oddity42 nd a misunderstanding43, s liter-

al.As it often happens, Plotinus' sentence is amplified: his questionzeqi

zottov turns to be an entire sentence, where we are told that wecan de-

rive rom Plato a knowledge higher than the knowledge about soul,'ilmun

asrafu min 'ilmi l-naWs. In Plotinus' wording, he question zeqi zottovwas

the hird tem within a unique question we have to address o Platoin order

to earn his doctrine about our soul; but the amplif1cation urnsthis item

intoa statement concerning the more general question whetheror not the

Creator id create things with justice.In the same vein, at line seven the Greek text is abandoned and

in this

strategical oint a doxography akes place, which systematically xpandshe

point made in the interpolation quoted, presenting us with a wideraccount

ofthat 'ilm asraf we can learn from Plato. The leitmotiv of the doxography,

in fact, is the survey of the main metaphysical doctrines held byPlato, in

so far as they surpass any other doctrine within the history of Greekthought

40IV 8[6],2.1-8: WQOIEv ov,Salvel zeQi1n5neneQag trxng zaQ'avlov a0ElV

t;lnoaolv et avayzns efazlesOal zai zeQi rXng okos t;lnoal,zos zole XOlV@V£lV

oall zeQvxe, zai zeQi zooov Qvoeog OlOV llVa 6El aVIOV ll08ooAl,EV @ tVXn

evblalalal exovoa '1le avayzas0eloa 'lle llS akXoSQozog zai zeQiIOlnlOV 6E, 8'llE

oQ0os 'le 5 nexeQal trXai'loog, &5 6el oala blo1xovaagXelQol' avx@v loo

zoku buval (...).

41 Ed. Dieterici, p. 1 .9-18; ed. Badawl, p. 25.6-14; Lewis' translation,. 229-231 in Plotini

Opera emphasis added somehow differently from Lewis).42 Plotinus' words z£ei ln5 F£T£eag trxng, line 1, are rendered

trangely enough by

al-nafs llatlnahnu Shd,which s freely translated y Dieterici as

(Diesogenannte heologie esAristoteles usdemArabischen bersetzt ndmitAnmerkungen

versehen. eipzig 1883. P. 12) and by Lewis, as we saw, by ; ubio

translates iterally L. Rubio, Pseudo-

Aristoteles, eologia.Traduccion elarabe, ntroduccion notas.Madrid 1978. P. 73). Thems Istanbul, Aya Sofya 2457 reads here (f.l l5rS) as the editions do.

43 With respect to Plotinus' words zeQi trxng okes, the adverbokes is mistakenly re-

ferred o soul, and generates al-nafsal-kullzya, s if it were *z£ei xn5 oknstrxng, taken n

the sense of *zeQi xn5 trXrl5 IOV ZavTog-




19/36

Pseudo-Theolo


20/36


7[2] and IV 8[6], plus the long excursus occurring at IV 8[6], 2.7, wasdispersed and reassembled by chance in the actual first chapter of the pseu-

do-Theolo


21/36

Pseudo-TheoloaTa blolXovaag X£iQO bl avv£'l(1) ZOXV bvval, apparently ompare the deeds of the Demiurge and of our souls on thebasis of the sinking or not into bodies, whereas it is evident that such a possibility does not




22/36


and presents a sentence where we are told that on this point the ancientsdisagreed. After this, we find in the Arabic text a long passage - approxi-

mately three pages both in Dieterici and Badaw1 editions - completely in-dependent rom the Greek and whose first sentence runs as follows:

We intend to begin by giving the view of this surpassing and sublime man on thesethings we have mentioned47.

The exposition which is declared to begin here is in fact a wide doxo-graphy on Plato, containing (1) an account of Plato's criticism of sensistphilosophers and of his own distinction between the intelligible and visiblereality (p. 11.19-12.9 Dieterici, p. 25.15-26.6 Badaw1); 2) an account of

Plato's doctrine of the First Cause as being and pure good, as well as ofPlato's doctrine of creation (p. 12.9-16 Dieterici, p. 26.6-12 Badaw1); 3)an account of Plato's hierarchy of the universe (p. 12.16-13.10 Dieterici, p.26.12-27.6 Badaw1); 4) an exegesis of Plato's doctrine of creation p. 13.1114.9 Dieterici, p. 27.7-28.3 Badaw1). This doxography can provide us witha deeper insight not only on the ideas its author held on the contents, his-tory and value of Greek philosophy, but also, to some extent, on the libraryhe had at his disposal. In what follows, I shall comment upon the doxogra-phy according to the proposed divisio textus.

1 (p. 11.19-12.9 Dieterici, p. 25.15-26.6 Badaw1) As the first and mostimportant point to be made in order to present the opinions that Plato heldon the creation of the world and the linking of soul to body, we find theclaim that in Plato culminates the Greek philosophy.

We say that when the sublime Plato saw that the mass of philosophers gull al-falasifa)were at fault with their description of beings, for when they wished to know about thetrue beings they sought them in this sensible world, because they rejected intelligiblethings and turned to the sensible world alone, wishing to attain by sense-perception allthings, both the transitory and the eternally abiding - when he saw that they had strayedfrom the road that would bring them to truth and the right, and that sense-perception hadwon the mastery over them, he pitied them for this and was generous towards them andguided them to the road that would bring them to the truths of things. He distinguishedbetween mind and sense-perception and between the nature of beings and the sensiblethings. He established that the true beings were everlasting, not changing their state, andthat the sensible things were transitory, falling under genesis and corruption48.

really exist for the Demiurge. For this reason some editors of the Enneads, in the past, sup-posed a lacuna here. We think that the passage, as brachylogical as it may be, stands andtranslate t as follows:


23/36


This passage informs us not only on the philosophical preferences of itsauthor, but also on his previous readings. He clearly gives to Plato a prima-

cy on all his predecessors, following partly in the steps of Plotinus, whopresented his readers with a picture of the Greek philosophical radition boutthe soul-body relationship where Plato surpassed n clarity and truth Hera-clitus, Empedocles and Pythagoras. But what we read in this doxographycannot be accounted or only on the basis of Plotinus' survey. Another ourceis needed, which - predictably nough is but Aristotle's Metaphysics, ookA. The passage we have just read, with its insistence on the fact that Platowas unhappy with the sensist approach of the other thinkers, does not comefrom Plotinus; nstead, he passage shows that ts author was conversant withthe Aristotelian doxography given at A 3, 983b6-1 1, where the Presocraticsare criticized for having pointed exclusively to the material cause, and at A6, 986a29-blO, where Plato's position is interpreted as the refusal to relyon sense-perception, a refusal grounded n the fact that Plato - wrongly, inAristotle's eyes - accepted Heraclitus' highly questionable thesis of theperpetual change and consequent unknowability of the sensible world. Thishistoriographical pattern s clearly echoed in the sentence on the gull al-falasifa (p. 12.1 Dieterici, p. 25.16 Badaw1), even though the author of the

doxography refrains from endorsing Aristotle's judgment about Plato'sposition. In fact, the author makes a different use of the "progress pattern"set down by Aristotle in this famous passage. Aristotle's philosophicalhistoriography- whose theoretical aim we all have learnt rom Harold Cher-niss to detect between the lines - outlines an ascent from the sensist begin-nings of the first thinkers, who were unable to search for another kind ofcause but the material one49, o the full-fledged aitiology which he himselfexpounds n his treatises both on being qua being (our Metaphysics) nd onbeing as passible of change (our Physics). This same "progress pattern"appears as the decisive feature of the passage quoted, but in the place ofAristotle the author sets Plato, who later on (p. 13.11 Dieterici, p. 27.8Badawl) is called straightforwardly l-faylasuf. lato corrected he errors ofhis predecessors; n order to do so, he worked out his doctrine of the twoworlds, ntelligible and sensible. It is worth noting hat, according o the authorof the doxography, his doctrine arises from the epistemological move Pla-to opposed to the sensist philosophers, namely, to contrast sense perceptionand intellect. The sensist philosophers ailed to grasp the haqa'iq al-asya'

49 Metaph. 3, 983 b 6-8: v bn ZQ)TOV flkoso¢nvavv oi Z£lT0l Tag £V tn5£'l6£l FovaS 0nvav aQxag £lval navv. Of course, Aristotle's position is by no meansunprecedented: he account of Socrates' disappointment t reading the ancient cosmologiesas well as Anaxagoras' book given in Phaedo 6 A 6 - 97 B 6 lies in its background, ut itstransformation nto what I called a "progress pattern" s genuinely Aristotelian.




24/36


because they wanted to know the real beings, but, instead of making use ofthe faculty which is enabled to grasp them, namely, intellect, they were

content with sense-perception- a faculty which cannot drive us to the realbeings. Once again, this philosophical thesis, as Platonic as its actual con-tent might be, is grounded n Aristotle. Its obvious antecedent s the doc-trine of An. Post. I 7 and 9, where the lack of the oixeial aexai, the prin-ciples appropriate o the field where the research s made, is said to causethe failure n providing rue knowledge. Such an assumption ies in the back-ground of the thesis that the sensist philosophers failed to grasp the truthbecause they wished to attain the true beings through sense-perception.

2 (p. 12.9-16 Dieterici, p. 26.6-12 Badaw1) After having praised Platoas the very top of Greek philosophy, the author of the doxography creditshim with a doctrine of creation which counts in his eyes as the developmentof the doctrine of the two worlds, sensible and intelligible:

When he had completed this distinction he began by saying "The cause of the truebeings, which are bodiless, and of the sensible things, which have bodies, is one and thesame, and that is the Elrst rue being (al-annEyya al-ula al-haqq), meaning by that theCreator, the Maker". Then he said "The Elrst Creator, who is the cause of the everlastingintelligible beings and of the transitory ensible beings is absolute good (al-hayr al-makd),and good cleaves to nothing save itself5°.

This doctrine obviously cannot trace back to the historical Plato, neithercan it trace back to Plotinus. True, Plotinus held that the first principle ofthe entire reality, both intelligible and sensible, is one and the same; but hewould have opposed a firm denial o the idea, explicitly uttered n this passage,of merging one into the other the "first true being" and the "absolute good"- and a denial rooted precisely in the Platonic claim that the Idea of Goodlies beyond being5l. The non-Plotinian dea of collapsing one into the otherthe One-Good and the pure Being is a peculiar feature of all the ArabicPlotinus and Proclus - a feature which has been accounted for in differentways52, nd whose most eloquent parallel ies in a passage of the Kitab dah

50 The passage quoted s p. 12.9-14 in Dieterici's edition and p. 26.6-10 in Badawi's one.The ranslation quoted is still Lewis' one, but I keep rendering anniyya by "being".

51 Resp. 509 B 8-10: oix oi)viaS ovtog toi) aZyafdoi, akk' £'%l £z£X£lVa Tn5 oUAiagZQ£a£ita xai 6UVa>£l tZ£Q£XOV%Og-this Good is said at 508 E 2-3 v tor ayaOorib£av. As is well known, Plotinus makes systematically use of this passage, which he inter-prets s referred o the same reality Plato deals with in the second half of his Parmenides, norder o argue for the transcendence of the One with respect to being, i.e. the intelligiblereality.

52 Two explanations have been proposed or the appearance f this non-Plotinian nd non-Proclean eature n the Arabic Plotinus and Proclus. Some scholars (Schlomo Pines, PierreThillet,Richard C. Taylor) suggested to trace it back to Porphyry, who maintained n hiscommentary n the Parmenides uch a merging of the One and pure Being one into the other.According o them, Porphyry's wn position was influent on the Arabic reworking f Plotinus'




25/36


al-hayr l-mahd, he Latin Liberde causis. After having expounded he lemmaof proposition 102 of Proclus' Elements f Theology53, he author of the Kitabzdahal-hayr al-mahd dds a conclusion of his own and says:

We resume and say, then, that the First Being (al-huwEyya l-ula) is quiescent and isthe cause of causes, and if He gives all things being (al-huwEyya), e gives it in the mannerof creation (bi-naw' ibda'). The Elrst ife gives life to what is below it, not in the mannerof creation, but in the manner of form. And, likewise, the intelligence gives knowledgeand the other things to what is below it only in the manner of form, not in the mannerof creation, because the manner of creation belongs to the First Cause alone54.

I quoted this passage because it presents both the merging of the FirstPrinciple and First Being the one into the other, and the interpretation f itscausality as creation, namely, the two features which characterize he ac-count of Plato's position in the doxography. Since Endress' Proclus Ara-bus, everyone knows that the Liber de causis has been produced within thesame workshop as the paraphrase f the Enneads nd quoting the passagewas not intended o add a supernumerary vidence to what had already beenestablished on a firm basis, both linguistic and doctrinal, by Endress. Theinterest lies in the fact that in both cases, namely, the doxography append-ed to IV 8[6], 2.7 and the independent passage appended o proposition 102

of Proclus' Elements f Theology, e see at work a specific doctrinal com-plex - the idea that the First Cause is also Pure Being, and acts by creation- which parts company from the respective direct sources (Plotinus andProclus) under wo respects: first, in so far both Plotinus and Proclus sharp-

writings, in so far as this reworking s in some way dependent upon a rearrangement f theEnneads made by Porphyry or in a Porphyrian ein. On the other side, I tried to argue infavour of an alternative xplanation, amely, hat his feature n the Arabic Plotinus and Proclusis due to the influence of the peculiar interpretation f Neoplatonism which is given in thepseudo-Dionysian writings (see my La doctrine neoplatonicienne de l'etre entre l'antiquite

tardive et le Moyen Age. Le Liber de Causis par rapport a ses sources. In: Recherches deTheologie Ancienne et Medievale 59. 1992. P. 41-85 [repr. in Recherches sur le Liber decausis. Paris 1995], and L'influence du vocabulaire arabe: "Causa Prima est esse tantum".In L'elaboration du vocabulaire philosophique au Moyen Age. Actes du Colloque interna-tional de Louvain-la-Neuve et Leuven, 12-14 sept. 1998 edites par J. Hamesse et C. Steel.Turnhout 2000. P. 51-97).

53 El. Th. 102, Dodds p. 92.1-4. The lemma is the following: fIavTa >£V Ta onoorvovTa £X Z£QaTOg £aTl xai an£iQov bla To zQOXos ov navTa 6£ Ta 4ovTa £arTOv xlvnTlXa£aTl bla TnV 4@V TnV ZQ@TnV- navTa 6£ Ta yvOoTlXa yVO£Og >£T£X£l bla TOV VOVVTOV ZQ@TOV. The proposition 17(18) of the Liber de causis is grounded n this Proclean propo-sition but changes t substantially s for the meaning t attributes o the Proclean ZQ)TO5 OV,which turns to be identical with the First Principle tself, a squarely non-Proclean hesis.

54 Liber de causis, prop. 17(18), ed. O. Bardenhewer, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schriftueber das reine Gute bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de causis. Freiburg m Breisgau 1882(repr. Frankfurt .M. 1961). P. 92.10-93.4; ed. 'A. Badawl, Al-AJ1atunEyya l-muhda a 'indal-'Arab. Cairo 1955. P. 19.9-12; English ranslation y R.C. Taylor, TheLiber de causis (Kalamfi makd al-hayr). A Study of Medieval Neoplatonism. Doct. Diss. Toronto 1981. P. 312, withsome minor changes.




26/36

102Cristina D'Ancona

ly distinguish between he First Principle and Being; second, in so far neitherlotinus nor Proclus suggest in any way whatsoever hat the First Principlects by creation.3 (p.12.16-13.10 Dieterici, p. 26.12-27.6 Badaw1) After having cred-ted Plato with the doctrine of creation, the author of the doxography ex-ounds he hierarchy of the created universe. This is the most relevant pas-age n this section:

Then he said "This world s compound f matter nd form. What nformedmatter sa aturemore exalted han matter ndsuperior o it, viz. the intellectual oul. It was onlybyhe power of the sublime mind within he soul that she came to inform matter. Mindcameo give the soul power o inform matter nly by virtue of the First Being which stheause of other beings, those of mind, of soul and of matter,

and all natural hings.Onlyecauseof

the First Agent did the sensible hings become beautiful and splendid,buthis action took place only through he medium of mind and soul (bi-tawassut al-'aqlwa-l-nafs)". Then he said "It s the True First Being that pours orth ife Elrst ponmind,hen upon soul, then upon the natural hings, this being the Creator, who is theabsoluteood (wa-huwa al-bari alladl huwa hayrun makdun)"55.The author of the doxography outlines here a doctrine he Latin Liber deausisill make famous and debated, namely, the one of creation mediantentelligentia.Bonaventure will condemn t as an impious attempt at limitat-nghe divine power; Thomas will develop a more

careful and charitablexegesis,eading t within the context of the doctrine of creation uttered nheassage quoted above56.At all events, the topic appears o be a typicaleatureoth of the Liber de causis and of the independent passages in therabicparaphrase f Plotinus. It is dealt with in another wide passage whichaso correspondent n the Greek, namely, the Prologue of the pseudo-heology,s follows:

Nowur aim in this book is is the discourse on Divine Sovereignty, nd the expla-nationf it, and how it is the Elrst ause, eternity and time being beneath him,

and that

it isheause and creator fcauses, n a certain way, and how the luminous orce stealsfromtover mind and, hrough he medium f mind (bi-tawassut al-'aql), over the uni-

versalelestial soul, and from mind, hrough he medium f soul, over nature, nd fromsoul,hroughhe medium of nature, over the things that come to be and pass away57.heuthor of this passage holds, as well as the "Plato" of the doxogra-

hy,hathe causality of the first principle eaches he entire reality, ncluded55d.ieterici, . 13.1-10; d. Badawi, . 26.16-27.6.Lewis' translation uoted; eretooIhangedewis' "essence" nto "being" s a rendering f anniyya.6 eeyLa doctrine de la creation

'mediante intelligentia' dans le Liber de Causis etdans esources. In: Revuedes SciencesPhilosophiques t Theologiques 6. 1992.P. 209-233repr.n Recherches sur le Liber de causis).7 d.ieterici, . 4.13-17;ed. Badawi, . 6.7-11.Lewis' translation, . 487 in PlotiniOpera,ith minor hange.




27/36


the things falling under coming-to-be and passing away. But, dependent asthey are from it, the transient hings of the sensible world are not directlyrelated to the first principle itself: instead, they derive from it according toa hierarchy f principles which include ntellect, he universal oul and nature.In the doxography, "Plato" s credited with precisely the same hierarchy:he maintained hat this sensible world is compound of matter and form, andthat this is due to the causality of the universal soul. In turn, the fact thatthe universal soul came to inform matter s due to the causality of intellect.And intellect operates on soul, which in turn operates on the sensible world,only because it is enabled to by the source of all the causal power, the FirstAgent itself. In the same vein, the author of the Prologue calls the firstprinciple "creator of causes". Its causal power enables first the more uni-versal cause beneath it, intellect, to accomplish its own causality; this, inturn, gives rise to another, ess universal causal power: the one of the cos-mic soul; the cosmic soul informs matter, according to the "Plato" of thedoxography, and, according to the author of the Prologue of the pseudo-Theology, t communicates he causality of the higher principles to the sen-sible things through he medium of nature. This is why in both passages thecausality of the first principle is said to be spread through the medium of

intellect, bi-tawassut l-'aql. One should refrain rom interpreting his doc-trine in the sense that the causal power of the first principle s transmitted,at every step in feebler intensity, to the subordinate principles which arementioned. The author of the doxography careful avoids such a disturbingconsequence by claiming that nd repeating,immediately after, that it is only because of the causality of the First Agentthat the sensible things share in the beauty of the intelligible world. Thisdoctrinal omplex appears, n all its distinctive eatures, n the Liberde causis.Its author expounds Proclus' thesis that the divine souls possess the divine,intellective and psychic eveeyelal in precisely he same vein, inserting withinhis reworking of proposition 201 of the Elements f Theology n indepen-dent passage which claims both that the First Cause creates soul throughthe medium of intellect and that this does not imply that the latter shares inthe divine power to create, since the soul's being is produced only by theFirst Cause. In fact, we have just seen that the author of the Liber de causis

distinguishes between the productive power of the "cause of causes" andthe one of the rest of the suprasensible principles precisely in so far as thefirst principle, which is pure Being, creates being, whereas the other prin-ciples can only act by manner of information on an already created being.This is why, when he decided to include in his short companion on theol-




28/36

104Cristina D'Xncona

ogy - the Kitab .dah l-hayr l-mahd the Proclean proposition n the divineouls, the author adapted t to the doctrinal complex we have met both inhe doxography and in the Prologue, and said:The soul effected these operations only because it is an image of the higher power,

for he First Cause created the being of the soul through the mediation of the intelligencebi-tawassut al-'aq[). For this reason the soul came to effect a divine operation. Thus,

when he First Cause created the being of soul, He fashioned it as something subject totheintelligence on which the intelligence effects its operation58.The doctrinal complex of the creation medianteintelligentiasubstantial-yhelps in establishing the relative chronology of the main Neoplatonicroducts f the workshop of al-Kind1. As a matter of fact, the complex isut development nd

creationist adaptation f a well known Plotinian enet,amely,he description f vovs as the aZyakFa To zeov of the One. Fromherabic paraphrase f Plotinus, where the adaptation ppears, t has beenransmittedo the Liber de causis, as the red herring syntagm bi-tawassutl-'aqlakes clear. The reverse explanation, amely, hat the Liberde causisightave influenced he Arabic paraphrase f Plotinus, s ruled out by theacthat nothing n the Elements f Theologyuggests such a complex: Proclusquarelyabandoned his Plotinian dea and set the Henads - divine princi-lesigher than and anterior o the intelligible cosmos -in the place of thelotinianovs as the first mediation between the One and the many. Theomplexppeared o crucial to the author of the doxography, hat he cred-tedlato with it, transforming t into the leitmotiv of the cosmic hierarchyccordingo this philosopher. The author of the Prologue too attached o ituchimportance, because his description of the "aim of this book of ours"ivotsn it. And the author of the Liber de causis did the same: not onlyiselection f Proclean propositions s organized according to the tripar-ite,non-Proclean cheme One - Intellect - Soul, but in two passages inde-endentrom Proclus he openly

endorses it. We have already seen one ofhewo.here is the other:Theintelligence came to be so only thanks to the First Cause which is exalted overallhingsecause He is the cause of the intelligence, soul, nature and all other things.Andhe irst Cause is not an intelligence nor a soul nor a nature, but rather He is abovetheintelligence,oul and nature because He is the creator of all things. He is, however,creatorf the intelligence without mediation and the creator of soul, nature and all otherthingshrough he mediation of the intelligence. (...) Furthermore, Divine Power is aboveeveryintellectual, sychic or natural power, because it (: Divine Power) is cause of everypower.nd the intelligence possesses shape because it is being and

form, and likewisesoulossesseshape

and nature possesses shape, but the First Cause does not have shape58 ibere causis, prop. 3, ed. Bardenhewer, . 64.1-4; ed. Badawl, p. 5.13-16; Taylor'stranslationuoted, p. 287, with a minor change.




29/36


because He is only being. So if someone says: He must have shape, we say: His shapeis inElnite nd His essential nature s the Pure Good pouring orth all goods on the intel-ligence and on all other hings through he mediation f the intelligence59.

The conclusion one can draw from this comparison of texts is, first, thatthe author of the doxography credited Plato with a doctrine which is but anadaptation of a Plotinian thesis. Now, this thesis is held chiefly in V 1[10],chapter 660.When he wrote the doxography, ts author must have had in hismind this thesis as well as its adaptation, nd this fact can be accounted orequally well either in the case he was the same person who translated andamplifled V 1 10], or in the case he was a different person, who read V 1 10]in its Arabic paraphrased ranslation. But in both cases it seems to me it isfair to admit hat the doxography was appended o IV 8[6], 2.7 after he trans-lation of V 1[10] - a treatise which comes obviously after IV 8[6], in theEnneadic order. t might have been al-Hims1 who decided o amplify he shortsentence about the 'ilm asraf we can learn from Plato on the basis of thefascinating doctrine of the three hypostases One, Intellect and Soul he foundin V 1[10], IleQi v TQlOV aQxlxOv vzocTIacTEOv. In this case, he did soworking as the "editor" of the f1rst chapter of the pseudo-Theolo


30/36


translated Plotinus and wrote the doxography, whereas another person de-cided to shape the first chapter of the pseudo-Theolo


31/36


32/36


translation. n: Journal f the AmericanOriental Society 85. 1965.P. 318-327. In addi-tion, the Arabic readers had at their disposal another work, ost in Greek and preservedonly in Arabic: ee S. Pines, AnArabic ummary f a lost work of John Philoponus. n:Israel Oriental Studies 2. 1972. P. 294-326. Finally, hey were widely acquainted lsowith the major polemical work by Philoponus n this topic, namely, he De Aeternitatemundi ontra Proclum, whose Elrst rgument as it is known rom he study by FatherAnawati onwards see G.C. Anawati, Un ragment perdu du De Aeternitate mundi deProclus. In: Melanges de philosophie grecque offerts a Mgr. A. Dies [repr. n: Etudesde philosophiemusulmane. aris 1974.P. 223-227) is lost in Greekand preserved nlyin Arabic. The work was translated wice: see Endress, Proclus Arabus, p. 15-18. Re-cently A. Hasnaoui,Alexandre 'Aphrodise sJean Philopon: Notessur quelques raites'perdus" en grec, conserves en arabe. In: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy . 1994.P.53-109, added an important iece of evidence o the dossier of its circulation within hecircle of

al-Kindl. Hasnaoui hows, Elrst, hat the short reatise Maqalatu -Iskandari ianna -Jfi'la 'ammumina -harakati ala ra'yi Aristu, ditedby 'A. Badawl n 1947withina series of questions f Alexander f Aphrodisias n Arabic version, s in fact borrowedfrom Philoponus' De Aeternitate mundi IV, 4-6. The passage taken from Philoponusunderwent he same adaptations hich characterize he Arabic version of the questionscoming from he real Alexander f Aphrodisias. econd, Hasnaoui hows that the trea-tise Maqalatu -Iskandari -Afrudlsi i ibtali qawli man qala innaku a yakunu ay'unilla min say'in wa-itbati anna kulla say'in innama akunu a min say'in traces back toDe Aeternitate mundi X, 11 and ncludesalso a passage borrowed rom IX, 8. Hasnaouiconvincingly rgues n favour of the Arabic origin of the adaptationsmade n both trea-tises attributed o Alexander, ut coming n reality rom Philoponus.

Philoponus' De Aeternitate mundi contra Proclum s organized n the formof XVCel;which follow each one of Proclus' eighteen XOyOl, arguments nfavour of the eternity of the cosmos. In his XVCylSf the last argument, di-rected by Proclus against the literalist nterpretation f the yeyovev said ofthe cosmos at Timaeus 28 B 762, Philoponus argues that Proclus mistakenlyinfers from the status of the effect the status of the cause. Proclus' argu-ment runs as follows: the Demiurge must remain xaTa Ta avTa xaioavS; but assuming that the cosmos had a beginning, we are bound toadmit a change in the Demiurge, and more precisely from his eMlS o pro-duce the cosmos to his actual eveeyela of producing t. For this reason, thecosmos cannot have a beginning and Plato's yeyovev must be taken not lit-erally: t was said, in fact, blbacyxakla; xaelv, i. e., as a didactical device63.Inhis XVCylS,hiloponus argues that the activity by means of which the De-miurge rames the cosmos is not an OCOi(l)(7l5 (p. 615.10 Rabe); that there

62 Cf. M. Baltes, Die Weltentstehungesplatonischen imaios achdenantiken nterpreten.Leiden 976 (Philosophia Antiqua, 30). P. 12 1 123; H. Dorrie - M. Baltes, DiephilosophischeLehre esPlatonismus. latonische Physik (im antiken Verstandnis) I. Bansteine 125-150:Text,Ubersetzung, Kommentar. tuttgart Bad Cannstatt 998 (Der Platonismus n der Antike.Grundlagen System - Entwicklung, 5). P. 122-129 and 426-436. K. Verrycken, Philoponus'interpretationfPlato scosmogony.n: Documenti studi sulla tradizione ilosofica medievale8.1997. P. 269-318.

63 De Aet.mundi ontra Proclum, . 604.13-610.3 Rabe.




33/36


is no change from ttlS to eveeyela, neither there is xeovog in the Demi-urge between his 1ln £V£ey£V and his £V£ey£tV. n Philoponus' eyes, Pro-

clus' mistake lies precisely in that he transfers o the principle the featureswhich belong only to the effect. On the contrary, the Demiurge operatesaccording o his own mode of being, simple, unified and changeless, albeitproducing composite, multiple and transient effects: all£QidTOS Z£eL Ta£Q[aTa £V£Q7£t zat Z£QL Ta Z£zn0VF£Va £VO£t6@5 zat Z£QL Ta akXo£akkoS exovTa aei oavS (p. 617.15-18 Rabe). This reasoning s likelyto have provided a model for the final argument n the doxography: whetheran action can be said to be accomplishedfi zamanin r not, depends uponthe nature of thefa'il, by no means upon the nature of the mafxul; nd sincethe Creator ranscends ime, creation akes place in no time even though itsoutcome, the universe, falls under time. In addition, the allusion to theawwaluna eems to be reminiscent f the long doxographical xcursus occur-ring in the Xvots of the Proclean sixth koro5 where Philoponus embarks nan account of the exegeses of the yeyovev in the Timaeus, oing throughAristotle, Theophrastus, lexander f Aphrodisias, lutarch, Atticus, CalvenusTaurus, Porphyry and Proclus.

It is time to sum up the results of the analysis of the items into which Isubdivided the doxography. This wide independent passage informs us onthe library ts author had at his disposal as well as on his philosophical views.He was acquainted with Aristotle, and at least two major Aristotelian opics- the "progress attern" nd the necessity of taking he appropriate pistemicmeans in every field of research become a part of his own way of think-ing, so that he made use of them albeit rearranging hem within a Platonicframework. n addition, he shared with the author of the Prologue and ofthe Liberde causis he doctrine of creation bi-tawassut l-'aql: topic whicharises in all likelihood from a creationist nterpretation f V 1[10]. Finally,

he was acquainted with Philoponus' solution of the eighteenth Procleanargument n favour of the eternity of the universe, and adapted t to his owndescription of "Plato's" position, crediting Plato with the same creationistreworking of a famous Neoplatonic tenet - namely, the distinction betweenthe mode of being of the cause and the one of the effect - Philoponus madeuse of in his reply to Proclus. The first and last features appear also in thetreatise al-Falsafa al-ula by al-Kindl. IIe endorsed the "progress pattern"of Metaphysics , in a famous passage which I quote here in the translationby Alfred Ivry;

It is proper that our gratitude be great to those who have contributed even a little ofthe truth, let alone to those who have contributed much truth (...). if they had not lived,these true principles with which we have been educated towards the conclusions of ourhidden inquiries would not have been assembled for us, even with intense research hrough-out our time. But indeed this has been assembled only in preceding past ages, age after




34/36


age, until this our time (...). Aristotle, the most distinguished of the Greeks in philoso-phy, said: "We ought to be grateful to the fathers of those who have contributed any truth,since they were the cause of their existence; let alone (being grateful) to the sons; forthe fathers are their cause, while they are the cause of our attaining the truth." Howbeautiful is that which he said in this matter We ought not to be ashamed of appreciatingthe truth and of acquiring it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distantand nations different from us64.

The aim of the passage is different from the one of the doxography, butthe Aristotelian source is one and the same. Later on, al-Kind1 has recoursealso to the topic of the necessity of the oixeiat &Qxai, and this time in pre-cisely the same vein as it happens n the doxography, namely, in the aim ofcriticizing those who

tried to discover the truth concerning the intelligiblereality through sense-perception:For this reason many of the inquirers into things which are beyond nature have been

confused, since they, as children (do), have used in the investigation of them their re-presentation in the soul, corresponding to their customary practices for the sense65.

What follows in the passage clearly indicates that al-Kind1 ollows in thesteps of Aristotle's doctrine held in the Posterior Analytics: n fact, he main-tains that many nquirers ave been confused n their nvestigation n physicalmatters, because they tried to

use mathematical models of investigation athesis which recalls the example Aristotle gives in order o illustrate he lawprohibiting he ETa,SavtS eiS akBo yevog in scientific demonstrations66.

As for the use the author of the doxography made of a topic ultimatelyderiving from Philoponus' argument against Proclus, a striking parallelappears still in the Kindian al-Falsafa al-ula, where several arguments ofthe Contra Aristotelem are adduced n order to show that the universe can-not be infinite either in time or in magnitude. The four arguments al-Kind1presents against the infinity of the physical world clearly trace back toPhiloponus' amous proofs retorting against Aristotle's conclusions his owntheses about the impertransiveness f the infinite, be it numerical or contin-uous: here would be little point in retracing here a doctrinal derivation whichhasbeen clearly shown by Herbert Davidson67. t is nevertheless worth noting

64 M. 'A. Abu Rida (ed.), Rasa'il al-Kindi al-falsafyya. Cairo 1950. P. 102.10-103.5; R.Rashed J. Jolivet, aDuvres hilosophiques et scientifiques d'al-Kindi, vol. II. Metaphysiqueet osmologie. Leiden-Boston-Koln 999 (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science. 29). P.13.2-16;Al-Kindi's Metaphysics. A Translation f Ya'qub bn Ishaq al-Kindi's Treatise "OnFirstPhilosophy" (fi al-Falsafah al-ula), with Introduction nd Commentary y A. L. Ivry.

Albany1974 (Studies in Islamic Philosophy and Science). P. 57-58.65 Ed. Abu Rida, p. 110.15-16; ed. Rashed - Jolivet, p. 23.15-16, transl. Ivry, p. 64.66 Ed. Abu Rida, p. 110.19-111.6; ed. Rashed - Jolivet, p. 23.19-25.2, transl. Ivry, p. 64-

65.Cf. An. Post. I 7, 75 a 38-39: Ovx aea 8'c5TlV 't akXov 7EVOV5 eTafiavTa belual, OlOVTO78@FETelXOV ael0FnTlXZn-

67 Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, p. 108-116.




35/36

Pseudo-Theolo,gy f Aristotle: Structure nd Composition lll

that both al-Kind1 n his use of Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem nd the authorof the doxography n his use of the De Aeternitate mundi contra Proclum

follow in the step of their respective sources as for the philosophical courseof reasoning, but do not quote literally neither follow the precise order ofthe arguments, so that one is inclined to qualify both as doctrinal nspira-tions to Philoponus, whose author ndorses he doctrine of the latter, eplacingit within his own framework.

I have tried to argue elsewhere in favour of the attribution o al-Kind1 ofthe Prologue of the pseudo-Theology68 nd also did wonder if the author ofthe Liber de causis was al-Kindl himseliS9. Aware as I am of how risky isto construct putative deductions about historical acts, it is tempting o drawthe conclusion that the second hand at work in the production of the pseu-do-Theology of Aristotle as we possess it was the one of al-Kindl, and thathis "correction" f the work, mentioned n the incipit of the Prologue, wasbut the editing itself. One must resist this temptation until more compellingproofs are given, and remain within the limits of what is directly suggestedby the available data. The available data concerning he first chapter of thepseudo-Theology re, so it seems to me, that the running ranslation f trea-tises 7 and 8 of Ennead IV underwent a process of rational editing which

included the addition of a wide interpolation where striking parallels occurwith the Prologue as well as with the Liber de causis and the Kindian al-Falsafa al-ula. Nothing prevents from concluding that the person responsi-ble for this editing and the writer who produced he doxography and/or thePrologue was the translator imself, Ibn Na'ima al-Himsl, nstead of al-Kindl.In the last resort, naming the person is only a secondary detail, since wehave learnt chiefly from the analysis Endress devoted to some of the mostimportant ranslations of the Kindian workshop, but also from other stud-ies, like the one by Rudiger Arnzen on a paraphrasis f the De Anima70to deal with the productions of the circle of al-Kind1 as if we were dealingwith the products of the bottega of a Renaissance painter: several hands atwork show one and the same inspiration. Of greater nterest s the nature ofthe pseudo-Theology as it came down to us. The question whether or notthe present suggestion towards a rational editing can be extended also to therest of the work cannot be answered within the limits of this article. How-ever, if I am not wrong about its structure nd composition, at least the first

68 Al-Kindi n the Subject-Matter f the First Philosophy. irect and Indirect ources fal-Falsafa al-ula, Chapter One. In: Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Akten des X.Internationalen ongresses ur mittelalterliche hilosophie er Societe Internationale our 'Etudede la Philosophie Medievale 25. bis 30. August 1997 in Erfurt. Herausgegeben on J. A. Aertsenund A. Speer. Berlin - New York 1998. P. 841-855.

69Al-Kindi t l'auteur du Liber de Causis. n: Recherches ur le Liber de Causis.70 Arnzen, AristotelesDe Anima quoted supra, p. 91).




36/36

112 C. D'Ancona, seudo-Theolo,gy f Aristotle: Structure nd Composition

chapter can be regarded as an attempt at providing an adaptation of Ploti-nus' treatises o the new needs of a new audience. If the person who did thesame on the basis of Proclus' Elements of Theology, creating in this waythe Liber de causis, was a different member of the circle of al-Kind1, e sharedwith the editor of the first chapter of the pseudo-Theolo,gy t least the gen-eral idea of adapting a Neoplatonic ext through a procedure f cut and paste.

pseudo theology of aristotle structure and composition

Documents